Caroline Kennedy's Convention Cockadoodle Doo

Anyone have any idea what it was all about?
 

As a Catholic woman she takes reproductive health seriously and she is terrified that Daddy's legacy of civil rights are being rolled back. Her daughters and everyone's daughters can't screw around with irresponsible men because they don't have 10 dollars to purchase their own abortifacients.  


What antichrist gave her the impression immorality and murder was a Catholic reproductive health issue?

She doesn't even have the decency to speak openly and honestly about ripping children apart until they are dead.    Incredulously, she uses the word 'reproduction'.

Here's an excellent comment on the article:  It's a oxymoron. How can you reproduce what you kill..

Let me tell you something else.

The urban legends around Daddy's legacy are greatly exaggerated. To the best of my knowledge, the man never said anything about subsidizing the sex lives of immoral women or murdering children as a civil right.  Not one word.

How on earth could her Bishop not immediately and emergently schedule a 'dinner' and let her know the peril she is in and is leading others into?  Try to persuade her to confession.  If she refuses, explain to her that she should not present herself to Communion.  Because she is NOT in communion.   Tell her if she ever uses the Crucifix to sell immorality and murder as the manifesto of the Catholic Church, he will publicly excommunicate her and correct her misguidance and scandal.

The misfeasance and malfeasance of the shepherds is profoundly disturbing.

Fracus in the 'Hood

Catholic blogosphere has been a cavern for those of us robbed of our faith so the archdiocese can keep people who reject it coming every week to drop money in the basket.

Whatever style of writing you're attracted to, Church militant, snark, sarcasm, humor, gentility, intellectual - talented Catholics are growing like wheat on the internet.


Every once in a while, something dramatic happens. We're always up to our necks in manure here in Boston so I usually miss it. (I just found out the cafeteria at The Cafeteria is Closed opened and some kind of donnybrook took place that shut the blog down.) But yesterday over at Terry's digs, I found out Vox Nova has the pins for Mark Shea. Mark has posted a hilarious summary HERE.

I don't know where we are losing the folks at Vox Nova. No matter how many times you attempt to enlighten them, it seems like they have their story and they stick to it... no matter how silly it gets.

Likening Vox Nova to a Debate Club at Aushwitz is pointing out the immorality of debating butchering babies alive as a choice for pregnant women in our country. Their boo-hooing about being called antisemites is buffoonery.


They want to continue to insist their writers are not prochoice but they freely admit they are against activists who work towards the repeal of laws that license people to kill children.

There are only two positions about choices when a woman is pregnant and it isn't rocket science.

You have to have two things to choose from to make it a choice.

When it comes to the definition of the word 'choice' as it relates to abortion, if you are lobbying for a society that offers women two options when they are pregnant and one of those options is killing their child, you are pro-choice.

Once you take away that option the word choice is not applicable.

They also claim repealing the law would put the baby butchers out of a job. I scoured their archives to find talking points on keeping prison wardens gainfully employed by keeping a steady stream of people on death row strapped down for lethal injections and into the electric chair. Shockingly, I stand here empty-handed.


When you read the thread, you'll see these 'pro-life' Catholics (who can't seem to figure out baby butchers would be needed in obstetrics) have the audacity to claim activists working towards the repeal of the law should have complaints filed with their employers (or potential employers).

And no, before you go "are you saying he is doing the same thing as these." The point is, if people are misbehaving, causing problems, and after constantly confronted and told why they are in error, if they keep trying to act like bullies on the internet, they should not be surprised if people who would hire them would be contacted and told to take note. Livelihood is important, but on the other hand, Mark IS working against the livelihood of others with his constant false witness about VN and the people on it. It affects us, too. Why should we not encourage him to behave betters, so he can be a good witness for the faith instead of a witness of a heckler?

Yeah. Because what kind of a good witness is it to expose Catholics who are misleading their readers.

Painful.

Karlson later makes a vulgar and sophomoric reference to body part that resides in a gentleman's trousers by calling a fellow commenter in the thread named Richard ,"Dick". Must be the latest fruit of the loom from all his studying of Buddha.

Catholics who sell their prochoice convictions by saying rather than working to repeal laws that make it legal for people to kill other people, we should all focus on financially, emotionally and spiritually supporting pregnant women in crisis are playing games. Under the Obama administration, abortion has increased. They don't even have the decency to be honest about it. So you can throw that theory right out the window.

These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's symbiotic to stop the killing and support women so there is no legitimate reason to filibuster on Roe v. Wade.

Pro-lifers are always on the front lines assisting women. You know who you never see there?

Pro-choice Catholics.

Here's some savvy advice for practicing Catholics: For Lent, give up wasting precious brain cells reading their intellectual dishonesty.

Basa Loco I Sole Tace

Have you been watching the Charlie Sheen story? He finally entered a rehab. Five prostitutes and a suitcase full of blow later, they finally stop lying about his addiction and shut down production of his show.

I wonder if the individual in the video ever got her blue Bentley. Sounds like the price got to high for her.


A sad example of how your life's story can wind up surrounded by people enabling your self-destruction. You walk away from the people who care about you because you don't want to hear what they have to say. The vultures spot your wounded carcass and circle to land and feed on the supply.

I'm not a good enabler.

I think it goes back when Sister Mary Hillarian told us the story of the Crucifixion in the first grade. I had seen the Crucifix many times in my short life but I never really stopped to ask what happened to Christ. I didn't put the pieces together. The Crucifix was above the clock at St. Mark's school. I remember that moment. Looking at Christ hanging there. Tasting his abandonment and feeling my heart and soul overflowing with compassion.

I think I may have lingered a little too long at the foot of the Cross. It's fair to say I go over the line when people I care about are basa loco I sole tace... in a deep place where the sun is silent. When most people have walked away to avoid getting dragged down, I remain standing. Saying what needs to be said until the person decides hearing what needs to be said is too high a price for the relationship, and they walk away.

The problem with this course is that the the person gets combative before they walk away. Looking over the battlefield afterward, I try to pinpoint where I probably should have stopped and been the one to walk away. At the end, I'd much rather be left without second guessing whether I'll have something to account for on my day of reckoning in the crisis.


Some people go through their life thinking they are living in peace and promoters of peace when they remain complacent about suffering, injustice and evil. It's been on my mind this week after conversations with people over the gruesome discovery at Gosnell's clinic.

Among some of the excuses I've heard is that there's no difference in electing proabortion politicians who will create laws to legally kill infants, and politicians who will create laws to protect life. Seriously?

I was told women are going to have abortions no matter what you do, they need clean and decent facilities to do it, they don't want to be baited into 'hot button issues' and the like.

All of these people claimed they knew abortion was killing a human being, a soul with a destiny from the Creator of Life.

I don't understand it. I understand how the uncatechized come to believe abortion isn't murder. But I'm aghast when Catholics tell me they know its murder but they think it's just to create antiseptic facilities to exterminate babies who are unwanted. The cruelty of saying such a thing staggers me.

But if this is truly how they feel, why don't they believe the prohibitions on killing should be lifted across the board? People will always find ways to kill other people so why not create a sterile and serene environment to do it?

What about child abuse? People will always find ways to abuse children, why don't they believe this country should elect people who believe pedophiles have the civil right to abuse children on clean sheets in clean hotel rooms?

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to fool me.

Do you remember Dante's description of the eternal resting place of people who don't take a stand?

Dante passes through the gate of Hell, which bears an inscription, the ninth (and final) line of which is the famous phrase "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate", or "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"[4] Before entering Hell completely, Dante and his guide see the Uncommitted, souls of people who in life did nothing, neither for good nor evil (among these Dante recognizes either Pope Celestine V or Pontius Pilate; the text is ambiguous). Mixed with them are outcasts who took no side in the Rebellion of Angels. These souls are neither in Hell nor out of it, but reside on the shores of the Acheron, their punishment to eternally pursue a banner (i.e. self interest) while pursued by wasps and hornets that continually sting them while maggots and other such insects drink their blood and tears.

Sort of a spiritual description of Charlie Sheen's situation or anyone else drowning in the quicksand of sin.

It isn't love for humanity or love for God to be uncommitted in the battle of good vs. evil. The serenity of complacency in the face of evil is really about self-interest and your eternity will be rewarded accordingly. Neither here, nor there, God will spit you out of His mouth.

Lots of luck with it.

Pope Tells Bishops To Educate Faithful to Vote Against Abortion

We better rush this over to the Massachusetts Bishops.

 Bishops must guide their faithful to use their vote to oppose efforts to legalize abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict XVI told bishops from Brazil.

"Dear brother bishops, to defend life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world's way of thinking," the pope said Oct. 28 during a meeting with bishops from northeast Brazil.

The bishops were making their "ad limina" visits to report on the status of their dioceses.

By the way - this just in:

Obama's healthcare bill is a loaded gun

Federal funding of abortion and other major problems with Obama's draft.

The Obama plan also violates his pledge to Congress and the American people that his version of health care reform would not force taxpayers to fund abortions.

In a September nationally-televised speech to Congress, Obama sought to clear up projections from pro-life advocates that his health care plan would fund abortions.

"One more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," Obama claimed.

Under the Senate health care bill that will be the main bill Obama and Democrats push through Congress, there is no ban on abortion funding. Wile some states can opt out of funding abortions under the plan, taxpayers in other states will be forced to pay for them.

But the bill contains other pro-abortion problems that are concerns for pro-life advocates.
The bill requires that at least one health care plan be promoted across the country that pays for abortions, more abortion funding would come via the affordability credits, and many of the so-called limits on abortion funding in the Senate bill are temporary and could expire or be overturned at a later date.

The Senate health care bill also pays for abortions under the Indian Health Service program.

And it contains the Mikulski amendment that would allow the Obama administration to define abortion as preventative care and force insurance plans to pay for abortions.

Finally, the Senate bill does not contain language needed to offer full conscience protection for pro-life medical workers and facilities.

Church needs "clear" injunction denying proabort pols communion?

Boston Cardinal: Church Needs 'Clear' Injunction Denying Pro-Abortion Pols Communion

LifeSiteNews.com caught up with O’Malley in Washington, DC last month, where he was among the concelebrating bishops for the Vigil Mass for Life at the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. LSN asked O’Malley what he considered the appropriate pastoral response to pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion.

"Well, I think that the only way that that solution [denying communion] should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole church," the cardinal responded. "You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”

Is this guy serious? 

O’Malley said an official papal directive or change in Canon Law would be “the only way it is really going to work.”

“That would be helpful if they did it,” he continued. “But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way.  Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”

O’Malley revealed that he had been concerned about the issue for a long time, and asked Pope John Paul II for guidance when the pontiff was soliciting input from bishops for his pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

“I wrote to him and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic,” related O’Malley.
“We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”

 What is he talking about?

Canon 915 gives explicit instructions and the Vatican has supplemented the instructions with numerous other directives.

Here's one from Cardinal Ratzinger from 2004. 

Unfortunately, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) never received the letter as Ratzinger intended.  Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, chairman of the USCCB task force on the issue, only referenced the document as an afterthought in his 12-page report to that committee.

Later – in what may have been a Vatican end-run around McCarrick – Ratzinger's letter hit international headlines after being leaked to Roman media.

And, in another example of how the USCCB thwarts the Roman Catholic Church, they issued their own policy burying the Vatican's instructions.

In the end, the US Bishops task force put out more generalized guidelines in the document "Catholics in Political Life," which leaves the appropriate pastoral response towards pro-abortion politicians - including denial of Communion - to the prudential judgment of the individual bishop. Ratzinger would later affirm to the USCCB that the document was "very much in harmony" with his general principles.

Again, this is the same kind of dishonesty Cardinal O'Malley displayed as the ink was drying on the Caritas Abortion contracts and the money was changing hands.

Really, I cannot get over the depth and breadth of the deception. They rely upon the ignorance of the regular schlubs in the pews.

Frankly, I am not edified by the cover ups of the Catholic faithful.

Right now this is rumor and hearsay even by the admission of the blogger ("working on a lead"). I won't allow it to be promoted here especially since it concerns an Archbishop. When there is some type of substantial evidence which meets (my obviously subjective) bar of news, then we can talk about it here.

But when I posted the names and the remainder of the story, they won't give the people the information.

We're in tough shape.

John Carr currently oversees CCHD

Let us be clear.

John Carr currently oversees the CCHD.

Thirty-one (31) CCHD grantees are partners with the Campaign for Community Change (CCC).

Among other things CCC organized to stop the Stupak Amendment which would restrict federal funding for most abortions.

Neither Carr nor the USCCB have addressed this. Nor have they addressed the charge that after Carr left the CCC’s board of directors, Tom Chabolla, associate director of programs for the CCHD until 2008, joined the board.


If John Carr and the USCCB did not know about the proabort legislative history and dissent of the groups they are funneling money into, which has been public information for ten years, their ineptitude makes them ineligible for their roles. If there were dots connecting these groups to slavery or pedophilia, this discussion would not be happening.

The USCCB's funding and connection to harmful initiatives that end in the death of children is indefensible.

Summary on Obama's Abortion Efforts

How's Doug Kmiec's honesty on Obama stacking up now?

In the Words of Margaret Sanger

Eyeopening quotes about abortion as an economic weapon against poverty and race and the Church.


What contrasts these are to Mother Teresa who said so eloquently that "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Sanger?

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:
"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]

Scott Brown loses his healthcare soundbyte

Whatever reasons prolifers were using about how Brown will save us all from Obamacare is starting to leak like a sieve.

Dems say if Scott Brown wins, they'll stall swearing in to pass healthcare

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.” A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment Friday.

And, because I find people having difficulty digesting it, I'm going to say again that what Brown wants to do with healthcare is eerily similar to Roe v. Wade - infect the entire nation with it by doing it at the state level.

Brown also says in this article that he wants to take the proposal for healthcare reform "back to the drawing board" -

The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents. On healthcare, Brown said each state should be left to handle provisions for its residents, like Massachusetts did when it required coverage beginning in 2007. He said the state could share its programs with other states and replicate them, and work with other congressional delegations if federal aid would be needed to get state-level health care plans in place. Imposing a federal-level insurance plan may mean Massachusetts residents could see lesser care and higher cost, he said

Scott Brown supported healthcare reform here in Massachusetts that actually included provisions to publicly funding abortions.

Is this what we're lobbying to institute across the United States?

Getting good candidates has to happen long before we all have to hold our noses to vote for the lesser of two evils. For prolifers, this is where our future lies. For those of us lobbying the political hierarchy, we'll never be able to get pro-life candidates if prolifers keep answering the revelry to get out the vote for people who get to Washington and work against us.

If we can't get the GOP to embrace real pro-life candidates and put their money and power behind them, we've got to stop lobbying and voting for the candidates they pass down to us.
This is effective politics.


There are people in pro-life political initiatives who are actually trying to change our mission statement to embrace support for Roe v. Wade as a "pro-life vote" and they've had to misrepresent Brown's positions in order to try to be effective. If you're in the game to save the lives of the unborn, the efficacy of this new development is not assisting the cause.

Also yesterday, Jack Rowe of MCFL's message about what he believes Scott Brown will do was trumped by Scott Brown:

And though he has previously said he recognizes Roe v. Wade, the court ruling that legalized abortion, as the law of the land, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life as an expected “prolife vote in the Senate.’’

“I believe - and he has stated - that he would vote for a [Supreme Court] nominee who would be opposed to Roe v. Wade,’’ said John Rowe, who heads the antiabortion group’s political action committee. Brown’s campaign says he would be willing to do so, but he does not view abortion as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee either way.

The reality is, Brown not only does this say whether a candidate Brown votes for is prolife has nothing to do with the reasons why he'll vote for him, he has said previously that he'd be disinclined to vote for somebody who interprets the constitution about right to life issues from the bench.

It isn't rocket science to therefore conclude Rowe is being dishonest about what Brown will do if he gets to Washington.

I do believe Coakley is treacherous and I understand if you're contemplating voting to keep her out. But before you do, I'm asking pro-lifers to really inform themselves about Brown's positions, look at the bigger picture and prayerfully double-check their consciences to see where you want to draw the line in the sand.

We have two elections coming up where we can make a significant impact and lobby the GOP to put money and power into our candidates - and really uproot the tyranny. Obama's tanking, the GOP is ripe for picking and the people are desperate for direction.

Perhaps it's time to stop giving the drunks the keys to the car.

I've reached the point where I realize voting for the lesser of two evils IS the lesser of two evils and I do hope to educate people about the reasons why.

Scott Brown Finally Publicly Says He is Prochoice

Brown says abortion is of very little importance to him:



http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/news/x1689190524/Brown-I-dont-owe-anybody-anything

While abortion coverage proved a sticking point lawmakers developing federal health care reform, Brown said the positions he and Coakley take on abortion aren't pivotal to the Massachusetts Senate race. Both support Roe vs. Wade, but Brown opposes late-term abortions and lowering the age of consent to have one.

"Abortion really isn't a large part of this race. It's not something that is important at this point, because the major issues are dealing with taxation, deficit spending and where our national security interests are in terms of keeping our country safe," said Brown.

Brown also noted that whether a candidate for a federal judgeship was pro-life or pro-choice holds "very little importance to me" and would have voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He would not want a judge "legislating from the bench."

For those of you who have been standing in front of abortion clinics saving lives, I'd be careful not to cross the buffer zones when you pass out Vote for Brown leaflets:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=2

Not all of Brown’s votes are easy to classify, however. In 2007, he cast a vote to create a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics to better distance protestors from patients.

You'd have to have long arms to distribute flyers from 35 feet.

Well, you could always try paper airplaning them?

It's may be true if prolifers send Brown to Washington he'll vote "no" on healthcare this round.

The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents.

Brown is for national healthcare, he just wants to go back to the drawing board.

He's just said he supports Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue means very little to him.

Brown was a supporter of Massachusetts healthcare "reform" that provides abortion with taxpayer dollars.

Calling this guy a pro-life vote and lobbying for him is imprudent.

The reasons why we don't get prolife candidates to have succesful campaigns is because they're being sabotaged by prolifers by supporting prochoice candidates instead, calling it the lesser of two evils.

We've got to stop letting prochoice candidates use our leadership, our newtorking, our grassroots campaigning.

There was a candidate who supports the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death running opposite Brown in the Republican primary. Jack Robinson.

You know how MCFL is now saying there will be very little turnout and the pro-life vote can win it? Well, back in the primary days, they weren't willing to help Robinson win with the same votes they're now rounding up for Brown.

They had a different soundbyte back then.

Though Robinson answered he supported life from the moment of conception to natural death, Anne Fox sabotaged his campaign by saying - get this - Robinson was not pro-life because he wasn't for a constitutional amendment!

She ended the email by saying she would "keep you up to date".

How's she doing?

When will it get to the point where the pro-life community realizes we need new leadership?

There's a significant problem that we keep refusing to fix at the level of leadership volunteering our resources to prochoice candidates. By the time they get down to us, we feel desperate enough to vote for him.

Unless and until the GOP realizes we are NOT going to support a prochoice candidate, come what may - we'll continue on this collision course of compromise that is destroying our Nation.

If you're a prolifer, you better ask yourself in the face of the evidence whether Brown is a "pro-life" vote or whether he's going to "revamp" healthcare to exclude exploiting the poor, the elderly, the suffering and the unborn - and then ask yourself how you can sit on your hands while Anne Fox continues to take the unborn on this trajectory.

Cheers!

Calling Scott Brown "pro-life" is akin to calling Tiger Woods "mongomous"

For several months, there's been squabbling in Boston's pro-life community over MCFL's active campaigning for Scott Brown and their characterizations of him as a pro-lifer.

I've laid low publicly about the dust up because nobody in the pro-life community disputes that Martha Coakley is a greater threat to life and liberty than Brown. In fact, everyone is in agreement that Coakley's ideology on the sanctity of life is worse than Kennedy's.

I don't mean this entry to be discouraging to anyone who in good faith believes Brown will stop Martha Coakley and/or the healthcare bill. I fully understand and can empathize with that trajectory.

Early on, hardcore prolifers did their diligence on Brown's convictions on abortion. Brown was couching his language in writing because he was courting the prolife community, but was straight-forward verbally to many prolifers that he supports Roe v. Wade.

As Brown's campaign trotted along, in conversations with Massachusetts prolifers at large, it became clear to me that the lack of written verification of Brown's support of Roe v. Wade was causing some confusion. Apparently MCFL had invited Brown to put up a table at the Boston 2009 Walk for Life. Accordingly, people presumed the invitation and Brown's presence indicated MCFL had scrutinized his convictions about the sanctity of life, made the determination on behalf of the pro-life community that he opposed Roe v. Wade and did not do their own diligence.

I wrote to Scott, explained the situation and asked him to come clean in writing about his convictions on abortion.

This was his reply:


Hi Carol.I am against partial-birth abortion, for parental consent, and against federal funding for abortions. Hope this helps.

I noted the deliberate omission of his support for Roe v. Wade and asked not to proceed with this strategy.

I told him playing games with words would be perceived in the prolife community as his character being deceptive rather than honorable. I explained that because pro-lifers consider Coakley so culturally dangerous, I believed he'd be better off marketing himself with honesty. That way, prolifers would at least know Brown says what he means and means what he says, and he'll follow through with his campaign promises.

I told him I was very tapped into the grassroots, the actual people who "vote", and I believed garnering support with intellectual dishonesty would be detrimental to his campaign, the leadership of the people he was using in the prolife community to distribute misinformation and to the future unity of the Massachusetts prolife community.

I wrote him numerous times regurgitating the above soundbytes and asking him to man up.

He never responded.

He subsequently did say he was in favor of abortion rights in this Boston Globe article:

On abortion rights, Brown is basically in favor but with nuance. “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ Brown said, adding that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.

And, on his campaign website:

Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.

The following is Project Vote Smart rating of Brown on abortion:


Abortion Issues

(Back to top)

2005 Senator Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts 50 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Brown supported the interests of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life 33 percent in 2004.

2000 In 2000 Massachusetts Citizens for Life determined Senator Brown to be 8.

In addition to Brown, there was another candidate in the Republican primary running for Kennedy's seat - Jack E. Robinson. Robinson claimed to be pro-life and tried to lobby prolifers saying that both Brown and MCFL were misrepresenting his pro-life credentials.

In November, Mass Citizens for Life acknowleded Brown's pro-life record was a "mixed bag" while seeming to admit Robinson was prolife:

Dec 8 Tue Special Primary election for Senator Kennedy's old seat;
All Democrats are Pro-Choice (Pro-Abortion) and Pro-same-sex marriage; STEPHEN G. PAGLIUCA, Rep. Michael Capuano (100% NARAL Pro-Choice rating), AG Martha Coakley (100% NARAL Pro-Choice) and ALAN A. KHAZEI.
You could at least exercise your Prudential Judgment with a vote for a Republican
Republican Scott Brown has a mixed Pro-Life/Pro-Choice record but is against same-sex marriage.
Republican Jack E. Robinson is Pro-Life but also Pro-same-sex marriage and Pro-Gay and Transgender rights. He was against the Stimulus and the Public option on Health Care.

Yet, on page 5 of the November/December issue of MCFL News, not only was Robinson excluded from the MCFL chart on where the candidates stood on the life issues, but the question of whether the candidates actually favored or opposed abortion was omitted!

Following the publication of MCFL's newsletter and just before the primary, MCFL responded to Robinson's claims that they and Brown were being less than forthright, by circulating an amazing email written by Anne Fox, throwing Robinson under the bus:

On the Republican side, Jack E. Robinson has entered the race. His campaign delivered cards to homes in the cities across the state. The cards claim that he is the only pro-life candidate.

Robinson was interviewed by Deborah Becker on WBUR Radio in Boston. She asked him where he stands on abortion. He answered, "Well, I would never vote for a constitutional amendment, if that's what you are asking me, but I'm personally pro-life."

This is an amazing and contradictory position for two reasons.
First, the "only pro-life candidate" obviously would want to guarantee the right to life of all by passing a constitutional amendment.
Secondly, the last time Robinson ran for the U. S. Senate he filled out the MCFL questionnaire. The first question, "Do you believe that the law should protect the right to life of each human being from conception to natural death?" Robinson answered "yes", which, of course, implies support for a constitutional amendment.

If you live in Everett, North Adams, Fall River or one of the many places where the cards were distributed, you need to share this information with everyone in your area.

We'll keep you up to date as the Primary approaches.
Anne Fox, President

The real question is here, in "keeping people up to date", why hasn't Scott Brown's contradictory position, support of Roe v. Wade and opposition to a constitutional amendment ever been distributed to the pro-life community?

In the past week, MCFL has escalated their campaign for Brown in the pro-life community using the adjective "pro-life":

The PAC is organizing this effort by state rep. districts. That means you can help close to home.

Jack says, "This is an unprecedented opportunity to send a pro life vote to the Senate. The turn-out will be very low. The name of the game will be getting out the vote. There are more than enough pro-lifers in the state to send Scott Brown to Washington - a pro-life vote from Massachusetts, no less!....

Jack and the PAC are working very hard. Thank you for helping!

Anne Fox, President

I'm not exactly sure why MCFL is convinced Brown is going to vote against healthcare. Seems to me, he supports national healthcare:

Brown supported Massachusetts health care overhaul in 2006 and favors elements advanced in the congressional debate about a national overhaul. But he said he would oppose the bills now moving through Congress because they would help other states at the expense of Massachusetts.

It's clear to me that Brown favors national healthcare but opposes elements that siphon money from Massachusetts. It should also not go unnoticed that in 2006 he was in favor of healthcare reform in Massachusetts that publicly funds abortions.

I wrote to Janet Callahan (of MCFL) yesterday, pointing out that most people in the prolife community have relied upon MCFL's representation that Brown is "pro-life" thinking that implies he opposes Roe v. Wade.

I explained that an honest campaign would have explained Brown is pro-choice but better than Coakley because there are many in the grassroots who are done with compromising. They have the right to accurate information from MCFL. I suggested they stop using the word "pro-life".

Never before in history of the authentic prolife movement has anyone used the word "pro-life" for a pro-choice candidate. We ought to leave that to the Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good crowd.


This was her response:

Hello Carol,



Thank you for you email. However, it is a misstatement to say that MCFL calls Scott Brown “pro-life.” In fact, we call Scott Brown “a pro-life vote.”



Best wishes for a New Year filled with blessings,



Janet

I wrote back and explained that the latest round of worthsmything still doesn't cut it because Brown is NOT a "pro-life vote."

He's admitted when it comes to voting, his support is on the side of Roe v. Wade, so it's a pro-choice vote.

I reiterated that they can't send people out into the streets or to the polls with the serious omission and commission of making them believe they're working for a pro-life candidate.

Last night, they circulated another email, still implying Brown is a pro-lifer:

Jack Rowe, Chair, Massachusetts Citizens for Life Political Action Committee tells us:

"People are terribly upset about health care and asking what to do.

Here is the very exciting part. We in Massachusetts can actually save the whole country from this awful health care.

Our PAC has been supporting Scott Brown because he will be a pro-life vote in the Senate. Scott Brown will also vote against the health care bill.

After the compromise bill comes out of conference, it must be approved again by each house. Brown will vote against the bill. That means there will not be 60 votes in the Senate! That means the bill will be defeated!

Can we do it? We certainly can! Turn-out will be very small. If each of you votes for Scott Brown and gets one other person to vote that should win the election. Also, be sure to arrange for your elderly or house-bound friends to vote. Call your town hall on Monday!

We must be very sure so we are doing a huge pro-life literature "drop" the weekend of January 16 and 17 - right before the election. We need your help! Please contact Janet at Mass Citizens to volunteer: jcallahan@masscitizensforlife.org or 617-242-4199 X 230.

We are the only state that can stop this health care! You and I are the voters who can do it. Contact Janet today!

I'm sorry to say this, but if you take a leadership position in the pro-life community, the duty comes with prohibitions against the violation of the word "pro-life".

There are many of us who believe the strategy of voting for the "lesser of two evils" has done a disservice to the unborn. By supporting the lesser of two evils, we keep circling in the same vicious cycle of empowering evil. It has destroyed our country.

It isn't spite and it isn't foolishness.

It's political strategy.

Let me explain.

We're in a unique position at this point in time in history.

The power of the GOP has been choked off. They didn't give us the right candidates.

The system is set up in a hierarchy. The GOP shoots candidates up the flagpole, lobbies initiatives with grassroots followings and networks to see if they'll salute. When a suitable candidate passes inspection we presumably will then provide leadership and ground troops to lobby voters for their candidate.

The system is designed to work so that the initiatives say "no" to the GOP when they come around with a pro-choice candidate. But that is no longer happening.

In 2008, the GOP cleaned Romney up thinking Romney's life-long opposition to us in the trenches would be forgotten if they taught him the right soundbytes. Romney had the best guidance and counsel money could buy.

Sadly, a number of loose cannons in that middle-management layer of pro-life initiatives said "yes" to Romney. But, when Romney was circulated to the ground troops, we refused to rally the ground troops to get the voter out.

We choked the power at the level above the voter.

So, here we are in 2010 and the GOP has lobbied a pro-life initiative to get out the vote for a prochoice candidate.

Here's why working for a prochoice candidate, and worse, giving him any kind of pro-life credentials, is political suicide:

• The entire structure of political power is based upon money and the power of networking.
• Every prolife candidate that comes along, we don't support because "he doesn't have a chance".
• He doesn't have a chance because he doesn't have the "money".
• Prolife candidates cannot make it without the people in the GOP with the money. It is a sad fact but true that we need money to get the message and our people out into the public square on the trains, in front of the boob tube, ads, on websites, commercials - etc.
  
• The GOP will never give our candidates the money, so long as we keep supporting prochoice candidates who are fiscal conservatives.
• Lobbying our POWER to the GOP who now knows we'll use our network and call their prochoice candidate "pro-life" is political suicide.
  

When Judie Brown or Fr. Pavone say a candidate is pro-life, we know exactly what that word means.

When Patrick Kennedy uses the word "pro-life", we know he's hijacked the word to give it a different meaning.

The pro-life community should not have to be second guessing what MCFL means when they use the word "pro-life". MCFL's dishonesty about the word "prolife" leaves me very troubled. The trust of the people is being violated and consciences are being deliberately misinformed.

I'm of the opinion that we have a real opportunity to get the GOP to give us authentic pro-life candidates going forward. The GOP needs pro-lifers. Frankly, I'm uncertain as to whether they are actually tapped in enough to the grassroots to know we're choking them at the level beneath the "pro-life initiatives" giving them less than savvy advice about who we're going to lobby, campaign and vote for.



For anyone thinking they'd like to take another crack at sending a prochoice vote to Washington, knock yourselves out.

Personally, I don't think campaigning for Scott Brown is playing our cards right and he certainly shouldn't be honored with the adjective "pro-life".


n.b. Oh, and in case you're wondering about the picture, that's Scott Brown in his "America's Sexiest Man" nude centerfold spread from Cosmopolitan Magazine.

Scott Brown

I've had many questions in the comments section and emails about Scott Brown's position on abortion.

Scott was forthright enough to give me some clarification today. He's prochoice but against partial-birth abortion:


Hi Carol.I am against partial-birth abortion, for parental consent, and against federal funding for abortions. Hope this helps.



No, I'm afraid that doesn't help at all.

Cardinal Rigali: Healthcare Bills Funding Abortion "Seriously Deficient"

Kudos to Cardinal Rigali for his leadership role in combatting Obama's inhumane reforms in healthcare.

Cardinal Rigali said his present letter concerned the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) and related legislation, emphasizing that respect for human life and the rights of conscience is a “fundamental requirement.”

“Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding policies against federal funding and mandated coverage of abortion,” the cardinal wrote, echoing his July 29 letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“In this sense we urge you to make this legislation ‘abortion neutral,’ by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.”

He described the proposed health care act as “seriously deficient” in that it delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the health insurance plan the government will manage.

“This would be a radical change: Federal law has long excluded most abortions from federal employees’ health benefits packages, and no federal health program mandates coverage of elective abortions,” he pointed out.

Further, federal funds authorized by the proposed legislation do not pass through the Department of Labor or the HHS appropriations bill, and so are not covered by the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding for abortions and health benefits package that include abortion.

According to Cardinal Rigali, the Capps Amendment, which was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, created a “legal fiction” and a “paper separation” between federal funding and abortion. The proposal uses federal funds to subsidize the public health plan and private plans that include abortion on demand. It requires a premium to cover “all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde Amendment.”

The claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion in the health care proposal is an “illusion,” Cardinal Rigali said.

“Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions,” he continued, warning that those who must purchase the public health plan will be “forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage.”

“Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent,” the cardinal alerted the representatives, saying this is the opposite of current policy

.

Reports from Obama's healthcare town meeting in New Hampshire state there were 1800 protesters outside that weren't let in -- and amazingly, everyone who was let in was a fan of Obama and his healthcare reform.

It was staged.

They used an 11 year old as a plant.

A girl from Malden asked President Obama a question at Tuesday’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire about the signs outside “saying mean things” about his health care proposal.

Eleven-year-old Julia Hall asked: “How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can — that help more of us?”

Michelle Malkin points out:

Manning Hall has donated thousands of dollars to Obama, as has her law firm.

But, you know, um, like Obama said: “I don’t want people saying I just have a bunch of plants in here.”...

” I have been honored to work with Kathleen Manning Hall on the New England Finance and Steering Committee for Barack Obama for over a year. She has raised money, slogged through the snow in New Hampshire and has devoted every minute of her time toward electing Barack Obama President of the United States. She has not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. Please elect her as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention to vote for Barack Obama.”

Creepy.

The Blood on the Cardinal's Hands

Excellent Article by Phil Lawler on Caritas Abortion Business

One update - the Commonwealth Family Health Plan structure has been abandoned.

The Cardinal and Caritas on May 5th created Celtic Care Health Care Plan of Massachusetts, Inc. The Cardinal gave the go-ahead for Caritas Christi Health Care to invest in, become a partner in, be a substantial shareholder in, Celtic Care Health Plan of Massachusetts, Inc. The Articles of Organization can be viewed at the Massachusetts Secretary of State. In this arrangement, when the women and patients are "referred" out for abortions and other services - guess whose number they will be given? Celtic Care. Celtic Care Health Care Plan of Massachusetts, Inc., is a business venture of the Cardinal Archbishop and the Archdiocese of Boston.

One other thing worth repeating:

On March 5th, the Cardinal said:

“I want to confirm for the Catholic community and the wider interested public that Caritas Christi Health Care has assured me that it will not be engaged in any procedures nor draw any benefits from any relationship which violate the Church’s moral teaching..."

Let's look at the compelling part about whether the Cardinal is being hoodwinked or whether he knows that the contract violates Church teaching:


“I want to confirm for the Catholic community and the wider interested public that Caritas Christi Health Care has assured me that it will not...draw any benefits from any relationship which violate the Church’s moral teaching..."


The Cardinal knows that the contract will force people to commit moral evils. Period. There is a profound lack of concern for the souls who will have to carry out those moral evils and who will have those moral evils performed upon them. Lastly, the idea that Caritas is doing all this to help the poor people and will not benefit by any of it is simply untrue. They explicitly promised to kill infants so they could win a lucrative contract. Of course there is benefit.



Also, Cardinal O'Malley and Caritas are putting together another acquisition and hoping to use it as the model to advance forward.

Landmark Medical Center, on the brink of collapse a year ago, may be finding its road to survival.

Jonathan N. Savage, the lawyer who was court-appointed last June to run the troubled Woonsocket hospital, said he’s hopeful the hospital will soon announce a partnership that will keep it afloat.

“I hope we’ll have some positive news to report prior to the sixth interim report,” Savage told Superior Court Judge Michael A. Silverstein on Friday, while delivering his fifth interim report. The sixth report is expected in four weeks.

Hospital officials have long asserted that Landmark cannot survive on its own; they have been looking for a buyer both in state and out of state. In a phone interview Friday, hospital spokesman Bill Fischer hinted that Landmark was working on an innovative arrangement. “If we accomplish this,” he said, “I think there are other hospitals that will look at this model.”Unionized employees received a letter a couple of months ago naming Caritas Christi Health Care as a potential partner for Landmark, according to Chris Callaci, staff representative with the United Nurses and Allied Professionals, a union representing 500 Landmark workers. Caritas Christi is a Catholic chain of six hospitals in Massachusetts, including St. Anne’s Hospital in Fall River.

Fischer, the hospital spokesman, said that employees received the letter when Landmark was in the midst of a “due diligence process” with Caritas. “These people were coming into the hospital,” he said. “We thought it would be appropriate to inform employees who they were.” Fischer declined to say whether the negotiations progressed after that.

The Superior Court appointed Savage to take control of the hospital on June 26, after Landmark petitioned for help because it was in danger of closing within six to nine months. Although called a “special master,” Savage is like a receiver, and functions as the hospital’s chief executive and board chairman. His court-supervised role gives him powers that the previous hospital management did not possess, including the right to renegotiate contracts and to defer payments.

This Deserves It's Own Post

Keep your eye on this story and comments.

Hot off the Press: Boston Archdiocese Gospel of Life Non-Referral Memo

Cardinal O'Malley Gets Support of Leading Theologians on a confidential hot off the press Non-Referall Memo for diocescan standards of care to Boston's poor and vulnerable citizens.

• You're eligible for an abortion but we don't do them here, call the 24-hour abortion hotline and they'll set up the appointment.

• We don't do Mercy killings here but here's a quarter. Go call Jack Kevorkian.

"For some of these prolife groups, no cooperation with evil is ever justified, but that's more of a prophetic stand, a new way of applying the tradition," said Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at the University of Notre Dame.

• We don't sell blow. Here's a crack pipe and the number of the neighborhood dealer.

• We're not permitted to kill. Take this scalpel and a copy of OJ Simpson's "If I did it" and we'll see you for follow up in six weeks.

Those who are 'appalled' by these actions are of course entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts. Neither the Catholic moral tradition, nor the current Magisterium of the Church, has said that we absolutely cannot cooperate (or tolerate) in systems and/or actions that might be considered objectively immoral, said Rev. James Bretzke, professor of moral theology, Boston College School of Theology and Ministry

• These old sick priest are sucking our wallets dry. When retired priests get sick, throw them out of Regina Cleary, cut off their health insurance, reduce their salary to 500 a month and refer them to the shelters. We need resources to care for the sick and poor.

At a time when the Cardinal and Archdiocese are striving to combat the morally unacceptable fact of 47 million uninsured people in this country, it will already be a scandal if the most vocal Catholic response is a debate about 'the principle of cooperation.' Where is the Catholic debate about the best way to ensure health care for all?", said Lisa Sowle Cahill

• Thou shall not steal. You have a new baby. You're poor. The mother of those triplets in the bed beside you will never miss her Coach bag.

• If the contract compels us to promote abortion to the women, we can wash our hands of it. We'll give out Centene's number but not for the purposes of attaining the abortion (nudge-nudge/wink-wink). Centene's employees will be guilty of dialing the abortionist's number. If they're dumb and misguided enough to carry out the plan, I won't be held responsible. Let them eat cake.
  

"As I look at the way Caritas Christi has structured this arrangement, it allows them to be participants with the state in the care of the poor and the most vulnerable citizens of the state of Massachusetts in a way that brings the richness of their system and the caring nature of that system to the poor, without in any way violating any of the religious directives or the moral imperatives of our faith," said Sister Keehan of the Catholic Medical Association.

• We're not "willing" the cabbie to arrive at the abortionist from Caritas just because we give him the voucher to take her there. The abortionist would be killing children even if the Cardinal didn't order his employees to send them there. To hell with them all. Not my responsibility. They're pagans.

In other words, material cooperation refers to actions that may entail assistance in evil doing without the agent willing the evil action; formal cooperation signifies acts that are done with the agent’s will directed to the aim of attaining the evil, said Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of the theology department, Boston College:

• There's no hookers in the building. You can find them at the corner of Columbus and Mass Ave. Can I call you a cab?

"To be perfectly clear, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion, or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching, and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church," the cardinal blogged. "We are committed to the Gospel of Life, and no arrangement will be entered into unless it is completely in accord with Church teaching."

Julia Fleming, associate professor of ethics, Creighton University

"By their nature, decisions about scandal and mediate material cooperation require prudence, as well as sensitivity to the local conditions and particular circumstances surrounding such choices. This is why the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services emphasizes the discernment of the local bishop, rather than claiming that a simple rule can resolve all difficulties. The document also observes: 'Scandal can sometimes be avoided by an appropriate explanation of what is in fact being done at the health care facility under Catholic auspices' (No. 71). One should read Cardinal O¹Malley¹s careful statement in that light."

Oh, do we ever my dear.

Do we ever.

Cardinal O'Malley in Rome

This rumor has been floating around for a couple of days.

I just got confirmation from a reliable source that it's true.

Michael Steele: Another Jerk, Another Round of Rope a Dope with Prolifers

When our prolife hierarchy was trying to generate support for Michael Steele by saying he would get the RNC prolife agenda back on track , I was skeptical to get on Board.

I did at the urgings of prolifers I respect, but it now appears our skepticism is healthy:

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2009/03/the-reconstruct.html

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

How’d you miss the boat?
Well, we missed the boat in that we don’t talk about it. We don’t share that part of the story. We don’t understand and appreciate it enough to actually get out and articulate it. We miss it, we just completely miss it. We don’t see it for what it is, as a part of our philosophy. And so I’d like to see us do more of that, to engage in that conversation.

So, let me see if I have this straight.

In 2008, with middle class drowning prices of food and heating fuel we can't afford, we were stuck with Two Big Tents with abortion policies.

One Tent put a wealthy rabid abortion supporter at the helm who capitalized on Barney Frank's errors in judgment in giving houses to people who couldn't afford them and imploded the economy.

The other Tent tried to put a wealthy abortion supporter at the helm and when we didn't buy into the magical makeover and chased their guy off the stage, they replaced flip flop with a candidate who had a decent prolife history but he was wearing $2000 shoes saying the economy was healthy.

People suffering from the economic meltdown voted Democrat and the only people the RNC had left were prolifers who will never acquiesce, even if we are personally suffering.

For 2012, the wizards at the RNC reinvent themselves with the meme that they are prochoice - alienating the last people on board the Titanic.

Hey, prolifers don't mind being hijacked and manipulated but having two prochoice Tents, one of whom doesn't give a rat's ass about the poor, I'd be shocked if the RNC will ever see power again in our lifetime.

Last election a great many prolifers drifted into a third party candidate or sat out the race. This time, there's isn't any breathing bodies in the grassroots prolife camp willing to take the soundbytes of the RNC seriously.

Adios!

What Else is Leaving the Boston Chancery in a Taxicab?

-----Original Message-----
From: cmmckinley@aol.com
To: nturnbul@hsph.harvard.edu
Cc: archbishopsean@rcab.org; Vicar_General@rcab.org; klazar@globe.com; mpaulson@globe.com; jimk@firstbristol.com
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 9:57 am
Subject: Re: Caritas bid/Commonwealth Care

Nancy,

I did want to state for your information, that if the Cardinal does not swiftly reject this contract, through the Massachusetts 501 C3 "Let Catholics Work, Inc.", practicing Catholics are preparing to seek an emergency injunction in superior court against all the parties relative to the execution of this contract. The Cardinal Archbishop will not be the sole defendant in the action. Our attorneys are woking out the details as we speak. Any person or persons who will have to leave their jobs as doctors, nurses, healthcare providers will be invited to be a party to this suit which will seek damages.

As you know, Cardinal O'Malley has spent the last week circulating information within our Catholic networks to distort the facts and undermine the credibility of people defending our rights of Catholics to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to blockade Bryan Hehir's efforts to send poor women to an abortionist in a taxicab as part of the social justice mission of the Catholc Church.

If the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston need an ethicist to opine on whether forcing Catholics workers to give any woman, particularly a Catholic woman, any information that abortion is an option for her and make sure she has a ride to the abortionist, he is not competant to be in the role he is in and we will move forward in any way that we can to seek his removal from the Vatican. Quite frankly, we have no idea what other scandals are leaving the Chancery from a taxicab with his permission.

I want you to know that if we are unable to stop this abomination as we move national catholics into this argument, seek the assistance of the superior court, the Nuncio and the Vatican itself, we will ensure under the radar that as many women as possible who comes into Caritas Christi be given ultrasounds to see their babies and information that will lead them away from Bryan Hehir's abortion taxicab services.

Best, Carol McKinley



Cardinal Sean's blog post:

http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/

To be perfectly clear, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church. We are committed to the Gospel of Life and no arrangement will be entered into unless it is completely in accord with Church teaching.


Details from the Boston Globe:


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/13/mass_regulators_ok_joint_caritas_centene_healthcare_venture/

The Connector Authority board, which oversees the Commonwealth Care program, voted unanimously in favor of the joint venture proposed by Centene Corp., a St. Louis-based health organization, and Caritas Christi Health Care Network.

The vote followed several closed-door sessions in which officials from Centene and Caritas, the minority partner in the joint venture, assured regulators that women will have "ready access" to family planning and reproductive services, an issue that sparked concerns from abortion foes and reproductive rights activists.

Among the written assurances are a pledge that medical staff operating under the Centene-Caritas insurance plan, known as Commonwealth Family Health Plan, will inform women of their healthcare options, including abortion. The insurers will also provide a toll-free customer service line, available around the clock, to inform women about where they can get contraception, sterilization, and other family planning services not offered in the immediate setting. In an emergency, a service representative will arrange transportation to the nearest appropriate facility, officials said.

The regulators promised to watch closely. "We will certainly monitor their performance," said Jon Kingsdale, the authority's executive director. "We will not allow them to start up or continue if they are not in compliance."

As a measure of the underlying tensions, four board members emphasized the need for oversight.

"I remain somewhat concerned about implementation," said Nonnie Burnes, state commissioner of insurance and a former Planned Parenthood board member. "I am willing to support this as long as we have some way to monitor this" in doctor's offices and other healthcare facilities.


While I appreciate the opportunity given to Caritas Christi to serve the poor through this agreement, I wish to reaffirm that this agreement can only be realized if the moral obligations for Catholic hospitals as articulated in the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are fulfilled at all times,O'Malley said. "To assure me that this agreement will provide for the integrity of the Catholic identity and practices of Caritas Christi Health Care System, I have asked the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the agreement and to assure me that it is faithful to Catholic principles."