Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:26 AM By Catherine
Thank you Senator Marco Rubio for your courage! God bless you! Maybe all of our clergy will be ready to send money to your campaign fund when you run for President one day! That is, unless even more rights are stripped away due to the initial or continued support of Obama. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:45 AM By MIKE
Senator Rubio (R) is one of the best. It’s too bad that all Senators do not have his moral compass and convictions. Each one of us must write to our US Senators and Congressman IMMEDIATELY, telling them to support the “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT of 2012”. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:44 AM By InformedAndFree
There are already two other bills H.R.1179 and S.1467 that offer more protection. These two bills have many co-sponsors including Sen. Rubio on the senate bill. The USCCB has been monitoring the bills for some time now. I do thank Sen. Rubio for his forcefully defense of the faith and welcome more bills. However, any pro-life bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate. Let’s support all three bills. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:25 AM By Papa
Yesterday Fox ran a one hour poll on the effect this legislation would have on Catholic voters,just short of 20000 replied, 83% were very serious consequences, 13% were serious, are Catholics and other religions finally catching on to this man’s agenda against Christianity, we need a lot more Bishops and Pastors speaking up, as a matter of fact all of them should be doing that. MGB |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:57 AM By MIKE
HR 1179 and S 1467 concern “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011”, and the similar but different -“RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT of 2012” (has not been given a number yet) states that the HHS can not issue any guidelines that require anyone to buy or purchase coverage for abortion etc. if it is against their religious beliefs, or require anyone to engage in any government mandated speech regarding such a service. – This is very important. Marco Rubio is an attorney and knows what needs to be done. Although these bills are close, they are not the same. We should support all 3 of these bills. Numbered bills can be found on “Thomas.gov.” Rubio’s new bill does not yet have a number and can be found on “Rubio.senate.gov.” |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:02 AM By St. Christopher
It is doubtful — regardless of the merits of these bills — that Harry Reid will ever let any of these out of committee. The Congress must be changed by upcoming elections, although do not place too much stock in the present character of voters to do so. Major opportunities were squandered when Harry Reid, and a number of other liberal Senators were returned during the last election. If the Church fails to exert its influence, then those running will not do so; few are as brave as Sen. Santorum, for example. Another way around this is to defeat Obama, but there too the American public may not step up to do what is necessary. This country has become morally coarse, with citizens worried more about obtaining privilege than in the common good. Just look at what is happening in Wisconsin, where unions are posing as a Mafia-life thuggery, to bludgeon State citizens into paying for unaffordable lifestyles and retirements. While Senator Rubio is well-intended, it is not difficult to drop a bill. People need to be active and demanding of their representatives and of their neighbors. And, if people continue to demean themselves by voting in radicals into office, such throughout California, then leave the State, but do so publicly, with as much media attention as possible. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:28 AM By InformedAndFree
Rubio’s Bill is S.2043. All bills can be found on Library of Congress Website at thomas.loc.gov |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:38 AM By alberta
obama will probably back off, then all the so called Catholics will forgive him and vote for him again! |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:39 AM By OSCAR
St. Chris – Don’t try to dis good elected officials, or try to get citizens to sit on their hands and not support good bills. Your pessimism and encouragement to lack of action, is what destroys this Country. If enough elected officials of both parties want a bill passed, they can bypass Harry Reid and it will come out of committee in spite of him. Don’t encourage laziness or do nothingness. You are right about voting practices of Catholic citizens, and many other things in your post. So what do you personally intend to do about it in addition to praying? ? ? Knowledge demands action. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:43 AM By Ted
Unfortunately Harry Reid will be able to block senate consideration of any of these bills, and they will probably never pass. If they did, Obama would veto them. Get busy and campaign for conservative candidates at every opportunity. Don’t vote for Obama in November. You have a voice, and hopefully, an informed conscisnce. It’s up to every voter to choose well, and for Catholics to avoid voting for Obama no matter who is his oppsing candidate. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:48 AM By PAUL
If we don’t ACT and SUPPORT good legislation, our Country will continue the downhill slide into darkness. If we continue to sit on our behinds and just complain we will accomplish NOTHING. The future of this Country is in our hands by prayer, by our actions, and by voting against immoral and evil politicians. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:07 AM By peter
What about religious entities forcing employees of different faiths to abandon their beliefs or abide by Catholic teaching against contraception? Or what about those Catholics who choose to use contraception anyway? That religious “organizations” should have a right of conscience exemption for something so basic is nonsense. The benefit should be available to those who wish to use it. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:12 AM By Larry
“What about religious entities forcing employees of different faiths to abandon their beliefs or abide by Catholic teaching against contraception?” If they don’t like working for Catholics, let them take a hike. “Or what about those Catholics who choose to use contraception anyway?” They’re worse than hypocrites. They’re in mortal sin, and may God grant that this current controversy lead many of them to see to the light and come back to Christ. “That religious ‘organizations’ should have a right of conscience exemption for something so basic is nonsense.” Says who? “The benefit should be available to those who wish to use it.” Not on our dime. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:30 AM By Bob
Doesn’t it seem that the bishops have focused on one thing and are ignoring everything else – for instance, marriage definition changes among the states. It can’t be a coincidence that Starbucks supports gay marriage just before the Washington State Senate approves legalizing it. Where are the bishops asking Catholics to refrain from buying Starbucks? Of course, these are the same bishops who refuse to excommunicate politicians, so never mind. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:34 AM By Patty
peter, employees have the freedom to work elsewhere. When they work for any religious organization, they expect that those religious beliefs will be upheld or they are stupid. The immoral sexual activities of others is not a ‘benefit’ that everyone else should pay for, and what people want to do in the privacy of their own homes or pay for privately themselves is their own business that they are not required to shout from the rooftops. People are entitled to a just wage for the work done, not for extra benefits. Religious freedom and the US Constitution are at stake. OBAMA’s religion of ‘SECULAR FUNDAMENTALISM’ should not be forced upon anyone. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:58 AM By Mac
Ted, if OBAMA vetoed bills that are grounded in the Constitution and continued his assualt against freedom of religion and freedom of speech – – then the HOUSE would have grounds to IMPEACH him, and he would not be able to lie is way out of it. Let is get active in a postive way as stated by others. Let us pressure our elected officials to support these bills. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:59 AM By JOHN
WHAT?????? If the bishops really mean to make change, they would have asked some of their DEMs in Congress to sponsor this bill so it would have a chance of bipartisan support and pass in the Senate. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:04 AM By Dottie
About 1/3 or 33% of those posting here want to sit back and do nothing active to change this Country for the better – – – very interesting. And then they complain because Obama wins. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:27 AM By Life Lady
So, think about what would happen if we didn’t have people like this senator in office, and then think about supporting more like him, and praying for more like him to step up to the plate and get involved in politics, but politics based on the tenents of the Faith. We Catholics have a champion ready to do that now, Rick Santorum. We need to support him, NOW. I don’t hear about whether he is electible. If we support him, and show we only want him, or someone with his values, that block of support can turn in to a pretty big block of leverage. Leverage is what gets people elected, not the most votes. Support Rick Santorum, send him money, which I am doing, and keep him in the race. Don’t let him step down. We need him right where he is. Pray for him, his family and this country as we move into this period of unrest. We all will need those prayers in the end. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:39 AM By JMJ
Oscar, you said a magic word: IF, which, with our “leaders” is a BIG MAYBE. St. Christopher is right about getting past useless Reid; so the best solution is to get rid of HHS, along with most of the other unnecessary departments & nullify all of the “laws” that they have come up with. We need to stop OBAMANISM, NOW! +JMJ+ |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:52 AM By Bud
Peter, Your “Or what about” crap is stupid. The Obama doctrine has mandated punishments for anyone refusing to pay for what others freely consider grossly immoral.against our Constitutional freedom of conscience. Whatever makes you think that abortion will also not be covered by the mandate. Take a look at the biggest gainers, Planned Parenthood (now being investigated). They dwell and prefer abortion and never even provide much. Their influence even to not notify parents of minors in public schools considering abortion is outrageous. Who seems to approve all of this? O’bama, Kathleen Sibeliusl, Planned (Abortion)Parenthood and the rest of the Harvard Czars appointed and never elected or approved by any legislation. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:20 AM By BETH
I voted for Rick Santorum in FL primary. He needs donations to come close to completing. He is a good moral and intelligent person, and knows his stuff. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:06 AM By MIKE
QUOTE “The issue of life is not a political issue, nor is it a policy issue, it is a definitional issue. It is a basic core issue that every society needs to answer,” he said. “The answer that you give to that issue ends up defining which kind of society you have.” ” “This is an issue that, especially for those that enter the public arena and refuse to leave our faith behind, speaks to more than just our politics. It speaks to what we want to do with the opportunity we have been given in our life, to serve and to glorify our Creator.” UNQUOTE – – – – US FL Senator Marco Rubio (R) Feb.1, 2012 – keynote speaker at Susan B. Anthony List’s fifth annual Campaign for Life Gala. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:09 AM By k
peter, no one has to take a job where they do not like the benefits |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:18 AM By OSCAR
So JMJ, how many current politicians have you written to with your idea of getting rid of HHS? My point is what has every single one of us been doing? – We have a responsibility. How many good politicians have we worked for stuffing envelopes or going door to door, and donated money to according to our means? How many good people have we recently encouraged to run for Local, State, and Federal offices? What we did years ago means nothing. This is TODAY. Start now. Support good legislation – you never know how long any politician will hold office due to health etc including Reid. Bills can pass, and anyone thinking that God can not work miracles does not believe in the same God that we do. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:48 AM By peter
“employees have the freedom to work elsewhere. When they work for any religious organization, they expect that those religious beliefs will be upheld or they are stupid” Really Patty? They should expect that their religious beliefs will be respected even if they differ. The requirement will only affect those religious institutions that provide services in the public sector. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:04 PM By Peggy
Control the auto industry; control the universities; control the hospitals, doctors and nurses. Break down the family; break down religion. That’s our Marxist administration and 54% of Catholics voted for him and how many bishops led the way?? |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:10 PM By Catherine
Newsflash! Attention All Catholic Bishops: Senator Marco Rubio has publicly and courageously announced, “AMERICA CANNOT TRULY FULFILL IT’S DESTINY UNLESS IT ENDS ABORTION!” It is time for all United States Catholic bishops to educate all Catholics that they cannot vote for candidates who believe that murder is a choice! It is time to enforce Canon 915! We should be hearing Marco Rubio’s quote from every Catholic pulpit in the United States. Our bishops are required to have an allegiance to Almighty God. All religious liberties are at stake. This is a most crucial time in Catholic Church History for our United States bishops to *choose* to truly stand up for the Catholic faith. Thank you Senator Marco Rubio for inspiring all pro-life people! |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 12:40 PM By JLS
Totally good news, the way Senator Rubio phrased it, that destiny and abortion are shackled together, like slave and master. Cut the shackle and no more slavery. |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:01 PM By Canisius
@ Peter I bet you are big supporter of the “seperation of Church and State”… except in this case of course… |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:24 PM By Robert Bushlow
Let’s all get behind this and write and call our representatives and senators. Lets make sure that they know that we expect them to support and vote for The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012! |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:51 PM By John F. Maguire
Senator Marco Rubio has called _Roe v. Wade_ a “catastrophic” decision, but unlike Senator Rick Santorum, Senator Rubio has not directly challenged the _Roe_ Court’s erroneous holding that a preborn infant is a non-person WITHIN the horizon of the Organic Law of the United States (the Declaration of Independence; the United States Constitution). By contrast, Senator Santorum has done just that, for example, in his recent _Wall Street Journal_ article. I’d be delighted to see evidence that Senator Rubio is on the same page here, but the fact is that calling for the overturning of _Roe v. Wade_ on ANY OTHER GROUND than that the preborn infant is indeed a juridical person whose EQUAL RIGHT to life is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, straightaway devolves into a postulated consignment of the abortion question to state legislatures to decide — and decide quite as if preborn infants do not always already possess an EQUAL RIGHT to life — equal, that is, to that of all other living human bodies per the Fourteenth Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life…without due process of law”). |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:07 PM By bettybbret
I know I ask some dumb questions but I’m just cutious. How were the “authorities” going to make sure that the “organizartions” limited their employees to those of their own faith. Would we have to fill out questionnaires when we looked for employment and fill blanks that asked for our “religious preference”? Would they really do this? |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:47 PM By Elizabeth
Perhaps this was God’s ordained will…..so that ALL Catholics would ‘wake up’ and vote against Obama in November? |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:25 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
I ask those of you who constantly try to state that the Republicans are not really pro-life, can you possibly imagine the Democrats doing this? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:29 PM By Abeca Christian
Vote no on Obama and remember that your soul is more important. Obama will not save you but he will only mislead many! Here is a wonderful quote enjoy: “Take care of your body as if you were going to live forever; and take care of your soul as if you were going to die tomorrow.” ~ St. Augustine |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 8:34 AM By John F. Maguire
Because they are state prerogativists, Neo-Republicans are not integral pro-lifers. Instead, they AGREE with the _Roe_ Court’s holdng that preborn infants are non-persons under the Constitution so that if and when _Roe_ is overturned, the upshot would be a 50-state legislative prerogative to vote for or against abortion, thereby SUSTAINING the _Roe_ Court’s holding that preborn infants are not persons under the Consitution. Were preborn infants properly recognized as persons under the Constitution, no state legislature would possess a prerogative to vote away these pre-natal persons’ their ownmost right to live out their lives. ~ So no, the challenge to Senator Rubio is not a partisan one. Rather, it comes from integral pro-lifers, be they Republicans, Independents, or Democrats. The challenge comprises three questions: (1) Is Senator Marco Rubio a state-prerogativist? (2) Is Senator Rubio now a part of the Romney campaign? (3) Mr. Rubio’s chief-of-staff, Cesar Conda used to be a key member of the Romney campaign. Was Cesar Conda instrumental, on behalf of the Neo-Republican cause, in working to see that the Romney campaign get a timely boost by having Florida’s primary vote moved from March back to January 31st? |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:02 AM By Anne T.
I am backing Senator Marco Rubio’s bill. “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” I am sure Edmund Burke meant good women, too, in his generic use of the word “men”. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:09 AM By Abeca Christian
Anne T poetry mentioned men, meaning both sexes often a times. So yes it means men and women. Sometimes you’ll see my comments and I will say things like “men have brought this upon themselves due to their choosing to sin”. I am speaking of both sexes. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:47 AM By Juergensen
“Because they are state prerogativists, Neo-Republicans are not integral pro-lifers” ~ But Democrats and Obama voters are pro-life, you see, since by ensuring that Roe v. Wade remains intact they ensure that 1.2 million babies will continue to be slaughtered in the womb each year, and this is a life affirming outcome! |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM By k
Does anyone know where the independent employers, not affiliated with the Church, stand in this regard? Must they also, if they are Catholic or otherwise against birth control, provide for contraception in their employees health plans? |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 12:31 PM By John F. Maguire
How can an abortocratic administation be pro-life, Mr. Juegensen? Impartial readers of this discussion, I surmise, would like to know what point you are overlooking so to arrive at such a conclusion. It seems to me that you don’t realize that there are two ways to overturn _Roe v. Wade_, one — the right way — which recognizes that the _Roe_ holding that a preborn infant is a non-person, violates the Fourteenth Amednment; and the other — the Neo-Republican way — which wants to overturn _Roe_ but only to RETAIN the _Roe_ Court’s holding that a preborn infant is a non-person. After all, were preborn infants properly cognized as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state legislature would have standing to vote away any preborn infant’s ownmost right as a person, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to live out his or her life. The Neo-Republicans then want _Roe_ overturned only in the sense that the abortion question would be returned to state legislatures. At the same time, the Neo-Republicans do NOT want _Roe_ overturned in the sense of a rejection of the _Roe_ holding that preborn infants are non-persons as a Fourteenth Amendment matter. Between these two ways of overturning _Roe v. Wade_, Senator Rick Santorum, I would emphasize, supports the constitutionally correct way, namely, recognition of the personeity of preborn infants as a matter of constitutional law. By sharp contrast, Senator Santorum’s opponent Governor Mitt Romney supports the Neo-Republican position, namely, that state legislatures possess the prerogative of a thumbs-up/thumbs-down vote on whether preborn infants have a local-state right to life or no. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 2:43 PM By John F. Maguire
To return to Senator Marco Rubio’s chief-of-staff, Cesar Conda: Online, on May 11, 2009, Mr. Conda replied to the following question: Is it an act of betrayal, or courage, for Notre Dame to be honoring President Obama? CONDA’S REPLY: “As a pro-life Catholic, I view Notre Dame’s commendment invitation/honorary doctorate award to the President not so much a ‘betrayal’ but an abrogation of its responsbility to be a partner in meeting an urgent and central need of the Roman Catholic Church — protecting the dignity of every human being. But the deed is done. As Rory Cooper notes in his post, ‘respect is deserved all around.’ Notre Dame now has a great opportunity — and they should use every single moment and tool at their disposal — to communicate the power of the pro-life message and the Church behind it.” |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 4:39 PM By Anne T.
Peter, it is pretty stupid to take a job at an Othodox Jewish daycare and expect them to serve you pork. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 4:47 PM By Anne T.
Abeca Christian, concerning the use of the word “men”, I do the same thing myself, but so many people now how been taught differently than we were that I find myself explaining the generic use of the word “men” to the younger generation. I hit the roof when I heard “God rest ye merry gentlemen” changed to something such as “God rest all you people”. They need to leave our traditional carols alone. We are not so stupid that we do not know that ithe original intent included women in many cases, and even if it did not, leave it alone. Perhaps it was about a group of gentlemen. So what? It still is beautiful. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 5:28 PM By Abeca Christian
I think that in honors English they still teach about the usage “men”. I learned about sonnets and poetry, but you are right, a lot of the project based schools do not teach those things as well. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 6:34 PM By Mac
OBAMA and his appointee Hillary Clinton are exporting abortion, homosexuality, etc to AFRICA with OUR TAX DOLLARS. EVIL personified. See “Obama’s Africa” 2/03 by RealCatholicTV on the internet. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 6:41 PM By OSCAR
Maguire, you are not stupid. You know that the secular media reports only those things they want to report, so your feigned concern that a secular paper has not reported what you personally want reported about a good Catholic politician is rediculous. Yes, Senator Rubio would move forward to change the law if Californians and people like you would start sending decent/moral people to the Senate. I live in FL and know Rubio’s (R) positions. I also support Rick Santorum (R). When are you going to start actively working for a moral politician for the Senate in your State? |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 6:45 PM By JLS
Maguire, Conda’s quote is politicalese for “Notre Dame administrator were idiots, not betrayers”. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 7:36 PM By DAVID
Maguire, no matter how good someone is, you always try to make the DEMOCRATS look good by coming up with your own twisted perversion of the facts about Republicans. I guess you hope by falsifying the truth, that people will still vote for your baby-killers. You are a master at causing confusion. I am not aware of any Republican currently if office who does not believe that unborn babies are human beings. (There are a FEW Republicans in Congress, just as there are MANY Democrats who believe in abortion. More Dems by far vote for pro-abortion policies.) When are you going to quit trying to confuse people to vote for your party members, and get off your duff and campaign for someone moral and decent in the ‘party’ that you love above ‘truth’? |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 7:50 PM By Bill Kells FL
Maguire, Senator Rubio and Senator Sentorum agree on all the life issues. There are no exceptions. I know them both. Stop trying to plant false ideas for your own personal reasons, you will not be able to divide them. You don’t know everything, so watch your pride, your tongue, and your pen. These are both good men. If would be better if you preached pro-life to convert your Democratic baby-murdering buddies. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 8:23 PM By Andy
Admit it, Maguire. Be honest without twisting anything. In the USA today, the majority of Democrats are far more evil than the majority of Republicans. And CA residents are in great need of proper teaching from their Bishops to acquire a well-formed conscience – based upon the number of immoral politicians they send to Congress and to Sacramento. Selfishness and Greed cause VOTING for immoral politicians – give me something for nothing. True social justice provides the conditions that allow associations of individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and vocation. Not encouraging law breaking, or laziness, and other forms of marxism and socialism. |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Abeca, A more defining term would be “mankind”! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:06 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
As a former Repubican Official, I prefer the term “Republicrat” over “Neo-Republican”! Anne T., I believe that song came from England and it was about a bunck gentelmen singing, and you are right, leave it alone! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:12 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Think about it. Wouldn’t it be better to have the States decide than to have what we have now. Many States are already fighting back against Roe vs. Wade. In the long run, since it is the Federal government’s duty to defend life, it would be better to have that defense enshrined in Our Constitution, and that States, excluding Taxifornia, and many of the Eastern liberal states would be very likely to pass such an Amendment. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 10:15 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
If it is true that women vote more with their emmotions, oh he is so cute, wouldn’t Senator Rubio make a great Presidential Candidate or Vice Presidential Candidate? God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:44 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Bill Kells: You write: “Senator Rubio and Senator Santorum agree on all the life issues.” Grand if true — I mean grand if true as regards the issue of abortion and the Constitution. I’d like however to see evidence on this and just this point, since I do not want to count anyone a Neo-Republican (state prerogativist) who isn’t one. |
Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:20 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to David: At issue in my posts is how to read the United States Constitution in the context of the abortion question, not which party’s congressional members have the better voting record on abortion questions, which laurel, beyond cavil, goes to the Republican Party. At the same time, I object — who would not? — to your post’s imputative phrase, which is directed at me, quote: “your baby-killers.” REPLY: The direct killing of babies, pre-natally or post-natally, is a grave evil. ~ One additional point, David: your confidence that well-nigh all Republican office-holders acknowledge the humanity of preborn infants is most welcome. At issue in my posts in this thread, by contrast, is the LEGAL PERSONEITY of preborn infants. The Neo-Republicans (including many Romney supporters) maintain quietly that the “personhood” question is a matter to be decided by state legislatures. David, we know that that option would already be logically precluded if indeed preborn infants are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life… without due process of law.” |
Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:35 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Oscar: I commend your voting for Marco Rubio to represent Florida as one of your state’s two Senators. As for your Floridian insistence that we Californians break a bad habit and instead send counter-abortocratic representaives to Congress, I applaud that insistence, Oscar, and welcome it as fraternal correction from one state to another — and from you to me, |
Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 12:54 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Andy: Two points of agreement: I agree with you that residents of California are “in great need of proper teaching from their Bishops to acquire a well-formed conscience.” Moreover, I agree with you that: “True social justice provides the conditions that allow individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and vocation.” ~ As I read your post, these are its two nuggets of gold. As for the rest, I’ll simply submit a general demurral. |
Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 3:26 PM By k
Mr. Maguire, I agree with you that the unborn are persons and citizens and have the right to be protected from those who would kill them. I agree that our nation should have laws that protect them. Before the civil war there were slave states and free states. Had there been no free states, it would have been more difficult to abolish slavery (maybe). To the South, this was a states rights issue; to the north an issue of human rights. (Although the war was really about whether states could succeed.) I am sure that those who you say are states-rights perogativists are really just trying to get any kind of a foot in the door to save the lives of the babies. If one state, any state, defies the federal government and abolishes abortion, it will end up back at the Supreme Court. Also, states should not have to obey a federal law if it is evil. I have never heard of any pro-life person who wanted abortion ended just in their state. |
Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 7:15 PM By Maryanne Leonard
k, what makes you say that states should not have to obey a federal law if it is evil? That sounds like the way the Catholic Church is set up, not the federal government. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 5:57 AM By Anne T.
Actually, I think I made a mistake. I do not think they changed “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen”, but I do know they changed “Peace on earth good well to men” to “Peace on earth goodwill to all people”. Some would probably go that far, though, if they could. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 8:27 AM By k
Maryanne Leonard, yes, you are right. That’s not the way of man. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:50 AM By Talitha Kum
Have any of you ever written a lengthy rousing call to arms and then accidentally erased your 20 minutes of motivational ‘bum warming’? well, I just did. At first I thought it was divine intervention. Then I queried “or was it the from the other camp?” Yeah, yeah, my hand just slipped; nothing other worldly about the erasure. “Or was there? I think it bears repeating, because it is a call to arms my brothers. We are in a battle that rages in the seen and the unseen (by us) realm. We must NOT let human rationalization misdirect our earnest motives, Example: “BUT CAN HE BEAT OBAMA?” We must put our money where our mouth is and hopefully we our saying ‘Human life is Sacred.’ Do we trust in God? Yeah? Then prove it. Picture your personal hour of judgement. When you are called to account for yourself in the fight for life and dignity… *shudder*, I just suddenly felt very small and lacking. I better sign on to help pull the Senator Rick Santorum bandwagon straight away. Our lady of Victory, pray for us. St Joseph pray for us. army of Angels fight with us. Jesus, mercy. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:38 AM By JLS
Maryanne, the primal law authority in any state is the county sheriff, not the federal government; the movement to retake this hallowed ground is underway as we speak, since various national police forces have been increasingly abusing their lawful powers (one of which is that there should not be any national police force, but we in fact have a dozen such things now). |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:46 AM By JLS
Anne T., what about simply getting rid of the excess words in the song and go with “Global harmony says it all” … to the same tune of course? Maybe have it sung by one of those singers who sings the national anthem at major sporting events and methodically screws up the notes? |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:55 AM By Talitha Kum
Another *shudder* I committed a grammar goof, sorry. are v our…while I am here, am I tilting at windmills? |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:11 PM By JLS
Yes, to your question, Talitha Kum, I have had to erase not only twenty minutes but twenty years, and begin over … from wayward son to faithful son. I have a neighbor now who is busy writing over his first 46 years of life, 20 of them having been in prison and more than 20 having been in countless foster homes beginning with an orphanage. He responds well to my Catholicism although he does not know that that is what he is responding to, even though he knows I’m Catholic. Your twenty minutes is a note that God redeems. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 12:51 PM By John F. Maguire
You’re right, k, there are virtually no pro-lifers who want legal protection of preborn infants only in one state. On the other hand, there are no small number of pro-lifers who DENY that the issue of the right to life should be adjudicated in light of the Organic Law of the United States, that is, in light of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These pro-lifers. we know, would return the abortion question to the states for a thumbs-up/thumbs-down state-legislature vote on the right of preborn infants to life quite as if preborn infants were not always already “persons” within the horizon of Organic Law of the United States of America. Plainly then, these pro-lifers cannot be called INTEGRAL prolifers. The two reasons why not, are obvious: (1) They deny that the WHOLE law of the United States of America, properly understood, affords protection to preborn infants as a matter of species-equality (“all men are created equal”), and (2) they suppose that under the Constitution it is somehow permissible that there be some PART OF TIME in some PART OF THE NATION (i.e., in a state) within which preborn infants can rightly be exposed to a negative vote by that state’s legislature as to these infants’ right to life. Prepossessed by this false supposition, these pro-lifers overlook the fact that post-natal infants can never be so exposed. Are not PRE-BORN infants equally “persons” from within the horizon of Organic Law as POST-NATAL infants? For that matter, does not a state place itself in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when that state exposes one set of persons — preborn infants — to a negative vote as to their right to life, while never dreaming of exposing post-natal infants to a comparably negative vote? |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 1:57 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to k: This post addresses a terminological point, one that you’ve already raised in your discussion. Students of the situation who oppose state prerogativism use the word *prerogative* precisely in order NOT to use the phrase *state’s rights*. There are, we know, state’s rights that should be respected, but the claim to a state prerogative to vote away the rights of preborn infants to live out their lives, cannot be counted among states’ rights, (1) not in the light of natural law as a participation of eternal law; (2) not in the light of the common-law protection of preborn infants; and (3) not in the light of the Organic Law of the United States of America. In short, considerations (1)-(3) preclude state prerogativism but do not preclude legitimate states’ rights. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 3:19 PM By John F. Maguire
As a movement within the Republican Party, when did Neo-Republican state-prerogativism begin? At the presidential level, we know the exact date. On April 3, 1971, President Richard Nixon, in, _127: STATEMENT ABOUT POLICY ON ABORTIONS AT MILITARY BASE HOSPITALS IN THE UNITED STATES_, declared: “Historically, laws regulating abortion in the United States have been the province of States, not the Federal Government. That remains the situation today, as one State after another takes up this question, debates it, decides it.” (1) Here, and just here, we notice a failure on the part of President Nixon to acknowledged the American common-law tradition on abortion, which tradition afforded protection to preborn infants in their own right. (2) Here, and just here, we notice a failure on the part of President Nixon to enter upon the Constitutional question whether a preborn infant, as a living human body, is a “person” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (Was President Nixon obligated to enter this question? Yes, his oath of office to uphold the Constitution obligated him to do so. Besides, all three branches of the federal government bear a responsibility in the work of interpreting the Constitution.) (3) What signal did President Nixon’s 1971 state-prerogativist military-family policy STATEMENT have on the United States Supreme Court? Nixon’s STATEMENT signalled to the Supreme Court that the Executive Branch, in principle, was NOT OPPOSED to a Court holding that preborn infants are non-persons. Did not President Nixon’s 1971 STATEMENT already imply that under the Constitution preborn infants are non-persons? Had Mr. Nixon not already elided both the 14th Amendment and common law in regard to the question of the right to life? Did he not directly order the U.S. military, “If the laws in a particular State restrict abortions, the rules at the military base hospitals are to correspond to that law”? In so doing, did Nixon not also endorse the obverse? |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 3:43 PM By k
It was Nixon’s 3 appointees to the Supreme Court along with 2 from Eisenhower, 1 from Johnson and 1 from Roosevelt that gave us the Roe v. Wade decision. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 7:43 PM By JLS
Nixon was one of the very few presidents not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Take this into account, Maguire. |
Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:58 PM By JLS
The issue of abortion on the political level did not exist with FDR, Eisenhower or LBJ. As I recall in about 1969, abortion suddenly became legal in California under Reagan. It still did not appear in conversation much at all; I have no idea how the forces mounted so silently and suddenly put it into law. Somewhere in the eighties I began researching it, and could find almost no literature on abortion at all. It was indeed a “silent scream” in more ways than one. |
Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 1:13 PM By John F. Maguire
Routinely, Wikipedia is open to disconfirmation, but is that needed in the present case, JLS? I am referring to Wikipedia’s list of “Members of Council on Foreign Relations [CFR].” This list features a pendant section entitled “Notable historical members.” In this latter section, JLS, the entry “Richard M. Nixon (37th President of the United States)” comes after the entry “Edmund Muskie (58th Secretary of the United States)” and before the entry “Paul Nitze (Secretary of the Navy under Lyndon Johnson).” |
Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:52 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
I was present on the Bob Dornan Show when then Governor Ronald Reagan clearly stated that he deeply regretted not vetoing the California Anthony Bielenson Bill. At that encounter, I offered and he gladly accepted a Green Scapular from me, and he placed it in his wallet. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:12 AM By Abeca Christian
Mr Fisher just yesterday was my son’s birthday and I believe it was also Reagan’s, so we were discussing him and his history, what a beautiful post you made, I’ll let my kids know about your experience. Thanks for sharing. |
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:28 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
JLS, 12:11 PM, Wouldn’t it be better to call yourself “repentant son” than “faithful son” or even “hopefully faithful son”! I often have to pray and ask God and His Mother what I should do in order to be faithful, and even then I wonder. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:32 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Abeca, Tell your son “feliz cumpleanos” for me. Abeca, who knows, just maybe that Green Scapular he placed in his wallet helped him gain the graces for Heaven! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:49 PM By JLS
Good point, Kenneth, and often I’ve posted that the Church is comprised not of sinners, but of repentant sinners. Faithful implies someone with some faith. |
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:51 PM By JLS
Finally, Maguire, you found a source that corrected my error, which happens to be Wikipedia … hope you see the irony. |
Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:30 PM By Abeca Christian
Thank you Mr. Fisher I will pass the message. Mr Fisher one can only pray and trust in God’s unending mercy. . |
Posted Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:01 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Abeca, I am sure that I am preaching to the choire, but God’s mercy often requires martyrdom! God bless, yours in Their hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher |
“The Obama Administration’s obsession with forcing mandates on the American people has now reached a new low by violating the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people,” Rubio said in a Jan. 31 statement. 
Leave A Comment