Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[Justin5 20]

Page 16

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/fox-news-poll-methodology-santorum-surge-obama/

Oops.

[Grumps 3,693]

Page 16

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/fox-news-poll-methodology-santorum-surge-obama/

Oops.

What a lame post! Overall, 61% agree with providing birth control. Do you really think that is the same as "do you agree with requiring individuals/organizations to provide birth control when doing so directly conflicts with their longheld religoius beliefs?"

Another interesting poll questions would be "Are you in favor of the government doing something you want even if it violates others' guaranteed Constitutional rights?

By the way, did you notice in the reference poll that 67% are in favor of the Keystone pipeline???? If the people are in favor of violating Constitutional rights then it is okay. If the people are in favor of a pipeline that would provide thousands of jobs and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil and likely lower gas prices then they are wrong. I am finally understanding liberals!!!!!

[RunInRed 16,360]

This isn't a big issue for me so forgive me for following this thread sporadically. Still, if this is what the right wants to run on in November, I say go for it. Perhaps, it's most telling about what's happening with the economy. Anywho, carry on.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

This isn't a big issue for me so forgive me for following this thread sporadically. Still, if this is what the right wants to run on in November, I say go for it. Perhaps, it's most telling about what's happening with the economy. Anywho, carry on.

I don't think it's all they would have to run on. But it's a component of a larger issue...namely that Obama is starting to send some very troubling signals about just what he believes our rights as Americans are. First he continued or in some cases strengthened the civil rights violations the Bush administration started with relation to the so-called War on Terror, embodied in his signing the NDAA. Then there was the recent case where the administration backed the EEOC in trying to have the government impose upon a place of worship who is or isn't considered a minister so they could dictate who they could hire or fire. That earned them a resounding 9-0 Supreme Court bare-ass spanking. Now this they presume to be able to scuttle the free exercise clause of the Constitution for a newly minted "right" for others to pay for your contraceptives, religious convictions be damned.

I'm truly beginning to wonder, other than the right to unfettered abortions, if this administration thinks we have any inalienable rights left at all.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

This isn't a big issue for me so forgive me for following this thread sporadically. Still, if this is what the right wants to run on in November, I say go for it. Perhaps, it's most telling about what's happening with the economy. Anywho, carry on.

I don't think it's all they would have to run on. But it's a component of a larger issue...namely that Obama is starting to send some very troubling signals about just what he believes our rights as Americans are. First he continued or in some cases strengthened the civil rights violations the Bush administration started with relation to the so-called War on Terror, embodied in his signing the NDAA. Then there was the recent case where the administration backed the EEOC in trying to have the government impose upon a place of worship who is or isn't considered a minister so they could dictate who they could hire or fire. That earned them a resounding 9-0 Supreme Court bare-ass spanking. Now this they presume to be able to scuttle the free exercise clause of the Constitution for a newly minted "right" for others to pay for your contraceptives, religious convictions be damned.

I'm truly beginning to wonder, other than the right to unfettered abortions, if this administration thinks we have any inalienable rights left at all.

Good luck trying to get traction with that charge.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Funny that the teabaggers didn't feel this threat to the Constitution when over 20 states had this policy.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

This isn't a big issue for me so forgive me for following this thread sporadically. Still, if this is what the right wants to run on in November, I say go for it. Perhaps, it's most telling about what's happening with the economy. Anywho, carry on.

I don't think it's all they would have to run on. But it's a component of a larger issue...namely that Obama is starting to send some very troubling signals about just what he believes our rights as Americans are. First he continued or in some cases strengthened the civil rights violations the Bush administration started with relation to the so-called War on Terror, embodied in his signing the NDAA. Then there was the recent case where the administration backed the EEOC in trying to have the government impose upon a place of worship who is or isn't considered a minister so they could dictate who they could hire or fire. That earned them a resounding 9-0 Supreme Court bare-ass spanking. Now this they presume to be able to scuttle the free exercise clause of the Constitution for a newly minted "right" for others to pay for your contraceptives, religious convictions be damned.

I'm truly beginning to wonder, other than the right to unfettered abortions, if this administration thinks we have any inalienable rights left at all.

Good luck trying to get traction with that charge.

I don't know if it'll "get traction" or not, I'm just stating the facts. Other than the right to have an abortion, I'm not seeing a strong stance by this administration for our constitutional rights. Exactly the opposite in fact. I'm seeing a developing pattern of contempt for those rights.

Perhaps you could show me some reassuring evidence to the contrary?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Funny that the teabaggers didn't feel this threat to the Constitution when over 20 states had this policy.

Funny that you're so factually challenged.

First as has been stated, everyone of those states, including the ones with the strictest policies, allowed organizations who self-insured to opt out. The other states all had other workarounds that allowed the religious organizations to avoid violating their consciences on this matter. None of these provisions were in the federal version.

Second, as has also been stated if you would read, it's not all that easy to keep up with what a state other than your own is doing unless you are an extremely vigilant person. I couldn't tell you 99% or more of the specific things going on in states that border us, much less ones in other areas of the country. But this is federal law. It affects everyone. That is why you're much more likely to get a reaction than some patchwork of differing state laws would.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

This isn't a big issue for me so forgive me for following this thread sporadically. Still, if this is what the right wants to run on in November, I say go for it. Perhaps, it's most telling about what's happening with the economy. Anywho, carry on.

I don't think it's all they would have to run on. But it's a component of a larger issue...namely that Obama is starting to send some very troubling signals about just what he believes our rights as Americans are. First he continued or in some cases strengthened the civil rights violations the Bush administration started with relation to the so-called War on Terror, embodied in his signing the NDAA. Then there was the recent case where the administration backed the EEOC in trying to have the government impose upon a place of worship who is or isn't considered a minister so they could dictate who they could hire or fire. That earned them a resounding 9-0 Supreme Court bare-ass spanking. Now this they presume to be able to scuttle the free exercise clause of the Constitution for a newly minted "right" for others to pay for your contraceptives, religious convictions be damned.

I'm truly beginning to wonder, other than the right to unfettered abortions, if this administration thinks we have any inalienable rights left at all.

Good luck trying to get traction with that charge.

I don't know if it'll "get traction" or not, I'm just stating the facts. Other than the right to have an abortion, I'm not seeing a strong stance by this administration for our constitutional rights. Exactly the opposite in fact. I'm seeing a developing pattern of contempt for those rights.

Perhaps you could show me some reassuring evidence to the contrary?

I don't share your concern on this issue, unless I see actual substance surrounding the "war on terror" concerns, i.e. implementing powers authorized by Congress that he states he doesn't intend to implement. BTW, losing before the Supreme Court isn't necessarily the problem as long as you respect and follow it.

You frame this particular issue (this thread topic) in a particular way that I'm not sure all people share. I don't agree that a file clerk at St. Mary's Hospital having birth control provided in her health care plan is a significant intrusion on right of the powers that be behind that hospital to practice their religion. Religious pacifists pay taxes to support the army, but are still free to practice pacifism. If there was a religion that had uncommon beliefs on what medical practices were permissible in their religion, i.e. cancer can only be treated through prayer, if they ran a school, should they be able to deny the janitor the ability to have traditional cancer treatment?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Here's my rundown on just the Bill of Rights issues:

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition - evidenced by the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision and this contraceptive mandate.

IV. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure - this began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. - also began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

VII. Right to a trial by jury - same as the last two.

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment - same as last two, plus Obama's continuation of the use of torture.

In some portions of the middle three, he made things worse by signing the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the executive branch unheard of power to detain and prosecute citizens.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

Here's my rundown on just the Bill of Rights issues:

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition - evidenced by the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision and this contraceptive mandate.

Did Obama accept that decision? Do you think he actually weighed in this case in the first place?

IV. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure - this began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Do you think Congress is willing to change this part of the act? Would a Republican President?

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. - also began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Ditto?

VII. Right to a trial by jury - same as the last two.

Ditto?

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment - same as last two, plus Obama's continuation of the use of torture.

Ditto? Where is torture employed? By whom?

In some portions of the middle three, he made things worse by signing the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the executive branch unheard of power to detain and prosecute citizens.

Why did he sign that act? Who passed it? Would a Republican President have signed it?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I don't share your concern on this issue, unless I see actual substance surrounding the "war on terror" concerns, i.e. implementing powers authorized by Congress that he states he doesn't intend to implement. BTW, losing before the Supreme Court isn't necessarily the problem as long as you respect and follow it.

I became concerned about it under the Bush Administration. Despite my problems with Obama on social issues, I had some hopes that at least he would fix these items. Instead in some cases he's made them worse and in others left them untouched.

And while I agree that obeying the SCOTUS decisions is of primary importance, it gives quite a deal of insight into his view on religious freedom that he would even pursue such a case. And it gives quite a bit of insight as to how completely off he was that even the liberal judges on the court, including one he appointed, facepalmed that case back into their face unanimously.

You frame this particular issue (this thread topic) in a particular way that I'm not sure all people share. I don't agree that a file clerk at St. Mary's Hospital having birth control provided in her health care plan is a significant intrusion on right of the powers that be behind that hospital to practice their religion. Religious pacifists pay taxes to support the army, but are still free to practice pacifism. If there was a religion that had uncommon beliefs on what medical practices were permissible in their religion, i.e. cancer can only be treated through prayer, if they ran a school, should they be able to deny the janitor the ability to have traditional cancer treatment?

If a religion has such extreme beliefs on medical treatment, they wouldn't provide health insurance to begin with, so the point is moot. But beyond that, it's an erroneous analogy. The Catholic Church isn't denying anyone the ability to have sterilization procedures, use contraception or even procure an abortion. They are refusing to PAY for those things on the medical coverage they provide. The employee is free to purchase some sort of supplemental rider to a policy to cover those things, use a pre-tax flex spending account for those things or take advantage of low-cost birth control available at all sorts of women's health clinics across the country. Montgomery has two of them for instance. They provide condoms for free to virtually anyone who walks in and asks. Oral contraceptives run about $10 or so a month. The 3-month shot Depo Provera will cost you $50 (less than $17 a month). This isn't breaking the bank here.

I'm not framing it in some odd fashion. There's a reason these provisions have been in place and that the states had avenues for the religious organizations to work around this problem. What HHS is pushing here is unprecedented.

Again, the file clerk or the nurse or the janitor at St. Mary's is not being forced at gunpoint to work for a Catholic organization anymore than I would be forced to work for a Jewish or Muslim charitable organization. But if they provided meals for the poor and their employees, it would not be within my rights to force them to cook me pork or shellfish. They are good enough to provide me a meal each day for lunch and the opportunity to work for a place whose overall mission I agree with. I would be grateful. People who choose to work for a Catholic organization know the score going in on this stuff. If they want to join in their mission to help the community and be grateful for having affordable health care coverage provided for them, great. If the coverage doesn't make them happy, move on. But to go work for them and demand they violate their consciences is illogical not to mention completely arrogant and ungrateful.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Here's my rundown on just the Bill of Rights issues:

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition - evidenced by the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision and this contraceptive mandate.

Did Obama accept that decision? Do you think he actually weighed in this case in the first place?

His administration backed the EEOC in pursuing this case all the way to the Supreme Court. If he disagreed with it, he sure did nothing to rein it in.

IV. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure - this began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Do you think Congress is willing to change this part of the act? Would a Republican President?

I don't know. I didn't like it under a Republican president. I would have hoped Obama would have pushed to scale it back to reasonable boundaries. He didn't do a thing even when he had a Democratic majority in Congress.

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. - also began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Ditto?

Ditto as well.

VII. Right to a trial by jury - same as the last two.

Ditto?

Same here.

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment - same as last two, plus Obama's continuation of the use of torture.

Ditto? Where is torture employed? By whom?

It's continuing to be performed by the CIA and other agencies of our government/military. The policy has not changed from the Bush administration.

In some portions of the middle three, he made things worse by signing the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the executive branch unheard of power to detain and prosecute citizens.

Why did he sign that act? Who passed it? Would a Republican President have signed it?

Irrelevant. He promised to oppose it, the reneged and signed it anyway under the same nonsensical BS the Bush people gave us about giving gov't the tools to keep us safe. Congress passed it, he could have vetoed it. I don't know if a Republican president would have signed it, I just know he did.

So if we're keeping score he's managed to worsen or keep intact all the abuses of the Bush administration while adding attacks on the free exercise clause to the arsenal. Not comforting. I know that at the least a GOP president would roll back the religious stuff. It wouldn't be where I believe we need to be on civil rights, but it would be progress for where we are now.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

I don't share your concern on this issue, unless I see actual substance surrounding the "war on terror" concerns, i.e. implementing powers authorized by Congress that he states he doesn't intend to implement. BTW, losing before the Supreme Court isn't necessarily the problem as long as you respect and follow it.

I became concerned about it under the Bush Administration. Despite my problems with Obama on social issues, I had some hopes that at least he would fix these items. Instead in some cases he's made them worse and in others left them untouched.

And while I agree that obeying the SCOTUS decisions is of primary importance, it gives quite a deal of insight into his view on religious freedom that he would even pursue such a case. And it gives quite a bit of insight as to how completely off he was that even the liberal judges on the court, including one he appointed, facepalmed that case back into their face unanimously.

You frame this particular issue (this thread topic) in a particular way that I'm not sure all people share. I don't agree that a file clerk at St. Mary's Hospital having birth control provided in her health care plan is a significant intrusion on right of the powers that be behind that hospital to practice their religion. Religious pacifists pay taxes to support the army, but are still free to practice pacifism. If there was a religion that had uncommon beliefs on what medical practices were permissible in their religion, i.e. cancer can only be treated through prayer, if they ran a school, should they be able to deny the janitor the ability to have traditional cancer treatment?

If a religion has such extreme beliefs on medical treatment, they wouldn't provide health insurance to begin with, so the point is moot. But beyond that, it's an erroneous analogy. The Catholic Church isn't denying anyone the ability to have sterilization procedures, use contraception or even procure an abortion. They are refusing to PAY for those things on the medical coverage they provide. The employee is free to purchase some sort of supplemental rider to a policy to cover those things, use a pre-tax flex spending account for those things or take advantage of low-cost birth control available at all sorts of women's health clinics across the country. Montgomery has two of them for instance. They provide condoms for free to virtually anyone who walks in and asks. Oral contraceptives run about $10 or so a month. The 3-month shot Depo Provera will cost you $50 (less than $17 a month). This isn't breaking the bank here.

I'm not framing it in some odd fashion. There's a reason these provisions have been in place and that the states had avenues for the religious organizations to work around this problem. What HHS is pushing here is unprecedented.

Again, the file clerk or the nurse or the janitor at St. Mary's is not being forced at gunpoint to work for a Catholic organization anymore than I would be forced to work for a Jewish or Muslim charitable organization. But if they provided meals for the poor and their employees, it would not be within my rights to force them to cook me pork or shellfish. They are good enough to provide me a meal each day for lunch and the opportunity to work for a place whose overall mission I agree with. I would be grateful. People who choose to work for a Catholic organization know the score going in on this stuff. If they want to join in their mission to help the community and be grateful for having affordable health care coverage provided for them, great. If the coverage doesn't make them happy, move on. But to go work for them and demand they violate their consciences is illogical not to mention completely arrogant and ungrateful.

Not following how your meal analogy applies here, but the primary reason I don't share you concern on this issue is this:

I don't agree that a file clerk at St. Mary's Hospital having birth control provided in her health care plan is a significant intrusion on right of the powers that be behind that hospital to practice their religion.

I don't think requiring providing routine, legal healthcare as part of a health care plan to assure a consistent standard is a meaningful prohibition of the individual Catholics in the church right to practice their religion in their personal lives as they see fit. You do.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

Here's my rundown on just the Bill of Rights issues:

I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition - evidenced by the recent 9-0 SCOTUS decision and this contraceptive mandate.

Did Obama accept that decision? Do you think he actually weighed in this case in the first place?

His administration backed the EEOC in pursuing this case all the way to the Supreme Court. If he disagreed with it, he sure did nothing to rein it in.

IV. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure - this began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Do you think Congress is willing to change this part of the act? Would a Republican President?

I don't know. I didn't like it under a Republican president. I would have hoped Obama would have pushed to scale it back to reasonable boundaries. He didn't do a thing even when he had a Democratic majority in Congress.

VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. - also began with the PATRIOT Act and other actions by the Bush Administration. Obama has left this virtually intact.

Ditto?

Ditto as well.

VII. Right to a trial by jury - same as the last two.

Ditto?

Same here.

VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment - same as last two, plus Obama's continuation of the use of torture.

Ditto? Where is torture employed? By whom?

It's continuing to be performed by the CIA and other agencies of our government/military. The policy has not changed from the Bush administration.

In some portions of the middle three, he made things worse by signing the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the executive branch unheard of power to detain and prosecute citizens.

Why did he sign that act? Who passed it? Would a Republican President have signed it?

Irrelevant. He promised to oppose it, the reneged and signed it anyway under the same nonsensical BS the Bush people gave us about giving gov't the tools to keep us safe. Congress passed it, he could have vetoed it. I don't know if a Republican president would have signed it, I just know he did.

So if we're keeping score he's managed to worsen or keep intact all the abuses of the Bush administration while adding attacks on the free exercise clause to the arsenal. Not comforting. I know that at the least a GOP president would roll back the religious stuff. It wouldn't be where I believe we need to be on civil rights, but it would be progress for where we are now.

Did you vote for McCain?

[TexasTiger 12,810]

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

[Auburn85 432]

Romney said he would support the NDAA

Santorum voted for the Patriot Act. In 2006, he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

So Santorum and Obama are one and the same when it comes to the Patriot Act and raising the debt ceiling.

Romney said he would sign the NDAA. Obama and Romney are one and the same when it comes to the NDAA and healthcare.

Obama signed NDAA into law. So what if he made a provision saying his administration wouldn't use key parts of it. It's a copout plain and simple. Leaves the door so wide open the hinges pop off and there is no door, for the next administration to use it. Heck, Obama could even change his mind when he is re-elected. I still think Obama will win in November.

Obama ran in 2008 on a platform of change. Made sure to distinguish himself on key issues compared to Bush and Republicans. Obama is the one that said he would bring the troops out of Iraq within 16 months, not Republicans or Bush. Obama said he'd close Gitmo, not Bush or Republicans. Again, this is what was supposed to seperate himself from Bush and Republicans.

Obama is compiling a record. Republicans under Bush and the Bush administration have a record. Instead we're playing hypotheticals on what a Republican congress or President would do? Why not face reality of today Feb 2012? You know, a reality where Obama is currently president and it's a split congress.

Let's face it, the Patriot Act and the most recent NDAA bill is "bipartisan." It wouldn't matter which party had a majority or which party occupies the White House, those things would pass. They have already passed.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Did you vote for McCain?

Yes. And my voting has evolved to the point where I wasn't going to support either party this time due to the Republicans continued enthusiasm for torture and PATRIOT Act stuff and Obama's full on embrace of the same. Not to mention I still disagree vehemently with Obama's policies on abortion. But with these last two religious liberty issues Obama has stepped into, he's given me reason to rethink that. I might not be able to find that candidate who respects our civil and legal rights AND opposes abortion AND respects religious liberty. But perhaps I can find one that at least gives me the last two. I'll even take neutrality on religion over the borderline hostility Obama's camp is demonstrating.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

Did you vote for McCain?

Yes. And my voting has evolved to the point where I wasn't going to support either party this time due to the Republicans continued enthusiasm for torture and PATRIOT Act stuff and Obama's full on embrace of the same. Not to mention I still disagree vehemently with Obama's policies on abortion. But with these last two religious liberty issues Obama has stepped into, he's given me reason to rethink that. I might not be able to find that candidate who respects our civil and legal rights AND opposes abortion AND respects religious liberty. But perhaps I can find one that at least gives me the last two. I'll even take neutrality on religion over the borderline hostility Obama's camp is demonstrating.

With all due respect, I have no doubt that you've grown far less comfortable with the Republican party, but I couldn't imagine you ever voting for Obama when it came down to it.

BTW, see the post above regarding the law since 2000-- Bush did nothing to overturn it. Neither did Republicans who controlled Congress.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

With all due respect, you're wrong. But it would take quite a problem on the conservative end for me to vote for anyone who is pro-choice, especially one so fervently committed to it as Obama. They would have to demonstrate some pretty good, detailed plans beyond "pass out more condoms" to show they were going to drastically reduce abortions from happening through other means. I actually voted for Harold Ford, Jr. for Senate back in 2006 for this reason. He helped craft the 90/10 initiative which garnered the support of Democrats for Life. But as it stands, I will still cast my vote for Ron Paul in the primary and then decide whether to stick with my plan to vote third party in the general election.

And in reference to the above law, religious organizations have been exempted the entire time...until now. It's a change in policy, not a continuation. The Catholic Church nor other Christians who now stand with them opposed companies offering contraceptives in their health care plans. They object to THEM being forced to violate their religious beliefs to do so themselves, even if they are a self-insuring organization.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

With all due respect, you're wrong. But it would take quite a problem on the conservative end for me to vote for anyone who is pro-choice, especially one so fervently committed to it as Obama. They would have to demonstrate some pretty good, detailed plans beyond "pass out more condoms" to show they were going to drastically reduce abortions from happening through other means. I actually voted for Harold Ford, Jr. for Senate back in 2006 for this reason. He helped craft the 90/10 initiative which garnered the support of Democrats for Life. But as it stands, I will still cast my vote for Ron Paul in the primary and then decide whether to stick with my plan to vote third party in the general election.

And in reference to the above law, religious organizations have been exempted the entire time...until now. It's a change in policy, not a continuation. The Catholic Church nor other Christians who now stand with them opposed companies offering contraceptives in their health care plans. They object to THEM being forced to violate their religious beliefs to do so themselves, even if they are a self-insuring organization.

Doesn't making birth control more easily accessible have a greater likelihood of reducing abortions?

And this is why I don't think I'm wrong. Obama is never going to satisfy you on this issue. He could propose repeal of the Patriot Act, refuse to sign the NDAA and you still would not vote for him, so lets call it what it is. Republicans love voters like you b/c the only thing they have to do in the end is claim to be against abortion-- they don't do anything about it once in office. The Republican congress nor Bush ever even proposed a Constitutional amendment to end it-- why not?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

It may reduce abortions. Then again, so would not catering to a worldview of sex as merely a recreational activity. Plus, I'm not opposed to contraception. But if the Catholic Church believes that not only is abortion wrong but so is severing the creative aspect of sex from it's unitive and romantic aspects by using artificial contraception, I'm not going to force them to pay for it.

And likewise, Democrats never have to worry about similarly ardent pro-choice people voting for Republicans no matter what they do.

But while I likely wouldn't have voted for Obama with his ardent pro-choice views, I have seen this election as my official "send a message to the GOP" year. Just drop out of supporting them any longer, even if it didn't mean I swung to the other side. I was just reading a prominent writer on the Catholic left who expressed virtually the same thing the opposite way. Nothing was going to make him vote Republican. He's a Democrat. But this issue had made him decide that unless Obama backed down, he could not and would not cast a vote for him this fall.

The problem for me is as you say...I'm frustrated by the lip service GOP folks give to abortion. And in the past I have sort of voted for them if for nothing else, just to keep it from getting worse. But what are my alternatives? Just tell me conscience to shut up and quit worrying about it? Vote for Democrats? Vote for doomed quixotic third party candidates? None of my choices are good. Some are less bad than others depending on all the surrounding issues.

But if you think this isn't a struggle and a source of utter frustration for me, you're terribly mistaken and I sort of take offense to you trivializing it as if I'm not wrestling with these matters greatly. Maybe it would be easier to swing from one party or the other if I had no basic, bedrock principles. I suppose that would make it all better.

As it is, I get to choose between the Stupid Evil Party or the Evil Stupid Party. Or someone who won't win. Yay.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

It may reduce abortions. Then again, so would not catering to a worldview of sex as merely a recreational activity. Plus, I'm not opposed to contraception. But if the Catholic Church believes that not only is abortion wrong but so is severing the creative aspect of sex from it's unitive and romantic aspects by using artificial contraception, I'm not going to force them to pay for it.

And likewise, Democrats never have to worry about similarly ardent pro-choice people voting for Republicans no matter what they do.

But while I likely wouldn't have voted for Obama with his ardent pro-choice views, I have seen this election as my official "send a message to the GOP" year. Just drop out of supporting them any longer, even if it didn't mean I swung to the other side. I was just reading a prominent writer on the Catholic left who expressed virtually the same thing the opposite way. Nothing was going to make him vote Republican. He's a Democrat. But this issue had made him decide that unless Obama backed down, he could not and would not cast a vote for him this fall.

The problem for me is as you say...I'm frustrated by the lip service GOP folks give to abortion. And in the past I have sort of voted for them if for nothing else, just to keep it from getting worse. But what are my alternatives? Just tell me conscience to shut up and quit worrying about it? Vote for Democrats? Vote for doomed quixotic third party candidates? None of my choices are good. Some are less bad than others depending on all the surrounding issues.

But if you think this isn't a struggle and a source of utter frustration for me, you're terribly mistaken and I sort of take offense to you trivializing it as if I'm not wrestling with these matters greatly. Maybe it would be easier to swing from one party or the other if I had no basic, bedrock principles. I suppose that would make it all better.

As it is, I get to choose between the Stupid Evil Party or the Evil Stupid Party. Or someone who won't win. Yay.

Well, I certainly wasn't intending to trivialize what I do sense is a genuine sense of frustration for you. My point was that knowing how strong your conviction was on the abortion issue, I couldn't imagine you voting for Obama, even if he could satisfy you on other fronts. I don't believe I have ever faulted you for that, but I do recognize it. And yes, there is an analogous group that is pro-choice for whom that is THE ultimate issue, but I think it is much smaller.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

If Obama's actual efforts on abortion were more in line with Harold Ford, Jr. I could be persuaded to vote for him. Or maybe Ford just needs to run himself. But as it stands right now, it looks like I'd get status quo on the War on Terror overreaches no matter who I vote for (unless I go third party). But with Obama I get the added bonus of hardcore advocate for abortion rights, plus tone-deafness on the free exercise of religion. Hell, meet in the middle somewhere. Disallow abortions after the point of viability as a starting point (currently around 20 weeks). Or at the point where the unborn child can feel pain. Both with obvious exceptions where the mother's life is in danger and even then make every effort to preserve the lives of both. But right now I get nothing.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

If Obama's actual efforts on abortion were more in line with Harold Ford, Jr. I could be persuaded to vote for him. Or maybe Ford just needs to run himself. But as it stands right now, it looks like I'd get status quo on the War on Terror overreaches no matter who I vote for (unless I go third party). But with Obama I get the added bonus of hardcore advocate for abortion rights, plus tone-deafness on the free exercise of religion. Hell, meet in the middle somewhere. Disallow abortions after the point of viability as a starting point (currently around 20 weeks). Or at the point where the unborn child can feel pain. Both with obvious exceptions where the mother's life is in danger and even then make every effort to preserve the lives of both. But right now I get nothing.

I think its an "overreach" to say it is truly "status quo on the War on Terror"-- does Obama even call it that? He has withdrawn from Iraq and will withdraw from Afghanistan sooner than Bush would have-- or Mitt, he claims. Perry even said he'd go back into Iraq. He doesn't beat his chest in the same way and doesn't insult our allies routinely. And I don't think their approach to torture is truly identical. But he has kept in place many key policies/authorities civil libertarians find objectionable. And I don't see any indication that he is going to satisfy you on the abortion issue pre-election or post-election. So the issue may be, do you trust the country to Santorum or vote 3rd party? I don't envy your choices.