We cross a line when we start calling those who disagree with us bad Catholics, and when we allow our politics to determine our faith.

To those on this thread who are casting stones at our organization, I encourage you to do some actual truth seeking of your own. Catholic League president Bill Donohue earns more than $350,000 per year spouting political propaganda. He knows that Catholics United has never received a dime from Mr. Soros, as well as the fact that Mr. Soros has donated generously to Catholic Charities. Regardless, Donohue insists on perpetuating these falsehoods.

In this respect, Mr. Donohue has much in common with those who insist that the health care reform act will fund abortion. The experts agree that it will not, and as far as I can tell, the only ones who believe otherwise have a vested political interest in cementing the abortion funding myth in the public mind. Indeed, the National Republican Congressional Committee was one of the first organizations to announce a campaign to exploit this myth in the upcoming elections. Other so-called “pro-life” groups merely followed the NRCC’s lead.

Chris Korzen
Executive Director
Catholics United

I posted a link in #18 that indicates that Catholics United is not telling the truth on this topic – nobody has responded to that. Nobody has posted anything by Dahlkemper of PA refuting it. Pro lifers are also frustrated by dishonesty, when it comes to this topic.

It is a medical procedure. If only other more costly, less effective medical procedures had been/would be discussed with this much interest, everyone’s healthcare bills would be lower today.

Geeze, I hate being a realist.

mj

ps…Ya know, the healthcare system, even the Cathoilc one would be obligated to treat (and cover) the client after a botched abortion.

This thread is not about changing the law on abortion, it is about how the new healthcare system will be able to use private insurers, that for the most part do cover elective abortions, without using federal funding.

I could post reams of stuff by Dr. Nathanson (above), who is more knowledgeable on this issue than anyone posting here. One of his memorable comments was that when NARAL was plotting strategy early on, someone suggested the phrase “It’s a woman’s choice” and everybody around that conference table laughed out loud, because (Nathanson’s description) none of them thought the American public would ever buy something so transparently stupid.

The Arizona law is “the law”, therefore by the “it’s the law” reasoning, it should never be overturned or discussed – everybody should just have their opinion and be left alone.

Two – The White house isn’t fighting the AZ law on “Moral” grounds. It’s fighting it on the constitutional grounds that individual states can’t enact and/or enforce their own immigration laws.

If people should always be allowed to keep something legal that is morally wrong, then the Civil War should not have been fought. That’s so simple a ten-year-old could understand it. The Dred Scot decision was scrapped. Roe v Wade will one day be scrapped. And by the way – isn’t the Arizona immigration law being fought by this White House – and on MORAL grounds??? That is all in answer to the “it’s the law” point. “It’s the law” is of NO interest to liberals when it’s a law they don’t like.