Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana

Lay Catholics Dedicated to Proclaiming Truth for Life

Welcome!

logoThe Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. The Brown Pelican provides news, articles, commentary and legislative scorecards for the interested and involved Lay Catholic activist. Check back daily for your arsenal of information!

March 2010
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Rep. Rogers’ Video of Obamacare Reaches Nearly 7 million at YouTube

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

RenewAmerica staff, March 10, 2010

When the president’s socialized health care plan was first introduced in Congress in July 2009, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) of the House Subcommittee on Health delivered a scathing — but common-sense — appraisal of “Obamacare,” labeling it a “travesty.”

The congressman’s remarks, made July 16, 2009, have since gone “viral” after they were posted on YouTube, where they have now been seen by over 6.9 million viewers.

In his remarks, Congressman Rogers, a former special agent with the FBI in Chicago, said:

“Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell you how much I’m disappointed at what a lost opportunity we have to solve a huge problem in health care [affecting] access and quality to some — even by your numbers — 46 million, and that’s about 15 percent of the American population. (more…)

Normalizing the Extraordinary Form: Priests Are Free to Celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at Any Time

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

BY EDWARD PENTIN, National Catholic Register,  3/9/10

CNS photo/David Crenshaw

The Vatican has issued a directive to a Polish diocese that emphasizes the freedom of priests to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form whenever they choose.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei made the clarification in January in a series of responses to questions from a Polish diocese, which sought clarification regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. The answers, which came to public attention in mid-February, concerned Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative).

However, the Vatican stresses that the clarification is addressed to a particular group and is “not a set of guidelines.” Officials are still working on a comprehensive set of guidelines on Summorum Pontificum, which are expected to be published soon.

Two points of the ruling are considered most significant: A Mass in the extraordinary form “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form,” and a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord.”

Another response also stipulates that the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Roman Missal “may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Roman Missal in Masses in the extraordinary form.”

Michael Dunnigan, chairman of Una Voce America, said the commission’s response “forcefully reaffirms both the plain meaning of Summorum Pontificum and also the rights of the laity and clergy who are devoted to the traditional Mass.” (more…)

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Ratings Not Good, But Does BHO Care?

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

RASSMUSEN, March 09, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends).

One year after reaching the lowest levels ever recorded by the Rasmussen Consumer Index, consumer confidence has bounced back and today is at the highest level recorded since September 2008. Nationally, 32% of adults say the U.S. economy is getting better but 42% say it’s getting worse. A year ago, just 12% felt the economy was improving, and 72% thought the economy was getting worse.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

New polling shows Republicans with the early edge in the Governor’s races for both Colorado and Ohio. Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina Wisconsin, and Texas.

The latest polling data can always be found on the Rasmussen Reports home page, updated with new data at least six times daily.

The New York Times Magazine has a feature on Rahm Emanuel that begins by describing how the White House Chief of Staff reacted to a Rasmussen Reports poll on the Massachusetts Senate race.

Forty-two percent (42%) favor the President’s health care plan while 53% are opposed. Most believe passage of the plan will increase the cost of health care. Fifty-five percent (55%) say that Congress should scrap the current health care legislation and start over……..CONTINUED…….

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


How the Takeover Works (The Real Health-Care Plan)

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

….The Senate can only pass one reconciliation bill per year, which is why the Democrats — who seem to intuit that they won’t be so numerous next year — are laying the groundwork for a health-plus-education 51-vote omnibus reconciliation package. But in a way, the combination of student loans and health care is very clarifying. On health care, we see the government annexation in its middle stages. On student loans, we see the endpoint of the process: a takeover cloaked in a budget gimmick….

The Editors, National Review, March 10, 2010

There is something poetic about the Democrats’ plan to combine the health-care reconciliation bill with legislation that would make the government the “single payer” in the market for student loans. From subsidies to a “public option” to an outright government takeover, the history of American college-loan policy offers an instructive illustration of how the government can absorb an activity incrementally, claiming to cherish the benefits the private sector provides — until it becomes inconvenient. At that point, the private sector is cast as the enemy of sound reform. If the Democrats’ plan succeeds, then their health-care reconciliation bill will include a foreshadowing of its final act. And we can look to the case of student loans for a preview.

Democrats argue that the government should not be paying private lenders large subsidies to make low fixed-rate loans to college students when it could simply turn this activity over to the Department of Education, save itself billions of dollars, and redirect that money into other education projects. “The banking industry has had a free ride from taxpayers for too long,” declared Education Secretary Arne Duncan. But the bankers did not pull these subsidies out of thin air. The government provided them in exchange for a service: lending money to students at low fixed rates, so that more may attend college. It is similar, though not identical, to the way the Democrats’ health-care bill would succor the insurance industry by subsidizing its product while forcing people to buy it.

In the early 1990s, a change in federal accounting rules allowed the government to budget less money for student loans if it lent directly rather than subsidizing interest rates and guaranteeing against default. But that was purely an accounting maneuver: The actual cost of the program did not change. That didn’t stop the Democrats from attempting the same thing in student loans they are attempting now with health care — a federal takeover on the grounds that it could “save” the government billions. They successfully created a “public option” for student loans, but Republicans took over Congress in 1994 before Democrats could make it the sole option. Democrats fought and were able to preserve the public option on the grounds that “students and schools are served by healthy competition in student loan programs, which has created marketplace incentives for both programs to improve.” This is the same rhetoric they used when they tried to sell us a public option for health care.

But thanks to student loans, we can see into the future — and we see how quickly Democrats dispense with the rhetoric of competition when they are itching to add an activity to government’s portfolio. Suddenly, competition offers no benefits worth speaking of — unless you’re one of the many student financial-aid officers who prefer the customer service that private lenders provide over the federal government’s DMV-style bottlenecks, which promise only to get worse.

When it comes to student loans, liberals may ask why conservatives would support subsidies and guarantees for banks. The answer is: We don’t. By increasing demand for higher education without increasing the supply, the subsidies have driven tuition skyward. And by muting incentives for banks to lend intelligently, government loan guarantees have encouraged many students, including many for whom college might not be a good fit, to take on massive amounts of debt that they can neither repay nor retire through bankruptcy. The solution to this problem is to scale back subsidies for traditional forms of higher education while encouraging low-cost alternatives. Instead, the Democrats’ education bill would massively increase the subsidies while hiding their true cost. If that is the alternative, we prefer the status quo.

The Senate can only pass one reconciliation bill per year, which is why the Democrats — who seem to intuit that they won’t be so numerous next year — are laying the groundwork for a health-plus-education 51-vote omnibus reconciliation package. But in a way, the combination of student loans and health care is very clarifying. On health care, we see the government annexation in its middle stages. On student loans, we see the endpoint of the process: a takeover cloaked in a budget gimmick, private-sector providers vilified as free-riding looters, and a very short memory when it comes to the benefits of competition.

The Democrats’ current health-care legislation isn’t the end game, and in their more candid moments, Democrats such as Barney Frank have been open about the fact that maneuvers such as the public option are just an effort to move the ball down the field toward the goal of a total federal takeover. If you want a look at their playbook, look at how they’ve handled student loans.

http://article.nationalreview.com/427454/the-real-health-care-plan/the-editors

Ungovernable Savages?

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

….there is a thin line between leadership and dictatorship . . . Obama — if he signs this reform into law — will be consciously thwarting the clearly expressed desires of a large majority of the American people . . . In the most recent Rasmussen poll, 76% rate their own health coverage as good or excellent. A vast majority of Americans fail to appreciate what their wise leaders are trying to do for them….

By Mason Boyer, American Thinker, March 09, 2010


Saying that Washington is broken is so yesterday.  Like denim, this sentiment will never go all the way out of style, and periodically it will rise to the height of fashion, but those on the cutting edge have moved on for now. It’s not Washington that’s broken — it’s the American people!
Bill Maher has been calling Americans stupid since last summer. Evan Thomas writes in Newsweek that Americans are typically irresponsible, fat, over-sexed, and think they are smarter than they really are. Thomas Friedman continuously laments in the New York Times that the American people are neither as enlightened nor as disciplined as the Chinese.


Robert Samuelson, holding nothing back, writes that Americans often “say things that are stupid, misleading or unattainable and think (or pretend) that these very same things are desirable, candid and realistic.”


President Obama’s biggest mistake with health care reform, then, was underestimating the depth of the electorate’s recalcitrance. He foolishly assumed that the majority of Americans were reasonable, that the evils of the current system and the benefits of his reform package were self-evident. Just in case, he spent all of last year telling us sad stories about the victims of the status quo and promising to right all the wrongs perpetrated by those dastardly insurance companies.


But too many Americans appear to have thick skulls, as evidenced by Scott Brown’s election in January. In the aftermath of Massachusetts, Obama expressed regret for being “so focused on just getting things done” that he didn’t take enough time to explain those things clearly to all the Neanderthals.


Unfortunately, the president’s renewed vigor hasn’t raised our collective IQ. According to a Zogby poll conducted in late January/early February, 69% of the more than 2,500 Americans questioned think that Congress should either go back to the drawing board or take a more incremental approach. A CNN poll in mid-February unearthed similar results: 73% want Congress to either start over on a new bill or stop working on health care reform altogether.


The average American clearly does not understand the magnitude of the crisis. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, 76% rate their own health coverage as good or excellent. A vast majority of Americans fail to appreciate what their wise leaders are trying to do for them, as only 25% believe that the proposed comprehensive reform will improve their own health care.


Obama seems to have finally accepted the bitter reality that the simplemindedness of the electorate is simply impenetrable. Last Wednesday, the president vowed to push forward with or without the support of the unenlightened, saying, “I do not know how [health care reform] plays politically, but I know it’s right.”


To be fair, a leader proceeding against popular sentiment because he believes it’s the right thing to do does need courage. William Galston argues in The New Republic that Obama is following the example set by George W. Bush, who stayed the course in Iraq despite mounting discontent and outright opposition.


But there is a thin line between leadership and dictatorship.


Unlike the proposed health care reform, the Iraq war was well-supported in its early days. According to Pew Research, in March of 2003, when the war began, 72% of Americans thought it was the right decision to use military force. By September of 2003, 64% of Americans still believed that we should keep troops in Iraq until the country is stabilized. President Bush did not take us to war against the expressed opinion of a large majority.


It wasn’t until mid-2005 — two full years later — that the percentages of Americans for and against the war began to pull even, developing into a steady majority opposition in 2007. By then, however, it was too late to cut and run, irrespective of popular opposition, because we had assumed responsibility for tens of millions of Iraqi lives. No serious leader, including now Obama, wanted all that blood on his hands.


With health care reform, Obama still has a choice. His proposal enjoyed slight majority support in its earliest conceptual days, but that support has been steadily declining. Unlike Bush, who had an overwhelming majority behind him when he gave our troops the command to open fire in Iraq, Obama — if he signs this reform into law — will be consciously thwarting the clearly expressed desires of a large majority of the American people.


President Obama, the consummate politician, has a lighter touch than the pundits. He knows that he can’t justify his belligerence by calling us stupid. In his impromptu press conference on February 9, he went instead with the also-fashionable sausage-making metaphor: “[T]he process … actually contaminates how [people] view the substance of the bills.”


Yes, sausage-making is ugly, but the hot dog is an American institution. We really don’t care much about — and would rather not see — how the sausage was made, so long as we like the way it tastes.


With the chains of tyranny fresh and heavy on their minds, the founding fathers designed a system that makes it hard for our elected officials to make sweeping intrusions into our lives. Sometimes — especially when times are tough and passions are inflamed — this style of government gets noisy, messy, and frustratingly ponderous, just as the founding fathers intended it to be.


Washington is not broken, we are not ungovernable savages, and we don’t have weak stomachs — it’s the sausage, stupid.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ungovernable_savages.html

Are You Dizzy Yet?

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

‘END’ OF THE ‘END GAME’ OR ‘THE END’?


TODAY: Obama pushing on health care end game (AP)

Last year:

July 28: Healthcare endgame on Capitol Hill (Reuters)

August 21: Analysis: Health care endgame near but uncertain (AP)

October 14: Senate, administration begin healthcare endgame as Dem leaders express unity (Hill)

October 25: Senators say health care bill endgame is in sight (Politico)

October 27: End Game: So When Will Health Care Really Happen? (TPM)

October 30: Health reform inches closer to endgame (WaPo)

November 23
: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)


HUMOR

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

The Haircut

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, “I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a “thank you” card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a police officer came in for a haircut and, when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, “I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The officer was happy and left the shop.

The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a “thank you” card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

A Congressman came in for a haircut and, when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, “I can not accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.

The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.

http://patriotpost.us/

Being Free vs. Living Under Tyranny

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Brief, Patriot Post, March 8, 2010

The Foundation

“No man in his senses can hesitate in choosing to be free, rather than a slave.”
–Alexander Hamilton



Liberty

“While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant’s primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people’s plans by the powerful elite. We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine’s warning that ‘Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.’”

–George Mason University economics professor
Walter E. Williams

http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/03/08/brief/

Padre Pio Devotions: Daily Reflection

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Blessed are those who for love of the Lord plunge headlong into trials and troubles without anger or sadness; when they escape, they soon reach safety in the harbor of the divinity, and through their good works come to God’s home and have rest from their troubles, rejoicing in their hope. Those who run the race of life in hope, are not frightened by the trials on the way. . .On reaching the end of their course they see the Lord, and praise him for having saved them from perdition.

- John Moschus

http://www.padrepiodevotions.org/reflection.asp

Is This the Most Ridiculous Statement of the Decade?

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

….But we have to pass the (health care) bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy…..

http://www.commonsensejournal.com/wp-content/images/nancy_pelosi.jpg

Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties

Nancy’s website: http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

The Shameless Abortion Carnival

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

….women are increasingly coming forward everywhere, just like the original “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey, publicly admitting the horror of their actions, genuinely penitent — and genuinely forgiven. But their stories aren’t deemed “newsworthy.”….

By L. Brent Bozell, Patriot Post, March 10, 2010

If anyone was looking for a self-righteous extreme feminist, they found one in Angie Jackson. This is a woman who was so proud she was aborting her baby that she announced she would “tweet” her chemical-cocktail abortion live, as it happened, on Twitter. The liberal media found this made-for-TV slaughter fascinating, and not at all a controversy worthy of discussing with two sides.

Newsweek’s Sarah Kliff proclaimed: “One hundred thousand people have watched Angie Jackson’s abortion. Late last month, Jackson posted a video of herself to YouTube, recorded after she took RU-486, a medication used to end pregnancies.” Kliff asked only “why shame remains” about the act of killing one’s baby. Jackson was honored for her courage in “demystifying” and “destigmatizing” the procedure: “We need 10,000 more of her,” proclaimed Peg Johnston, chair of something called the Abortion Care Network. This desire for 10,000 more unashamed abortions is what “pro-choice” is all about.

Overall, this was just another classic tale from the “news” magazine that lamented 20 years ago that “Sadly, many home (abortion) remedies could damage a fetus instead of kill it.” What about the pro-life side?

Newsweek devoted just one sentence to Silent No More, a website where women tell a different abortion story and now speak publicly of their shame and regret. But women are increasingly coming forward everywhere, just like the original “Jane Roe,” Norma McCorvey, publicly admitting the horror of their actions, genuinely penitent — and genuinely forgiven. But their stories aren’t deemed “newsworthy.”

CNN interviewed Angie Jackson on the morning of March 8, and they were explicit in rejecting any notion that Jackson deserved a rebuttal. Anchor Kyra Phillips declared after the interview that “as you can imagine, we received a lot of response about even doing this story because abortion is such a controversial issue, and we really didn’t want to get into a debate about abortion, but rather, look at what people are doing now, using social networking.”

That’s a unique concept: Abortion is so controversial that we feel it’s best to only let one side talk — the side that’s taking a child’s life on camera.

CNN claims these days that they are the sober and neutral center between MSNBC and Fox News, but there was nothing neutral about their sympathy for Jackson. Phillips rushed to proclaim that the most savage part of Jackson’s abortion was the pro-lifer comments.

“These are really harsh,” the anchor warned. “But people wrote in and said — they called you all kinds of names, from being a whore to someone who just couldn’t keep her legs closed. They called you a baby killer. I mean, it’s even hard for me to say these things because some of those — the e-mails and the responses were so brutal.”

As brutal as an abortion? Worse than that, Phillips never acknowledged that pro-lifers most certainly filled Twitter (and the heavens) with their hopes and prayers for her. CNN cannot deny those e-mails were there.

CNN also showed some of Jackson’s horrific YouTube video, where she admitted that her baby had the “potential” for life, “but it (it!) was more likely to kill me, and you’re not going to shame me. … I do not feel sorry that I saved my life. I do not feel sorry that I stayed here for myself, for my boyfriend, for my kid that I’ve already got.”

CNN didn’t define that sentiment — or lack of it — as “really harsh.” CNN never told their viewers that Jackson’s nom de plume on Twitter is “Anti-Theist Angie.” Nor did CNN consider the “brutal” contents of Jackson’s Twitter page to be worth commentary. Here are some examples of statements Jackson “retweeted” as worthy comments about Jesus after she popped up on CNN:

“Who would Jesus do? He’d totally do Anti-Theist Angie just to prove a point to those who sully his/her name.”

And: “Where would Jesus donate? To science-based education, and better abortion techniques!”

And: “Jesus hates the little women, all the women of the world.”

To their credit, when ABC’s “World News” hyped this story Feb. 28, they at least allowed conservative Cathy Ruse of the Family Research Council to declare, “Your heart breaks for this woman. And I hope that it doesn’t encourage, I hope that what she’s doing won’t encourage others to take this path.” ABC’s online story also allowed a few paragraphs of pro-life argument.

ABC weekend anchor Dan Harris noted Jackson was an “outspoken atheist,” and quoted her saying, “I hope everybody on YouTube has a great and godless day. Peace.”

Jackson said she was four weeks pregnant when she aborted her child. The technology now exists to see just about every human feature — eyes, hands, feet, even the human nipple — on a “fetus” 1 inch in size, and only two weeks older. Peace.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/l-brent-bozell/2010/03/10/the-shameless-abortion-carnival/print/

ObamaCare: Making Life Difficult

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, March 9, 2010


How does President Obama celebrate “International Women’s Day?” By leading the effort to pass the most pro-abortion health care plan in U.S. history. With billions set aside for groups like Planned Parenthood, the President’s latest bill would trick Americans into funding a procedure that victimizes women and robs them of the physical and mental well-being this legislation promised to advance. Even today, as the abortion industry makes room for a massive influx of federal dollars, the Left’s leadership still refuses to admit that such a deal exists. As it has in the past, FRC Action compiled a list of eight new reasons why abortion is included in President’s plan.


1. The legislation specifically includes it. The President’s bill to amend the Senate bill leaves several abortion provisions in place. In Section 130, the legislation allows tax credit subsidies for plans that include abortion and leaves the abortion surcharge in place. It maintains the proposal to create a multi-state plan that includes abortion in Sec. 1334. Even worse, it would increase the Senate bill funding from $7 billion to $11 billion for community health centers in Sec. 10503 without any abortion restrictions. (H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.)


2. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said it is. “And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray…take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women…That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund.” (Sebelius: Everyone will pay into abortion-coverage fund.)


3. Senate Democrats refused to ban it. Instead of allowing for an up-or-down vote on a Senate amendment similar to the House’s Stupak amendment, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) “tabled” the amendment, effectively killing it. (Vote No. 369 S.Amdt. 2962 to S.Amdt. 2786 to H.R. 3590)


4. House pro-life Democrats, even those who support the so-called reform effort, say it is. “The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (House Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), February 23, 2010, CBS News) “I think abortion’s wrong. The problem is that I’ve lived too long. When they say they can keep this money separate, I just don’t believe it.” (House Representative Marion Berry (D-Ark.), March 6, 2010, Arkansas News.)


5. House pro-abortion Democrats say it is. “The good news is that the Senate bill does allow [abortion coverage].” (Rep. Dianne DeGette (D-Colo.), March 5, 2010, Washington Post )


6. The abortion industry sent out alerts in favor of it. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood sent an email to supporters on March 6, 2010 , which said, “President Obama’s health care reform… significantly increase access to reproductive health care.” (Planned Parenthood alert, March 6, 2010.)


7. Candidate Obama said it would be included, and the Obama administration includes it in its definition of reproductive health care. Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated he “believes that reproductive health care is basic health care.” (Rhrealitycheck.org questionnaire, 2008.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up on this in 2009: “Reproductive health care includes access to abortion.” (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, April 22, House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing)


8. House Democratic Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has indicated that he wants to fix the abortion coverage problem in the Senate bill. “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that lawmakers could draft separate pieces of legislation with abortion language to earn the support of anti-abortion rights Democrats on healthcare reform legislation.” (March 4, 2010, The Hill)

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10C05&f=PG07J01

LifeNews.com Headlines: March 10, 2010

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

STUPAK SAYS NO ABORTION FUNDING DEAL IN PLACE, WON’T BACK DOWN ON HEALTH CARE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Bart Stupak, the Michigan congressman whose pro-life Democratic colleagues have the ability to determine whether the Senate health care bill that contains massive abortion funding lives or dies, said in a late Tuesday interview that no abortion deal is in place and he won’t back down.

TOP DEMOCRAT CONTRADICTS PELOSI ON ABORTION, WHITE HOUSE ON MARCH 18 VOTE DATE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – In a Tuesday morning interview, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the Maryland lawmaker who is the second highest ranking Democrat in the House, contradicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the seriousness of the abortion funding debate and the White House on its March 18 vote timeline.


SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER: RECONCILIATION CAN’T STOP HEALTH CARE ABORTION FUNDING

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – As the process of the health care debate moves forward this week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is reminding colleagues and the media that the reconciliation process will not be able to be used to stop the abortion funding in the Senate health care bill.

REPUBLICAN POLL OF IOWA CAUCUS VOTERS: MIKE HUCKABEE LEADS ROMNEY, PALIN
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – With pro-life advocates longing for 2012 thanks to the extensive pro-abortion record of President Barack Obama, it’s never too early to think about the next election. A survey of caucus voters in Iowa, the state that will kick off the battle for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee has the lead.


PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOOKS FOR HARD ABORTION STORIES TO PROMOTE HEALTH CARE BILL

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Hoping to promote the Senate health care bill that funds abortions and could direct millions more to its abortion centers, Planned Parenthood is looking for stories from women of hard cases where they felt they needed an abortion for medical reason to give it a new lobbying tool.


HOUSE BILL WOULD EXPAND OBAMA’S PROMOTING EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Two members of Congress have introduced new legislation designed to expand President Barack Obama’s decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research. The measure could pave the way for a battle over federal restrictions on research destroying human embryos.


HHS SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS MISLEADS ON ABORTION FUNDING IN HEALTH CARE BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius contradicted herself on abortion funding in the Senate health care bill in a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Sebelius applauded the Senate language before and talked about mandatory abortion fees, but now she claims there is no funding.

Madame Speaker: Americans Sees Through the Fog & the 2700 Pages and Still DON’T Want IT!

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

“….But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it….”




Founder’s Quote Daily

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Founder's Quote Daily

“  One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one.”

–James Madison, Federalist No. 48

‘Very Troubling’ -Roberts Questions SOTU Attendance

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Supreme Court Chief Justice: Scene at State of Union Was ‘Very Troubling’

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Unbelievable Coincidence Saves Baby from Abortion in Indianapolis

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Commentary by David Bereit, National Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, March 9, 2010, (LifeSiteNews.com)

I know you’re familiar with the old saying, “God works in mysterious ways.” Please sit down and read this whole story. Our God of mystery has outdone Himself this time!

A young woman in Indianapolis, Indiana – we’ll call her Erin – woke up, saw her kids off to school, dropped her preschoolers at a friend’s house, and noticed that she was late for an appointment … at Planned Parenthood … for an abortion.

So Erin picked up her phone and called to see if she could still come in. She thought she was calling Planned Parenthood. In her haste, she dialled a wrong number.

Instead of Planned Parenthood, she got Joseph, who was answering the cell phone that’s being used by …

… get ready for this …

… 40 Days for Life in Indianapolis!

Joseph took a deep breath and tried to be as calm as possible. He took Erin’s name and number and simply said that a counselor would call her back.

So Elizabeth, the counselor, called Erin. Elizabeth begged her not to hang up, and then explained that she had not reached Planned Parenthood. Asked if she was a Christian, Erin said “yes.” So Elizabeth told her God’s grace was at work in this “wrong number” situation.

So what had led Erin to the abortion center? Simply put – desperation.

She has four children, their father is in jail, she had lost her job, her electricity is about to be shut off, and she doesn’t have enough money to pay the rent.

Later, Erin arrived at Planned Parenthood with her aunt. The aunt told counselors she opposed the abortion, but Erin’s mother and sister insist it’s the best answer. They say Erin just can’t handle another child.

In the meantime, Elizabeth had spread the word about Erin’s situation. A volunteer offered to pay her electric bill. Ten others pooled their cash to pay her rent.

Eileen in Indianapolis says a local group is now working with Erin to help her find a job. “She has a lot of potential,” Eileen said, “but needs support since her mother and sister are still encouraging her to abort the baby.”

Erin has reacted with both joy and disbelief that strangers were helping her. She has called Planned Parenthood to cancel her appointment and request a refund.

Please keep Erin and her family – and all those helping her – in your prayers.

So, you see? God does work in mysterious ways. There are no coincidences … and in this case, no wrong numbers!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030901.html

GOSPEL & MEDITATION: To Keep or To Abolish…

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

Wednesday, 3rd Week of Lent

Father Daniel Polzer, LC

Matthew 5:17-19

Jesus said to his disciples: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, as I journey through Lent I have a great desire to be close to you. I know that I am your creature and that I owe you all glory and homage. I want to glorify you by following your teaching. I need you to help me see clearly the truth of your teaching and to love you in return. Here I am Lord, hungry for you alone. I know that you will not turn me away empty-handed.

Petition: Lord, teach me what it means to fulfill the law.

1. The Spirit Fulfills the Mere Letter We can speak of fulfilling the law in two ways: by doing everything that is asked or by completing that which is missing. Jesus completes the law of the Old Testament with the new law of love – to love one another as he has loved us. Jesus fulfills the law not by simply fulfilling each of the many precepts, but by showing where all of the precepts have their end: in loving God above all things. When we obey the law of love we are fulfilling all of the laws – we are bringing them to their natural end.

2. The All-Encompassing New Law The law of love reaches to the ends of the earth. There is no created being in the universe that is outside the law of love that Jesus has come to teach us. There is no being, not even the smallest, that escapes the demand of this law. When Jesus uses the metaphor, “the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter,” he is showing us the completeness of this law. Love and its demands reach to the farthest ends of the universe, to the smallest created being, and to the end of time. Am I convinced in my heart and in my actions that the law of love asks me to love all people – not just my family, friends and those who rub me the right way?

3. Seeking Perfection The commandments of the old law as exemplified in the Ten Commandments (e.g. Thou shall not kill; Thou shall not commit adultery; etc.) are grave transgressions but easy to define, referring as they do to external actions. Christ’s commandments (e.g. to not show anger; to not lust in the heart; to forgive our enemies; etc.) have more subtle expressions, and because of this often times they are more difficult to obey. Living these commandments with the proper motivation and a considerate, dedicated attitude is what makes a person great. Having love as the motivation of all of our actions not only helps us make it to heaven, but also will win us a greater share in God’s happiness and glory there.

Conversation with Christ: Thank you, Lord, for this time of prayer. Do not let me be content simply to do the minimum that my faith asks of me. Do not let me be content simply with avoiding grave sin. Help me to live the fullness of the law of charity. I want this Lent to be a time of growth in love.

Resolution: When I am obeying the laws of the Church I will stop to reflect how they fit into the greater law of love.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=
735&id=20302

TODAY’S SAINT: ST. JOHN OGILVIE

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, MARCH 10, 2010

St. John Ogilvie was born of a noble Scottish family in 1579 and was raised a Calvinist. The wealth of his family allowed him to be educated on the continent, and there he became exposed to the religious conflict of the Reformation and Counter Reformation. After learning about both sides he decided to become a Catholic, this was in part because of his respect for the martyrs and saints. St. John attended a variety of Catholic educational institutions and soon discovered a call to join the Jesuits. After his admission to the Society, John petitioned to return to Scotland and work to convert souls there.

John’s petition was accepted, and he first began to work to convert the souls of the nobles to Catholicism. He met with great resistance and returned to mainland Europe. After a brief rest, he returned to Scotland and began to work to convert the souls of the common people. He was greatly successful, but found many enemies in Protestant England. Eventually he was betrayed and turned into the authorities as a Catholic and insurrectionist. St. John was tried on the charges of treason and was convicted after three trials. John was sentenced to death by hanging and in 1615 was martyred.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=173

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010

Posted By scribe on March 10, 2010

The USCCB and Obamacare

Posted By scribe on March 9, 2010

....A bishop does not belong in politics, even when he thinks being political serves the cause of Christ. And if the USCCB is going to use the money that it collects from Catholic lay people to support the agenda of a political party…well, what’s the difference between that and a labor union using the dues it collects to donate to a candidate for whom some of its members do not intend to vote?….


Posted By Judie Brown, Catholic Exchange, On March 9, 2010

For the past couple of days, we have heard rumblings from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, starting with a very curious article in Politico [1].  David Rogers interviewed Richard Doerflinger, the USCCB’s associate director of pro-life activities, who apparently made the comment that if the House of Representatives agrees to what Stupak is asking for in the Obamacare bill, then the USCCB will work on the U. S. Senate to go along with the same language. The report does not say that the USCCB will generate advocacy from the Catholic laity, but rather that the organization itself will throw its weight around, which sounds a whole lot like lobbying and not much like holding the line for truly Catholic principles in health care reform.

The story [1] continues,

“With a large network of Catholic hospitals and the [C]hurch’s gospel of social justice, the bishops have long called for expanded health coverage. As Kathy Saile, director of domestic policy for the conference, said last fall, ‘The bishops see it as a moral imperative and national priority.’

“But abortion has been a stubborn dividing point with the two sides fighting over how tight to make the ban on federal funding.”

It is of the utmost importance to clarify for the unsuspecting or uncatechized  that the Catholic Church does not teach that the killing of a child prior to birth by an act of abortion is the only intrinsically evil way to rob a person of  his or her life. There is also human embryonic stem cell research, many types of contraceptives, euthanasia and infanticide … each of which is equally evil, equally deadly and equally unmentioned by the USCCB in connection with Obamacare.

That is perhaps troubling enough, but there is more. We cannot help but think that the politics of so-called progressivism has become more important at the USCCB than the wishes of the Catholic faithful, who like the majority of Americans, don’t want Obamanomics [2] shoved down their throats. Why is there such a rush to sate the liberal elements of the Democratic political machine and so little time to consider what is (as one Catholic cardinal explained to me) the job of the laity, not the hierarchy? As I recall, he told me that bishops are charged with preaching truth, and it is the people in the pew who are supposed to do the political work. However, apparently he, like so many of his peers, does not really believe that for a second. What a shame.

Oh, but let us not overlook the engagement with the laity that the USCCB did invite just this past weekend. At every door of my Catholic parish this weekend, after every Mass, we were invited to sign postcards that the parish would then mail, on our behalf, to our two U.S. senators and our congressman. The postcards, however, were not about the unprincipled “health care reform” proposals that are being discussed night and day. No, the postcards dealt with immigration …

Justice for Immigrants [3] is a USCCB-sponsored web site on which one can find the same postcard that was distributed in my parish on Sunday, March 7. The text of the postcard [4] reads,

I am a concerned constituent and agree with the U.S. Catholic bishops that the U.S. immigration system is broken and is in need of repair.

I ask that this year you support immigration reform legislation that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and ensures that immigrants without legal status register with the government and begin a path toward citizenship. Our families and communities cannot wait!

What occurred to me as I listened to the announcement about these postcards was not that there was anything wrong with such a lobbying campaign, but the question of why the focus had moved away from getting the “health care reform” mess clarified first. It should also be pointed out that, in every one of their pastoral letters to elected officials, the bishops have placed the future standing of immigrants on the same level as the murder of preborn persons. And why is the USCCB focusing on immigration reform now, at such a critical point in this nation’s legislative history?

Well, maybe my new favorite, the “pugilist priest [5]” has the right idea. Opining on his personal blog on the very same article in Politico that troubled me so much, he expresses his frustration like this:

There are a plethora of reasons why a Catholic citizen may choose not to support a government reform of health care. He might consider it a statist provision which robs him of his self-determination and chips away at his individual liberties. He may believe that it’s financially irresponsible. Maybe he’s lived for a time in a country that has government administered health care and knows, first hand, the disaster it is. He may be a small business owner who knows how it will destroy what he’s spent his life building. He may even have his own moral reasons for fearing it: the marginalization of the handicapped and elderly; government bureaucrats deciding what is or is not appropriate medical care, etc. All concerns that the bishops—God alone knows how—have determined don’t matter to them, and which they have decided that we, as Catholic citizens, don’t have a right to be concerned about ourselves as they decree otherwise.

And what’s wrong with that, you ask? Simply put, it is none of the bishops’ business to support or oppose a piece of legislation. Oppose abortion? Certainly. Point out the dangers in some proposed legislation if it does violence to the moral teaching of the Church and has the potential to compel Catholic citizens to violate the prescriptions of the Gospel? Without a doubt. But to embrace a particular political point of view because they have concluded that it, somehow, expresses in secular terms what they believe? Not on your life!

The Second Vatican Council is clear: the duty of injecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ into secular society is the job of the laity, not the clergy. The bishops are right to object to language in the bill which would direct our tax dollars into paying for the murders of the innocent; but to press the resources of the Catholic Church into assisting in the passage of other provisions of the bill in some kind of back-room deal to achieve that goal is meddling in matters in which they have no purview.

To be fair, I’m reasonably sure that no Catholic bishop—except for the most strident of bleeding heart liberals (and there are some)—would tell me that they have a right to compel me to support legislation simply because they support it. What they don’t seem to understand is that, in supporting it themselves, they not only violate their [d]ivine mandate, but also trivialize their moral authority. A bishop does not belong in politics, even when he thinks being political serves the cause of Christ. And if the USCCB is going to use the money that it collects from Catholic lay people to support the agenda of a political party…well, what’s the difference between that and a labor union using the dues it collects to donate to a candidate for whom some of its members do not intend to vote?

So, the bishops believe that, aside from abortion, health care reform is compatible with the social teaching of the Church. That’s nice, but so what? It’s none of their business. It’s the laity’s business. It’s just another example of the hierarchy’s selective reading of Vatican II.

Wow! Though this priest and his fellow priests choose to remain anonymous, and thank God they do, what he has to say is extremely insightful and, to my mind, on the mark. Every Catholic bishop does indeed have a charism that, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church [6], is not only rich in grace but imbued with holiness, which he has a solemn duty to use to sanctify the Church:”

893 The bishop is “the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,” especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, “not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.” Thus, “together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life.”

And the Catechism [7] says this about the special grace that comes from the Holy Spirit:

1586 For the bishop, this is first of all a grace of strength … the grace to guide and defend his Church with strength and prudence as a father and pastor, with gratuitous love for all and a preferential love for the poor, the sick, and the needy. This grace impels him to proclaim the Gospel to all, to be the model for his flock, to go before it on the way of sanctification by identifying himself in the Eucharist with Christ the priest and victim, not fearing to give his life for his sheep.

What America’s Catholics, not to mention her entire citizenry, need right now is the united voice of “stewards of grace,” not political lobbyists.

In the coming weeks, this nation will witness either the collapse of the most treacherous, deadly proposal ever to come out of the U.S. government or the passage of a dastardly program. One or the other will occur.  I would hate to think that, at a crucial moment, it was the bureaucrats supposedly representing the U.S. bishops who gave the winning edge to the most pro-abortion, pro-culture-of-death administration in this nation’s history. That is not a legacy I would want to bestow on this nation, and it is my hope that the Catholic bishops feel the same way.

Please let your bishop know you are praying for him, and hoping that he stands in the gap for the babies, the elderly and the infirm—and for justice.


http://catholicexchange.com/2010/03/09/127907/

Bishop Sheen: The Divine Sense of Humor

Posted By scribe on March 9, 2010

Bishop Sheen was never so eloquent as when he was speaking about Jesus Christ.  For Sheen a sense of humor was not just the sense of the comic, but the ability to see through to the essence of things.  Bishop Sheen was gifted with a fine sense of humor.

WOE TO THOSE . . . . .

Posted By scribe on March 9, 2010

Isaiah
Chapter 5:
20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!

Father Norman Weslin, Champion of the Unborn

Posted By scribe on March 9, 2010

SOURCE:  THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC

There will come a day in this country when future generations will look back on legal abortion with the same shame and abhorrence that we now look upon slavery.  In that future those who stood up for the unborn will be regarded as heroines and heroes.  On that day no name will be more praised than that of Father Norman Weslin.

Father Weslin followed an extremely unlikely path to the priesthood.  Born 80 years ago to Oscar and Hilma Weslin, he was the 16th of 18 children, the first ten of whom died in infancy.  The family lived in Iron City in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  A tough land, it often produces tough people, and Norman Weslin was no exception.  Always in trouble in school, a bright spot in his life was his future wife Mary Lou who he met in the fifth grade.   She was Catholic and he was Lutheran, but that made no difference to him.  As they reached high school age she became the center of his life.

At 17 he joined the Army and asked Mary Lou to marry him.  She flatly refused unless he made something of himself.  Perhaps to the astonishment of both of them he did.  He graduated from Officer’s Candidate School in October of 1951 and was commissioned a second lieutenant.  He went on to artillery and missile school at Fort Bliss, Texas.  While there he converted to Catholicism and he and Mary Lou were married.

He then attended Airborne School at Fort Benning, Georgia which began his association with the 82nd Airborne.

Unfortunately, it was here that he began to drink heavily and became, in the words of Father Weslin, for the next twenty years “a hopeless alcoholic”.  While stationed in Panama in 1952 he almost killed Mary Lou while driving drunk.  The doctor treating her after the collision told him that she had suffered a massive brain concussion and was going to die.  A nurse gave him a green scapular and told him to pin it to Mary Lou’s pajamas and pray, “Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death.”  He did so.  Against the odds Mary Lou fully recovered and left the hospital three days later.

While on assignment in Japan Mary Lou and he adopted their children, two Japanese-American kids, a 2 month old boy and an 11 month old girl.  (Along with his kids, Father Weslin now has two grandchildren and a great-grandchild.)   After Japan it was back to Fort Bliss, where Weslin graduated at the top of his class in nuclear missiles.  High level positions followed.  He served tours of duty in both Korea and Vietnam during his career in the Army.

All during this time Weslin continued to drink heavily.  In 1963 he accidentally set himself on fire while trying to restart a barbecue grill and nearly burned himself to death.  The drinking continued until 1968 when he retired from the Army with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.  Joining Alcoholics Anonymous, he turned his life completely over to God and has never drank a drop of alcohol, other than that contained in the accidents of the Blood of Christ, since that time.

Turning his life over to God was not just a phrase to Norman Weslin.  He began to read some of the spiritual classics of the Faith, including the writings of Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint John of the Cross and he especially was touched by Saint Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary.  He received a master’s degree in theology from the Roman Catholic School of Applied Theology at the University of Berkley, of all places, and was disgusted, in his words, at the heresy and blasphemy taught at that institution.

In 1969 he began his involvement in the pro-life cause when he led the fight in Colorado to defeat a bill legalizing abortion.   Mary Lou fully shared his passion for the pro-life cause.

Mary Lou and Norman planned to spend their retirement teaching Indian kids on a reservation in Montana.  These plans came to a tragic end on July 2, 1980.  A car rear-ended the Weslin’s car which their daughter was driving, and Mary Lou was killed.  After her loss Norman was buried in grief for some time.  Ironically the driver of the car that struck his car was drunk at the time.  Norman personally forgave the driver.  Pulling his life back together, he transformed their home in Colorado Springs into the Mary Weslin Homes for Pregnant, Unwed Mothers.  To date over 226 mothers have stayed at the home prior to giving birth to their children.

In 1982 Weslin entered the Sacred Heart Seminary in Hales, Wisconsin to begin his studies for the priesthood at age 52.  This was during the misrule of Archbishop Rembert Weakland.  After two years the orthodox, and outspoken, Weslin was kicked out by the academic dean after Weslin refused to attend a class he believed taught heresy.  He continued his studies at Mater Dei Seminary in Spokane, Washington.  After ordination he joined the Oblates of Wisdom Order.

Prior to his ordination Father Weslin had taken part in abortion blockades at abortion clinics, once with Bishop Austin Vaughan, his spiritual adviser.  On retired status from his Order in 1988 he decided to take part in an abortion rescue in Atlanta.  He and 260 other pro-lifers were sent to Key Roads prison.  While there Father Weslin, for attempting to say Mass, spent nine days in solitary.  Imprisonment can often be surprisingly productive for those willing to use the time to think, as Father Weslin did.   During his time in solitary Father Weslin came up with the idea for the Lambs of Christ.  This would be an organization which would engage in civil disobedience at abortion clinics and thereby buy time for women to change their minds about aborting their kids.

Father Weslin immediately began to carry out his plan.  By 1992 he was successful enough that Time magazine had an article on the Lambs of Christ which may be read here.  Father Weslin has been imprisoned since 1988, 70 or 80 times, he has lost count. Occasionally he has been found not guilty by juries , but usually he is convicted and goes to jail.  After he gets out he goes on to the next abortion clinic.

To its ever lasting dishonor, the administration of Notre Dame had Father Weslin arrested on May 15, 2009 when he protested the granting of an honorary degree to President Obama, the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history.

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/03/08/father-norman-weslin-champion-of-the-unborn/#more-18294


CONTINUED……..
(more…)

Is Stupak Caving on Abortion? Says Health Bill Abortion Fight Can Be Resolved

Posted By scribe on March 9, 2010

NEWSMAX, Monday, March 8, 2010

Prospects are good for resolving a dispute over abortion that has led some House Democrats to threaten to withhold support of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, a key Michigan Democrat said Monday.

Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure.

“I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak said in an interview between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. He was hosting a town hall meeting Monday night at a local high school.

“The president says he doesn’t want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I,” Stupak said. “That’s never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points — we don’t restrict, we don’t expand abortion rights? I think we can get there.”

Stupak has emerged as spokesman for about a dozen House Democrats who supported health legislation approved by the House in November but contend a $1 trillion version that passed the Senate the next month would authorize federal abortion subsidies. They insist on restoring stiffer restrictions Stupak added to the House measure.

Stupak had said last week that nothing had changed and he didn’t think the House leaders had the votes to pass the bill.

Stupak’s hard-line position has made him a lightning rod for abortion-rights supporters. Some accuse the 18-year lawmaker, a Roman Catholic, of allowing religious beliefs and personal opposition to abortion to jeopardize health reform. He denies it, saying the pro-choice side raised the issue by making the health bill a vehicle to expand abortion rights.

Anti-abortion lawmakers last summer urged House leaders to keep abortion out of the health debate “because it’s too divisive,” Stupak said. “So what did they do? They injected it into the debate. Everyone thinks I did; I did not.”

Clashing with his party’s leadership on the issue is unlikely to endanger Stupak’s political standing in his rural, blue-collar district, which geographically is among the biggest in the eastern U.S. It encompasses Michigan’s entire Upper Peninsula and a sizable chunk of the northern Lower Peninsula, roughly 600 miles from end to end. (more…)