hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Aug 17, 2014 0:43:03 GMT -5
CATHOLIC COWARDICE? “Cowardice asks the question -- is it safe? Vanity asks the question -- is it popular? Expediency asks the question -- is it political? But conscience asks the question -- is it right?” [Martin Luther King] Judie Brown, who heads the American Life League, recently wrote: “… I'm angry for all the babies who die while 'Catholic' politicians and bishops hobnob and dine and issue statements about peace and justice all the while the holocaust of the unborn goes on, directly aided and abetted by their action and inaction.*** At American Life League, we have been fighting every day since 1979 to end abortion. We are scandalized that the American bishops of the Catholic Church are not doing their job! It is within my rights as a Catholic to first ask, and then demand that our shepherds, our bishops take action now. For decades we complained about Mario Cuomo and Teddy Kennedy, as two of the earliest prominent pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians. Their horrible track records of voting for abortion and for Planned Parenthood's filthy and evil ways were a matter of public record. Despite that, they were celebrated by their bishops and were ultimately buried with full honors in a Catholic Church, with their respective Cardinals watching on. And since they weren't corrected, admonished, shunned and excommunicated, their sinful support of abortion and Planned Parenthood is now touted and expanded by their own kids and family members! A whole new generation of Cuomos and Kennedy 'Catholics' are in public life right now voting for and advocating for abortion and Planned Parenthood! *** Don't tell me it didn't matter then, or doesn't matter now. In fact, today, if you ask 'sweet, Church-going little old ladies' from Ted Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts about him, they'll tell you what a wonderful man he was. And good-hearted New York Catholics still say what a fine man Mario Cuomo was, so why not vote for his son Andrew? Since the bishops didn't speak, the people in the pews think abortion and Planned Parenthood are a-ok!****** In short, all Catholic politicians must vote against abortion and against Planned Parenthood funding, and if they don't, Catholic bishops must act swiftly and publically to explain why what they are doing is wrong and declare them excommunicated, to save all other Catholics from being led astray.*** And if neither are willing to change, then it is up to us to hold them accountable, and to defend the babies and the faith, regardless of the discomfort we feel. This is not easy work, nor fun to do. I wish I didn't have to do it. But no one else is or will, so if you agree with me, I need your help today…God bless Judie Brown! She could have gone further and referenced the pre-election 2012 Al Smith dinner, where Cardinal Dolan hosted President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country and the only president to direct regulations against Catholics. Every major newspaper prominently ran the picture of the Cardinal laughing uproariously next to a smiling Barack Obama. How could Catholics, let alone non-Catholics, believe that abortion on demand and the HHS mandate were truly evil, given that picture? Predictably, the President took advantage of the opportunity to claim he admires Catholics, reducing the killing of innocents and the deprivation of our constitutional rights to a mere political difference of opinion. President Obama, and the world, concluded, not unreasonably, that Catholics may be violated with impunity. The harm done by the Cardinal was irreversible. Too many parishes, took their lead from him and refused to speak out on the 2012 presidential election. The mass media, hostile to religion, were not publishing the facts. We needed our Church to educate the faithful. Flyers, compliant with election laws, were prepared by Priests for Life setting forth what was at stake in the election - www.priestsforlife.org/candidates/2012-voter-guide-small.pdf -& www.priestsforlife.org/candidates/2012-party-platform-comparison-web.pdf Catholic Churches refused to have the flyers distributed, refused to use their pulpits to speak out and refused even to allow these petitions at Mass: For an end to abortion-on-demand, we pray. For the restoration of our First Amendment right to the free exercise of our religion, we pray.
Why not speak out? Either we are Catholic or we are not. It is undisputed that the President and the Democrat Party espouse and promote policies antithetical to our religious beliefs. Why are we protective of them? Has the HHS mandate been withdrawn? Have the Democrats stopped nominating and confirming pro-abortion on demand Supreme Court Justices? Has our forbearance in any way improved the Democrats’ treatment of Catholics? No, quite the contrary is true. Senate Democrats recently advanced S.1696, a radical pro-abortion bill, euphemistically, and deceptively, entitled the “Women’s Health Protection Act”. It would mandate abortion on demand in every state throughout all 9 months of pregnancy by wiping out laws requiring informed consent, ultrasounds, clinic regulations, conscience protections and any other “restrictions” on abortion. Not content with that, Senate Democrats voted for S.2578, an anti-religious bill with another Orwellian title, the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act. It actually seeks to undo the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling. The bill mandates that employers cannot “deny” insurance coverage of any item required by federal law or regulation. Effectively, this allows the Obama Administration to force employers to pay for insurance coverage of any drugs, devices, and services, including even late-term abortion. For the present, the bill will not move forward because the Democrats fell 4 votes short of overriding a Republican filibuster. All too few of our clergy have the courage of our convictions. We need more of Cardinal Raymond Burke, and Archbishops Chaput and Lori. Until then, we have become American Democrat Non-Catholic Church. “… conscience asks the question –is it right?”God help us! Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 17, 2014 9:36:42 GMT -5
TLDNR
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,615
|
Post by seaweed on Aug 17, 2014 10:26:17 GMT -5
Too much self righteous drivel for me
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Aug 23, 2014 6:49:43 GMT -5
And the beat goes on:
From the Catholic League-
“Governor Brown and his administration caved into requests from pro-abortion groups and reversed an earlier decision that allowed Santa Clara and Loyola Marymount universities to exclude coverage for 'elective' abortions in their previously approved health insurance plans. Both schools are now being told to include coverage for all abortions.
'Abortion is a basic health care service' said the health department’s director, Michelle Rouillard. She said the exemptions violated a 1975 state law that required health plans to cover all services that were 'medically necessary.' She did not say why electing to kill children in utero was 'medically necessary.'
As part of the exemption both schools had already agreed to cover abortions when they were needed to save the life of the mother, or prevent serious health damage. Loyola Marymount even allowed employees to pay extra if they wished to have 'elective' abortions included in their health insurance plans as well. But this was not enough to satisfy abortion-rights zealots.
Catholic universities have a right and a duty to uphold the tenets of their faith in everything they do. Paying for abortions is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Not only is this decision morally obscene, it violates the religious liberties of Catholic institutions. ….”
www.catholicleague.org/california-catholic-universities-compromised/
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Aug 28, 2014 6:10:56 GMT -5
It just keeps getting worse. The Dems continue to ignore our First Amendment rights pursuing their goal to force Catholics to fund abortion on demand. Are we hearing about this from our local pulpits? Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
From, Catholic Vote.org deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/8th-time-a-charm/
Dear CV Friend,
The Obama administration just won’t give up.
Having lost in the Supreme Court, they have announced yet another (8th!) revision to the HHS mandate.
Under their proposed ‘new’ rule, if a non-profit charity like the Little Sisters of the Poor or Notre Dame has a religious or moral objection to paying for abortion drugs, the federal government will force their insurance plan administrator or traditional insurance company to pay for those abortion drugs -- and then reimburse them!
The worst part is the government will directly use the coverage offered by the objecting (often Catholic) employer to contact every employee to let them know that abortion drugs are available to them at no cost.
Bottom line: Catholic employers are bootstrapped into partnering with the federal government to make sure their employees have access to FREE abortion drugs.
What part of LEAVE US ALONE do they not understand?
Catholic social service agencies do not want to participate any way whatsoever in the provision of child-killing medicines. Yet the new rules merely create a phony diversion. The Little Sisters would be required to inform the federal government they object -- so the federal government can step in and provide the abortion drugs anyway.
And what if the objecting corporations or non-profits refuse to comply?
Up to $36,500 in fines, per year, for every employee!
And President Obama and his allies think this is just fine.
So here’s the deal: the lawsuits will continue (including ours). The Obama administration will keep revising and revising this rule -- to get around court decisions. And religious liberty will be on the run UNTIL OBAMACARE IS FULLY REPEALED.
This is why CatholicVote.org has called for the full repeal of Obamacare from the beginning. There is no real ‘fix’ that will solve this attack on religious freedom or any other problems associated with the law until it is wiped from the books.
You don’t need to ‘fix’ the First Amendment.
So what’s next? With your help we will continue the fight in the courts, while doing everything possible at the ballot box to enable us to end the nightmare of Obamacare.
Next stop: November 4. Brian
P.S. The same “accommodation” proposed for non-profits is also being floated for for-profit corporations like Autocam and Hobby Lobby. The Obama Adminstration is not giving up. And neither are we.
Help us continue our fight in the courts to protect religious liberty for all.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Aug 28, 2014 11:48:27 GMT -5
"Yet the new rules merely create a phony diversion. The Little Sisters would be required to inform the federal government they object -- so the federal government can step in and provide the abortion drugs anyway."
So it's not enough to erroneously conflate contraception with abortion - the outrage also now comes if a third party provides something a Catholic employer doesn't want?!?!
How much power should an employer have over an employee's life?
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Aug 30, 2014 4:25:18 GMT -5
These should correct the misinterpretation. From www.christianpost.com/news/latest-hhs-spin-on-the-abortion-pill-mandate-is-still-unconstitutional-125445/“Like a number of federal courts figured out, the "accommodation" given to religious non-profits is not very accommodating. The HHS decided they'd make the insurance company, and not the ministry, pay for contraceptive and abortion services, conveniently ignoring the real-world effect of increased premiums that cause employers to cover the additional costs in a back-door way. And, HHS glosses over the actual concern: More than just paying for it, Christian ministries are compelled to be deal-brokers between their own employees and providers of highly objectionable services. But for the employment, their employees do not receive free abortions. Under this so-called "accommodation," religious non-profits are constrained to arrange services that betray their mission, conscience, and identity, and are told to like it. In the face of this quandary, we have … the HHS's most recent stab at this Mandate. The new version creates a new way for religious non-profits to communicate their objections. Instead of informing their insurance company directly, they tell the federal government, who, in turn, advises the insurance company of the concern. Then, as previously required, the insurance company makes arrangements with the employees to supply coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients. Regarding closely held for-profits, HHS is planning on applying the same "accommodation" to them, and is soliciting public feedback on the idea in the interim. That's it. I had to read the rules three times to make sure my contacts were working correctly and I didn't miss anything. The government presumes that their grossly unconstitutional interference with religious freedom and conscience can be rectified by adding an extra layer of bureaucracy. The religious non-profit is still required to facilitate the provision of abortion-related pills and services to their employees, but, as solace, the HHS says they can avoid awkward discussions with their insurance agent about it. If any doubt existed prior to this recent rule, none does now: Either the HHS doesn't get it or doesn't care. Part of the fanfare with the purportedly new rule, Secretary Sylvia Burwell boasts in the press release: "Women across the country deserve access to recommended preventive services that are important to their health, no matter where they work." Let's translate this statement, and break it down, so we can all understand what our government is telling us. By "access," the HHS means to say abortion-related services ought to be free, by "recommended preventive services," the HHS connotes contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, which use the government highly recommends to women, by "important to health," HHS is referring to a political agenda that is important to the Administration, and by "no matter where they work." HHS really means that this political agenda trumps the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The HHS latest spin on the Mandate is as unconstitutional as all previous offerings.”And this from www.lifenews.com/2014/08/22/after-losing-to-hobby-lobby-obama-admin-pushes-crippling-fines-for-hhs-mandate-violators/“Effective immediately, this latest rule still orders charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor, non-profit Christian colleges like Wheaton College, and religious broadcasters like EWTN to violate their consciences simply because they legally contract for health coverage,” Grossu continued. “The government uses their contract as the basis to force their insurers to provide their employees with free contraception and drugs that can kill human embryos, against their sincere conscientious beliefs.” “If these charities and non-profits follow their conscience and decline to participate in the meaningless accounting gimmick, the administration will make them pay huge penalties accruable on a daily basis — one hundred dollars per employee per day,” she said.”
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,156
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 30, 2014 7:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 2, 2014 12:08:15 GMT -5
The Moderator referenced a site www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle1408081. The article does discuss legal issues but not accurately. The author George Annas has long maintained that Roe and Doe were “major human rights opinions that vindicate the rights of women.” [Some explanation re Roe and Doe: In Roe v. Wade, the majority divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not ban abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or ban abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The catch was in the exception phrase “health of the mother”. In the companion case of Doe v. Bolton, announced the same day as Roe, the Court defined “health” to include physical, emotional, and psychological factors. Being upset that one is pregnant qualifies. The bottom line: abortion was available throughout the full nine months of pregnancy, i.e., abortion on demand. www.grtl.org/?q=indefensible-decisons-of-roe-and-doe#sthash.WXKRYeFB.iv2b9Eqq.dpufds] In the referenced article, Annas contends: “The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, is a setback for both the ACA's foundational goal of access to universal health care and for women's health care specifically. It is also especially worrisome that abortion is again at the center of the continuing debate over the implementation of the ACA and that the challenge of abortion has been expanded to include birth control. This has happened even though, in the opinion of medical experts, the four methods of contraception under scrutiny do not induce abortion; rather, they prevent abortion by preventing pregnancy. This controversy could occur only because in assessing the competing claims about abortion and birth control, the Court's majority focused on the religious claims of the corporations without discussing scientific or medical opinions.”
The quoted passage is factually wrong. There are 10, not 4, methods of contraception covered by the ACA.” www.webmd.com/health-insurance/aca-birth-control-coverage-faq. And they include so called “emergency contraception” (Plan B, Ella, and Next Choice)” which in fact are abortifacients. [Note the terminology “emergency” – the only “emergency” is the woman, after she has had intercourse, does not want to get pregnant.] www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.htmlwww.positivepharmacy.org/index.php/morning-after-pill/2-uncategorised/37-scientific-basis-for-morning-after-pill-abortifacientAnd there is the basic problem. Annas commits the logical fallacy of putting the rabbit in the hat. His starting point is that the rights of women to health care are at stake; but that is the question to be determined. He assumes the truth of what he is trying to establish. Why is it a women’s right issue? What are the women’s “rights to health care”? What of the rights of the baby? What of the rights of the father? What is the governmental interest in allowing unlimited termination of pregnancies? Abortion is involved. Even if only contraception were at issue, why should people, whose religion forbids it, be forced to violate that belief? Why must their First Amendment rights be overridden? Why must the state become involved in furnishing contraceptives to women? Where is the showing that women cannot get contraceptives easily? Where is the showing that without contraceptives women’s health is endangered? The irony is that the Court in Roe and Doe had neither scientific nor legal basis to conclude viability was the standard. Since Roe/Doe, viability occurs earlier and earlier. More to the point, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the fetus is human life. Ultrasound has irrefutably demonstrated the humanity of the unborn. Did you know that Roe [Norma McCorvey] and Doe [Sanda Cano] grieve over the decisions which have resulted in the killing of 55,000,000 innocent souls? They have testified that their cases were based on fraud and unsuccessfully sought to have their cases overturned! www.grtl.org/?q=indefensible-decisons-of-roe-and-doe#sthash.WXKRYeFB.dpufhttp://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rtlofneo/pages/192/attachments/original/1386356451/ROE_V_WADE--A_Bad_Decision_Yield_Terrible_Consequences_12-6-13.pdf?1386356451The fact is only a minority of Americans favor abortion on demand, that is, abortion for any reason, at any time, by any method, including the barbaric practice of extracting all but the head of the baby from the womb, puncturing her neck with a scissors, sucking out her brains and collapsing her skull. Gallup polls show only about a quarter of the populace support abortion on demand www.americanpastorsnetwork.net/2014/05/23/just-one-fourth-of-americans-want-abortion-legal-for-any-reason/ And a recent Marist poll in January of this year put the number favoring abortion on demand at 9%. hotair.com/archives/2014/01/22/marist-poll-shows-most-americans-favor-increasing-abortYet the Democrats are obsessively determined to force us to accept and pay for abortion on demand. Where is the outrage? Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2014 12:58:59 GMT -5
“Note the terminology “emergency” – the only “emergency” is the woman, after she has had intercourse, does not want to get pregnant.” Got it, as long as you dismiss any potential emergency there are no emergencies.
“His starting point is that the rights of women to health care are at stake; but that is the question to be determined. He assumes the truth of what he is trying to establish.” Your starting point is the conclusion that this is not a women’s rights issue; not exactly a thorough examination that comes to an independent conclusion.
“What of the rights of the baby? What of the rights of the father? What is the governmental interest in allowing unlimited termination of pregnancies?” Are these serious questions? Because these issues have been discussed and debated for decades. You may disagree with the outcome, but don’t pretend that you are introducing some unique insight as if the debate hasn’t occurred. “Abortion is involved. Even if only contraception were at issue, why should people, whose religion forbids it, be forced to violate that belief? Why must their First Amendment rights be overridden? Why must the state become involved in furnishing contraceptives to women? Where is the showing that women cannot get contraceptives easily? Where is the showing that without contraceptives women’s health is endangered?” This is a fairly pathetic line of reasoning for a lawyer. You know full well that the First Amendment isn’t a black or white issue that prevents government interference anywhere people claim religious conflict. Looking at the issue from 30,000 feet while making specific points is deliberately disingenuous.
Further, this argument seems to only apply to the conservative culture wars. War, capital punishment, poverty – good thing the United States has no issues with those! The logic applies or it doesn’t.
“Ultrasound has irrefutably demonstrated the humanity of the unborn." I love when things irrefutably prove a vague, subjective point.
"And they include so called “emergency contraception” (Plan B, Ella, and Next Choice)” which in fact are abortifacients." Quite a conclusion to throw out there. Care to back it up? Because the conservatives on the Court didn't even make that determination, let alone the consensus of the medical community.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Sept 2, 2014 13:40:37 GMT -5
I find it difficult to view as either logically or morally credible the arguments of one who thinks raising "the rights of the baby" cannot possibly be a serious question.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2014 13:53:39 GMT -5
I find it difficult to view as either logically or morally credible the arguments of one who thinks raising "the rights of the baby" cannot possibly be a serious question. And I find it extremely tiring to watch the same arguments put forward again and again as if they are saying something new. Many people do not believe a fetus to be a "baby" and do not confer the rights on a fetus that they do on a child. You disagree? Fine. But to act like asking that question AGAIN is somehow making a point is a joke. How can you constantly be shocked that one of the most fundamental differences in opinion on abortion rights still exists?
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Sept 2, 2014 15:03:28 GMT -5
Yes, such fundamental differences of opinion do exist but not in the realm of science which asserts that a fetus is a life and it is human. Don't mean to offend but the only opinion I find shocking in this regard is yours.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2014 15:06:32 GMT -5
Yes, such fundamental differences of opinion do exist but not in the realm of science which asserts that a fetus is a life and it is human. Don't mean to offend but the only opinion I find shocking in this regard is yours. Oh wow, I didn't realize that was settled. Then what's this whole abortion debate thing about?
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 2, 2014 17:24:53 GMT -5
"More to the point, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the fetus is human life. Ultrasound has irrefutably demonstrated the humanity of the unborn."
If it not human life, what is it?
And what are the answers to the other questions posed:
"Why is it a women’s right issue? What are the women’s “rights to health care”? What of the rights of the baby? What of the rights of the father? What is the governmental interest in allowing unlimited termination of pregnancies?
Abortion is involved. Even if only contraception were at issue, why should people, whose religion forbids it, be forced to violate that belief? Why must their First Amendment rights be overridden? Why must the state become involved in furnishing contraceptives to women? Where is the showing that women cannot get contraceptives easily? Where is the showing that without contraceptives women’s health is endangered?"
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Sept 2, 2014 19:05:04 GMT -5
Quickplay: "Oh wow, I didn't realize that was settled." Yet you clearly assumed the matter was indeed settled in favor of death, not life, when you asked whether asking about the rights of the fetus was a serious question, did you not?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2014 22:13:13 GMT -5
"More to the point, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the fetus is human life. Ultrasound has irrefutably demonstrated the humanity of the unborn."
If it not human life, what is it? And what are the answers to the other questions posed: "Why is it a women’s right issue? What are the women’s “rights to health care”? What of the rights of the baby? What of the rights of the father? What is the governmental interest in allowing unlimited termination of pregnancies?
Abortion is involved. Even if only contraception were at issue, why should people, whose religion forbids it, be forced to violate that belief? Why must their First Amendment rights be overridden? Why must the state become involved in furnishing contraceptives to women? Where is the showing that women cannot get contraceptives easily? Where is the showing that without contraceptives women’s health is endangered?" Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61 The argument is that it is a fetus, not a baby. Which is about as basic as this discussion gets. I'm not interested in debating the most basic issues of abortion; questions like 'rights of the baby' require people to believe it is a baby, which obviously if they are supporters of abortion rights, they don't believe. As far as the first amendment issues go, same point. The first amendment is not 'as long as you have a religious belief no other laws matter.' There are limitations on all rights - any honest argument accepts that and makes a distinction as to why these limitations are not valid. A closely held corporation is not a person. When you incorporate your business, you gain additional legal protections. Why should you gain the benefits of this legal fiction but still have all the rights of an individual? It is ludicrous to anthropomorphize incorporated businesses in this manner. Further, I didn't realize that Catholicism forbids people from owning a corporation that provides insurance with contraception options. You can go on forever with the conclusory 'it is abortion' argument, but with no support I can just as reasonably dismiss it. What about war? Poverty? Capital punishment? Or does Catholicism only speak to abortion and gay marriage?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 2, 2014 22:17:54 GMT -5
Quickplay: "Oh wow, I didn't realize that was settled." Yet you clearly assumed the matter was indeed settled in favor of death, not life, when you asked whether asking about the rights of the fetus was a serious question, did you not? Except that I didn't claim it was a settled point, he did. Me challenging that assertion does not mean that I'm claiming the opposite is true.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Sept 2, 2014 22:19:08 GMT -5
hoyaloya and pertinax are hilarious. They're like the two old men on the balcony in the Muppet Show, except they've never said anything that was intended to be funny.
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 3, 2014 7:07:51 GMT -5
Please answer the questions. "More to the point, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the fetus is human life. Ultrasound has irrefutably demonstrated the humanity of the unborn."
If it not human life, what is it?
And what are the answers to the other questions posed:
"Why is it a women’s right issue? What are the women’s “rights to health care”? What of the rights of the baby? What of the rights of the father? What is the governmental interest in allowing unlimited termination of pregnancies?
Abortion is involved. Even if only contraception were at issue, why should people, whose religion forbids it, be forced to violate that belief? Why must their First Amendment rights be overridden? Why must the state become involved in furnishing contraceptives to women? Where is the showing that women cannot get contraceptives easily? Where is the showing that without contraceptives women’s health is endangered?"
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|