More on his lies about Catholic Hospitals and Catholic Charities + adoptions by homosexuals:
Poor Mitt a Morman souldn't lie
It doesn't matter. This is how Romney debates. He knows so few people will see posts like this, it doesn't matter. He's already up in Michigan by 6.
I will NEVER forget him looking in the camera and LYING. He is lying to every viewer, including me. Yes, (and his little handlers are planning on this) I will HAVE to vote for him if he's the nominee, because a RINO liar is better than Obama. But I won't EVER forget his bald face lying while looking the American people right in the eye (so to speak).
You don't win the nomination "at any cost". This just says we will get liberal nominations to the Supreme Court, screwed up legislation that makes us all go "WTF?!", and half hearted walk backs to appeal to the precious "independents" during the general election.
I have long thought we would end up very much mirroring Britain. They got a mushy "conservative" in office, but he BARELY squeeked by in the election. If Romney wins, I think it will be closer than any of us wants and it will scare the crap out of us it will be so thin a margin. Then we'll have a liar who doesn't act conservative at all.
YES, YES, YES...before someone says it, even with all that said, I know it's better than Obama. (that's pretty sad, right?)
Maybe someday we'll get something close to another Reagan....someday? I hope in our lifetimes it comes true!!
Seriously? We're now actually deciding to oppose giving EC to rape victims? This is controversial now?
Honestly, I'm sorry, if a woman gets raped in a county/district whose main healthcare provider is a catholic hospital and she goes for a rape kit, she should have the option of taking emergency contraception- and if the hospital is so bold enough as to choose to refuse it, then I am totally fine with a law saying that they have to dispense it. EC has a time limit -- and I'm much more comfortable with forcing a hospital that is theoretically there to provide treatment for anyone who comes in having to live with the fact that there's an off chance that they might have prevented a just-fertilized egg from implanting than I am with forcing a rape victim to drive around to a 24-hour pharmacy to try and find emergency contraception.
If some personnel at the hospital don't want to dispense EC for "conscience reasons" then fine. The solution is that they should call someone over whose willing to do it.
Why should the rape victim be robbed of the option of taking whatever legal measures that she feels are necessary because she happened to get raped in an area where the proprietor of the primary healthcare facility happens to be the Catholic church? And if the hospital refuses to act of their own volition, then I think it's more than appropriate for the government to intervene; when it comes to securing rights, I put the mother's right to self-determination ahead of the Catholic church's right to violate it by an accident of geography.
That said, if the GOP wants to run on this, be my guest, but it's hard to imagine more of a losing issue.
We're now actually deciding to oppose giving EC to rape victims? This is controversial now?
Okay, is "you guys" better?
I meant it as the national "we" as in "in 2000 and 2004 we elected George W. Bush, and in 2008 we elected Barack Obama. Who will we elect in 2012?"
You write very well.
So essentially your argument is that the victims right to exert some measure of influence over when and how she becomes pregnant is terminated once there is a very real possibility of her becoming pregnant, regardless of the circumstances that brought about that result, yes? If that's what you believe, then obviously the hospital shouldn't be forced to dispense EC; if I believed that, I'd agree with you.
I freely acknowledge that my result is irreligious - after all, I'm saying quite openly that I think that in extreme cases the government has a right to literally mandate Catholics do something that, to them, is essentially murder - and that my conclusion is the product of a disinterested examination of the facts at hand. I disagree, however, with the argument that I'm merely engaging in some sort of pro forma dialectic; the Constitution, again, is a secular document, and the rights derived therefrom do not necessarily coincide with values championed by religion. To whit, "a rape...under Catholic doctrine, simply does not rise to, or approach, the level of the inviolability of innocent life" -- obviously that's true, but this country isn't built on Catholic doctrine, or any other religious doctrine for that matter, and there are cases when constitutional doctrine and religious doctrine may directly conflict. While freedom of religion is fundamental, when the LDS church came up against established bigamy laws, the LDS church lost; if an Orthodox Jew decided to live by the Mosaic code, he'd still be arrested for stoning his child to death, no matter how disrespectful he/she might have been. Why? Because sometimes some rights trump others.
As for the example, let's say that the entire case hinges upon the bishop's testimony. Can the state force him to testify?
The door to a weighing and balancing never opens, under anything you conveyed--whether you took 15 or 15,000 words to convey it is, likewise, irrelevant.
And this is one of the basic fallacies of secularism/liberalism--that there is, necessarily, always some kind of detailed weighing and balancing that must go on pro forma.
But it is this very 'weighing and balancing', when it takes place, as it often does, innapropriately--that is, not in accordance with superceding religious principle, but in willful ignorance, or suspension thereof--which merely serves as a fig leaf for materialists to reach an irreligious result while attempting to avoid direct acknowledgment that the result is, in fact, irreligious.
Rape does not make the killing of an innocent child permissable--there is no weighing and balancing beyond that--a rape victim's very real pain, and the pain of a husband and other loved ones, under Catholic doctrine, simply does not rise to, or approach, the level of the inviolability of innocent life.
With your bishop-as-sole-witness scenario: if the facts of the case were known, as you state, the bishop's testimony could not be needed. His being compelled to testify, if such a thing did occur, does not compare to his being forced to provide the chemicals or the syringe.
Also, on an unrelated note, where do you stand on the death penalty?
And let's say someone gets murdered and the sole witness is a Catholic bishop. It's a death penalty case and his testimony is pretty much guaranteed to put a needle in the murderer's arm. If he refuses to testify, should he be held in contempt until he does or is this a violation of his right to freedom of conscience?
1,500 words and that's all you have? A reiteration of the same point and an insistence that I could never understand something - while having the nerve to call me arrogant?
I think I made it quite clear that I understand how the Catholic church feels and that I respect and would defend their rights to believe whatever they believe. I didn't say that they should stop providing healthcare, and I rather specifically stated that in general they shouldn't have to do anything that violates their conscience. It's not that I don't "understand" how they feel, it's just that I don't necessarily feel the same way that they do - and I'm not the only one.
The situation that we're discussing here is both extreme and extremely rare. How I went against the Constitution in arguing my point I'm not sure; the Constitution rather explicitly deems that government's reason for existence is to secure the blessings of liberty, and while freedom of religion falls under that umbrella, so does the natural right to self-determination. Perhaps the founding fathers felt that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob precedes and supersedes the State, perhaps they didn't, but one thing is clear, they wrote the Constitution as a secular document - rather boldly making absolutely no mention of God. Heck, the original document didn't even mention freedom of religion.
So if we want to work from a constitutional standpoint, we must adhere to the Constitution. Freedom of religion is in there, but so are a whole host of other freedoms, and sometimes there are situations in which the protection of one right comes at the expense of another. When that happens, we must determine which one is to be protected.
I'm sure you have things to say that would address the post I made directly as opposed to just telling me that I'm an idiot and then explaining something that anyone with a fundamental knowledge of Christian theology would know to be true. I'd actually be interested to hear what you have to say.
Yes, and if we were talking about a church providing spiritual guidance, I wouldn't say that they should have to do anything that they feel violates their moral conscience or the tenets of their faith
This just highlights the utter irrelevance of your entire argument. You, nor any of our elected representatives, have any right or authority to proclaim that the Catholic Church is somehow limited to a merely verbal exercise of their religion. Such a thing is neither true nor possible--no matter who arrogates to themselves the alleged right to decree it...
This type of idea comes from secularists and materialists, and is an inversion of reality generally and the US Constituion specifically.
Religion is not merely verbal, 'offering spiritual guidance'--that is incredibly absurd. True religion is by definition super-rational, meta-material, etc.,--it is not a sideline or sub-category within materialism, but exactly the other way around. Religion is not limited by a materialist worldview as secualrists wish--and the founding fathers well understood this truth.
The Church holds simply that the life which begins at conception is a gift from God, an inscrutable authority higher than any Kingdom or State, and that man cannot overrule God by taking it upon himself to kill--nothing about age, sex, victimhood, or anything else does, or could possibly, modify this absolute truth in the least.
Materialists of all stripes find all of this difficult to understand and accept.
The founding fathers well understood that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob precedes and supercedes the Sate, and that the State must scrupulously limit itself so as not to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Thank you - I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm happy that you read it and got something out of it.
Yeah, I agree with you on that. The one reason I do admire both Santorum and Paul is that even if I don't agree with them, they definitely have the courage of their convictions. They're not demagogues, they're honest guys with an honest set of beliefs - unlike one certain former speaker of the house.
And honestly, if Romney can win the governorship in Taxachusetts, I imagine if he had just remained consistent he have won the presidency handily* - especially with the way things are now - but his inability to stand on his own convictions has definitely done some serious damage. It's 2004 all over again.
*although, to be fair, he'd probably lose the primary before that could happen
Really good and well argued post but I think the real issue here is that Romney knowingly lied - not so much what he lied about. I suspect Romney shares your views - hence the decision to force catholic hospitals to provide contraception. However, I wish he had the confidence of his convictions to argue his corner, as you have, rather than deny them to avoid another potential blow to his already faltering reputation as a conservative.
Yes, and if we were talking about a church providing spiritual guidance, I wouldn't say that they should have to do anything that they feel violates their moral conscience or the tenets of their faith, but since they're choosing to be a primary healthcare provider for millions of people, their primary obligation should be to treat their patients. EC in most cases prevents ovulation and thickens cervical mucus to prevent sperm from ever entering the uterus - conception never taking place. In some cases, when both of these measures fail, it's known to prevent implantation of the zygote (or blastocyst, if it's been more than four days since fertilization). Of course, EC only works for about 72 hours with its efficacy decreasing as time passes, and it's not 100% effective. Incidentally, about 70% of zygotes fail to implant as it is. None of these things is "abortion," in the traditional sense, since abortion necessarily requires a pregnancy and if a blastocyst fails to implant, the woman never becomes pregnant - it just flushes out at her next period and nobody is the wiser.
At least that's the prevailing view in the medical community, but alright, the Catholic Church holds that life begins at conception and a zygote is a human being. Fine. Ignoring the fact that this means that well over half of human beings die before they even begin to develop (a zygote/blastocyst doesn't have a heartbeat and won't until after about 22 days. If it fails to implant, it will be flushed out long before that), it puts them in a tricky situation when dealing with rape victims - because if the victim asks for EC, isn't provided it, and ultimately becomes pregnant, chances are quite high that she's going to elect to have an abortion since she didn't want to become pregnant in the first place. Even most mainstream pro-life politicians support rape/incest exceptions, so she shouldn't have much trouble getting one, even if Roe v Wade is one day overturned. Considering that, honestly, if it were me, I'd imagine it preferable to provide requested - and widely accepted (by the medical community) - treatment that most of the time will simply prevent fertilization and on the off chance that fertilization does occur, it will simply increase the likelihood that the zygote will fail to implant, than it would be to create a situation in which the victim will later abort an actual fetus, which will be much more painful to the victim, cost about 100 times as much money, and - of course - means that a developing life with a heartbeat, hands, legs, and a brain will be cut off.
But I'm not Catholic and the Catholic Church likes to be black and white about things. I get it - just because most zygotes fail to implant anyways doesn't mean that we have the right to interfere; after all, 10% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, that doesn't mean abortion is okay. From their standpoint, they'd rather our victim get pregnant and go abort elsewhere, so at least they wouldn't have any part in it. I'm relatively pro-choice (first trimester on-demand, second trimester only in special cases (rape, incest, life of mother, and cases of euthanasia, which is to say the discovery of an incurable birth defect that will ensure that the baby lives a short and painful life because I'd rather it die before it fully develops a central nervous system than have it come into and leave the world in pain), and by the third trimester only if giving birth is literally going to kill the mother or, again, some rare and incurable defect is discovered. That's my stance, but it's not the church's stance, and I respect that. That's where the conscience angle comes into play - and I respect people's rights to their religious beliefs.
So why is this different? Simply put, it's not so cut-and-dry because there are two groups whose rights you need to consider: the conscience of the church, and the victims right to self-determination (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
One thing that people generally respect - regardless of their personal views on artificial contraception and abortion - is the right of men and women be able to determine - or at least influence - when and how they get pregnant. The Catholic Church encourages the rhythm method for married women precisely because they recognize this fact. I don't know of any groups that object to the rhythm method itself, but even if then, they would say that people can abstain from sex should they wish not to get pregnant. None of these methods, of course, is foolproof (except for abstinence, but that fails when people succumb to their baser instincts). We expect that people who choose to have sex are aware of that fact.
When these various methods fail is when our various views on the subject start to diverge - there are pro-life absolutists who view the zygote as a full life, pro-choice absolutists who feel that abortion is okay pretty much until birth, and people in the middle, like myself. But, to be redundant, in all cases, we believe that even if they're having sex (in or out of wedlock) people should have the right to take measures to reduce the possibility of their becoming pregnant unexpectedly - and we expect them to take responsibility - whatever we as individuals think that means - for their actions if they do become pregnant by accident. Catholic hospitals shouldn't have to provide EC to couples if condom breaks, because the couple knew the risks of using a condom, and if they want EC, it's OTC and they can get it elsewhere.
Rape, however, robs the victim entirely of her right to influence her pregnancy. It violates probably our most basic human right - to control our own bodies. When rape occurs, the woman has lost total control of her own sexual destiny; her most fundamental freedom has been violated, and she has the right to try and regain it by some measure, including by taking steps that will allow her to control the circumstances by which she becomes pregnant - and once sperm has entered the vagina, EC is the only measure that gives her that option.
As noted above, we don't all agree on artificial contraception, but we do all agree that people have a basic God-given right to self-determination. And that's where the government comes in.
Rape victims are not teenagers with a broken condom - the latter has engaged in activity out of their own free will while the former has not. Condom-users recognize the risks of what they're doing and are exercising their right to determine what happens to their bodies, rape victims aren't afforded that liberty. While, should the former choose to go to a catholic hospital, the only right in play is the church's conscience rights, when the latter gets rushed to a catholic hospital for a rape kit, her rights also come into play, and it becomes a matter of determining whether the church's rights or the victim's rights take precedence - because in this case, she can't just get in a car and drive around to try and find a pharmacy that will accomodate her. It's a zero-sum game at the end of the day, I feel hers are more basic, and thus ought be protected, and government should take the measures to secure her rights. That's its purpose, no?
The other issue, of course, is that we're talking about a hospital, whose primary objective should be to ensure the wellbeing of their patients (first do no harm). By not providing EC to rape victims, a very solid ethical argument could be made that they're inflicting more pain on top of what she has already been through. Not that they're "punishing her with a baby," but that they're further depriving her of the right that she's already been deprived of by her rapist.
And that's why this issue is much more complicated than we want it to be.
You and the scarecrow must have something in common.
Why should the rape victim be robbed of the option of taking whatever legal measures that she feels are necessary because she happened to get raped in an area where the proprietor of the primary healthcare facility happens to be the Catholic church?
Nobody is "robbing" anybody of anything--where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church could somehow legitimately be required, in the very first place, to violate its own essential moral tenets and conscience? Regardless of what crimes are committed by third parties in their vicinity.... How does someone else's crime rightfully implicate the Catholic Church, and somehow compel them to violate their deeply held morals? The Catholic Church believes that children conceived as the result of rape are every bit as innocently and actually human as everyone else, and cannot be killed--not by a pill, or by any other means...
Another letter with numerous signatures and references/citations refuting Romney's claim to be Conservative and Pro-life:
Here are a 2/23/12 article and video refuting Romney's claim in the Arizona debate:
Here is a VERY Thorough and Truthful* examination of Romney's stance and actions:
This site will pay $100. to anyone who finds an error in their information.
Yes, Romney KING OF THE FLIP-FLOPPERS!!! I can't wait to hear the the Romney-bots try to spin this story!!!
[If providing morning-after pills was “voluntary” on the part of the Catholic Church, then that would mean that Cardinal O’Malley volunteered to have Catholic hospitals give out abortifacients.
That is simply not true.]
Anyone else considering that Obama's choice to force Catholic institutions to violate their faith has Willard's name on it?
"Hey there Mitt, I believe you did it first."
They've all lied -- including -- Santorum, Newt & Perry.
Still feel there's something partly true about Cains accuser -- but that doesn't matter anymore.
But we all grow thru life -- including our consience & knowledge regarding views we carried from experience &/or education.
ALL have sinned & come short of the Glory of God...
and Santorum, Newt & Perry certainly ain't no saints.
Ron Paul -- bless his heart -- is just a loon. LOL ;)
Those without sins -- cast the 1st... ;)
A SAINT only becomes a Saint one way - through REPENTANCE - and by the substitutionary sacrifice and the cleansing Blood of the ONLY RIGHTEOUS MAN WHO EVER LIVED - JESUS CHRIST.
Our only righteousness is Christ's righteousness - imputed by God onto the sinner.
This is the only righteousness Heaven recognizes.
Newt has repented of his sins and of believing the false data presented int global warming dishonest science. When the Gore-lies were exposed, Newt repented (unlike Pelosi and Gore).
Santorum has repented of his mistakes and would not vote for Title 10 and No Child Left Behind again...he saw the problems it has produced.
Romney is still giving ample evidence through his lies, and continued defenses of Romneycare and denials of his actions, that he has not repented.
Quiz question: Who is called the 'father of lies' in Scripture?
Seriously folks we don't need a GOP Liar n Chief like Obama.
Bush threw us in a hole, Romney would bury us.
Actions speak louder than words. He will claim he is pro-life until he wins the nomination and then he will point to his own record during the general election, thereby losing his base in order to gain independents. The result will be 4 more years of Obama's Marxism and the end of America. He seriously thinks voters have no memory.
Always nice seeing something I though was false and did not want to research was done by another - thanks for the link!
"The issue turns on whether Romney’s admonition of what was ‘right’ carried more weight, or force of law, than that of any other individual, and in this instance it did.
From the article:
On December 8, 2005, Romney reversed the legal opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, instructing all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims.
As with all things Romney, it matter little what he said, it is what he – through his State Department of Public Health – did that matters.
He ordered the hospitals to participate."
Just like Hussein. Get him to release 10 years of tax returns. He tripped and stuttered so badly on that issue I am sure it will open the curtain on just the type of man he is. Funny how that was put to bed by the media for now. You can bet Obama operatives are sitting on the info. They sent wolf packs of dirt diggers to Alaska, the IRS is just down the street!
You hate his dishonesty Mike, because you are a Marine and live by the code of honor set forth by the Corps, although I suspect your Mom and Dad drilled it into you first.
Romney, on the other hand, has no concept of honor as shown by his constant lies and 'mis-statements'. Semper Fi, Marine. Always faithful! VG
Somebody ought to be calling Santorum's campaign, and telling them to run with this. Furthermore, they should include the fact that Ron Paul, Willard's sock puppet, may support the same thing:
A well-made commercial showing how Romney is a liar, and no more inclined to support the First Amendment, than Obama, as well as showing how Ron Paul has become his attack dog and will more than likely support him if he becomes VP or a cabinet member, would go down just fine.
LOVED when Newt stared down Romney and brushed off Mitt's lies and spin with 'nice try'. Romney must think we are all idiots. It's sad to see someone like Romney pretend to be a Christian and then lie and lower himself to Obama's level.
Thank you for posting this. As many, I've come to expect that politicians will exaggerate a bit, but outright lying is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, Gov. Romney didn't just make a mistake here - he lied. That is just plain wrong.
As out of vogue as it may be, character matters.
Did any of you all see this comment over at the link?
Romney also “misrepresented” the Catholic Charities/adoptions by homosexuals case. Excerpt from Mitt Romney’s Deception here:
Detail Catholic Hospitals & Catholic Charities also at: “Mitt Romney’s CPAC Speech: His Claims vs. the Truth,” http://www.amycontrada.com/Romney_s_CPAC_Speech.html