What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[JReducation]

I notice that this thread was started by a Catholic. I also notice that there is confusion in the origial thesis. The Catholic Church has the moral duty to teach truth and to govern the faithful, regardless of their country of citizenship. She has the authority to dictate to the faithful in spiritual and temporal matters that affect their spiritual life and the welfare of society. It is her mission and her role to bring all things and all people to Christ. When a nation acts contrary to the universal call to holiness, the Church not only has a right, but a duty to point it out.

She does not claim to have a right to run a country, no more than the early Christians claimed the right to run Rome. But they did claim the right to proclaim the truth and they were killed for claiming that right. However, they preferred to die rather than surrender that right.

Why would a Catholic even ask this question, given our traditon of martyrdom in the face of states that would not listen to the truth? That is our custom. We do not shrink back because the secular state wants us to shut up. If something is wrong, then it must be said to the state.

As to the other people becoming involved in our sacramental practice, that’s the flaw in the thesis in the original post. As Catholics, we KNOW BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that there is nothing wrong with our sacraments. There is no reason even to contemplate anyone interfering.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lovesa]

This illustrates the adage, “If you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re older, you have no brain.” Yes, I’m sure you FEEL that the money spent is worthwhile, but can you demonstrate that with actual data? I provided you with data from the US Census Bureau to support my assertion; can you provide data to support your position?

You’ll pardon me for saying this so bluntly, but: I. am. not. a. liberal. Nothing I have said has indicated that, and there is no reason for you to claim so.

Can you demonstrate data that it is not worthwhile? Child support keeps children from getting inadequate nutrition every day, and provides for school supplies, etc., which provides for a better society. We have citizens who cannot afford to make it on their own. This is worthwhile.

My assertion was that a flawed individualism leads to increased government intrusion into our lives. That is certainly on-topic.

And yet you do not discuss the government intrusion; you discuss the idividualism. Your point, as a whole, is off topic.

You claim that, but do not offer anything to prove it. Since it has never been illegal to be a single parent, you have no data on which to base your assertion. Since I was not proposing that the law make single parenthood illegal, it is a moot point anyway. So you haven’t refuted anything.

Again, off topic. I don’t care if I haven’t refuted something that does not pertain to laws, the topic of this thread. I really don’t care about anything not pertaining to laws on this thread.

Did I ever suggest that individual rights necessarily spiral out-of-control? No, I did not – because I don’t believe that they necessarily do. So you are arguing against a position I never took.

You are also arguing against a position I never took–that negative social change caused by individual irresponsibility should be allowed and applauded. I never said that. Your thesis, however, is focused on individualism out of the control of religious morality.

Again, I never stated this, nor would I, as I don’t believe individual rights invariably lead to the things I mentioned.

Why are you saying this on a law thread.

This is getting very tiresome: this is not an adult discussion. I feel like I am discussing quantum physics with a first-grader.

You’ll pardon me for saying this, but you are being plain insulting. You don’t know my opinions on the social movements you are against because, and I cannot stress this enough, you are off topic. You are so off topic it’s ridiculous. I don’t know why you do not see this, or why you insist that I am somehow a “first grader” for refusing to argue your argument on your terms.

Diseased individualism, which you have yet to define, does not lead to greater government intrusion in our lives. Taxes are not government intrusion; they are a price we pay for our freedom, our roads, etc. Your logic is flawed and you are off topic.

I am not going to help you be off topic. Simply because I do not agree with you (and I have given reasons why; read back a little) you stoop to first-grade name calling. I can only hope you’re having a bad day and don’t realize how you sound.

Again, I am not interested in being off topic. You are off topic. Your whole argument rests on things you don’t think can be solved in laws, on a thread about laws. On a different thread, I would explain away. On this thread, it is uncharitable to all involved. Reply away; don’t expect an answer, especially since you have resorted to petty insults.

 

[Austringer]

Nothing I have said has indicated that, and there is no reason for you to claim so.

I never claimed that you were – I would place you as some kind of libertarian, actually. However, some of your statements reminded me of the adage I quoted.

Child support keeps children from getting inadequate nutrition every day, and provides for school supplies, etc., which provides for a better society.

But, my dear girl, we have been doing this for decades and decades now, with increasingly bad results. We have whole generations of people dependent upon the government. This is incredibly corrosive – the government is a very poor substitute for an intact family – at some point, we need to address the problems we are causing and examine how best to encourage stable families.

And yet you do not discuss the government intrusion; you discuss the idividualism. Your point, as a whole, is off topic.

No, it’s quite relevant, as the government steps in to take over the role of the family, with poor results.

Why are you saying this on a law thread.

Because you claimed that I had said it. I’m correcting your assumptions, in other words.

You’ll pardon me for saying this, but you are being plain insulting.

Granted – and it’s not pleasant, is it? It’s also insulting to put positions into people’s mouths so you can argue against them more easily.

Diseased individualism, which you have yet to define, does not lead to greater government intrusion in our lives.

I would think that the phrase would define itself, but apparently not. I simply mean an individualism that does not take into account the consequences of one’s actions to others. Example: an individual wants sex, wants it now, and is willing to kill a resulting child because it would not be convenient at this time to be a parent. Another example: easy, casual marriage and divorce, which suits many individuals who can’t or don’t want to do the work of a life-long marital committment, despite the disastrous effects on the children. Does that provide you with an idea of what I mean by flawed or diseased individualism?

As for government intrusion, the resulting breakdown in the most basic unit of society, the family, begets social pathologies that the government then has to step in and deal with.

Taxes are not government intrusion; they are a price we pay for our freedom, our roads, etc.

This is a very naive statement, but you did say that you didn’t own a house, and you’re obviously quite young, so I’ll just have to shake my head at this one…

I am forced to pay for other people’s abortions, though I am against such things. My tax money goes to pay for the destruction of embryos, and I have no say in the matter. I have to pay for myriad government programs that target at-risk youth, while the government erodes the need for the father and taxes married couples more than those who are co-habitating. I am forced to pay for public education that shoves its secular and fashionable agenda down children’s throats.

If you don’t think that sort of thing is government intrusion, then you need a few decades of trying to raise a family and run a business. I suspect you’ll view things very differently when you are one of the ones pulling the wagon. Good luck.

Your whole argument rests on things you don’t think can be solved in laws, on a thread about laws.

That’s not what I said. You suggested that I thought problems such as single parenthood should be banned; I never said that. However, there are probably some things that can be done to encourage stable families, such as re-structuring the tax code, allowing school choice, and encouraging instead of discouraging religiously-informed discussions about social problems.

I’m sure you’re a very nice young girl, but I think you are a bit naive about the role of government.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I never claimed that you were – I would place you as some kind of libertarian, actually. However, some of your statements reminded me of the adage I quoted.

But, my dear girl, we have been doing this for decades and decades now, with increasingly bad results. We have whole generations of people dependent upon the government. This is incredibly corrosive – the government is a very poor substitute for an intact family – at some point, we need to address the problems we are causing and examine how best to encourage stable families.

…

Your posts have been cogent and you are to be complimented for your patience. However, when a poster continually talks past or misses what is at the heart of the issue, there seems little or none that can be done to persuade. In Post 195, another realized much quicker that the exchange would not go anywhere.

Actually, JReducation in his most recent post is correct in analyzing that there is a flaw in the original thesis of the OP. Catholics have a duty to proclaim truth and propose corrections, not be shut up, when secular laws don’t uphold the moral code. There is no reason even to contemplate anyone interfering. The word ‘interfering’ sheds a negative light on what faithful Catholics deem as a duty. A Catholic is amiss in perpetuating the wrong notion.

Blessings.
,

 

[Lovesa]

I never claimed that you were – I would place you as some kind of libertarian, actually. However, some of your statements reminded me of the adage I quoted.

So the quote about liberals at 20 had nothing to do with me, right?

But, my dear girl, we have been doing this for decades and decades now, with increasingly bad results. We have whole generations of people dependent upon the government. This is incredibly corrosive – the government is a very poor substitute for an intact family – at some point, we need to address the problems we are causing and examine how best to encourage stable families.

Quick point, not important, but notable. Please do not call me a girl. I do not appreciate it, as I am well past the age anyone can be termed a girl. I am a woman or a lady, and while it may seem a matter of semantics, it is not to me.

As for government substituting for family, we need to address that, but not through laws.

No, it’s quite relevant, as the government steps in to take over the role of the family, with poor results.

Never said it should. And yes, you are off topic. Unless you are prepared to talk about the laws you mention down further, you are off topic. I have not disagreed that your negative social changes are just that–negative. We have no disagreement there. The matter is legislation.

Because you claimed that I had said it. I’m correcting your assumptions, in other words.

Understood. But you’re off topic.

Granted – and it’s not pleasant, is it? It’s also insulting to put positions into people’s mouths so you can argue against them more easily.

I tried to restate the position you seemed to be making. If I was wrong, correct me. It is not an insult and nothing I say is personal to you. You resorted to personal attack, which is childish and ridiculous.

If my misconceptions seem to you like your insults, you have a strange view of conversation. Also, it really doesn’t strike me as unpleasant. Anyone attacking me with an unfounded insult only loses the respect I previously had for their opinions. I have no interest in what other people think of me, particularly people on the internet, who are often argumentative for argument’s sake.

I would think that the phrase would define itself, but apparently not. I simply mean an individualism that does not take into account the consequences of one’s actions to others…Does that provide you with an idea of what I mean by flawed or diseased individualism?

I know what you mean–but again, off topic. Why do you persist in this fallacy? I have no issues with condemning actions that do not take others into account, but it is not prudent to start such an argument ON A LAW THREAD.

As for government intrusion, the resulting breakdown in the most basic unit of society, the family, begets social pathologies that the government then has to step in and deal with.

Uh-huh. And yet your point does not relate to what we are to do vis a vis laws.

This is a very naive statement, but you did say that you didn’t own a house, and you’re obviously quite young, so I’ll just have to shake my head at this one…

I may not own a house, but I do pay for my schooling; I do pay certain taxes; I do research these things. It is not ridiculous for me to say this, as taxes are not government intrusion.

I am forced to pay for other people’s abortions, though I am against such things. My tax money goes to pay for the destruction of embryos, and I have no say in the matter.

That is wrong. I have said that is wrong. So campaign against it. Now you’re talking about actual laws.

I have to pay for myriad government programs that target at-risk youth, while the government erodes the need for the father and taxes married couples more than those who are co-habitating. I am forced to pay for public education that shoves its secular and fashionable agenda down children’s throats.

So campaign against it. These are laws. Talk about the laws, not what you think is happening to society.

If you don’t think that sort of thing is government intrusion, then you need a few decades of trying to raise a family and run a business. I suspect you’ll view things very differently when you are one of the ones pulling the wagon. Good luck.

I am not so attached to my money I am not willing to pay for these things. I am hardly going to change my mind when I get a house, because I am more than willing to pay my fair share to support our freedoms.

That’s not what I said. You suggested that I thought problems such as single parenthood should be banned; I never said that. However, there are probably some things that can be done to encourage stable families, such as re-structuring the tax code, allowing school choice, and encouraging instead of discouraging religiously-informed discussions about social problems.

So talk about that. Be on topic.

 

[Lovesa]

I’m sure you’re a very nice young girl, but I think you are a bit naive about the role of government.

Again, I’m not a girl. You have no idea how old I am. As for the role of government, we disagree on its purpose. Sure. That is not naivete; it is disagreement. If we have poor among us, we can help them out. Not excessively, of course. not in a way that violates morals. But you need to talk about laws if you want to discuss on this thread.

Also, listen to the person after you. You are going to get nowhere with me. Not because I’m so stubborn, or because I don’t understand, but because you have not been talking about laws. Are lesser families bad for society? Yes. But talk about laws. LAWS.

Do you honestly think your condescending tone will get you anywhere? I am glad you have finally mentioned laws, but those are all I am interested in, and I’m not inclined to argue about that because your tone has gotten so tiring.

There are people your age who agree with me on these matters. Do you talk down to them as well? It is important that we respect our fellow man and his opinions. Or do you disagree?

This is a thread about laws. For goodness sake, talk about LAWS. I know there is an inclination when one has strong feelings to want to defend them, anytime and anywhere, until their opponent is so sick and tired of arguing they’ll pretend to agree. I know your points must seem very important to you. I know others may think you’re so marvelously patient and that what you say is right. I have not disagreed with the existence of your social problems. However, this thread is not the place for talking about social problems. I believe the solution does not lie in legislation. Address that, rather than losing your temper.

As for, “re-structuring the tax code, allowing school choice, and encouraging instead of discouraging religiously-informed discussions about social problems,” you could have mentioned that far far earlier, instead of going on tangents about “social problems” without relating them to the topic of this thread. Those are all good things I support. I have never opposed them in my comments. Does my stance really seem to you to support the status quo? Our government isn’t perfect; it always needs reform.

Why argue if those are your points and I agree? What is your point, and what haven’t I agreed with? I simply do not wish to derail the thread with you when, previous to your last comment, you have flat-out refused to talk about law.

Whatever support your last comment gives you, previous to that you have been horrendously off topic and have done nothing to prove otherwise. Maybe you don’t care; I do. It is important to pay attention to the topic at hand, not support one’s own arguments at all costs.

 

[Lovesa]

? Don’t know what happened here, but apparently a post got up I didn’t write. Just leaving a blank spot, I guess.

 

[Austringer]

However, when a poster continually talks past or misses what is at the heart of the issue, there seems little or none that can be done to persuade. In Post 195, another realized much quicker that the exchange would not go anywhere.

Thank you – and you are right, there really is no point in trying to communicate with someone who cannot or will not address the heart of the issue. I hadn’t read this entire thread, so thank you for the link to post 195 – obviously I am not the only one to have this problem with Lovesa. It is a bit of a relief to discover that…

Actually, JReducation in his most recent post is correct in analyzing that there is a flaw in the original thesis of the OP. Catholics have a duty to proclaim truth and propose corrections, not be shut up, when secular laws don’t uphold the moral code. There is no reason even to contemplate anyone interfering. The word ‘interfering’ sheds a negative light on what faithful Catholics deem as a duty. A Catholic is amiss in perpetuating the wrong notion.

Yes, I agree entirely. JReducation’s observations were spot-on.

 

[Austringer]

Also, listen to the person after you. You are going to get nowhere with me. Not because I’m so stubborn, or because I don’t understand, but because you have not been talking about laws.

Hmmm…that’s a very self-serving interpretation of what InSearchOfGrace wrote…I am thankful for the link to the post InSearchOfGrace provided, as it indicates that I’m not the only one who finds discussion with you to be futile. Apparently we both have experienced your arguing against positions that we did not, in fact, hold. But that’s OK – I’m sure, as I said, that you’re a very charming girl, and I’m hopeful that the years will give you a less naive view of government intrusion. Have a nice day.

 

[jmcrae]

I pay my fair share; I may not own a house yet, but I get paycheck deductions like anyone, etc. I get enough complaining about taxes from my parents as well, so I know how much taxes are affected by problems like this. I merely find the money spent worthwhile in comparison with the impact of not spending it.

The point is that without laissez-faire sexual behaviour, there would be no one to spend the money on - kids would live in intact families, and grow up to be productive citizens instead of criminals in need of jail (and police officers to catch them, and cars, gas, computers, desks, paper, printers, and office buildings for the police to use), and mothers could stay home with their kids instead of farming them out to government-subsidized day-care so that they can go to work, or else collecting welfare from the government, instead of being financially supported by their husband, the father of their children.

 

[Lovesa]

Thank you…to discover that…

Did you read the entirety of the exchange? It ended without any particular bitterness. However, my point had merit. The idea that children need society’s support to have a home foundation was what I addressed. I made no implication to the other person that they had claimed anything, only pointed out what I thought to be true. The fact that they read into my post what I did not say is not my problem.

Yes…spot-on.

Agreed. I find no fault in what he said.

Hmmm…that you’re a very charming girl, and I’m hopeful that the years will give you a less naive view of government intrusion. Have a nice day.

Surely; however, your reading of my previous conversation is self-serving. Also, it is rude and insulting to continue calling someone a girl when they’ve asked you not to. It is rude to presume upon my age, and if I do not respond to rudeness and condescension, that is not my problem. You have said things that have, at turns, been rude, insulting, off topic, and plain manipulative. I have also been accused of holding positions I do not; it is a fatal flaw of human communication. We don’t always understand each other perfectly. That both sides of both conversations misheard a couple times does not mean either side is stupid.

As for my so-called naivete, I am unlikely to get a differing view. Is it so unbelievable that people retain a willingness to provide for the unfortunate in their taxes as they age?

However, I cannot hold your attitude against you. I have seen it in most who hold your opinion, as many are unwilling to give due respect to the opinions of those they disagree with. To me, this is a shame and an obstacle to any real discourse, as people who disagree are marked as childish and people who agree merely pat each other on the back. That is not mature conversation; that is playground politics.

However, condescension is unappreciated and nonconstructive. So is the continued “girl” insult, paired with what I guess is meant to be a compliment. So is an unwillingness to acknowledge that I have yet to disagree with you on an important point.

What are you arguing about? What position of mine do you resent? There is nothing, except my aversion to an arbitrary sentence you seemed far too stuck on. Anyway, like I said, you are getting nowhere, especially if you’re into insults. I could list the ways I haven’t disagreed with any major point of yours, but the condescending attitude demonstrated again and again is just sickening and displays little knowledge of what my point was to begin with. “Vote by religion, but be careful. Consider others.” It’s not very radical at all.

I agreed broken families hurt society, and I agreed certain social rules were good. I disagreed they must lead to legislation. You then said you weren’t talking about legislation. That made all you’d said off topic in a thread about legislation. If this logic is flawed, there is no such thing as logic.

A good day to you, too. I am glad you seem to have given up on me; it gets tiresome to be talked down to post after post for no good reason. And, no, my lack of home ownership does not make me a child. I have a wonderful residence I share with a friend, and which I help pay for. The fact that we do not own it does not make us children in any way, and you acting that way only makes you seem like a playground bully.

The point is that without laissez-faire sexual behaviour, there would be no one to spend the money on - kids would live in intact families,

This is in no way guaranteed. There will still be abusive husbands, neglectful mothers, deserters, etc. The odds may improve, but that is all.

Also, I have not denied this fact. But, what can laws do? How is that relevant to the thread? We’re talking about laws and voting, not social facts.

and grow up to be productive citizens instead of criminals in need of jail

Many criminals come from intact families. This is no guarantee either; we only increase the odds.

(and police…children.

And this can be totally prevented with legislation how? I don’t disagree with the point; I only doubt its relevance in this thread. We are meant to be talking about laws, not complaining about taxes while providing no legal solutions, which is what the person I was talking to did. Several posts blatantly deny that the subjects discussed should be related to laws at all. Do you have no problem with people flaunting the common rule that all threads must be related to the topic of the thread? Unless laws are suggested to curb this, all I have done is suggest that perhaps the matter is off topic and therefore unsuited to this thread.

I concede the point, but what can be done? That is the issue at hand, not whether the statement is true.

Also, for the record, I have not condoned laissez-faire sexual behavior in any way.

As for paying for police officers, etc., all that will not disappear with intact families. Many criminals come from unbroken homes. (Nobody has explicitly said that, but it seems there is a lot of optimism coming close to it in regards to fixing the family.) Acting as if ideal families will stop crime in gigantic ways is as silly as pretending broken families don’t cause crime. Both should be viewed in the greater context of the whole society, not on their own. Complaining is worthless without action.

It seems to me odd that a position as simple as “Try not to interfere for the ‘good of society’ too much; it might trample on rights” is seen as so radical. It’s simple and straightforward. It takes into account morals. It denies nothing. Must we be so focused on proving our own morals we have to create disagreements with others when only semantics is at stake? Really? Wow.

 

[Lovesa]

Did you read the entirety of the exchange? It ended without any particular bitterness. However, my point had merit. The idea that children need society’s support to have a home foundation was what I addressed. I made no implication to the other person that they had claimed anything, only pointed out what I thought to be true. The fact that they read into my post what I did not say is not my problem.
…
A good day to you, too. I am glad you seem to have given up on me; it gets tiresome to be talked down to post after post for no good reason. And, no, my lack of home ownership does not make me a child. I have a wonderful residence I share with a friend, and which I help pay for. The fact that we do not own it does not make us children in any way, and you acting that way only makes you seem like a playground bully.

Just noting that my questions are rhetorical; feel free not to respond. I won’t any more, anyway. I see no disagreement between us that is not trumped up in various posts or related to semantics.

As for your devotion to conservative social morality, particularly of a sexual nature, that is for another thread. This one is about laws. Laws discouraging liberal sexual morality are relevant; claiming it hurts with no further discussion is not. Good day.

 

[Austringer]

That is wrong. I have said that is wrong. So campaign against it.

But do you truly not see the problem in this response? You stated that taxes were not government intrusion. I responded with examples that certainly demonstrate government intrusion, such as being forced, through taxation, to pay for abortions, embryonic research, and other activities that violate my conscience as a Catholic Christian. Your response is that you don’t agree with those things. My dear, I wasn’t asking for your opinion as to what you would do if you were King of the World – no doubt we would all be living in something like Paradise if you were in control. I was giving you real-life examples of government intrusion, not asking what your ideal world might look like. I don’t really care about your particular Utopia, because it doesn’t exist. I’m having to deal with the real-life situation of paying for the pathologies of a flawed individualism, with no end in sight – and that is government intrusion.

It is rude to presume upon my age, and if I do not respond to rudeness and condescension, that is not my problem.

My dear, you have demonstrated by your posts here that you are quite young. No condescension on my part was required: I used to teach at the high school level, so your youthful thought-process is very familiar – your age and gender are very apparent. Don’t be ashamed of it – youthful idealism can be a good thing.

 

[SteveGC]

My dear, you have demonstrated by your posts here that you are quite young. No condescension on my part was required: I used to teach at the high school level, so your youthful thought-process is very familiar – your age and gender are very apparent. Don’t be ashamed of it – youthful idealism can be a good thing.

Can I just interject here? Austringer and Lovesa, your dialogue on here has actually been very compelling and engaging to read - I probably speak for more than myself here. Not sure why it had to take such a downward turn, but it’s frustrating that you both are having difficulty continuing to converse. Austringer, whether you’re right or wrong about Lovesa’s age, I’m not sure why it is important to you to make recurring references to it - especially when it clearly offends her. I’m no moderator, nor attempting to play that role. Just wanted to appeal to fair play and see if you can return to the decent conversation that I’ve been enjoying when it does not contain the sarcasm or condescension.

 

[Austringer]

Hello Steve,

I would say that it is only relevant in regards to Lovesa’s claim that taxes are not government intrusion, and that “they are a price we pay for our freedom, our roads, etc.” That reflects a certain youthful naivete – the opinion of one who hasn’t spent much time or money on the paying end of taxes.

In general, I don’t think schools do a very good job teaching critical thinking or reasoning skills, and I used to see a lot of this when teaching at the high school level (though I have seen it at higher levels as well). This might be a factor in Lovesa’s continued arguing agaisnt positions I do not hold.

Other than that it is no doubt an expression of annoyance on my part…mea culpa.

Your point is well taken, and I will keep my annoyance to myself.

 

[jmcrae]

Many criminals come from intact families.

Actually, almost none do.

While thousands of Mother’s Day cards are sent out from prisons every year, the number of Father’s Day cards sent out in North America from prisons can be counted on one hand - because the vast, vast majority of the prisoners do not know who their fathers are, or where they live.

 

[z0wb13]

I am forced to pay for other people’s abortions…

this is not true, for the most part. see the hyde amendment.

 

[sedonaman]

I’m not sure if this is the same thing or not, but I see some political activity as attempts to legislate morality. …

Can you give an example of a law that does not legislate morality?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

this is not true, for the most part. see the hyde amendment.

z,

Here’s a sneaky way that taxpayers are made to pay for abortions:

Students, Taxpayers Forced to Pay for Abortions on College Campuses

Students for Life Releases Groundbreaking Healthcare Study

And the not so sneaky way, thanks to our current president.

Obama Officials Confirm He Will Fund Foreign Abortions

Unless you can refer to an independent study, I’m not sure if your phrase “for the most part” holds true in absolute numbers. In addition, non-US pre-born babies count as much as those that are aborted in the US.
,

 

[sedonaman]

this is not true, for the most part. see the hyde amendment.

From your reference link:The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.
…
The cutoff of federal Medicaid funds prompted some states to provide public funding for abortion services from their own coffers. Over time the number of states doing so has gradually expanded, either through legislation or consequent to judicial rulings mandating equal access to health care for low-income women.
So Planned Parenthood’s subsidized abortions could come out of another Department and not violate the Hyde Amendment. Remember, money is fungible, which means that if you bar it from coming out of one pocket, the government can take it out of another one. But the bottom line is whether it is the federal government or the state government, all who pay taxes are supporting abortion. And this is from the people who said we don’t have the right to force our beliefs on them.