Fuss about FOCA
Thursday, February 19, 2009
By Bryan Cones
Comments (32)
Time magazine has an interesting story about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recent campaign against the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Prolife advocates have whipped up a frenzy about the law, which, according to some, would eliminate state restrictions on abortion; their efforts have included email campaigns filled with dire consequences, including all Catholic hospitals shutting down and women being "forced" to have abortions. At the same time, almost all commentators note that it is highly unlikely that the bill will even be introduced in the current Congress, where it lacks support even of congressional Democrats. Even Nancy Pelosi has said she would not allow the law to come up for a vote (which is smart, as it would be political suicide for all kinds of reasons).
Notre Dame legal scholar and all-around smart person Cathleen Kaveny has written an excellent analysis of the FOCA controversy for Commonweal; it's long, but well worth the read if you want to make an informed opinion, and it cuts through a lot of the activist and media blather. In the end Kaveny shares my view that all the energy going into blanketing Congress with anti-FOCA postcards should be redirected to more productive work on behalf of pregnant women. (Read my January column on the issue here.)
It's too bad the U.S. bishops have chosen confrontation rather than conversation and cooperation with the new administration, a plan they signalled almost immediately after Obama's election. Although Catholics obviously can't sign on to a prochoice agenda, we can certainly work with anyone to reduce abortion, and as the TIme piece points out, the new president has made reducing abortions a high priority for his faith-based initiatives programs.
Posted in: In preview mode
Sick and Tired
By Al Wunsch (not verified) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009of hearing the same old PC type nonesense that is used to make arguements. This is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles and is a country of (or at least was) law and order. If you come here illegally, you are an illegal alien. Knock off the undocumented worker etc nonesense. My parents emigrated (and met in New York) from Europe in the 1920's, came here legally and assimilated into America as good Americans. They ask for nothing except the opportunity to work and as the army says "be all you can be".
WE have a pro abortion president who is likeable and an articulate speaker but you have to watch what he does, sometimes not what he says. He also has a media that is invested in his success and whose reports cannot be taken without scrutiny. As we have seen, the devil is in the details. Unemployment benefits extended but also a policy change that encumbers the states; welfare support but policy changes to take away the work requirement which helped many to get off welfare; tax cuts but they are really income redistribution etc...
It is said here that a women cannot walk into a hospital and have a baby without, at least walking out with a $25K bill. I lived in San Diego for over 20 years and many mexican women came over to have their babies. They got dual citizenship for their baby and maybe walked out with their bill. But who paid the bill? The state of California did, not the mexican mother.
You demean the rich with the old "hate the rich" stuff to incite the rabble. When I was in school I learned that it was OK and Christian to make a profit,but there was such a thing as a just profit; when in a union, you could strike but there was such a thing as a just strike.
What has happened today is a breakdown of our society by both the "rich" profiteer and the government such as the members of congress who refused to let the republicans regulate the fannies from 2001 through Senator McCain's bill in 2005/6 and the republicans that didn't take this situation to the bully pulpit before it became a financial meltdown.
I am tired of hearing the social justice, anti-war type with their cannard that you can't be a one issue voter(i.e. abortion). Abortion is, was and has always been a mortal sin. Wake up. Stifle your emotions and temper them with some rational thought and, most of all, listen to Church teachings. (By the way, don't use the weakness of some bishops as an excuse to wander from the truth).
More irrational Republican/conservative propaganda
By David Phillips (not verified) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009I am proud to be anti-war and in favor of social justice. I think as Catholic Christians we have no other option but to be so.
I agree with you in that there is such a thing as a just profit, and there is such a thing as a just strike. And both can be abused, like you said. However, those making the profits are the ones who abuse more, because they have the wealth and power. Those in the position of strength have the advantage over those in the position of needing to survive. Please read Mary's Magnificat for how God feels about the poor.
As far as rational thought, please check the record on your (typical conservative "cannard") blaming of Congress for our economic woes.
The conservatives are so one-sided and conveniently forget their own remarks in the past. At the end of 2007, I heard conservatives claiming "there is nothing wrong with the economy." They said those on the left were simply trying to scare us. They denied what those on the political left were saying- we're in a recession.
Then, when the conservatives could no longer the economic collapse that occurred, all of the sudden they were saying all along that Clinton was to blame for this...and that the Democratic *Congress* (not Bush/Cheney Inc.) were to blame for this disaster.
The conservatives are very dishonest in this.
David Phillips, please clarify the propaganda.
By Jerry (not verified) on Wednesday, February 25, 2009David,
The primary cause of our problem is the meltdown of the mortgage market caused by irresponsible lending of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as pressure from Democrats to force banks to lower their mortgage credit standards under the Community Reinvestment Act.
Please explain to me how 1999 and 2003 articles in the New York Times and taped congressional hearings from 2004, both which occured long before the final meltdown and not subject to the liberal New York Times spin, are irrational Republican Conservative Propaganda.
Have you heard of this information?
Here is a 1999 New York Times article on the Democrats lowering credit standards at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with comments from a conservative at the American Enterprise Institute warning of the great risk.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A...
Here is a 2003 New York Times article on Republicans trying to rein in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae warning of the huge problems and Democrats working to block the Republicans saying there is no problem.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A...
Here is video of the 2004 congressional hearings where Democrats yell down a regulator warning of abuses at the GSE's (Freddie and Fannie) and claiming there is no problem while Republicans warn of the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Please have the courage to acknowledge the truth.
Reply to Jerry
By David Phillips (not verified) on Thursday, February 26, 2009I don't deny the role that BOTH of the mainstream American political parties have played (I voted for the Green Party candidates- for President and Congress- in the 2008 election).
I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those conservatives who said "everything is fine" - and then suddenly blamed the Democrats when everything collapsed. I stand by what I said- Republicans and conservatives are VERY one-sided and refuse to see much truth.
The same conservatives who are moaning about this economic crisis, are the same ones who supported the Reaganomics that have destroyed the middle class in this country. Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush trickle-down economics and favoring of the wealthy elite have destroyed the middle class.
The same conservatives -who are bashing Obama and Clinton- fail to point out how the Bush administration has destroyed this country... the war in Iraq, the shredding of the Constitution, the many scandals and failures, the lives lost in Iraq and Katrina, and so much more. This is the double standard I was alluding to.
You cannot scapegoat this financial crisis entirely on the Democratic Party and the Congress. The crisis is **global** in nature. The whole economic system as we know it is a house of cards built on a false foundation of greed and non-existent wealth, and was bound to fall.
The Republicans want to scapegoat the poor "brown people" who didn't "deserve" a mortgage. They also have used this economic crisis as an opportunity to quash unions and living wages as well- how low can they go?
David, Address the issue
By Jerry (not verified) on Thursday, February 26, 2009Al Wunsch writes: “What has happened today is a breakdown of our society by both the "rich" profiteer and the government such as the members of congress who refused to let the republicans regulate the fannies from 2001 through Senator McCain's bill in 2005/6 and the republicans that didn't take this situation to the bully pulpit before it became a financial meltdown.”
David Phillips responds: “More irrational conservative/Republican Propaganda... As far as rational thought, please check the record on your (typical conservative "cannard") blaming of Congress for our economic woes.”
David, Al made a true statement correctly crediting the Republicans for trying to regulate the GSE’s which the Democrats stopped. This was the center of the financial meltdown. He also acknowledged other causes besides Congress. I provided direct proof of Al’s statements with reliable historical links not subject to political spin. You charged him with “more irrational/Conservative Propaganda” with no rational thought blaming only Congress when he also blamed profiteers. You owe Al an apology and owe yourself to acknowledge that the socialist policies you support were the primary cause of the financial meltdown. The house of cards was the false pumping up of home values by socialist policies.
You fail to address the specific cause Al and I cited, spout off about “propaganda” and then write a rant of fallacies.
Be rational: a campaign statement by Presidential Candidate, John McCain, saying the economy is fundmentally sound is not a policy which affected the the regulation of the GSE’s which led to the harm to our economy.
I took the time to provide you the direct proof against of one of your fallacies, but unfortunately emotional liberals can not directly address specific points and go on with emotionally satisfying rants. (For example, please clarify your charge that Republicans have used this crisis as an opportunity to squash unions.) I can't write on all your fallacies. Read Thomas Sowell.
Speaking about rants rather than addressing the issue, this comment thread started with me challenging the editor to explain the difference in moral gravity of abortion and segregation where he presumably would fight against any expansion of segregation, but says it is good policy to be silent about not fighting against a law advocated by the President to expand teenage abortion, partial birth abortion, etc. I've never gotten an answer.
Second and final reply to Jerry
By David Phillips (not verified) on Friday, February 27, 2009Jerry,
Let me start out by saying, I do respect you as a fellow human being and a fellow Catholic. [However, I cannot help but become angry with what the right wing does in this country and throughout the world.] Please read and ponder all of the following:
*When I said "More irrational Republican/conservative propaganda," it applied not only to Al Wunsch's opinion about the financial meltdown, but to the majority of his comment. I mean this not against him personally, but against the conservative propaganda of which he unfortunately is a victim. Once someone buys/believes in the salesman, he will often buy what he is selling. Many Americans have been taken advantage of by "predator cons(ervatives)" who do not have the interests of the citizenry at heart. For me, this is more than just about the financial crisis-this is about a whole worldview which I believe is seriously flawed and which has led to the suffering and deaths of countless human beings! I don't care much about politics or party loyalties, I care about principles and values of social justice, for the sake of human beings made in the image and likeness of God.
Do you not realize that conservative think-tanks have successfully planned on how to communicate their agenda to so many people, and to organize the ranks, and have done so?
*You and Al Wunsch both accuse liberals of not thinking rationally, but only with their emotions. The irony is, that while I agree that there are indeed liberals who are subjective emotionalists, the conservative movement tends to be far more guilty of this subjective emotionalism... so much so that Al Gore, one I term a centrist but who you would no doubt call a liberal, wrote a book called "The War On Reason," in which he calls for a return in society to logical, rational thought. Need I remind you that the most popular of the far right wing radio show hosts (Limbaugh)calls his listeners "Dittoheads"? It frightens me how so many people will bow down to everything this "Grand Pubah" has to say. I truly believe his program and its audience is a cult.
*Anyway, back to this website: When Al Wunsch wrote his post, he downgrades those who are against war, who are activists for social justice, and who stand up for the rights and dignity of immigrants. I feel he owes all of us who are committed to Catholic social teaching an apology. Also, he suggests that we should be single issue voters on abortion. It is common knowledge that the GOP has used abortion as a wedge issue for many years. The GOP could never enlist millions of hardworking Americans to its ranks based on its true pro-big business, pro-ultra wealthy, anti-union agenda. Therefore, the GOP has had to use abortion as a way to gather support. The GOP also uses the three G's- "Gays, Guns, and God"- to, as Al puts it in his comment, "incite the rabble."
* Please realize that we cannot use police force to stop abortion. Writing laws that call abortion homicide will lead to the imprisonment of millions of women and teenage girls. Our criminal justice system is already overloaded (we already have a prison industrial complex and we need to decriminalize more, not criminalize more) and the justice system could never possibly handle trying to enforce laws banning abortion. Abortion, much like drugs and alcohol, cannot be stopped by the political State. Most abortions are the result of desperation, poverty, and flawed social expectations. Work to correct these social ills, and you will reduce the number of abortions.
* You accuse me of supporting "socialist policies." There is nothing in my previous comment to back up your claim. This tactic of the cons of calling everyone who does not conform to their far right wing agenda as "socialists" is so worn out. Again, I don't blame you personally- you are a victim of Limbaughlike tactics.
*VERY IMPORTANT: You asked me to clarify how Republicans were using the financial crisis to crush unions. Jerry, the Republican Party has *NEVER* been known to support labor unions. If you look at the history of the labor movement- or any movement (e.g. civil rights) that stood up for the dignity of the human person and caused society to progress- it has NEVER been conservatives who caused this progress. It has been progressives, liberals, and radicals who led the way to a brighter tomorrow. Conservatives, by definition, always cling to the STATUS QUO, wanting to "conserve" things the way they are. When in the world has the REPUBLICAN PARTY ever led a movement of change in favor of the rights of the poor, of women, of people of color, or of workers? It has always been a mass movement of people, led by leaders who had a vision which was considered radical at the time, who, often at the cost of their lives, struggled for and won positive changes in society! We don't have the conservatives of yesterday, but rather the radicals and liberals (and martyrs) of yesterday, to thank for things like 40 hour work week, child labor laws, overtime compensation, minimum wage laws, and so many other things we take for granted.
In any event, please look to Republican Senator Bob Corker as one prime example of evidence of my claim that the GOP has definitely used the financial crisis to crush unions. Also, here are some links on this meltdown/union issue to check out as well:
http://www.oraflcio.org/2008/12/16/gop-risking-economy-win-pr-war-agains...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/13/bailout/?source=newsletter
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/12/11/senate_republicans_and_the_uaw...
* Also, in a comment you left to Sister Fran, you said: "The term 'undocumented' is absurd because it denies the reality that a country has the right to control its borders"... I pose to you the same question I posed to Timothy... Why should the wealthy elite be allowed to have their "global economy" with no borders, but yet the working class cannot choose where to work? A country can "protect" its borders against the hungry poor, but not against the almighty rich?
* You say I should address the original issue. Well, I agree with you that Kevin left an awesome post on the meltdown (he says it so much better than I could.)
I would add that a major factor in this economic mess-besides the mortgage crisis- is high oil prices (tied to Bushco and the Iraq occupation). Also, I find it ironic that the Republicans- the ones who always are pushing for DEREGULATION- would now say that the Democrats' lack of regulation is to blame, and that they, the Republicans, wanted to regulate. Of course, I don't doubt the facts about your links- I'm just pointing out the irony.
I still maintain, like Kevin, that this economic crisis is much more than just the Democrats in Congress and Fannie Mae. Lyndon LaRouche (himself perhaps a cult leader- and I don't follow him) did accurately predict, quite some time ago, that the whole world economy was on the verge of collapse, as I remember people from his movement telling me this would happen- years ago. [Perhaps the whole idea of nations having billions/trillions of dollars in debt- and maybe even the concept of credit itself- is severely flawed and bound to crash???]
**The broader issue, besides the financial problems were are having, is that our country has been run into the ground. I guess, for me, it is hard to stomach Republicans blaming a Democratic Congress for this, when we've just come off of 8 years of what was probably the WORST presidency in the history of our nation.
From the Plame Affair- to Katrina- to Guantanamo- to Abu Ghraib- to the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq (still not ended)- to the dismissal of the US Attorneys- to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead- to executive privilege and the loss of checks and balances in our government- to illegal wiretapping- [this list could go on for pages]...I believe Bush/Cheney should have been impeached. I blame the Democrats like Pelosi the most for failing to carry out the impeachment and bring the madness to a stop.
I guess my question is: After 8 years of the Republican Bush nightmare, how can the Republicans even have the NERVE to open their mouths and put down the Democratic Party? Rather, the Republicans should hang their heads in shame for what happened over thes past 8 years.
Well, there's my "rant" as you would call it. Hopefully someone out there might read this and look at things a little differently.
P.S. I am not a member of the Green Party, nor do I agree with them on everything- but I felt that their candidates were by far the most committed to social justice, moreso than any of the alternatives.
Sen Bob Corker: Union Buster!
By Jerry (not verified) on Sunday, March 1, 2009Thank you for responding. Perhaps you can keep future posts a little more focused that making a list of perceived transgressions spanning back decades so we can really learn positions. For example your links on Sen Bob Corker clarity what you believe to be union busting rather than just making the charge.
Your comment:
“VERY IMPORTANT: You asked me to clarify how Republicans were using the financial crisis to crush unions. … please look to Republican Senator Bob Corker as one prime example of evidence of my claim that the GOP has definitely used the financial crisis to crush unions.”
I looked at your articles and others. In your view unless Bob Corker supports forcing taxpayers to fund General Motors for tens of billions of dollars with no concessions by unions to make the firms viable, he is a UNION BUSTER! We are greedy and heartless unless we force taxpayers who get no pension to pay for full guaranteed pension and medical care of unionized auto workers when they retire after 30 years of service at age 48. We are heartless unless we continue to force taxpayers to fund the guaranteed employment plan where “laid off" union workers get full pay and benefits for playing cards eight years after their positions were eliminated.
Let’s fantisize the unions had no role in the demise of GM, the above paragraph about the cost of unions is a conservative lie, the page you linked that claims the additional cost of a union employee is negligible is true, and it is all the fault of the management not preparing their companies for a financial downturn as well as non-union automakers. You believe it is the roll of the government to force other citizens to pay tens of billions of dollars of taxes to fund the full wages and benefits of unionized auto workers who sadly have no work to do. Those that don’t are cruel or brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh!. UNION BUSTERS!
Those laid off who did not work under a union that gives millions of dollars to the Democratic Party should have worked harder to establish a union.
I disagree with your tone, but you are correct abortion or gay marriage is a wedge issue of voters that place morality above having the Democratic Party force others to subsidize their paycheck. As government increases morality will decrease because their souls will have been purchased by the Democratic party. I sympathize for the plight of a unionized GM autoworker tempted to vote against a prolife candidate in favor of a pro-abortion union funded Democrat who will guaranteed wages and benefits for doing nothing and there are no other comparable job prospects for which he is qualified that pays even half the wages. It takes great character to make the moral choice. Karl Marx would be proud of your tone and of Al Gore's statement about wedge issues based on Marx's famous quote: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Only a fool believes there are things more important than establishing socialism!
Liberals make the charge that conservatives are making an epithet if they use the terms socialism. Every one of your positions is advocated by parties that call themselves "Socialists" in Europe. So it is another charge based upon feelings.
I can't answer all your other charges or expect a reply, but perhaps you may understand what we conservatives would consider your brainwashing by the liberal media:
You charge that "(Bush's) dismissal of the US Attorneys" is one of the monstrous sins of the Bush Administration.
Have you ever heard the other side? If you only rely on the mainstream media you probably didn't know the following:
U.S. Attorneys serve at the priviledge of the President
Clinton fired EVERY attorney including ones investigating his actions in Arkansas when he assumed office and there was barely a mention in the media spun in favor of Clinton and certainly no 3 month liberal media created firestorm.
After several years of frustration, Bush fired a handful of Clinton attorneys he considered politicized for example not pursuing the case against Democratic Congressman Jefferson who had $100,000 of bribery cash in his freezer. (Of couse the media spin on this is that the evil political Bush fired even-handed, open minded attorneys who refused to cooperate with Bush witchhunts of good Democrats and the protection of corrupt Republicans.)
How do these conservatives sleep at night?
By David Phillips (not verified) on Monday, March 2, 2009Wow, I cannot believe what I just read.
Jerry wrote: "I sympathize for the plight of a unionized GM autoworker tempted to vote against a prolife candidate in favor of a pro-abortion union funded Democrat who will guarantee wages and benefits for doing nothing and there are no other comparable job prospects for which he is qualified that pays even half the wages."
The obvious implication is that GM autoworkers are unqualified and lazy and don't deserve the wages and benefits they're getting. WOW! I beg to differ. Working in a factory is HARD WORK and those guys deserve a good wage. Jerry is unfairly basing his bigoted perception on the bad behavior of a VERY FEW goof-offs. All workers deserve a decent living wage- and these autoworkers deserve even more than that!
Talk about elitism and disdain for the working class! This is very, very sad. I will keep Jerry and others with his mindset in my prayers always- I am serious, not sarcastic, when I say this.
I don't expect non-union workers to pay for union workers as Jerry says. What I would like is for ALL workers to be unionized....and for ALL workers to be paid a just and living wage !!!!
And to top it all off, Jerry considers it a "moral choice" to cut the wages of workers in half, and then force them- by police force- to bring children into the world. Does anyone see something wrong with this? Force people to bear children, but don't allow those children's parents to make a living wage? Let them grow up with no health care, no education, maybe even no food?
Note to self: Don't bother arguing with these right-wingers. It's a waste of time as they are living on another planet, and there is too much of an ethical divide. It just scares me that they influence young minds.
Point of Clarification
By Jerry (not verified) on Monday, March 2, 2009Thanks for responding as I believe you are clearly sincere and are reading in things that are not there. I really hope this clears things up. I have a think skin, so you can call me a crazed right winger.
Auto workers obviously work. I value all work no matter what it is. However, it is true that right now they sadly have nothing to do. So if you force taxpayers to pay them, you are forcing them to pay for them doing nothing. Sadly, the reality is that there is not another job that most of the autoworkers could do for which they could get paid half the wages. If they could get paid the same wages from another employer, I'm sure that many of the employees that have literally been paid for playing cards for the last several years would quit and take that job. Please be of good will. How you got from my words that because most auto workers are not qualified to find a job that pays half their current wages and benefits that I think it is the moral choice to cut their wages in half because I don't think we should force the taxpayers to pay their wages with tens of billions of dollar in bailout money?
Sadly, at my company we have laid off about more than 30% of our workforce. We do not have the cash reserves that GM has blown though or the federal government to pay for them. We do home improvements. If fewer people call us to do home improvements, we don't get money from customers and we do not have money to pay our employees.
The company I work for has tight margins. We try to charge the highest price we can, but if we can't go too high or we lose the sale (and are lucky to get a sale at the prices we currently charge). Our installers make about $50,000 but our assistant installers make California mimimum wage of $8.25, but can work up to be an installer. Last year our company lost well over a million dollars, but we still have rents to pay under lease agreements and bank term loans to pay.
I have no doubt $8.25 or even $50,000 per year with minimal benefits in Southern CA is NOT what you consider to be just and living wages. In all seriousness, do you think we should shut our doors unless we can pay those wages and benefits? How are you going to legislate a just and living wage at my company? We don't have owner and manager salary of a scale that you simply could dictate from government fiat that the wealth be redistributed according to what you think is fair. Are you going to send in a government team in to see show us how to do things more efficiently? If we could do the same job with half the labor will you be satisfied if we double our wages but lay off half the work force?
I'm sure these employees would like to make your just and living wage, but it is simply not going to happen at my company anytime soon. Shouldn't these workers have the right to work? In all seriousness, is your solution to raise the minimum wage to what you consider just, hope customers will pay more for discretionary home improvements and raise taxes on those customers to pay for what you consider to be fair unemployment coverage? Perhaps you want to take away the freedom of our customers to have home improvements you consider unjust because the money could be taxed and better spent on a goverment worker assisting the poor.
In regards to "forcing others to have children" why do you use such heated language that suggests pro-life people are forcing others to engage in the reproductive act? I believe that people have responsibility for their actions of engaging in relations and must assume the consequences they know may occur as a result of those relations. In Thomas Jefferson's letter on the separation of church and state he writes:
"I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
When two people voluntarily engages in the act that may create life they have a social duty to be responsible for that life. There is no right to abortion as there is "no natural right in opposition to ( ) social duties."
I hope this clarifies that I don't hate workers. I'm not weathly myself and grew up in a family in the "upper - lower class" in a relatively high crime area.
I really don't believe we though fiat can create utopia. I believe the government does have the moral obligation to protect life and that includes restricting the choice of abortion. I believe that outside of basic issues of life it is not good that power be so concentrated where government makes all the economic choices of our life including forcing taxpayers to pay the high wages and benefits of GM workers who sadly have no nothing do.
I agree with you in some respects...
By David Phillips (not verified) on Monday, March 2, 2009I appreciate your response and I appreciate your sincerity as well. I am sorry if my last post sounded a little offensive; however, you can understand my passion about these issues.
I guess the thing I would do to help create a better world is to heavily tax the ultra-wealthy. I don't mean the manager of your company. I mean the multimillionaires and billionaires.
Over the past decades in the U.S., the rich have progressively gotten richer, and the poor poorer, with the middle class being destroyed. [Let's hope Obama can save it.] It is the ultra-wealthy elite who have consumed so much of the wealth. Some would say "it's their money, they earned it." But the reality is that the creation of wealth is a joint venture between employers and workers.
It's not really a question of whether wealth should be redistributed; this occurs no matter what. The question is, should wealth be redistributed upwards to the already ultra-wealthy, or should it be redistributed to the poor and to the workers who were crucial to the creation of the wealth?
By taxing the wealthy more, and by eliminating spending so much the money spent on the military-industrial complex, we could free up a lot more for health care, etc.
I agree with you strongly that morally, people should be responsible for their actions, including engaging in the reproductive act. I also am firmly opposed, morally, to abortion. I just think that the State cannot and should not try to enforce, via police force, laws that consider abortion homicide.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
