Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) (H.R. 748)
Child Custody Protection Act (S. 8)

Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S.51, H.R. 356)

Currently there are 118 co-sponsors of CIANA in the House, 10 are Democrats (3 of those are Catholic); there are 23 co-sponsors of CCPA in the Senate, none are Democrats. There are 34 co-sponsors of the UCPAA in the Senate, none are Democrats; there are 104 co-sponsors in the House, 9 are Democrats (4 of those are Catholic).

Mr. Dean recently said the following:

All Catholics should read this piece. Magnet argues that it is not capitalism (nor the Republican supporters of this system) which is to blame for the state of poverty in America. Instead, it is the liberal policies (which are often endorsed by the USCCB) which were meant to alleviate the plight of the poor. There is evidence of this:

A woman is about to be murdered, and you probably already know her name--Terri Schiavo.

Please help us rescue Terri from a horrible death by starvation! The moment her feeding tube is removed, Terri will begin a long, slow, painful death by starvation and dehydration.

We need your help NOW to rescue Terri from her cruel executioners. They've already tried to kill her once before, and she fought to stay alive. But this may be the last chance Terri gets. Will you help save her life?

MEDIA LIES

If you've heard about Terri only through the news media, you've probably been led to believe things like this:

* Terri brain dead.
* She is in a coma.
* She's a vegetable.
* Extraordinary means are being used to keep her alive.
* She wants to die

The Democrats are lead by Catholics who have forgotten their faith, and they are being punished at the polls by Catholics who remember theirs - such is the proof of Justice in the universe.

The post mentions a good First Things article. You can find it here.

The New Republic's Ryan Lizza has a fascinating account of how "a guerrilla squad of Democratic bloggers" knocked down every other contender for the post. An example is ex-Rep. Tim Roemer of Indiana, who had the backing of Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid:

The entire field of candidates, in concert with the insular liberal blogosphere, rose up and destroyed Roemer.

The hit was silent and deadly. One day I received by messenger a dirty and smudged envelope with no return address. Inside were five pages of anti-Roemer opposition research about his positions on everything from Israel and abortion to labor and Social Security. The same information was fed to numerous blogs, which quickly declared Roemer anathema. "Unless Roemer publicly, loudly, and completely repudiates his recent [pro-privatization] position on Social Security, he is utterly unacceptable as DNC chair," said a post on the pro-Dean site MyDD.com, which served as a key clearinghouse of information about the race. (Roemer did repudiate that position, but it wasn't enough.)

Criterion 1
Lasting: Saddam had been in power and causing misery and death for three decades, and his sons appeared to be next in line to continue their father's "work". And if we're going to use hindsight to throw out the WMD rationale, how about including, then, the corruption of the UN through the Oil-For-Food scandal, where a rogue state was able to use illegal cash to bribe the very body that was supposed to be monitoring its compliance.
Grave: If you look at the list above, even if you strip out items b) and c) having to do with WMD, you still have a pretty compelling set of reasons. Especially the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who had been systematically killed and oppressed.
Certain: Again, even setting aside the WMD issues (which seemed certain to everyone at the time), there is no doubt that Saddam would continue his nefarious behavior.

Criterion 2 Impractical: Saddam was a murderous tyrant. What means, other than war, have been used successfully to stop such people?

One of the distinctive contributions of Catholic social teaching is the principle of subsidiarity. According to the Catechism, subsidiarity means that "neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies" (CCC, 1894). If we focus on subsidiarity, the political world looks quite different from the perspective of many liberal Catholics who still embrace the Democratic Party. This difference is due to the fact that subsidiarity is a politically conservative principle.

The liberal distaste for subsidiarity--for local decision-making--is rooted in the elitism that permeates so much of American liberalism.

At this point, some might say, "Hold on. What about the Church's preferential option for the poor?" Good question. Subsidiarity is based on man's dignity as free and rational and seeks to make full use of those divinely ordained traits (see CCC 1884). Subsidiarity aims at the common good. To have a preferential option for the poor means seeking to aid the poor in the best way possible. Aiding the poor by respecting their human dignity and by being close enough to know what the poor really need and want is what subsidiarity contributes to implementing the preferential option for the poor. The Church speaks of a personal love and compassion for the poor--you cannot deliver personal love and compassion while distant from and ignorant of the lives and needs of the poor (see CCC 2447-48). The preferential option for the poor must also include the call to conversion as part of helping the poor (see CCC 1888)-- a facet exhibited by [President] Bush's savagely mocked faith-based initiatives.

The move is certain to spark a heated debate about the abortion issue because former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer, who's Roman Catholic and opposes abortion, wants to lead a party whose platform supports abortion rights.

"In the Clinton years when I worked with them to reduce the abortion rate by 11 percent through counseling, economic security, all I want to do is have a conversation in my party and broaden that tent,"

There are 154 Catholics in the new Congress - an all-time high - including 87 Democrats and 67 Republicans. While Democrats hold their traditional lead among Catholics, Republicans are gaining, with two-thirds of new Catholic members coming from the GOP.

I guess my emphasis over the last week or so on the issue of "proportionate reasons" has bothered some folks over at Catholics for Democracy. hugetim raises some points I wish to address.

First, he writes, "that Cardinal Ratzinger has not, in fact, reiterated that Catholic teaching does not prohibit pro-life Catholics from voting for pro-[abortion] candidates." In none of my writings or posts has it been claimed that Catholics are prohibited from voting for pro-abortion candidates. There are some scenarios where a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Examples of such scenarios have been provided by Jimmy Akins, Father Frank Pavone, and Bishop Rene Henry Gracida. But, given the positions of our two presidential candidates, this campaign does NOT present itself as one of these scenarios. Given the differences between President Bush and Senator Kerry on abortion and the Church's consistent teaching on the grave sinfulness of supporting abortion, it is difficult to give any reasons which would allow it to be considered not sinful for a Catholic to vote for Senator Kerry. I challenge hugetim to name the "proportionate reasons" which he thinks would permit a Catholic to vote for Senator Kerry. It is one thing to write that I am wrong and another to point out why he thinks so.

Next, take the following statement, "the bald-faced lie that Ratzinger (or some other Vatican authority) specified that proportionate reasons can only be abortion related." Okay, let's look at the nota bene again from the Ratzinger memo,

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

And here's more from the memo proper,

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.

I guess Cardinal Ratzinger is the liar? Am I missing something here?

Next, hugetim writes, "only peripheral abortion issues are at stake, which clearly do not dominate other issues." Abortion not on the table? Maybe the two candidates have not emphasized their positions on abortion, but to many voters, esp. Catholics, their positions are important. (In fact, Senator Kerry's views may be affecting voters in some battleground states.) And as stated above by Cardindal Ratzinger himself, "[n]ot all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion" I have been arguing that there are more than just "peripheral abortion issues" involved here. Though we may wish more could be done to end abortion, Catholics must look to what would happen under a Kerry presidency. We would likely see moves to:

- require hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to make abortion readily available - require medical students to learn how to perform abortions