R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Preliminary question, your honor. Would you vote for a candidate who is “pro-choice” if the opponent is not?
Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?
- Thread starter Willing_Spirit
- Start date
- Status
farronwolf
New member
You do realize that the SCOTUS made its unanimous ruling in favor of Little Sisters of the Poor back in 2016.
In May 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court rulings against the Little Sisters, ordered the government not to fine the Little Sisters, and instructed the lower courts to provide the government an opportunity to find a way to provide services to the women who want them without involving the Little Sisters.
Trump did issue an executive order which allowed for changing of the rules on how HHS enforced the law. As far as I know, Congress has not made any official changes to the law, but it is a moot point since the SCOTUS has already ruled against it.
Justices, both liberal and conservative ruled in favor of religious liberty regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor. Our gov. worked as it was designed with the system of checks and balances.
In May 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court rulings against the Little Sisters, ordered the government not to fine the Little Sisters, and instructed the lower courts to provide the government an opportunity to find a way to provide services to the women who want them without involving the Little Sisters.
Trump did issue an executive order which allowed for changing of the rules on how HHS enforced the law. As far as I know, Congress has not made any official changes to the law, but it is a moot point since the SCOTUS has already ruled against it.
Justices, both liberal and conservative ruled in favor of religious liberty regarding the Little Sisters of the Poor. Our gov. worked as it was designed with the system of checks and balances.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I refer you to the USCCB voter guide. I am not the judge, so I don’t know who “your honor” is supposed to be addressing.LeafByNiggle:
Preliminary question, your honor. Would you vote for a candidate who is “pro-choice” if the opponent is not?
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It doesn’t hurt to read the Supreme Court decision. Among other things, the Court said:
"Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans“obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.” (which included abortifacients)
“Petitioners” included the Little Sisters. All the Court did was return the case to lower courts to see if there was a way to ensure contraceptive and abortifacient coverage without violating the sisters’ conscience.
Trump’s executive order actually did end it because the HHS Mandate was never the law. It was Obama’s executive order.
"Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans“obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.” (which included abortifacients)
“Petitioners” included the Little Sisters. All the Court did was return the case to lower courts to see if there was a way to ensure contraceptive and abortifacient coverage without violating the sisters’ conscience.
Trump’s executive order actually did end it because the HHS Mandate was never the law. It was Obama’s executive order.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So you won’t say whether you would vote for abortion-supporting candidates against a prolife candidate.
My reference to “your honor” is this. Sometimes in court objection is made to questions that are only preliminary to the real question. As such they are not objectionable in themselves though they might seem so at first blush.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I have already said I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of defeating Trump, who I consider the most corrupt president in history and an existential threat to the continuation of our nation. But that’s just my opinion, and I don’t try to use the Church as a weapon to force others to agree with me.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
In other words, “yes”.
farronwolf
New member
Are you certain it was Obama’s executive order, or was it a rule, (or law) issued by HHS. My searching finds no executive order by Obama on the matter.
Each department, whether it be the IRS, DHS, HHS, sets its rules, which are law, within the broader laws passed by congress and signed by the President.
Congress doesn’t vote on every portion of the IRS tax code, they certainly don’t for every other department either.
Each department, whether it be the IRS, DHS, HHS, sets its rules, which are law, within the broader laws passed by congress and signed by the President.
Congress doesn’t vote on every portion of the IRS tax code, they certainly don’t for every other department either.
P
pnewton
Guest
I said it was not effective. But what happened was not admonishing sinners. It is no sin to be Catholic and follow the Church’s teaching.
P
pnewton
Guest
Not in other words, but in your words. Your initial question lacks both definition and significant information, like the positions on not-abortion. While I respect the position of those who truly are single-issue voters, and acknowledge it as a noble cause, the Church does not teach that we are to be single issue voters. Besides even if this was the only issue, there might be more than one path to reducing abortion, if that is the goal and not just making legal moves against abortion.
M
Metis1
Guest
I have repeatedly stated that I am Pro-Life, and yet some here simply has me taking the opposite position. Is it no wonder that I have not one iota of interest in dealing with them-- directly at least?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Care to expound
as to how Trump is a threat to the Nation? In light of the ruinous ideology of the socialist Marxist Dems I cannot fathom anybody finding Trump a threat. A real head scratcher
as to how Trump is a threat to the Nation? In light of the ruinous ideology of the socialist Marxist Dems I cannot fathom anybody finding Trump a threat. A real head scratcher
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No. In another thread, perhaps - one about the Crimes of Trump (coming soon from Warner Brothers studio)
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I will be waiting with bated breath!
M
Metis1
Guest
What is truly a head scratcher is the labeling of Dems as being “Marxists”.
Here: Marxism - Wikipedia
Again, how does one have a serious discussion when some use disingenuous tactics like that?
OK, maybe a compromise? One can call the Dems “Marxists” is some here can call the Pubs “Fascists”. As for me, I’m really not interested.
Here: Marxism - Wikipedia
Again, how does one have a serious discussion when some use disingenuous tactics like that?
OK, maybe a compromise? One can call the Dems “Marxists” is some here can call the Pubs “Fascists”. As for me, I’m really not interested.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Perhaps a serious discussion is not wanted?
Or that, under the onslaught of the talk radio and the expansion of this sort of punditry to television, people have come to believe that labeling, name-calling, etc. actually do make for a serious discussion?
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
I hear ya, and I agree-- unfortunately. Hey, when we have a president that uses name-calling amongst his many other moral infractions, what should we expect. [notice there’s no question mark]
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
pot Calling kettle out black once again
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
How does a pot call a kettle out exactly?
F
fedup19
Guest
for one, i have never heard Trump say there should be exceptions for rape and incest, which is not to say he hasn’t said that but i myself have never heard of it. and i watch news every day
Last edited:
- Status