psalm123

 By Christian Newswire  Thursday, December 24, 2009

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/—In response to this morning’s passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“On Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans a gift no one wants: abortion for all, at taxpayer- expense. Even more tragic, they can thank self- described ‘pro-life’ senators like Ben Nelson, Bob Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid for paving the way for legislation that will open the floodgates for the greatest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade.

“Today’s vote was a career-affecting vote. The senators who voted to advance this legislation should consider themselves on notice. Votes have consequences, and the Susan B. Anthony List will use all the resources at our disposal to educate their constituents about today’s result. As this debate moves forward, pro-life House members would do well to consider the impact of their own votes. Abortion is never good for women, and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any ‘health care’ debate.

 

( Read more... )

Does it surprise me that on Christmas Eve, our government could be voting on health care reform which would impose tax payer funded abortions on American citizens? Of course not.  With this administration, I could see it coming from a mile away.

The Obama administration is inching closer to using my tax dollars to fund abortion. If you want to live in a state of moral blindness, that's your business. Actually, abortion is everyone's business but I digress. Don't use my money to pay for the killing of babies in the womb.

We'll see how this turns out. As was expected, the politicians (especially those entrenched in the culture of death mentality) are purposefully  making the abortion issue a lot more complicated than it needs to be

http://www.jillstanek.com/


Thanks to Sebelius for explaining how public funding of abortions will work under the Senate healthcare plan, equally paid by all...

Let's go over that again. When reading the transcript bear in mind Sebelius was talking about the very same abortion compromise Ben Nelson claims to have negotiated...

 

( Read more... )

When a politician says that he/she has taken the issue of abortion to "prayer" and then goes and votes to support killing unborn babies, I have to ask, what god did they pray to? and what exactly does "prayer" mean to them?

Because I am too tired from my job and schoolwork (final exams coming up) to write anything, here is some American Papist! More twisted pro-abortion logic.

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Profiles in Callousness: Senators Feinstein, Boxer and Mikulski

The Rutherford Institute is calling for people to recognize the difference between "illegal" and "politically correct" in matters concerning Christmas.

The idea behind The Twelve Rules of Christmas is to give people an idea of what they can and cannot legally do in the workplace and at school. John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, says that political correctness is often confused with the law.

"As our 'Twelve Rules of Christmas' show, there [are] a lot of things that you can do in the schools that are legal -- and they are legal," he emphasizes. "It's just political correctness now that removes Christmas from public schools because of those first six letters of the word 'Christmas': Christ."

A few years ago, the Rutherford Institute advised a group of people just outside of Chicago in a case where political correctness "sabotaged" Christmas celebrations.

"They had eliminated all the Christmas programs from the schools, [so some of the parents] talked to us. We gave them the Twelve Rules of Christmas. About 200 people went to a school board meeting" -- and according to the attorney, school officials reinstated traditional holiday celebrations. Whitehead contends that "this is what you can do with the Twelve Rules of Christmas."

The Twelve Rules of Christmas®

(Compiled by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute)

Unfortunately, Christmas has become a time of controversy over what can or cannot be done in terms of celebrating the holiday. In order to clear up much of the misunderstanding, the following twelve rules are offered:

1. Public school students’ written or spoken personal expressions concerning the religious significance of Christmas (e.g., T-shirts with the slogan, “Jesus Is the Reason for the Season”) may not be censored by school officials absent evidence that the speech would cause a substantial disruption.1

2. So long as teachers are generally permitted to wear clothing or jewelry or have personal items expressing their views about the holidays, Christian teachers may not be prohibited from similarly expressing their views by wearing Christmas-related clothing or jewelry or carrying Christmas-related personal items.2

3. Public schools may teach students about the Christmas holiday, including its religious significance, so long as it is taught objectively for secular purposes such as its historical or cultural importance, and not for the purpose of promoting Christianity.3

4. Public school teachers may send Christmas cards to the families of their students so long as they do so on their own time, outside of school hours.4

5. Public schools may include Christmas music, including those with religious themes, in their choral programs if the songs are included for a secular purpose such as their musical quality or cultural value or if the songs are part of an overall performance including other holiday songs relating to Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or other similar holidays.5

6. Public schools may not require students to sing Christmas songs whose messages conflict with the students’ own religious or nonreligious beliefs.6

7. Public school students may not be prohibited from distributing literature to fellow students concerning the Christmas holiday or invitations to church Christmas events on the same terms that they would be allowed to distribute other literature that is not related to schoolwork.7

8. Private citizens or groups may display crèches or other Christmas symbols in public parks subject to the same reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that would apply to other similar displays.8

9. Government entities may erect and maintain celebrations of the Christmas holiday, such as Christmas trees and Christmas light displays, and may include crèches in their displays at least so long as the purpose for including the crèche is not to promote its religious content and it is placed in context with other symbols of the Holiday season as part of an effort to celebrate the public Christmas holiday through its traditional symbols.9

10. Neither public nor private employers may prevent employees from decorating their offices for Christmas, playing Christmas music, or wearing clothing related to Christmas merely because of their religious content so long as these activities are not used to harass or intimidate others.10

11. Public or private employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs require that they not work on Christmas must be reasonably accommodated by their employers unless granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.11

12. Government recognition of Christmas as a public holiday and granting government employees a paid holiday for Christmas does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.12

For more information, email The Rutherford Institute at staff@rutherford.org.

To request assistance, complete our online form or contact our Legal Department at (434) 978-3888.

( Endnotes )

No surprise that the ACLU would be getting their hands dirty in trying to shoot down a personhood initiative.

"To me it's clear evidence we're doing the right thing, because they only found out about this a month ago, and they're already suing. They're afraid it might protect the unborn,"

By Kathleen Gilbert
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, December 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the latest in a string of court proceedings against personhood initiatives nationwide, the Alaskan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is backing a lawsuit against state officials for giving voters an opportunity to decide on a ballot initiative that would declare all human beings "persons."
The suit alleges that the proposed language does not adequately present to voters the possible consequences of its enactment, such as the outlawing of abortion, and thus Lieutenant Governor Craig Campbell should not have approved it. Plaintiffs, including Vic Fisher, a former Alaska Democratic legislator, argue that the signature-collecting process should be halted immediately.
The proposed ballot measure states: "All human beings, from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms, including the single-cell embryo ... shall be recognized as legal persons in the state of Alaska."
The office of Alaska attorney general Daniel Sullivan in October issued an opinion favoring introduction of the initiative in its current form, saying that whatever impact it may have on existing state law would be left to the interpretation of state courts. The initiative's backers will begin collecting signatures next month, aiming for a spot on the 2012 ballot.
Alaska Civil Liberties Union executive director Jeffrey Mittman called the initiative "insane," and argued that the personhood language could have unforeseen consequences such as requiring unborn children to receive Permanent Fund dividend checks.
Christopher Kurka, the initiative's sponsor, countered that his opponents were employing absurd scenarios to muddy the issue. He pointed out that dividends can only go to citizens, not just persons, and that therefore the persons in question must be born.
"To me it's clear evidence we're doing the right thing, because they only found out about this a month ago, and they're already suing. They're afraid it might protect the unborn," Christopher Kurka, the initiative's sponsor, told LifeSiteNews.com Monday.
"It seems the American Civil Liberties Union is not concern with protecting the civil liberties of unborn children," he added. "It's tragic."
Kurka acknowledged that one of the plaintiffs' cited fears was true: should personhood win voter approval, Kurka says he would challenge legislators to change abortion laws to recognize the measure.
The personhood initiatives in both Missouri and Nevada also became the subject of lawsuits by pro-abortion advocates earlier this month.
In 2007, Colorado's Planned Parenthood and ACLU also sued officials in that state for its personhood initiative, the first in the nation at the time. The initiative nonetheless made it onto Colorado's ballot the following year.

Say what you want about him, Michael Voris makes you think. Good stuff.

This has been a big story recently. Actually, the content of the story seems to date back a few years. Apparrently, the story was made public by Rep. Kennedy and not Bishop Tobin. This is another case of someone who is Catholic in name only who is either ignorant of the teachings of the Church or they have diminished doctrinal issues into the realm of personal opinion. The issue of abortion is a moral issue. Abortion is what the Church calls an intrinsic evil. There is no wiggle room for subjectivity in relation the the major moral implications involved here. No Catholic in good standing can participate in or directly and knowingly support abortion. To think you can willfully support an intrinsic moral evil and still remain 'in good standing' with the Holy Roman Catholic Church is to admit ignorance of your own so-called Catholic faith. In this case, you need to swallow your pride and do some homework.

"While some critics of Bishop Tobin invoke Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about the “wall of separation between Church and State,” Roff said this line appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and the phrase is his own opinion as president in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut."

Washington D.C., Nov 25, 2009 / 04:40 am (CNA).- A non-Catholic political expert says Bishop Thomas Tobin’s request that U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy refrain from receiving Holy Communion is “eminently reasonable” and an “appropriate” encouragement of the Congressman to examine his commitment to his faith.
Rep. Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat and son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, was criticized by Bishop Tobin of Providence for his attacks on the Catholic bishops’ opposition to abortion funding in health care legislation. Recently, Kennedy revealed that Bishop Tobin had asked him to refrain from receiving communion because of his public contradiction of Catholic teaching.
Peter Roff, a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and a former senior political writer for United Press International, wrote at FoxNews.com that Americans look to “our institutions of faith” to define moral issues like abortion. Though not a Catholic, he said he understands the hierarchical nature of the Church and the role doctrine plays within it.
Speaking with “the greatest respect,” he said that the Catholic Church is not a place where “free thinking” about doctrinal issues is encouraged.
“There is such thing as absolute truth and not all things are relative or left to the discretion of the believer,” Roff continued. If Rep. Kennedy wishes to consider himself Catholic, he should “show appropriate deference to church teachings” about life beginning at conception and about abortion being a sin.
“By asking Kennedy to act of his own volition, rather than threaten to deny him the sacraments or ordering those subservient to him in the church to refuse to offer them, Bishop Tobin is encouraging the Congressman to consider his commitment to his faith -- something one should argue is the appropriate role for a member of the clergy,” Roff commented.
He said the issue is being “spun” as a case of a church trying to impose its will on politicians who represent a “cross-section of the world’s religions.”
While some critics of Bishop Tobin invoke Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about the “wall of separation between Church and State,” Roff said this line appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and the phrase is his own opinion as president in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.
Nowhere does Jefferson suggest that the church should be “prohibited from enforcing its own disciplines within its own walls among its own members, even where matters of public policy are concerned.”
The purpose of the First Amendment, in Roff’s view, was to “protect the faithful from coercion by the state,” not to protect the state from “interference from the church.”
However, he said, it is hard to see how Bishop Tobin’s request is interference.
“If Congressman Kennedy wishes his church to consider him a Catholic in good standing, then he best pay attention to its concerns and act accordingly,” Roff’s essay at FoxNews.com concluded.

While "the Church cannot judge their subjectivity," he added, those who "directly collaborate" in or promote abortion incur excommunication.

Nancy Pelosi and other 'pro-abortion' Catholics really should pay attention to their Bishops (assuming their Bishops have done their jobs). Receiving Holy Communion while in the state of serious sin is itself a grave sin. I don't suppose a pro-abortion Catholic would follow that teaching either.

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
MADRID, November 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The secretary general of the Spanish bishops' conference, Auxiliary Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino of Madrid, warned that Spanish Catholic legislators who vote in favor of a bill to liberalize abortion which is currently before parliament would publicly place themselves in an "objective state of sin" and therefore may not receive Communion.
"Excommunication is provided in the Code of Canon Law for those who cooperate actively in the practice of abortion," Bishop Martinez Camino stated in an AFP report.
He said Catholics cannot support the legalization of abortion and if they do "they will objectively find themselves in a public state of sin and may not be admitted to Holy Communion."
While "the Church cannot judge their subjectivity," he added, those who "directly collaborate" in or promote abortion incur excommunication.
At the same time, Bishop Martinez Camino said the Church reaches out to women who have had an abortion or who are tempted to abort.
Encouraging those who have aborted to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, he said, "Those who have not gone to confession are encouraged to do so because God wants to offer them a solution and deep peace."
The Church "is not merciless towards those who fall into sin," he continued, and while she "defends the rights of the innocents," she is "conscious of the problem that [abortion] entails."
The bishop then praised doctors and health care workers who promote the cause of life and conscientiously object "with civic and moral courage" to participate in abortion. Warning against the "grave manipulation" of portraying abortion as a medical procedure, he said "abortion is never a cure because pregnancy is not a disease."

"Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?"


CHURCH’S CRITICS WANT GAG RULE

November 13, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Getting Nancy Pelosi to accept a health care bill that bans federal funds for abortion was the greatest victory scored by U.S. bishops in a generation. It also unleashed an unprecedented attempt to censor them. Their latest enemy is Geoffrey Stone writing in the Huffington Post.

Stone finds it troubling that the bishops are so vocal. He yearns for a time when JFK was president, a time when separation of church and state met his approval. Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?

As the following list discloses, Stone is hardly alone in trying to censor the bishops: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Frances Kissling, Planned Parenthood, Feminist Majority, Catholics for Choice, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Organization for Women, and many others favor a gag rule. On Nov. 12, Nancy Snyderman of MSNBC spoke for many when she said that “This is going to be a Pollyannaish statement. The Catholic bishops appearing and having a political voice seems to be a most fundamental violation of church and state.” Brilliant.

The following is a partial list of religious groups that want abortion coverage in the health care bill: Rabbinical Assembly, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, Episcopal Church, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, North American Federation of Temple Youth, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Women of Reform Judaism, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Lutheran Women’s Caucus, Christian Lesbians Out, YWCA.

So why don’t Stone and company want to gag these groups as well? Let’s face it: they don’t have a principled bone in their collective bodies.

Here is the entire letter written by Bishop Tobin to Congressman Patrick Kennedy.

"What does it mean to be a Catholic?"

"In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic?"

Dear Congressman Kennedy

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

"The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

We hear different versions of this statement among Catholics worldwide from high ranking politicians to the regular pew-sitters like you and me. Statements like this admit to a perceived detachment between what the Church teaches officially and what the faithful are obliged to follow. Nobody is saying that you can't intellectually disagree with some teaching of the church. Although most disagreements toward church teachings seem to be emotionally or morally based rather than intellectual. People don't want to change the way they live their lives. Nobody is saying to follow blindly. What is important is that you follow official teachings. You may disagree with Church teaching on contraception for example. Well, you are still expected to follow what the church says. In the meantime you need to explore the reasoning behind the teaching so that you can come to understand better why the church teaches what it does. Put in the time and do the research. This is the part that many Catholics refuse to do. The result is a cafeteria approach to the faith where people pick and choose what they want to believe. Usually they do so with an ignorance of the reasoning and full understanding of church teaching. Personal beliefs then trump what the Church founded by Christ Himself teaches. Yeah, you can see the problem.

This is a Bishop doing what he is supposed to do. As the local leader of his flock, it is his job to call attention to and correct the scandalous public behavior of this wayward "catholic" politician. Politicians who call themselves Catholic and yet publicly dissent from official teachings of the church such as with abortion need to be corrected.  This will go a long way in at least sparking discussion among Catholics who feel it's perfectly acceptable to pick and choose which Church teachings they want to agree with while still remaining "faithful" or " in good standing with the church". It doesn't work that way. There is no room for 'cafeteria catholicism'.  People need to explore why the pick and choose approach to the faith is false. The Catholic Church is the Church given the task of proclaiming the truth of Christ. If you disagree with the church on doctrinal issues, ultimately you disagree with Christ.  That's a hard pill for some people to swallow but it's the truth.  Here we see the Bishop pointing out error with love and genuine compassion.

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Fireworks: Bishop Tobin escalates episcopal correction of Rep. Kennedy

 

Congressman Kennedy picked the wrong Bishop to mess with.

The back-and-forth between Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI has been interesting to watch, especially because Kennedy has attempted to defend himself with every old, tired argument in the liberal playbook.Because I'm a spoiler, I'm going to quote the last part of Bishop Tobin's public letter to Kennedy - but you should take the time and read the whole thing:Next step: official censure or excommunication. Rep. Kennedy has now been publicly rebuked and invited to convert and offer repentance.Unfortunately, at this point, Mr. Kennedy has broken off his planned meeting with Bishop Tobin. Whatever Kennedy may be thinking, that's not the right way to set things right.

I'm getting so tired of this topic but I know the fight is long from being over. People consistently vote 'gay marriage' down while politicians and activist judges bring it back to life again and again. When engaging in discussions with 'gay marriage' activists it's a lot of the same rhetoric I hear when engaging those who support abortion. That's not very productive.

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Alert: Gov. Patterson plans to push gay marriage in NY next tuesday

No less than one week after the American people, for the 31st time, clearly rejected homosexual marriage when given a chance to vote on the issue, the highly-unpopular governor of New York is attempting to force it on his state before he leaves office:I'm trying to figure out a clear action item in response to this story, so papists can get involved, and when I find it, I'll post it.

Here is a look back at a video RealCatholicTV produced six months ago about Obama and the Catholic Church that has reportedly gotten a million hits on youtube.  I remember hearing something during the election about Obama being one to unite the country. Really? I don't see it.  Pushing radical social agendas on the American people is his way of uniting?

Copied from  http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Action: Stop PelosiCare before it gets voted on this Saturday

The latest in the increasingly confusing health care reform package. One side says taxpayer funded abortion is not part of the deal while the other side says it is part of the deal. Seems to me that killing babies is extremely important for some. They duck and dodge and try to implement abortion into the plan by stealth and deception.  That's my perception.

Washington D.C., Nov 5, 2009 / 09:17 pm (CNA).- House Republican Leader John Boehner said today the House health care bill, which was backed today by the AARP and the American Medical Association, includes a monthly abortion premium that all subscribers in the government-run plan would have to pay.

In a blog post on Thursday, Boehner says that “Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care” is using “federal funds to pay for elective abortions.”

The House Republican Leader explains that on line 17, p. 110, section 222 under the title “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed,” the Health and Human Services Secretary “is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.” 

“The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions,” he adds.

According to Boehner, “what is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under ‘Insurance Rating Rules.’  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”

Section 213, in fact, describes the process by which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

“A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage,” Boehner writes.

“Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.”

“Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it,” Boehner says.

Read House Republican Leader’s post: http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666

This sounds reasonable to me. Let us wait and see what happens.

USCCB To Congress- Fix Health Bills or We'll Oppose.

This just in from the USCCB Pro-life Secretariat. The bishops are throwing down the gauntlet over failed amendments to fix abortion, conscience, affordability and immigrants in health care bills. This letter is dated October 8 and was sent to all members of the House and Senate:

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. We remain committed to working with the Administration, Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.

We continue to urge you to

1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. No current bill meets this test.

2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level.

3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered.

We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.

Sincerely,

Bishop William F. Murphy
Diocese of Rockville Centre
Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice
& Human Development

Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Chairman
Committee on Pro-Life
Activities

Bishop John Wester
Diocese of Salt Lake City
Chairman
Committee on Migration

I knew as soon as I heard the news about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize that comparisons were going to be made between himself and mother Teresa. I think the comparisons need to be made if for anything, to show a perspective other than what pop-culture has to offer.  There are many who contend that there is a worldwide war waged against the most innocent of people- the unborn.  In this country alone over 4,000 children per day are killed in the womb. Our president supports this murder both in our country and overseas. How can this man be considered a promoter of peace? There is a bigger picture involved that many people don't want to consider.

"I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself." -Mother Teresa-The Nobel Peace Prize Lecture 1979

Pro-Abortion President Obama Not Fit to Share Nobel Prize With Mother Teresa

by Maria Vitale
LifeNews.com Editorial Columnist
October 9, 2009

President Barack Obama and the late Mother Teresa have something in common—both were named part of the elite class known as Nobel Peace Prize winners.

 

In accepting the 1979 Nobel Prize, the little nun with the big heart said, "I choose the poverty of our poor people. But I am grateful to receive (the Nobel) in the name of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared-for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone."

 

The Nobel Committee cited her respect for the individual human being, that she believed in the dignity of all people and acted on that belief. The Committee noted that the struggle against poverty is a means for obtaining peace in the world.

 

One of the greatest advocates for the poor the world has ever known, Mother Teresa recognized that true and lasting peace begins not at the United Nations, but in the home. And she steadfastly believed that peace could not be attained while children were being killed in the womb.

 

In her Nobel lecture, the diminutive woman who was a spiritual giant famously said, “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.”

 

Contrast that to the rhetoric and record of President Obama.

In his political career, he has consistently supported legal abortion—even going so far as to oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which provided basic legal protection for children born alive as a result of botched abortions.

 

In less than a year as President, he has forced taxpayers to support organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas; signed an executive order forcing taxpayers to pay for anti-life embryonic stem cell research; promoted an unlimited right to abortion at the United Nations; promoted taxpayer-funded abortions in the nation’s capital; and nominated a host of pro-abortion zealots to top Administration posts.

 

While the President has claimed that no federal dollars would be spent on abortions in health care reform, the health care plans now on Capitol Hill would do just that. It is no stretch of the imagination to claim that the Obama Administration is the most pro-abortion Presidency in U.S. history.

 

No matter what elegant speeches the President might deliver on Middle East peace, nuclear arms reduction, or combating global poverty, his words ring hollow, so long as he is willing to promote policies that promote and finance life-destructive activities such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

 

President Obama should learn from a past Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Mother Teresa’s contention that abortion destroys peace is as true today as it was 30 years ago. If the President wants peace, he must work for justice—justice for preborn children, for anguished and abandoned mothers, and for fathers who are powerless to protect their babies in light of Roe v. Wade.