Is it okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? - Catholics for Democracy

Cry of the Poor

"How can it be that even today there are still people dying of hunger? Condemned to illiteracy? Lacking the most basic medical care? Without a roof over their heads? . . .

"Christians must learn to make their act of faith in Christ by discerning His voice in the cry for help that rises from this world of poverty."
Pope John Paul II
Novo Millennio Ineunte, no. 50

Upcoming events

DFA Summer Campaign Training in Texas (23 hours)
DFA Summer Training in California (20 days)
General Election (73 days)

Why register?

All Christians and people of all faiths are welcome here!
If you want to post in forums without moderator approval, or submit blog entries, you will need to CREATE AN ACCOUNT BELOW by simply entering a username and email address. Trouble registering? We'll help: info[at]catholicsfordemocracy.org

User login

· Create new account
· Request new password

Essential Links

USCCB Faithful Citizenship
NETWORK Catholic Lobby
Democrats for Life
Bread for the World
Catholic Charities USA
Pax Christi USA
Franciscans International -- a United Nations NGO

Democracy for America

Join Democracy for America!
Follow the Webby Award People's Choice: Blog for America

Government Websites

The White House
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Supreme Court

Lay-Catholic Political Sites

Catholics for Kerry 04
Kerry Catholics
Catholics for Kerry Yahoo!

The Nation Weblogs

· Capital Games: Attack on Kerry Springs a Leak
· Editor's Cut: Dean's Dozens
· ActNow!: The People's Guide
· Daily Outrage: Of Mice and Men
· ActNow!: Life After Capitalism
· Editor's Cut: Protecting Every Vote
· Capital Games: Wrong for the CIA--UPDATED
· ActNow!: Fight for the Right to Rally
· Editor's Cut: 7,345 and Counting...Bush Books
· Capital Games: Bush Jokes About Tax Dodgers

Queen of Peace

Pray for Us!

Categories : Abortion / Is it okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Forum submitted by hugetim on Sat 20 Dec 2003 - 15:26 h

Let's face it. As Catholics, we recognize legalized abortion as responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people each year in our country. This is a huge issue.

That said, the relevant question here is who we should elect as president. Assuming Bush does select Supreme Court justices according to a pro-life litmus test, we may ask whether this is what we want. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret and apply the Constitution, and the Constitution is completely ambiguous on the issue of abortion. We do not need Supreme Court justices selected by any criteria other than their ability to interpret the Constitution faithfully and rationally. We need a Constitutional amendment to end legal abortion in the proper way, in a way that will last. This effort will have nothing to do with the Supreme Court and everything to do with the hearts and minds of all Americans.

Besides appointing judges, the President has no other significant role in the abortion debate. His role *is* to act as Commander in Chief of the military, to guide the legislation of Congress, to act as our representative to the world, to appoint advisors and others to run our government, and so on. Dean is the man for this job. Bush has made an utter mess of it.

add new comment · next forum topic · 2249 reads

Web-based protest re Bishops Position on Candidates/Voters

Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 20 May 2004 - 07:48 h

I thought I'd let you know that I have started a website, http://www.castthefirststone.net

about the Catholic Bishops who have announced that they will deny Communion to political candidates, and now even voters. Since they have decided they can judge others, in light of the Bible admonition that only the one without sin should cast a stone upon a sinner, I've asked people to send the Bishops stones, because obviously it must be that they have determined they're without sin. The website contains a more complete explanation and the Bishops' addresses.

reply to this comment

D D Brown

Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 23 May 2004 - 09:25 h

Given your views, I suggest you ala Martin Luther, Henry VIII, et al form your own Church with dogmas that support your positions on abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

reply to this comment

Bishops Letter

Comment added by boxerpaws on Sun 16 May 2004 - 10:19 h

understand what this is saying!
A LETTER FROM BISHOP MICHAEL SHERIDAN OF COLORADO SPRINGS: NO COMMUNION FOR PRO-ABORTION / HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE VOTERS
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF COLORADO SPRINGS ON THE DUTIES OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND VOTERS

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

This coming November we Americans will participate in one of the most important national elections in recent history. The president, senators and congressmen who are placed in office by our votes will serve at a time in which issues that are critical to the very survival of our civilization will be at the top of the political agenda. As we prepare for these elections I consider it my duty as your bishop to write to you about these matters so that you might go to the polls this fall with a well informed conscience.

The Church teaches that “man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” (1) Often we hear people claim that they are making decisions in accord with conscience even when those decisions defy the natural law and the revealed teachings of Jesus Christ. This is because of a widespread misunderstanding of the very meaning of conscience. For many, conscience is no more than personal preference or even a vague sense or feeling that something is right or wrong, often based on information drawn from sources that have nothing to do with the law of God.

The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of personal preference nor has it anything to do with feelings. It has only to do with objective truth. “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (2) All people have a grave obligation to form their consciences by adhering to the truth, precisely as that truth is found in the natural law and in the revelation of God. As Catholics we have the further obligation to give assent to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church because “to the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.” (3) In other words, as people who profess the Catholic faith, we must “have the mind of Christ” in every judgment and act.

Among the many distortions and misrepresentations that prevail in the current debates about the relationship between religion and the social order (politics) is the assertion that faith and politics are to be kept separated. This, apparently, is based upon the American doctrine of the separation of church and state. In fact, the wall that separates church and state is the safeguard against both the establishment of a state religion and the imposition of sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no way does the American doctrine of separation of church and state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of religious people should not be brought to bear on their political choices.

The Second Vatican Council was abundantly clear on this matter. “Nor, on the contrary, are they any less wide of the mark who think that religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations, and who imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from the religious life. This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age. Long since, the Prophets of the Old Testament fought vehemently against this scandal and even more so did Jesus Christ Himself in the New Testament threaten it with grave punishments. Therefore, let there be no false opposition between professional and social activities on the one part, and religious life on the other.” (4)

When Catholics are elected to public office or when Catholics go to the polls to vote, they take their consciences with them. Pope John Paul II has consistently taught this as, for example, when he said that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a “grave and clear obligation to oppose” any law that attacks human life. (5) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared that, “in this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.” (6) Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy God’s law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic.

In November we will once again have the privilege of exercising our most precious right as citizens – the right to vote. Our choices will be made from among an array of candidates who take a variety of positions with regard to many important issues. In the midst of what could be a difficult and confusing exercise it is very important to remember that not all issues are of equal gravity. As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the FIRST right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues.

The November elections will be critical in the battle to restore the right to life to all citizens, especially the unborn and the elderly and infirm. As a result of the pro-life efforts of countless Americans the number of abortions performed in our country is now declining for the first time since the appalling Supreme Court decision of 1973 that made it “legal” to kill our children. We cannot allow the progress that has been made to be reversed by a pro-abortion President, Senate or House of Representatives. Neither can we permit illicit stem cell research that makes use of aborted babies. Any movement to promote and legalize euthanasia must be halted. Our votes have the power to stop these abominations.

There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

In recent months another issue has reached the level of our legislatures. It is so-called “same- sex marriage.” Those who now promote this deviancy often present it as a human right denied homosexual persons and thus illegally discriminating against them. But, in fact, no one has a right to that which flies in the face of God’s own design. Marriage is not an invention of individuals or even of societies. Rather it is an element of God’s creation. It is God who created us male and female. It is God who joined man and woman so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Every civilization known to mankind has understood marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the procreation and rearing of children. And yet now, in 21stcentury America, there are those who would want us to believe that all people of all times have been mistaken about the true nature and purpose of marriage. No one can simply redefine marriage to suit a political or social agenda.

Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on the state of marriage. The family – father, mother and children – reflects the nature of God Himself, who is a communion of selfless and self-giving love. For this reason marriage and family life cannot be whatever we want them to be. They are only and always as God has created them. As in the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-called “same-sex marriage” and any Catholic who would vote for that political candidate place themselves outside the full communion of the Church and may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.

The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific candidate. The Church does, however, have the right and the obligation to teach clearly and fully the objective truth about the dignity and rights of the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the consciences of voters. “By its intervention in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends -- as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.” (7)

Dear friends in Christ, I exhort you with all my heart to take courage and proclaim the Gospel of Life to those who will stand for elected office this fall. It is by your prayers and by your votes that politicians who are unconditionally pro-life and pro-family will serve our country. Conversely, if our voices remain silent or if, God forbid, we vote contrary to our informed consciences, we will see our country led down a short path to ruin. We want freedom for all, but there can be no freedom without truth. In the words of our Holy Father: “When freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public authority.” (

Let us all pray for those politicians who claim to be Catholic yet continue to oppose the law of God and the rights of persons that, by the grace of God, they will be converted once again to the full and authentic articulation and practice of the faith.

Finally, I wish to affirm my brother bishops who have proclaimed the truth of these critical matters and who have admonished those Catholic politicians who place themselves at odds with the truth of God. May that truth which is the foundation of genuine freedom prevail in our country.

Given at the Chancery on this first day of May 2004, the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker.

Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan
Bishop of Colorado Springs

Endnotes
(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1782.
(2) ibid., 1783.
(3) ibid., 2032 and Code of Canon Law 747.2.
(4) Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes), 43.
(5) John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium vitae), 73.
(6) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life”, 4.
(7) ibid., 6.
( The Gospel of Life, 101.

reply to this comment

Is this new?

Comment added by hugetim on Sun 16 May 2004 - 21:12 h

Is this bishop making these pronouncements on his own authority, because there is nothing elsewhere in Catholic teaching I can find that states voting for a candidate for, say, same-sex marriage, is an excommicable offense regardless of the other issues at stake or the positions of the other candidate. With all due respect, it's strikes me as pretty bizarre. I think there may be a reason that this is the only bishop saying things like this. For you boxerpaws, I suggest you re-read the document, Faithful Citizenship, presented in the name of all U.S. bishops, for a more sensible and comprehensive look at all the issues of urgent importance in the upcoming election.

reply to this comment

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Comment added by LMB on Wed 12 May 2004 - 15:47 h

I would like to see users explore an issue related to abortion: embryonic stem cell research. Bush's policy towards stem cell research can be found on the NIH website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/print/20010809-1.html. Out of a "commitment to preserving and valuing the sanctity of human life," Bush has banned federal funding of research using any newly-created stem cell lines. This means that extra embryos harvested during infertility treatments are being wasted when they could be used to research cures for Parkinson's and diabetes. I find it ironic that a policy based on the "commitment to preserving life" has such disastrous consequences for research into diseases that cause thousands of people to die each year.

reply to this comment

Irony?

Comment added by hugetim on Thu 13 May 2004 - 23:28 h

I'm not sure irony is the right word, actually. If you view the embryo as no more than a bag of cells, then your point is taken. But when you notice that you and I are also bags of cells, I find it hard to see where to draw the line between when I was 16 cells and now. When did I become a human person with a right to life, exactly? Once you realize that an embryo might ought to be considered to be a person, your statement that "extra embryos harvested during infertility treatments are being wasted when they could be used..." sounds a bit bizarre. Might I suggest that there is something wrong with fertility treatments that involve "harvesting" people, whether they are discarded or used for (even life-saving) medical research? Even if we are unsure whether the embryo is a person, we ought not take the chance of routinely killing what could be a person. Would you shoot at something moving in the woods that appears like it might be a person, even if you weren't really sure?

If you do have a solid way of distinguishing human personhood from mere biological life, then I am certainly interested in hearing it. But I am not aware of any, and I do not believe that many pro-choice folks have a well thought out distinction in mind.

reply to this comment

Pro-Choice And Catholic

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 7 May 2004 - 19:09 h

Abortion is an issue I've struggled with over the past few years of my life.I strongly opposed abortion from the moment I heard about what it was. I labeled pro-choicers as "murderers." I still was a Democrat, yet strongly anti-choice. But over the past year, my views have switched from strongly anti-choice to strongly pro-choice. Now, I am a Catholic, but I enthusiastically support a woman's right to choose - and so does John Kerry. Generally, conservatives oppose abortion. Yet they say they want less govt. But--- government DOES belong in a woman's body- according to the right-wing. Supporting a woman's right to choose doesn't mean you're a bad person. Bobby Kennedy, whom many conservatives praise, was pro-choice. A reporter asked Bobby Kennedy what he thought of abortion as a Catholic. Then the reporter changed his mind. "Err..What do you think of (abortion) as a Senator?" "Well, which one, as a Catholic or as a senator?" Kennedy replied.

reply to this comment

Catholics vs Non Catholics

Comment added by boxerpaws on Sun 16 May 2004 - 14:33 h

Few non Catholics really know where the Church stands on abortion yet our teaching is clearly against it.
But non Catholics would grasp Catholic teaching re abortion better than Catholics if they knew what it was.
I'm trying to get the word out so both Catholics and NON Catholics know.Many are abandoning their faith. THere's Catholics who DO know then think they can work their way around it.
The bishop warned about the dire consequences for our country when this happens. We pray that God bless America and then we take God out of the picture. It's not which one, Catholic or Senator? It's Catholic AND Senator!

reply to this comment

The Bishops Letter (again

Comment added by boxerpaws on Sun 16 May 2004 - 10:25 h

pro abortion and Catholic are incompatible!The Church canonized a woman to sainthood today.She was a wife & mother. She lost her own life giving birth to her child and knew this would happen. Yet,she made the ultimate sacrifice rather than have an abortion.This is what it means to be a follower of Christ. Now to see what the Church really teaches-the Bishop's letter!!!!
A LETTER FROM BISHOP MICHAEL SHERIDAN OF COLORADO SPRINGS: NO COMMUNION FOR PRO-ABORTION / HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE VOTERS
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF COLORADO SPRINGS ON THE DUTIES OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND VOTERS

reply to this comment

Kerry would be the better president

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 30 Apr 2004 - 16:52 h

Bush vs Kerry. Vote for the better person overall.

If I was voting for a priest or a pope or a president of a religious oraganization then the issue of pro-choice is on the line. But we are talking about a president for the US and a leader for the whole world.
Bush definitely has failed on his job and has done a lot of damage to our country from economy to Iraq War and does not deserve to be re-elected.

reply to this comment

you mean to tell me?

Comment added by boxerpaws on Sun 16 May 2004 - 14:20 h

that empowering ppls rights over special interests is more important than outlawing abortion?
What kind of Catholics do we have in this country?
NO wonder i have non Catholics ask me what the Church actually teaches re abortion.

reply to this comment

note the question

Comment added by hugetim on Sun 16 May 2004 - 20:52 h

"What political issue should be foremost for Catholics, considering importance and current political feasibility?"

Importance is only one of the criteria to use when voting. Because Bush and many other Republicans would not outlaw abortion (or even select pro-life judges) even if they could, it makes little sense to vote for them based merely on the fact that they oppose abortion in word. As I've said many times before, the pro-life movement's task at the moment is to win hearts and minds. We will do this by reaching out with respect and patiently presenting the solid case that personhood does not begin with passage through the birth canal. Demonizing the opposing side and deepening the division between sides will only make things worse, not to mention distract people with a concern for justice while the powerful make our government into their personal plaything.

reply to this comment

yo'ure not getting Church teaching here

Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 16 May 2004 - 14:15 h

The President's position on abortion is the single most important issue.NOT foreign policy,not the economy, not social justice.Abortion.
Please re read the Bishop's letter. It is saying that Kerry may not recieve the Eucharist. This should tell you something right there.Evidently Catholics don't get it.

reply to this comment

What?????????

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 16 Jul 2004 - 13:49 h

Abortion is the most important issue for a Presidant? What has any presidant managed to do about abortion, fundamentally the laws have not changed since RoeVWade. We can stop abortion, but it isn't through the law (at this time), it is through social programs that help women keep their kids.

Bush claims to be pro-life yet he KILLS and mutilates innocent children in Iraq based on his agenda. Killing a grown child out of the womb is not better than killing an unborn child.

Shame on narrow minded people who continue to vote for Bush the most anti-life Presidant this country has ever had.

I would so much rather have Clinton back, and as a Pro-Life Catholic that is saying something.

reply to this comment

abortion

Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 13 Apr 2004 - 11:33 h

Did you ever graduate from the third grade, you moron!

reply to this comment

Educated Choice

Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 11 Apr 2004 - 06:02 h

I voted for President Bush based on one issue - abortion. I'm outraged by the what he's done during his candidacy and its made me question how I look at the abortion issue. I don't believe that president Bush STANDS against abortion. I believe he's pandoring to the right for votes, just like he's pandoring to the Latin American community with his immigration stance. I think we are in big trouble if we allow politicians to control large parts of the electorate like this. My position is now "educated choice." 70% of those that are prochoice say that they would never have an abortion. I think it's important for those that are prolive to try to understand the reasoning of those that are prochoice. From a practical point, how could we just flip the switch and just say no more abortions? I believe it has to be about requiring people that are going to have an abortion go through some sort of educational regiment, so that they understand what is taking place. They need to understand what the fetus looks like at that stage of the pregnancy, the procedure, and what the long term positive and/or negative effects of their decision may be based on statistics of those that have gone through the process. If we are going to have choice, I do believe such important decisions should be educated. This will give all involved greater protection. In the long run I believe educated choice will lead to much fewer abortions, and fewer woman traumatized by realizing the implications of having an abortion after its too late.

Pat

reply to this comment

Again,re abortion

Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 10 Apr 2004 - 15:54 h

Kerry has been refused the Eucharist and with good reason.According to the Cathechism he could be excommuniccated as well. A Catholic in good conscience cannot vote for Kerry. Period. I am a participant in a secular message board that is political and nobody was sure what the Church's teaching re abortion was. I had to bring it up for discussion and make it CLEAR what Church teaching re abortion is.
It's a shame. They should know.
I would put Catholic concerns re same sex marriage and stem cell research at the top of the list too-but abortion the primary concern.
Yes,Kerry was refused the Eucharist. The Vatican is going to take a close look at this issue-American candidates who are Catholic-and come up with very clear guidlines because Catholics themselves just don't seem to get it. I think they do but ignore the teachings when it suits them.

reply to this comment

Also

Comment added by hugetim on Sat 10 Apr 2004 - 16:33 h

The U.S. bishops are reportedly preparing a document specifying consequences for public figures who ignore Church teaching on non-abortion issues as well. Crazy, huh?

Can you vote for George W. Bush in good conscience?

reply to this comment

As a Prolife Catholic I CAN!!!!!!!!!!

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 16 Jul 2004 - 13:55 h

I can and will vote for Kerry as a Pro-Life Catholic. Why? Well Bush also supports abortion and the unjust killing of Iraqi's for his personal gain.

Abortion was illegal in Iraq, yet now Bush wants to make it legal there.

Bush supports abortion in the case of rape, incest, health.

and he supports killing innocent civilians if it will benifit him politically.

He is MORE anti-life than Kerry.

There are two bad candidates, I will chose the lesser of the two evils--Kerry

reply to this comment

non abortion issues

Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 25 Apr 2004 - 10:30 h

Such as school choice,vouchers for private schools and government funding for faith based organizations? Kerry-NOPE.Bush.

reply to this comment

Education

Comment added by hugetim on Mon 26 Apr 2004 - 00:43 h

Indeed, education is an area where neither Dems nor Reps have it right. Democratic opposition to school choice/vouchers (is there a distinction I'm missing, or did you list one issue twice to make it look like more?) is unfortunate (though not explicitly contrary to Church teaching to my knowledge), but Republicans inexplicably oppose funding for Head Start and are more likely to oppose more equitable funding for schools.

As for government funding for "faith based organizations," the sort we had prior to Bush was adequate--witness Catholic Charities. There is no reason to provide further government funding to organizations that proselytize, as Bush wants to.

On the issues you mention, my count is:
Dems: 1.5
Reps: 0.5

reply to this comment

In response to the question about how Bush harms the poor:

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 9 Apr 2004 - 11:53 h

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/politics/31WELF.html

March 31, 2004
Defying Bush, Senate Increases Child Care Funds for the Poor
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, March 30 — Over strenuous objections from the White House, the Senate voted on Tuesday for a significant increase in money to provide child care to welfare recipients and other low-income families.

The vote, 78 to 20, expressed broad bipartisan support for a proposal to add $6 billion to child care programs over the next five years, on top of a $1 billion increase that was already included in a sweeping welfare bill. The federal government now earmarks $4.8 billion a year for such child care assistance.

The Bush administration objected to the increase in child care money, saying it was not needed.

But President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress favor the overall bill, which would renew the 1996 welfare law and impose stricter work requirements on welfare recipients.

The bill still faces political and procedural hurdles in the Senate, where Democrats want to add amendments on the minimum wage, overtime pay, unemployment benefits and other topics.

Despite the White House objections, 31 Republicans, including the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, joined 46 Democrats and one independent in voting for the child care proposal, offered by Senators Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, and Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, as part of a bill to update the 1996 law.

Members of both parties said they voted for the increase because Congress could not require welfare recipients to work longer hours without more child care.

"If the aim of welfare reform is to move people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls, if we want families to leave welfare and to stay off welfare, we have to provide them with affordable child care," Ms. Snowe said. "Only one in 7, or 15 percent, of eligible children are now receiving assistance with the cost of day care."

Mr. Dodd said, "You can't get from welfare to work without child care."

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said the extra money for child care "goes hand in hand with an increase in the work requirements."

The House passed its version of the welfare bill in February 2003, with a $1 billion increase in automatic, or mandatory, spending for child care over five years. House Republicans are keen to update the 1996 welfare law, which they and some Democrats see as one of their most significant achievements. Some lawmakers have suggested that the two chambers might split the difference on child care.

Senate Republican leaders said they hoped to finish work on the welfare legislation this week, so they could begin trying to work out differences with the House. Senator Dodd said that day care for a child could cost $4,000 to $10,000 a year and that more than 600,000 eligible children were on waiting lists for such care. States can use the federal money to subsidize child care for welfare recipients and for people who have left welfare for low-wage jobs.

But Mr. Dodd said that states, which are still facing severe fiscal problems, were cutting child care subsidies and "shutting off assistance to the working poor."

Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, also voted to provide extra money for child care. "You invest a little bit of taxpayers' money, or even a lot of taxpayers' money in this case, but you get tremendous good for it," he said.

The White House told Congress that it strongly opposed the increase. Substantial amounts of welfare money will be freed up for child care because the welfare rolls have fallen by more than half in the last eight years, while the federal grant for the basic welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, will continue "at its current high level" of $16.5 billion a year, the White House said. Administration officials say some of the money can be used for child care.

Considering all sources of money, the administration said, states are spending three times as much on child care as they did in 1996, so further increases "are not needed."

The 1996 law ended the individual entitlement to cash assistance, gave each state a lump sum of federal money and set a five-year limit on federal welfare payments to any family. "The great disasters predicted by opponents of the bill in 1996 never occurred," said Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania.

The Department of Health and Human Services reported on Tuesday that the nation's welfare rolls continued to shrink last year. In September 2003, it said, 2,006,597 families were receiving cash benefits, down 0.9 percent from the prior year and down 54 percent from August 1996, when President Bill Clinton signed the current welfare law. The number of individual welfare recipients, 4,880,037, was 2.3 percent lower than in September 2002 and 60 percent lower than in August 1996.

Major provisions of the 1996 law expired on Sept. 30, 2002, but Congress has repeatedly approved short-term extensions. The sixth extension, through June 30, cleared Congress on Tuesday.

Senator Snowe said she hoped the vote on child care would galvanize action and set a bipartisan tone for work on the welfare bill, which provides up to $200 million a year for "healthy marriage" programs. To get the full amount of federal money, states would have to spend $100 million a year of their own money for the same purpose.

Mr. Santorum said the increase in child care money far exceeded what was needed to comply with the work requirements. "The idea that there isn't enough money out there for day care is a ruse," Mr. Santorum said. He asserted that advocates of the child care proposal wanted welfare recipients and low-wage workers to be "dependent on the state, married to the state."

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said that at a time of large budget deficits, the federal government could not afford to spend $6 billion more on child care. But Senator Snowe said the cost would be covered by extending the statutory authority for the customs commissioner to charge fees for cargo and passengers arriving in the United States.

reply to this comment

Whom to vote for . . .

Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 1 Apr 2004 - 15:44 h

While I do vehemently oppose abortion, I sadly have to admit that I don't see an end to it in the near future. Therefore, it seems logical to vote for people who will lower the abortion RATE. Well, the fact is that, according to statistics, the abortion rate was LOWER under President Clinton. When Bush took office, it went up. This is because education plans have changed and education about pregnancy has gotten worse. So, at least for now, even if you are a one-issue abortion voter, it only makes sense to vote for Democrats, because they will effectively lower the abortion rate.

reply to this comment

Comment on Abortion by Blessed Mother Teresa

Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 24 Mar 2004 - 16:36 h

"IF A MOTHER can kill her own child, then what is left of the West to be destroyed?" - Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Fundamentally, abortion is the ONLY issue that matters. Every other problem our world faces is secondary to abortion.

reply to this comment

If...

Comment added by hugetim on Mon 29 Mar 2004 - 06:51 h

...abortion is the only issue that matters, why did Mother Theresa spend her life ministering to people who have already been born? Why is it so hard to understand that both the born and unborn matter? When similar amounts of people die from preventable hunger and abortion, how is one worse than the other?

reply to this comment

born and not born yet both matter

Comment added by boxerpaws on Sun 16 May 2004 - 14:27 h

You don't rationalize abortion being morally right and keeping it legal by bringing up Mother Therese caring for those children who are permitted to be born.
This comment re Mother Therese doesn't make any sense,particularly as an argument that abortion is not the most important issue. Of course it is-you take away the right to life then none of the other rights matter do they?

reply to this comment

Well

Comment added by hugetim on Sun 16 May 2004 - 21:02 h

Do the thousands that die from war, hunger, and disease matter? I know this is an overworked example, but if Hitler's only major opponent had been pro-choice, who would you have voted for? Bush is certainly not Hitler, but he has made the world a more war-prone place, he has made deception and evasive secrecy the norm for our government, he has provided more terrorist recruitment material than Bin Laden could have ever imagined, he has shown consistent disregard for the hungry of the world with his trade policies, he has ended the trend toward non-proliferation and has pushed for more nuclear weapons, and he has drastically cut programs in our own country that provide the most needy with health care and housing. By my count, that's six creative ways of promoting death, and it's just a start. I wonder why you never so much as mention more than one or two issues...

reply to this comment

hearts and minds of all americans

Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 11 Mar 2004 - 10:38 h

“hearts and minds of all Americans”
where on EARTH did you get this from?
we are NOT of ONE heart, and we are NOT of ONE mind.
you cannot speak for me....you cannot speak for ALL Americans.
you cannot and WILL not take away the rights of women.
STOP trying to tell other people what to do.
it is NONE of your business.

reply to this comment

BTW...

Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 11 Mar 2004 - 12:07 h

Abortion is NOT a right.

reply to this comment

Catholics for Pres. Bush

Comment added by boxerpaws on Thu 11 Mar 2004 - 08:26 h

http://wwww.angelfire.com/amiga2/gwbpa/index.html
Anyone who wishes to discuss political issues from a Catholic viewpoint are welcome to visit-anyone who wants to debate the election of Pres. Bush is also welcome.
I would also like to invite those who wish to discuss thier Catholic faith(NON POLITICAL)and apologetics to visit our message board:

http://pub20.ezboard.com/bcatholicpillarandfoundation
Dean will be throwing his weight behind Kerry now as all the Democratic candidates(or at least most of them)will be uniting in support of Kerry for President.
I feel that,as Catholics, if we wish to discuss politics from a Catholic perspective the forum I've just opened up would be ideal for that.ONLY because Dean is no longer a candidate. Consider this an open invitation although I will be coming back here to see how active the posting has been and throw in a few myself.

reply to this comment

Dean is a better man

Comment added by boxerpaws on Wed 10 Mar 2004 - 23:56 h

Ok,then don't elect a President that will appoint judges to the Supreme Court that are pro life and might actually overturn Roe V. Wade. If you want a pro abortion judge on the Supreme Court by all means. If you want to see gay marriages in the United States then by all means vote for Dean.
You said;
"Dean is the man for this job. Bush has made an utter mess of it."
Then with a clear conscience vote for Dean. How DID Bush make an 'utter mess' of it?
I'm Catholic,pro life and voting for Bush. I look forward to the day he appoints a pro life judge to the Supreme Court and abortion is ended once and for all in this country. What it is,is no matter what you want to vote for Dean and against Bush even if that means Roe V.Wade is never overturned. You're rationalizing.

reply to this comment

Bush will appoint a pro-choice Supreme Court himself!

Comment added by hugetim on Thu 11 Mar 2004 - 11:30 h

All signs point to pro-choice White House counsel Alberto Gonzales as the next appointee if Bush gets the chance...

reply to this comment

Appointee already chosen

Comment added by boxerpaws on Sun 14 Mar 2004 - 13:45 h

and it's this guy:MIGUEL ESTRADA. Where'd you get your info?

reply to this comment

here's one source, what's yours?

Comment added by hugetim on Sun 14 Mar 2004 - 17:29 h

At www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR03F10, the Family Research Council states:
"As you know, the name most often mentioned as a potential nominee is White House Chief Counsel Alberto Gonzales. As a Bush-appointed Texas judge, Mr. Gonzales struck down a parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. His position on this law is outside the mainstream of public opinion and does not reflect the president's own views. There is a long list of qualified candidates who would uphold laws defending the sanctity of human life. It's not clear that Al Gonzales is one of them."

reply to this comment

FRC

Comment added by boxerpaws on Mon 15 Mar 2004 - 08:24 h

i'm a subscriber to FRC so i give a lot of credence to the info they put up but from the horses mouth(the Pres himself)the choice is Miguel.
People say a lot of things..especially 'unamed sources'.From the horses mouth is pretty convincing.
Pres. Bush is DEFINITELY PRO LIFE and he's made that position clear time and time again.

reply to this comment

Dean is a better man

Comment added by boxerpaws on Wed 10 Mar 2004 - 23:33 h

Ok,then don't elect a President that will appoint judges to the Supreme Court that are pro life and might actually overturn Roe V. Wade. If you want a pro abortion judge on the Supreme Court by all means. If you want to see gay marriages in the United States then by all means vote for Dean.
You said;
"Dean is the man for this job. Bush has made an utter mess of it."
Then with a clear conscience vote for Dean. How DID Bush make an 'utter mess' of it?
I'm Catholic,pro life and voting for Bush. I look forward to the day he appoints a pro life judge to the Supreme Court and abortion is ended once and for all in this country. What it is,is no matter what you want to vote for Dean and against even if that means Roe V.Wade is never overturned. You're rationalizing.

reply to this comment

More Than Welcome

Comment added by boxerpaws on Mon 8 Mar 2004 - 08:52 h

to post on my new forum:
http://www.angelfire.com/amiga2/gwbpa/index.html
I am not trying to discourage anyone from posting on Catholics for Dean. This new forum is political in nature.
I posted the forum on my blog.
Our message board,Catholic Pillar and Foundation is also open to ALL(even non Catholics)but the focus is primarily Catholic teaching,apologetics and discussion. We RARELY discuss politics. It's not a taboo subject,of course,but our focus is primarily on Catholic teaching.
We are trying to reach out to non Catholics and to help support Catholics in discussions with non Catholics. The address for our little (and growing)community is:
http://pub20.ezboard.com/bcatholicpillarandfoundation

reply to this comment

Litmus test

Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 12 Feb 2004 - 16:26 h

"Bush does select Supreme Court justices according to a pro-life litmus test,..."

And which Supreme Court Justice did President Bush select using the pro-life litmus test????

reply to this comment

Pro Abortion and Catholic Teaching

Comment added by boxerpaws on Thu 26 Feb 2004 - 09:00 h

According to Catholic teaching it is not only a civic duty but may also be a moral duty to vote. Also according to Catholic teaching it would be morally wrong to support/vote for any candidate who is NOT pro life or who does not oppose gay marriage.If you want proof of this official teaching I would be glad to post it.
Sorry folks. Truth.
This is one reason I am voting FOR Pres. Bush in Nov.

reply to this comment

Post it

Comment added by hugetim on Thu 26 Feb 2004 - 11:49 h

Why wouldn't you just post it in the first place?

reply to this comment

You are probably right-here tis

Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 3 Mar 2004 - 19:59 h

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/voting_faq.htm
Here is the link to a new forum i've opened up as well.The main focus IS politics.
http://www.angelfire.com/amiga2/gwbpa/index.html
you are also just as welcome to our Catholic Message Board. We do not talk politics there.Not often anyway.
http://pub20.ezboard.com/bcatholicpillarandfoundation
We welcome ppl of ALL faiths though.
BTW..for what it's worth. There is a piece in my webblog(the angelfire address)called Dean Was Right.
I do think Dr. Dean was right in blaming part of his problem on the media. They do tend to anoint their favorites and they can take a sound byte and run wild with it.
This is why I highly recommend C-Span. Avoid that media filter.

reply to this comment

Quickening

Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 8 Feb 2004 - 15:24 h

"This corresponds approximately to the point of "quickening" used by the Catholic Church prior to the 18th Century as the determination of when a baby acquired a soul."

In other words, quickening was the determination of when the baby is alive - ya ain't alive unless ya got a soul. Using quickening as the point of determination made sense, then - there was no other way to tell if the child was alive or not. Now, science can tell us well before that, via ultrasound, that the child is alive. So we can thereby know by faith that the child must be an ensouled human being, with full rights and dignity. Modern science and the Catholic Faith are an awesome combination when they work together, aren't they? :o)

Also, viability is getting earlier and earlier as medical technology improves, whereas abortionists are pushing the envelope on infanticide these days. So what's your take on that four-to-five month period between viability and birth, when abortions are still perfectly legal?

-Peggy

reply to this comment

Catholics for Dean?!

Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 7 Feb 2004 - 15:37 h

Do you realize how horrible this endorsement is? Do you realize that the vast majority of faithful Catholics will never vote for a pro-choicer? You do know that Dean's website "celebrated" the anniversary of Roe v.s Wade and plans on supporting abortion is elected?

John Kerry is barred from communion for having a stance like Dean's, but you all are supporting him? If you don't like Bush, PLEASE just don't vote, otherwise, it's an indirect vote for abortion.

reply to this comment

This is in response to the other ANON poster.

Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 26 Feb 2004 - 15:17 h

there's no window dressing on some of these issues.
I would also like to invite anyone who is interested to visit a site I just set up. We can discuss a lot of these issues there if you're willing to be fair about Pres. Bush.Hate is not a platform nor is revenge a policy.
http://www.angelfire.com/amiga2/gwbpa/index.html
We (Catholics)can make a difference but we have to be sure of what our Church teaches and willing to stand up for it.
(i forgot to login).

reply to this comment

Take it up with the USCCB

Comment added by hugetim on Sat 7 Feb 2004 - 16:36 h

Here are some quotes from their "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility":

"At this time, some Catholics may feel politically homeless, sensing that no political party and too few candidates share a consistent concern for human life and dignity. However, THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR RETREAT or discouragement. We need more, not less engagement in political life. We urge Catholics to become more involved: by running for office; by working within political parties; by contributing money or time to campaigns"

"As an institution, we [the Church] are called to be political but NOT PARTISAN. The Church cannot be a chaplain for any one party or cheerleader for any candidate."

(emphasis mine)

reply to this comment

party cheerleading in the name of God

Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 3 Mar 2004 - 08:23 h

I don't mean this offensively to anyone but I am so tired of being told I am UN-American because I do not believe the way the war in Iraq began was done in a manner that was neccessary. I do not like the choices our President is making in MANY areas of life. I will not vote for him. I thought nothing would hurt as badly as being called un-American until I was told that I was in no way even remotely a Christian...because I would not vote for President Bush. I thank whomever wrote the above article stating that we are to be political but not partisan...
America will stop being a home of freedom soon if Christians don't stop deliberately hurting Christians by name calling...because they have different view points. Please try hard to discuss the issues and stop judging, I feel confident God wants to judge our hearts...and doesn't need any human help. I will happily read and study and TRY to keep an open mind on the issues...for the record I do NOT believe in abortion...but I do not believe in sending men to die unnecessarily either...and yes I believe that is what happened here. I also have to state...I LOVED Edwards and am heart broken my only choice now is between Kerry and Bush. I will do my best to truly read and review and understand both viewpoints. I KNOW I won't vote Bush...but I am scared for the first time ever I won't vote at all...and that hurts!

reply to this comment

wont' vote for Bush

Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 6 Mar 2004 - 18:30 h

I noticed that comment of won't vote for Bush and may not vote at all.This is just what the article on moral duty as well as civic duty to vote was about. As a Catholic we have the moral duty to vote for candidates who are pro life. Of all issues this is THE most important.
Soldiers know that when they enlist that they MIGHT be called to duty.
My son went to Bosnia because the CIC sent him there. He understood this was a possibility(being sent to battle)when he enlisted.
No comparison to the unborn who have no choice. NOT voting at all is the easy way out. We can discuss other issues,but IMHO liberalism has substituted critical thinking for pushing buttons with ppl and it's very difficult to get the truth through the filter.

reply to this comment

Ergo..

Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 10 Feb 2004 - 10:13 h

... it is morally permissible to campaign and vote for a rabid pro-abort like Howard Dean!!!

Oh, you mean that's not necessarily a valid conclusion from the USCCB's comments? Gee, Tim, you had me confused for a moment there.

Ronny

reply to this comment

if you're Catholic

Comment added by boxerpaws on Thu 26 Feb 2004 - 11:17 h

"... it is morally permissible to campaign and vote for a rabid pro-abort like Howard Dean!!!" it is NOT morally permissible.
I hope ppl will not be giving other ppl the impression it is.
The Church does not endorse or prommote a candidate or party but it does expect those who consider themselves Catholic to vote according TO Catholic teaching.

reply to this comment

You're right

Comment added by hugetim on Thu 26 Feb 2004 - 12:04 h

The Church "does expect those who consider themselves Catholic to vote according TO Catholic teaching." But does the Church only teach about abortion and gay marriage? What about just war theory, the preferential option for the poor, social responsibility to ensure basic health care for all, teachings about fair trade policies and international cooperation and respect, Christ's command to welcome strangers and everyone outcast by society (e.g. homosexuals), the need for an unbiased and unfiltered media, political participation by all -- not to be overpowered by the financial participation of the wealthy, affordable housing for all, spending tax dollars to provide resources for schools rather than developing new nuclear weapons, lifting women out of hopelessness and desperation so they feel able to choose life for their children more easily...and on and on.

If you are Catholic, it is indeed NOT morally permissable to only notice the two issues that Republicans get more or less right and fail to challenge them on EVERY OTHER ISSUE.

reply to this comment

Post new comment

Theodore Roosevelt

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."

CfD News

· RNC Displaces NYC's Homeless
· RNC Displace NYC's Homeless
· Pro-Life Democrats Are Not So Naive
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health in trade deal
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health trade deal
· John Kerry Picks Running Mate
· 'Poverty of imagination' hinders efforts to end real poverty
· Vatican Status Raised at UN
· Changes Afoot
· Changes Afoot at CfD

Blogs

· When Will They Ever Learn?
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· Bush: Flip-flopper
· Speaking of Catholics for Bush...
· Catholics for Bush Got A Troll!
· Wisdom of Saint Benedict & the Founding Fathers
· Christian Law
· Education: Bush v. Kerry and vice versa
· Catholic(?) League Is At It Again!
· Action Alert: New "Pax Christi, USA" Statement

hugetim's Blog

· Bush: Flip-flopper
· Education: Bush v. Kerry and vice versa
· Is it possible?
· Why Catholics Should Vote Against Bush
· Voter's Guide Seriously Flawed
· FactCheck.org is Essential
· Ratzinger: Catholics can vote Democrat!
· Forced Abortions in America: an Epidemic?
· Minimum Wage
· 4th of July Minute Meditation

WilliamSB's Blog

· When Will They Ever Learn?
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· Speaking of Catholics for Bush...
· Catholics for Bush Got A Troll!
· Wisdom of Saint Benedict & the Founding Fathers
· Christian Law
· Catholic(?) League Is At It Again!
· Action Alert: New "Pax Christi, USA" Statement
· Consistent Ethic of Life Means... Consistent Ethic of Life

CfD -- NYC

· Catholics for Democracy -- NYC

Most popular

Todays top:
· Deal Hudson -- Conservative Catholic Publisher Who Cost Administrator of KerryCatholics.com His Job At USCCB
· When Will They Ever Learn?
· Catholics for Bush
· Catholic(?) League Is At It Again!
· Why Catholics Should Vote Against Bush

Recent Discussion Topics

Discussion Forum
Reducing Abortions
Abortion Is Not a Religious Issue
How Do We Balance Issues?

CfD Books

CfD Bookstore Book Reviews

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 12 guests online.

Who's new

· quarkspinner
· bgcurry
· onoekeh
· hawker
· amysue0405

Comment Posting Rules

Statement about posting blog statements or responses at CfD.

Syndicate