Cardinal George Warns Catholic Members of Congress About FOCA

Inside Catholic.com ^ | 11/21/08 | Deal W. Hudson

[Salvation]

Cardinal George Warns Catholic Members of Congress About FOCA

by Deal W. Hudson   

11/21/08

Cardinal George has warned Catholic members of Congress that voting for the Freedom of Choice Act may result in excommunication.

Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, who is president of the USCCB, did not say politicians supporting FOCA would necessarily result in excommunication -- he said it would depend on whether the cooperation with evil was "material" or "formal."

This is what Cardinal George said in response to the question from CNS about the process of excommunication:

“The excommunication is automatic if that act is in fact formal cooperation, and that is precisely what would have to be discussed once you would see the terms of the act itself,” responded George.

“Could you expand on that, Cardinal?” a reporter asked.

“The categories in moral theology about cooperating in evil, which make you complicit in the evil, even though you don’t do it yourself, are material cooperation, which is usually remote and therefore doesn’t involve you in the moral action except in a very auxiliary and minor way, and formal cooperation, which would involve you even though you are not doing it, in the way that makes you culpable,” said George.

“So we would have to take a look at each case, and at each law, to determine whether or not the cooperation is material or formal. We’ve never done that,” he added.

Material or formal cooperation in evil: the former “remote,” the latter “direct.”

Ok, let’s compare the following:

A Catholic member of Congress votes for the Freedom of Choice Act overthrowing all the legal restrictions against abortions in all 50 states.

According to a study from the Heritage Foundation, 125,000 more abortions a year will be the result. Regardless of the precise number, more abortions are a certainty as a result of FOCA.

Is that direct, formal cooperation with the evil of abortion?

It looks formal and direct to me. Why? Because by voting for FOCA you know more abortions will be the result. The intent of FOCA is to make abortion more available.

I’d be interested in hearing the argument that voting for FOCA is “remote” cooperation.

Compare the member of Congress voting for FOCA with, say, the voter who put Obama in office knowing he intended to sign FOCA if it reached his desk.

Is that remote, or direct?

Compare the member of Congress with the bishop, or the priest, who said nothing to warn his flock about the likelihood of FOCA being passed by the Congress and signed by the president if Obama was elected.

Remote or direct?

Remember, more abortions are a certainty if FOCA is passed and signed by the president.

Cardinal George has raised an important question, and he has addressed it in a way to prompt reflection on the consequences for all Catholics, not just for members of Congress, who publicly support FOCA or who supported Obama knowing that FOCA was on his legislative agenda.

Do we face the possibility that most of the Catholic members of Congress will be excommunicated in 2009 by their support of FOCA?

Will the USCCB issue an official statement on whether support for FOCA is material or formal cooperation with evil?

Cardinal George said, "We've never done that."

It's time for the bishops to draw a line. That shouldn't be too difficult a task.

FOCA leads directly to the death of more unborn children. I can only imagine the impact on the Church if all our bishops do not, like Cardinal George and others, acknowledge that.

 

[Salvation]

Prayerfully waiting for more and more Bishops to speak out against FOCA.

[Salvation]

Let this be the beginning of a long list of Bishops to speak out against FOCA!

[Salvation]

Changing Hearts and Minds -- Updated

Changing Hearts & Minds--Updated

promises we hope go unfulfilled

Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:00 PM

I’ve been watching the discussion of abortion politics on Arwen’s excellent recent post with interest.

The debate there isn’t so much about abortion itself, but about the role of law and politics in shaping culture. To really understand that matter, I can’t recommend Archbishop Chaput’s new book Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life
highly enough. It’s clear, enlightening --and a brisk read.

In the mean time, readers may be interested in this clear statement from Patterson Bishop Arthur Seratelli. After a brief introduction, he gets our attention:

Recently, a politician made a promise. Politicians usually do. If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood.

Those who argue that abortion won’t disappear with the repeal of Roe v. Wade are certainly correct. The repeal of Roe will simply return us to status quo ante, with each state free to create its own abortion laws. Some will be permissive; others not.

It’s also manifestly true that abortion won’t end until hearts and minds are won. That’s why the vast majority of pro-life activists are not lobbyists or political activists, but volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers, Project Rachel, Project Gabriel, houses for unwed mothers and adoption centers. It’s not NARAL & Planned Parenthood reaching out to women and children in crisis, it’s the pro-life movement.

And we --pro-lifers of all stripes taking a multi-pronged approach of charitable outreach, voter education and political activism-- have been winning, as Bishop Seratelli explains:

For thirty-five years, Americans have been wrestling with The Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade.  Most Americans now favor some kind of a ban on abortion. Most who allow abortion would do so only in very rare cases. In fact, in January, 2008, the Guttmacher Institute published its 14th census of abortion providers in the country. Its statistics showed that the abortion rate continues to decline. Abortions have reached their lowest level since 1974. There is truly a deep sensitivity to life in the soul of America.

We have changed and are changing hearts.

We mustn’t lose sight, however, of the fact that the law is an expression of where our hearts and minds are as a people. We didn’t get the 14th amendment protecting the rights of black citizens until there were enough votes to secure it. And those votes came because hearts and minds changed about the personhood of the former slaves.

I don’t really know what it would mean to change a heart and mind without changing votes at the same time. The changed law is the sign of the changed minds.

Political debate is an important means of winning hearts and minds, because laws and referendums are public questions. They are the means, in a democracy, that we ask ourselves, “What do we think about this?” So when we give up on law and politics, what we’re really giving up on is precisely the debate by which hearts and minds can be won.

There’s something else to think about in this election, however, and Bishop Seratelli explains it well. The quotation is lengthy, but well worth reading:

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)… would dismantle the freedom of choice to do all that is necessary to respect and protect human life at its most vulnerable stage. FOCA goes far beyond guaranteeing the right to an abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. It arrogantly prohibits any law or policy interfering with that right. While advocates trumpet this law as the triumph of the freedom of choice, they hide the dark reality that the law would actually inhibit choice.

Laws protecting the rights of nurses, doctors and hospitals with moral objections to abortion would no longer stand. Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics would also vanish. Gone the freedom of health care professionals to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath “to prescribe regimens for the good of …patients…and never do harm to anyone, to please no one [by prescribing] a deadly drug nor [by giving] advice which may cause his death.” Gone the freedom of conscience so essential for a civil society!

If a minority of avid abortionists succeed to impose this law because of the ignorance or apathy of the majority, the law would force taxpayers to fund abortions. Gone the freedom of taxation with representation!

In its 1992 Casey decision, The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional state laws requiring that women and young girls who seek an abortion receive information on the development of the child in the womb as well as alternatives to abortion. The ruling also determined that a period of waiting, usually 24 or 48 hours before making a decision about an abortion is not an undue burden. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify these laws immediately. Gone the freedom of women and young girls to have all the information they need to make their own choices!

In about half of the States, there are parental notification or consent laws in effect for minors seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled that these laws are permitted under Roe v. Wade. With the stroke of a pen, these laws would be abolished. Gone the freedom of parents to care for and protect their children and grandchildren!

Advocates of FOCA redefine a woman’s “health” so as to expressly permit post-viability abortions. Thus, a child who survives an abortion can be left to die for the health of the mother. No politically correct word can mask this reality for what it is. This is infanticide. Gone the freedom for a baby, once born, to live!

Science does not dispute that the child in the womb already has all the characteristics that he or she will develop after birth. Notwithstanding, abortionists obstinately refuse the right of the child within the womb to live as a fundamental human right. They are not happy that Americans have not swallowed their distorted propaganda that denies the dignity of the human person from the first moment of conception.

Pro-abortion advocates close their eyes to the fact that abortion even hurts women as it undermines the very fabric of our society. Their zeal for the Freedom of Choice Act sounds the alarm for decent Americans to wake up! The more the right to life is denied, the more we lose our freedoms. The “pro-choice” movement is not pro-choice. It stands against the freedom to choose what is right according to the truth of the human person.

The good bishop could have added that also wending its way through Congress awaiting a different President’s signature is a bill aimed at shutting down crisis pregnancy centers.

So the question is, if the Freedom of Choice Act is signed --and one of the two presidential candidates has promised that signing it will be his first act as President-- will we have the right and freedom to keep working for a culture of life? 

Update: I should have waited a day to post! Princeton’s Prof. Robert George here takes up all the issues that came up in comments on my original post (#1-10). Including: S-Chip, whether it’s appropriate to refer to someone as “pro-abortion,” and Prof. Douglas Kmiec’s reasoning on the coming election. As the article is being muched discussed on the blogs and in the political world today, I thought you’d like to see it.

[Salvation]

Standing Against FOCA

Standing Against FOCA

our bishops' statement on FOCA

Posted by Rebecca Teti in News on Friday, November 14, 2008 10:35 AM

I promised you the final version of the bishops’ statement on FOCA from their annual meeting.

Voila! Read it, it’s exceptionally well crafted.

It begins by wishing President-Elect Obama well and listing all the areas in which they hope to work with him and with all persons of good will. Only then do they raise the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act and its likely consequences. Then we get to the heart of the matter:

“FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.

On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.”

There’s also a statement of gratitude to all those in public life who work to defend the unborn --often at great personal cost, and a closing prayer for the President-Elect. Nicely done!

[Salvation]

S.1173
Title: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007)      Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.1964
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

---

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/19/2007--Introduced.

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

---

ALL ACTIONS:

4/19/2007:

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

---

TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

• SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
  Freedom of Choice Act

• OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
  A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

---

COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 4/19/2007
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 4/19/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 5/2/2007
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 6/13/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 5/11/2007
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/25/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/19/2007
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 6/6/2007

---

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee:		Activity:
Senate Judiciary		Referral, In Committee

---

RELATED BILL DETAILS:  (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)

Bill:	Relationship:
H.R.1964	Related bill identified by CRS

---

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

The actual contents of the bill are as follows:

S 1173 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1173

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 2007

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

END

 

House Bill

H.R.1964
Title: To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007)      Cosponsors (109)
Related Bills: S.1173
Latest Major Action: 5/4/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

---

COSPONSORS(109), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/19/2007
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 4/19/2007
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 7/11/2007	Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 4/19/2007
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 4/19/2007	Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/19/2007	Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/30/2007
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] - 7/16/2007	Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 10/22/2007
Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] - 4/23/2007	Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 4/23/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/20/2007	Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 4/19/2007	Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 12/5/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 4/19/2007	Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53] - 4/19/2007
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 4/19/2007	Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 5/2/2007
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 7/11/2007	Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 4/19/2007
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 4/19/2007	Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/31/2008
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 5/10/2007	Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 4/19/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 4/19/2007	Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/19/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 4/19/2007	Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 6/21/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 1/28/2008	Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 4/23/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 4/19/2007	Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 1/22/2008
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 4/19/2007	Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 5/2/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 4/19/2007	Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/19/2007
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/19/2007	Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 4/23/2007	Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 4/19/2007	Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/12/2007
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 9/4/2007	Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 1/28/2008
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 4/19/2007	Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 4/19/2007
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] - 4/19/2007	Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 5/3/2007	Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 4/19/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 5/3/2007	Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 4/19/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 4/19/2007	Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 4/19/2007
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 4/23/2007	Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 4/19/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/19/2007	Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/23/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry [CA-11] - 6/6/2007	Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 6/14/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/19/2007	Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/2/2007
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 5/23/2007	Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 4/23/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/19/2007	Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 4/30/2007
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 9/9/2008	Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 6/21/2007
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 4/20/2007	Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 4/19/2007
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 1/22/2008	Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/24/2007
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 6/6/2007	Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 4/23/2007
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 4/30/2007	Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 1/29/2008
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 4/19/2007	Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 5/21/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 4/19/2007	Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 10/15/2007
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 4/19/2007	Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 4/23/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 5/3/2007	Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 4/19/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 4/19/2007	Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 4/19/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 4/19/2007	Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 6/18/2007
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 4/19/2007	Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 5/3/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 4/19/2007	Rep Tsongas, Niki [MA-5] - 2/12/2008
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 5/2/2007	Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 6/6/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 4/23/2007	Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 4/19/2007
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/19/2007	Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 4/19/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 5/21/2007	Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/19/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/19/2007	Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 4/23/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 4/23/2007

Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 4/19/2007(withdrawn - 4/23/2007)

[Salvation]

Let your representative and senators know that you do not support FOCA!

U. S. Senate

U. S. House of Representatives

[Salvation]

Pray for LIFE!

Cardinal George Warns Catholic Members of Congress About FOCA

Barack and the bishops (the coming confrontation with the Catholic church)
Abortion industry asks Obama for billions in funding
Abortion, A Doctor's Conscience and Obama's Lack of Campaign Commitment (Weyrich's Final Column)
Faith-Based Hospitals Could Close If Obama Signs Freedom of Choice Act
nate Filibuster Sought to Prevent Obama's Abortion Industry Bailout Plans
Bella Babies: Lives Saved
Obama's Abortion Socialism
Dr. Alveda King stumps for Pro-life
Feminists for Life Rolling Out College Pro-Life Videos
FOCA remains a threat, Russell Shaw warns

Abortion Foes Open a New Front
Bishop Paul Loverde's Bold Defense of Life, 'Arrest me' [FOCA}
Catholic Bishop: "Go Right Ahead and Arrest Me" Rather than Obey Freedom of Choice Act
Priest: Voting For Obama Could Be 'Mortal Sin'
Calif. priest tells Obama supporters to confess
The Freedom of Choice Act showdown is coming; it will change everything
Doug Kmiec’s Departure from the Pro-life Movement
Jill Stanek: Counterfeit pro-lifers: A case of mistaken identity
FOCA's effects seen as dire, but chance of it passing considered slim
Why Kmiec Will Not Become The New Vatican Ambassador

Abortion Advocates Downplay Potential for Passing Radical FOCA Bill
Lose-Lose on Abortion; Obama's threat to Catholic hospitals and their very serious counterthreat.
Administrator of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston stepped in it (Re: Fr. Newman)
Obama Picks Staffer of Pro-Abortion Group as Comm Director
Catholic Leader: Excommunication Possible for Backing Pro-Abortion Bill
The Death of Catholic Culture and the Election of Barack Obama (Catholic Caucus)
Pew study finds election coverage of religion was shallow (don't we know it!)
Biden experiencing troubled conscience over abortion, says Bishop Aquila
Guest Opinion: Fr. Jay Scott Newman in the Lion's Den
Interview with Bishop Hermann on the Courage to Die for Life

U.S. Bishops Cut All Funding to ACORN, Activities Funded Hard to Determine
Pew Study Finds Less Than One Percent of Election Coverage Included Abortion
Douglas Kmiec: Barack Obama More Catholic Than Previous Pro-Life Presidents
Newman in the Lion's Den (For taking care of business.)
How Tom Daschle Might Kill Conservatism [Obamacare: make us dependent, then how to shrink gov't?]
Obama Selecting Most Anti-Life&Family Rads He Can Find-plans to dismantle protection for marriage
Cardinal Stafford Stands by Criticism of Obama
Catholic Church Warns Obama of War between administration and Church
Kmiec: Barack Obama More Catholic Than Previous Pro-Life Presidents (Total Moron Alert)
Bishop discusses reasons behind cutoff of ACORN funding

Planned Parenthood Prez Falsely Says Election Means Catholics Pro-Abortion
A Pro-Life Nughtmare: Daschle Appointed as the new Secretary of Health And Human Services
Planned Parenthood CEO Claims Cardinal O'Malley Out of Step With Catholics
S.C. POLITICIAN RIPS CATHOLICISM
Election Results Don't Mean Pro-Life Movement to Stop, Limit Abortions is Dead
Pro-life movement: Both ends against the middle
Abortion: Obama’s nightmare.
A Pro-Life Nightmare: Daschle Appointed as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services
(Not Embryonic)Stem Cell Method Seen as Success (New York Times Buries the Story)
(Anti-)Catholic slur draws ire from council colleagues (South Carolina)

Catholics Who Vote for Freedom of Choice Act Could Face Automatic Excommunication ( 'bout time! )
She'd Be Perfect for the Job -- (Not!) [When did you stop beating your captured Islamo-Nazi?]
The abortion president
Catholic Bishops finally step up against abortion Democrats
The Coming "War" Between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church
Catholic Caucus: How to Fight FOCA with all resources of the Church
Fr. Newman Responds to Diocesan Concerns about Pro-Abortion Voting Letter
What Catholics Can Expect
Election Part I: “We Have No King But Caesar [Obama?]” (Reality Alert)
Pope says Catholics in politics must follow faith

Vatican cardinal: Obama is 'Aggressive, Disruptive and Apocalyptic'
AmP Poll: Was SC priest right to suggest confession for Obama voters? [Catholic Caucus]
OKAY OF EMBRYONIC CELL RESEARCH WILL INTRODUCE HIDDEN DANGER..PROPHESIED AS 'COMPARABLE' TO ABORTION
Finally, a Religious Leader with Guts
Bishop Blasts Pro-Choice Politicians (Bishop from Biden's "hometown")
SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters
Our Pastor is in the news because of this article
SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters
Voting bishops [Catholic Caucus]
On the end of Catholic Hospitals

Catholic professor'Kmiec] draws protesters Conservative voted for Obama
Catholic Church drops ACORN funding
Obama has first telephone conversation with the Pope
Catholic bishops will fight Obama on abortion
Catholics gird for fight with Obama on abortion, Paterson, NJ bishop takes a leading role
Jill Stanek: Moving On After Barack Obama, How a Disabled Boy Restored My Pro-Life Fire
Catholic Bishops Urge Huge Anti-FOCA Campaign to Stop Abortion Expansion (Might Close Hospitals)
Abortion and Euthanasia Bringing about the Demise of Catholic Health Care: Catholic Obstetrician
To accept abortion is to challenge God, Lord of all things...
USCCB: Church should oppose FOCA 'early and often,' Niederauer (Pelosi's Archbishop) says

Cardinal [George]: Obama's Presidency Heals Racism, Now Time to End Abortion
CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Does the GOP ‘Have to Be Anti-Abortion’?
Catholic bishops plan to forcefully confront Obama
Niece of Martin Luther King Jr.: "The Dream" Is Not Yet Fulfilled
Barone: Media wanted Palin abortion
New York Subway Riders Respond to Ad and Share Post-Abortion Grief, Agony
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's Niece{Dr. Alveda King]: Abortion Means Obama Doesn't Fulfill Dream
Bishops to present concerns on abortion, other issues to politicians
Kneeling Before the World [Catholic Caucus]
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life Receives Post-Election Death Threat

Barone: 'Liberal media' wanted Palin to abort
BISHOPS APPROVE BLESSING FOR CHILD IN THE WOMB
FIRST THINGS: Obama and the Bishops
Head of U.S. bishops says no compromise on abortion
Washington Post Admits Bias for Obama, Calls Pro-Life Policies "Offensive"
Washington Post Admits Bias for Obama, Calls Pro-Life Policies "Offensive"
Novena for the Protection of the Unborn
Carving Out a Better Respect Life Position
Prez Herod (post election reflection)
Wash Post: Pro-Life Views "Ideologically Offensive"
Vatican fires off warning to Barack Obama over stem cell research

Election of Obama a Disaster for Pro-Life Fight in EU and Africa: Prominent Kenyan Physician
Bishops will not skip debate on abortion and politics
Obama's Startling Reaction to Funeral Service for Baby Killed After Failed Abortion
MCCL [MN's largest pro-life organization] achieves nearly all pro-life goals in 2008 election
No "Presidential sleight of hand" on stem cells
Voting for Reproductive Freedom (NYT pro-abort alert)
Abortion Groups Confident Obama Will Push His Pro-Abortion Agenda
Obama reviews Bush orders on stem cells, drilling
Obama reviews Bush orders on stem cells, drilling (Be prepared for the gas prices to go up)
Let us Celebrate Barrack Obama, Let us Celebrate Life

Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions Stem Cell, Climate Rules
Pro-Life Dem Breakthroughs (Bad News for FOCA?)
Stopping FOCA: EWTN TV w/ Gianna Jessen, Sister Nirmala, Archbishop Burke, among others(?)
Dr. Alveda King to Pro-Lifers: Forward, March
What America Has Done (Was the election about racial equality or the right to life?)
The Freedom of Choice Act: Radical Attempt to Prematurely End Debate over Abortion
Becket Fund to Award Canterbury Medal to Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap.
Doug Kmiec to give election ‘post-mortem’ at Calif. seminary [Catholic Caucus]
Fighting FOCA (the time to act is now!)
Billy Graham Won't Advise Obama Because of Strong Pro-Abortion Position

Bishop Carlson: Our witness must grow stronger (Statement on election results)
Back to the Drawing Board (several bishops calling for Faithful Citizenship to be overhauled)
On Eucharistic Consistency (Florida bishop urges Biden to examine conscience before Communion)
Future Obama abortion legislation will violate conscience rights, PRI president says
THERE IS STILL A GOD IN HEAVEN!
Bill Berkowitz: Religious Right Down but Not Out
Freedom of Choice Act - Election Implications
A Post – Election Reflection: Pray, Plan and Participate
Payback Time: What Planned Parenthood Expects from Barack Obama
Life will not go on

Catholic Leaders React to Obama Victory, Offer Advice
Archbishop Chaput Eager to See Kmiec Deliver a Pro-Life Obama
History, Hyperbole and Horror (Eye opening)
[Electing Obama] A Grave Mistake and an Abiding Hope
Fight FOCA (Unlimited Abortion) Sign the Fight FOCA Petition ASAP Get Involved!!
Douglas W. Kmiec on 'Obama's Miracle'
"The Killing Must End”: Christian Defense Coalition to Launch Major Post-Inaugural Pro-Life Campaign
Pro-Life Advocates Urged to Renew Efforts Against Abortion After Election Loss
Obama Pushes Abortion on Day One With Emanuel Pick
Warriors with Our Eyes Fixed on Heaven (Bishop Finn's Excellent Column) [Ecumenical]

[Jeff Chandler]

Yeah, right. Meanwhile, Kerry, Pelosi, and heck, maybe even Obama will receive Communion at Ted Kennedy’s Catholic funeral.

[Arthur McGowan]

All this talk of remote vs. direct, material vs. formal cooperation in abortion is IRRELEVANT. In fact, it is a sign that Cardinal George and others have not been thinking very hard about this at all. They haven’t evenn properly identified the species of the main sin that pro-abortion politicians are committing.

The issue, for politicians, is the sin of DISCRIMINATION. Laws which treat abortion is anything other than homicide are DISCRIMINATORY.

And voting for a law which discriminates is direct, formal cooperation in DISCRIMINATION.

And it’s a MORTAL SIN.

Therefore, refusing Communion to politicians who vote for FOCA is MANDATORY. (Cf. Canon 915.) This is NOT a decision that is “up to the bishop.” If the bishop OBEYS Canon 915, he is doing his job. If a bishop DISOBEYS Canon 915, then THE BISHOP IS COMMITTING A MORTAL SIN HIMSELF.

So, any bishop who disobeys Canon 915 SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RECEIVING COMMUNION until he repents publicly.

[Sun]

I’m so glad to hear of this. Thanks for the ping.

[It's me]

.

[baa39]

I remember reading those comments by his Eminence quite a while ago, before the election, but it’s certainly relevant for Mr. Hudson to go over them again now.

Do y’all know about the postcard campaign? For some reason the Bishops really are worried about FOCA, and I don’t believe it’s ONLY due to the horror of abortion. It’s part of overall trends that could lead to the suppression of the Catholic faith in America and to freedom of speech and religion. They are realizing the danger of the new regime. FOCA has been floating around Congress for years, but now they act.

Every parish pastor in the country should have received a packet of information from his bishop. My understanding is this is not “optional”. The priest is to appoint a member of the Parish Council to oversee the parish “postcard campaign.” We in the pews sign three postcards, one for each Senator and Congressman, to be mailed end of January. If this isn’t being discussed in your parish yet, you might ask the priest.

Some dioceses are gung-ho and positive, and others (like mine) are not exactly fighting the pro-life cause and we need to ask, not wait passively for their guidance.

[annalex]

Here's someone with his head screwed on right, form the comments at source:

Not only should the excommunications we announced but, the Church is serious, the Bishops should summon the Pope's help. When FOCA comes up for a vote in the House They should invite him to Washington and the Pope along with every American Bishop should stand on the steps of the US Capitol in testimony against the hideous goings on. They should also invite 6 million Catholics and others of like mind to join them stretched out behind them on the mall and reflecting pool.

Written by Papa

[count-your-change]

They may or may not speak out but can you think of any Catholics being excommunicated for supporting, submitting to, speaking in favor of or even performing abortions?

No point in drawing a gun unless the person is willing to use it.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Nextrush]

Catholic bishops of today need to consider the example of Sir Thomas Becket.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

can you think of any Catholics being excommunicated for supporting, submitting to, speaking in favor of or even performing abortions?

Yes, EVERY Catholic supporting, submitting to, speaking in favor of or performing abortions has been excommunicated!

[jmaroneps37]

The Freedom of Choice Act showdown is coming; it will change everything
November 25th, 2008
By Kevin “Coach” Collins

collinsreport.net/

In April of 2007 the Democrats induced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This bill is exactly the kind of over-reach Pro Lifers predicted would come about. FOCA would compel all hospitals accepting public funds to provide abortion and birth control services to their patients or lose funding. There would be no exceptions for religious based hospitals. It says “Abort or close.” The nation’s Catholic Bishops are studying the close option. Moreover, FOCA would be retroactive. FOCA clearly tells Pro Lifers to shut up and start cutting.

Trouble for Catholic politicians

FOCA is coming back in January. When Catholic Democrats pass FOCA, it will bring about a crisis in the American Roman Catholic Church and American politics as well.

Cannon Law forbids “formal cooperation” with an evil such as abortion. By their vote, Catholic politicians will place themselves outside of the Church and into a state under which they could no longer receive Holy Communion.

This is the train wreck Barack Obama’s Democrats have been trying to avoid by their admittedly centrist appointments thus far. This issue will make one side a winner and one side a loser. The bishops can not back down. The fact that Catholics broke ranks and voted for Obama makes it more, not less, likely that the bishops will excommunicate violators and close Catholic hospitals rather than be forced to provide abortions.

Obama has promised to sign FOCA. The drunk with power Democrats will introduce it. It will be a major turning point in sobering up Catholics and other Pro Lifers who drank Obama’s Kool aid. That rank and file Catholics will be pulled into this fight is also inevitable. The moment this bill hits the floor, any “honeymoon” of good feeling will end and the real fighting will begin. I say bring it on.

Those who think the Roman Catholic Bishops are bluffing are wrong and are in for a big surprise. When secularists bring suit against the Bishops to try to force them to do abortions they ought to keep a recent statement by Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis. He said “… any of us [ Catholic Bishops] would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow - to die tomorrow – to bring about an end to abortion.”