In it he referred me to a web site he has created: WhiteHouse.gov I went there and from what I was able to read in my search on the abortion issue, I am including an excerpt from what he said when he spoke at Notre Dame University:
That’s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)
Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature"
I have written him several letters, one regarding my disturbance with the pro choice faction speaking for the democratic party, while I and many other Christian democrats are unaboutedly still pro life and feeling extremely frustrated because of the direction the democratic party has taken on this difficult subject.
I believe that the Christian pro life democrats should speak out. In his letter to me President Obama said that he appreciated my imput and thought on the difficlt issue of abortion. He also says that he is interested in making his Administration as open and transparent as any in history.
I believe him when he says that, and in the months to come, I will continue to write him my concerns when they become so urgently felt that it seems necessary. I was heartened by his words about conscience in his address to Notre Dame, as though he respects conscience which does not seem to be the case with the architects of FOCA. The future and indeed the present text of FOCA still remains shrouded in darkness. It remains to be seen what if any changes have been made in its intent and purpose since Obama became the candidate and won the presidency.
Showing posts with label Freedom of Choice act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Choice act. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Freedom of Choice act designed to remove limits on abortion under Obama alarms Catholic Bishops
Bishops Vow to Fight Obama Abortion Agenda
By Mark Impomeni
Nov 12th 2008 10:00PM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Religion, Abortion, Obama Administration
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meeting this week in Baltimore, took steps to mount an unprecedented campaign against a signature initiative of a major political party, vowing to aggressively oppose President-elect Obama and the Democrats in their efforts to pass the Freedom of Choice Act. The bill, sponsored by California Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and which Obama said would be among the first pieces of legislation he would sign if elected, would eliminate all conditions placed on access to abortions in the United States. It would also invalidate every state law designed to reduce abortions. The bishops vowed to fight the measure in Congress, and take it to court if it becomes law.
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki, of President-elect Obama's hometown of Chicago, said that passage of FOCA could have "devastating consequences" for Catholic hospitals nationwide. The bill would make it illegal for church-run hospitals to refuse to perform abortions if they also provide gynecologic and obstetric services. Currently, some states allow exceptions for religious hospitals from performing medical services that they may find morally objectionable. Paprocki said that the bill's passage could result in the closing of all Catholic-run hospitals in the country.
"It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely. It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.
I do not think I'm being alarmist in considering such drastic steps. We need to respond in a morally appropriate, responsible fashion."
The bishops concluded their discussion of the proposed law by issuing a statement seeking areas of common ground with the incoming Obama Administration, but asserting the church's opposition to abortion. "The church is also resolute in opposing evil," the statement said. "[The bishops are] completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child from the moment of conception."
Abortion was not a big issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John McCain briefly raised the issue in the third presidential debate, after the narrative of the election had already been long set. Obama did take criticism from conservatives and pro-life groups for his advocacy as a state senator for a bill that would have denied medical care to infants that survived an abortion attempt. Obama voted for against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act on three separate occasions and spoke against the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. Now that he has won the election, Catholic bishops are seeking to remind Obama that 54% of Catholics voted for him, despite his opposition to the church's teaching on abortion, while trying to reassert control over their wayward flock."
This article on the Internet today has me alarmed. I did not think I would have to worry about the abortion picture worsening under Obama so soon. I can only hope such an initiative will not pass! I have posted it in my blog G4Life on http://www.azcentral.com and written a letter of protest to the Arizona Republic which I believe like most of the newspapers has tried to ignore the subject Here is my letter to them in essence:
Arizona Republic:
I say the biggest problem any country has is what is causing the most deaths, and for years, the million abortion deaths a year are hardly even mentioned in a seemingly endless campaign for president. Why didn't McCain go for broke and force the topic on people? Now we have got the Catholic Church facing a "Freedom of Choice" act sponsored by democrat Barbara Boxer of California that they say if Obama signs will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions if they are to provide gynocological and birthing services to women, which some states now do not require. All restrictions on abortion the states have passed will be null and void. The Catholic Church which believes life begins at conception say they will close their hospitals before they will perform abortions. And we have an Obama who has never known anything but legalized abortion the last 35 years of his life. The Catholics may appeal to a sense of wrong in abortion he has not developed.
I did not think my stomach would have to begin roiling so soon after the election, and I would need to get busy again protesting. I have long been a democrat for life. I view my party as not the party of abortion but the party that did so much for civil rights. I am against people who think they can dictate what democrats are to think is wrong or right. As a democrat for right to life I am pledging to fight against the "Freedom of Choice" act, which if passed without enough numbers to filbuster could mean that abortion rights would be untouchable. It would also sweep away the ban againste partial-birth abortion passed by the Supreme Court! It would be abortion rights with hardly any restrictions. Is this how you go about considering both the baby and the mother? There is a tremendous lack of balance here, a failure to recognize that a mother is geared by nature to protect her young. People who say that is not necessary are violating not only the laws of higher powers, but natures laws. Is this wisdom?
Gerry King Hitt
Phoenix, AZ 85004
By Mark Impomeni
Nov 12th 2008 10:00PM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Religion, Abortion, Obama Administration
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meeting this week in Baltimore, took steps to mount an unprecedented campaign against a signature initiative of a major political party, vowing to aggressively oppose President-elect Obama and the Democrats in their efforts to pass the Freedom of Choice Act. The bill, sponsored by California Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and which Obama said would be among the first pieces of legislation he would sign if elected, would eliminate all conditions placed on access to abortions in the United States. It would also invalidate every state law designed to reduce abortions. The bishops vowed to fight the measure in Congress, and take it to court if it becomes law.
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki, of President-elect Obama's hometown of Chicago, said that passage of FOCA could have "devastating consequences" for Catholic hospitals nationwide. The bill would make it illegal for church-run hospitals to refuse to perform abortions if they also provide gynecologic and obstetric services. Currently, some states allow exceptions for religious hospitals from performing medical services that they may find morally objectionable. Paprocki said that the bill's passage could result in the closing of all Catholic-run hospitals in the country.
"It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely. It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.
I do not think I'm being alarmist in considering such drastic steps. We need to respond in a morally appropriate, responsible fashion."
The bishops concluded their discussion of the proposed law by issuing a statement seeking areas of common ground with the incoming Obama Administration, but asserting the church's opposition to abortion. "The church is also resolute in opposing evil," the statement said. "[The bishops are] completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child from the moment of conception."
Abortion was not a big issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John McCain briefly raised the issue in the third presidential debate, after the narrative of the election had already been long set. Obama did take criticism from conservatives and pro-life groups for his advocacy as a state senator for a bill that would have denied medical care to infants that survived an abortion attempt. Obama voted for against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act on three separate occasions and spoke against the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. Now that he has won the election, Catholic bishops are seeking to remind Obama that 54% of Catholics voted for him, despite his opposition to the church's teaching on abortion, while trying to reassert control over their wayward flock."
This article on the Internet today has me alarmed. I did not think I would have to worry about the abortion picture worsening under Obama so soon. I can only hope such an initiative will not pass! I have posted it in my blog G4Life on http://www.azcentral.com and written a letter of protest to the Arizona Republic which I believe like most of the newspapers has tried to ignore the subject Here is my letter to them in essence:
Arizona Republic:
I say the biggest problem any country has is what is causing the most deaths, and for years, the million abortion deaths a year are hardly even mentioned in a seemingly endless campaign for president. Why didn't McCain go for broke and force the topic on people? Now we have got the Catholic Church facing a "Freedom of Choice" act sponsored by democrat Barbara Boxer of California that they say if Obama signs will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions if they are to provide gynocological and birthing services to women, which some states now do not require. All restrictions on abortion the states have passed will be null and void. The Catholic Church which believes life begins at conception say they will close their hospitals before they will perform abortions. And we have an Obama who has never known anything but legalized abortion the last 35 years of his life. The Catholics may appeal to a sense of wrong in abortion he has not developed.
I did not think my stomach would have to begin roiling so soon after the election, and I would need to get busy again protesting. I have long been a democrat for life. I view my party as not the party of abortion but the party that did so much for civil rights. I am against people who think they can dictate what democrats are to think is wrong or right. As a democrat for right to life I am pledging to fight against the "Freedom of Choice" act, which if passed without enough numbers to filbuster could mean that abortion rights would be untouchable. It would also sweep away the ban againste partial-birth abortion passed by the Supreme Court! It would be abortion rights with hardly any restrictions. Is this how you go about considering both the baby and the mother? There is a tremendous lack of balance here, a failure to recognize that a mother is geared by nature to protect her young. People who say that is not necessary are violating not only the laws of higher powers, but natures laws. Is this wisdom?
Gerry King Hitt
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Herrad