When the USCCB threw its weight behind legislation supporting immigration reform and an easier path to citizenship, people like Matthew Hay Brown said not a word.

Now that the USCCB throws its weight behind something Matt doesn't like, he throws a hissy fit.

Get over yourself, Matt.

Once again, religion proves that it becomes evil when it enters the realm of governance.

The Left is always nice to the Catholic Church when it says the left things about unions, human rights, anti-war, immigration, and the death penalty. But the Left ravages the Church when it comes to abortion and the male-only priesthood. This is clear evidence that the Left is not about freedom but about domination and control. The Catholic bishops are only doing what they are supposed to do to promote Christian values. If it weren't for the Church, Western civilization would still practice the old Roman act of infanticide.

Just like the Marxists in Latin America, Democrats in the U.S., currently controlled by Marxists, are using, manipulating and attacking the Church to destroy the Church and its principles, and take over.

In Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc., Marxists first USED and MANIPULATED the Church into supporting their "noble" "help-the-poor" SCAMS. And then they attacked the Church and tried to prevent the Church from speaking against abortion and other evils.

USING AND MANIPULATING the Church, Obama-like Marxist thugs (Castro, Chavez, Correa, Morales, etc.) forced people to submit to socialism/Marxism, which has multiplied poverty, corruption and despair, and has destroyed human beings materially and spiritually.

The forces of evil are already manipulating part the Church. Pray the forces of evil are not able to continue manipulating the Church in the U.S.

I'm glad she's trying to get them taxed. they protect pedophile priests. I know, I was molested at LMU in 1980. The priest who did it was busted for kiddie porn in the early 200's there. TAX THEM. AND TAX THE MORMONS TOO! And BAN DIVORCE - if they want to own marriage, let them lie in it. Balloon parents!!!

Thor H - What exactly was done that was evil? Push to get an amendment passed so they could support the health care reform bill? I'm sure other groups did their share of lobbying to try and get what they wanted. In the end Rep. Woolsey failed to actually say how the USCCB bullied anyone. In fact she didn't even know the proper name of the group she was attacking. I’m sorry to say that she came off sounding like a sore loser who needed to blame someone so instead of attacking her fellow Democrats who actually voted on the amendment she chose to take a cheap shot at the USCCB. I wonder does she advocate all non-profits who lobby to have their exemptions investigated or just those who see things differently than her?

The catholic church is constantly attacked.

What about jewish organizations that support Israel? Our soldiers die, billions of our tax dollars go to Israel.

and this woman attacks the catholic church?!

What about Jane Harman of the Intelligence Committee seeking to gain the chairmanship through an Israeli operative.

If the jewish religion can advocate, why can't other religions?

Bull!! Many of us are absolutely against anyone spending a single cent of our hard earned money on killing babies! The Catholic Bishops are finally an entity willing to step forward and give voice to what MANY MANY of us believe. We don't have to be Catholics to believe abortion is a fancy and socially acceptable way to kill for convience!

I've got bad news for Lynn Woolsey. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, which is a perfectly legal procedure, just like abortion. I bet she wouldn't have a problem with that, though, would she?

If Woolsley and the Liberla kooks want to take on the Chruch, feel free. The Romans did and look what prize they won.

Time to stay United - Life is SACRED - Lets not let anyone tell us any different. Remember to Pray!

I find talk of taking away the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church because of it's lobbying effort with the health reform initiative interesting. Let's think about this for just a minute....the Catholic Church receives absolutely no tax dollars. Planned Parenthood, which also is a tax exempt entity, receives millions of tax dollars each year, yet no one is yelling about their huge lobbying effort to insure abortions are covered by the health initiative. Hmmmm.....the majority of their income is our tax dollars. The majority of their self-produced income is from performing abortions. Gee, anybody get the connection?

Lynn Woolsey better read the Constitution of the United State before she mouths off.
Life, Liberty, and Property is protected by the Consitution.
If Woolsy does not know this, she should be impeached. It is obvious she does not know the Oath that she took, she is a fraud; trying to force every American citizen taxpayer to fund the killing of an innocent helpless human-being. Besides "Abortion" is not healthcare, but an Elective Intentional Killing of an offspring. Clearly, you cannot redefine "Elective Abortion" as Healthcare. Get over it Woolsey.

Religion has proven itself evil in this case because.......it is trying to stop taxpayer-funded baby killing??? Yeah....riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. There's some logic for ya.

No churches have been taxed since the beginning of this nation because of the greater good they provide society. LBJ got revenge on non-profits for opposing his election by getting the IRS involved in threatening the tax exempt status of organization that got involved in politics. THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO VOICE ITS OPINION UNTIL LBJ CAME ALONG. LBJ didn't target churches specifically, but they got caught up in the non-profit net. Just because one is religious doesn't mean he gives up his right to freedom of speech and all the other rights endowed to us by our Creator. The Church should speak out. We are citizens of this nation, we have a voice...just like you do.

Mike in Indy (4th post) has it exactly right. The Catholic Church has been hijacked by Marxists.

The health care bill is bad, bad, bad with or without abortion coverage. It's Communism disguised as concern for the poor. The poverty pimps have been screwing the good people of this nation long enough!

Catholics have a right to voice their opinion in concert with religion and truth.

Yet whenever it is in conflict with a left-wing nut job, they shreik and threaten tax-exempt status. Does this ever happen with NARAL or Planned Parenthood?

Lynn Woolsey is yet another threat to democracy and should never be re-elected.

Once again the bishops in their cassocks have taken off from their banquet halls and their counting of rosary beads to poke their noses into matters political. Ravensfan, what have the bishops done except to lobby like all the other non profits you say. This is not a run of the mill non profit Ravensfan. This is a religious non profit and when it starts meddling in politics, it loses its non profit status. I know a lot of people on this board don't want their tax payer dollars spent on the killing of babies. I, on the other hand, don't want my tax dollars wasted on the Catholic Church, yet this church is allowed to freeload off the taxpayer even as it, in the name of conscience, interferes in and abridges the freedoms of those who don't belong to its fold--over whose preferences and rights it has no jurisdiction. The bishops have played havoc with the lives of women in Latin America and Africa. Women have been wracked and depleted by repeated pregnancies, their bodies anemic, they have been forced to breed like farm animals, the Catholic Church telling them that is what will bring them salvation and the approval of God--no contraceptives, no divorce from abusive spouses, no relief from the debilitation of taking care of so many children and the grinding generational poverty that the venomous Catholic demagogues have wrought. And this church now wants to control the reproductive tracts of Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims, Bahais and Protestants. The nerve of these darn bishops. The Catholic Church receives no tax dollars? It is a tax subsidized entity. It pays no taxes on the huge tracts of choice properties it owns and zealously guards from the boys and girls its spiritual leaders have abused. Good for LBJ--great that the Catholic Church voices its opinions but that's different from sneaking into the reproductive tracts of women it does not know. Religion is not evil because it is trying to stop taxpayer funded killings of babies--religion is evil because it wants more and more babies to swell its ranks of believers and because it wants more and more babies to grow up and become fodder for more and more violations as described by Ian here--which all the Catholics and God believers have conveniently ignored and will conveniently be apologists for--Ravensfan being number one in this troop of apologists--ah Colleen, have your babies--umpteen of them and take them to be altar boys but leave the others to their own devises--I pay for the Catholic bachelor boys to live in tax exempt splendor in their orchard filled churches and you pay for abortions--thus goes life--don't quack too much. "The Romans did and look what prize they won"--the Catholic church, that's what they won--where Zeus and Diana stood in the naves of the Roman temples, now stand the saints--the Romans will never die. The Catholic Church is the greatest imitator of them all--the Romans live through the church and its copycat pagan ways. Hey Leida, the Jewish religion should not advocate and ditto for the Catholic religion. But there is a qualitative difference. The Jewish religion advocates for Israel, the Catholic religion speaks for every uterus in America while influencing federal policy. Soldiers don't die because of the Jewish lobby--soldiers die because al Qaeda would like to take over the oil fields of the world and your home and my home and everybody's life if possible. I know you would say that if the Jews didn't exist then al Qaeda wouldn't exist. Nothing surprising there--the Catholic church's antisemitism has a contaminating influence.
Ravensfan Anon
Ravensfan Anon

Included in the killing issue or abortion are Rosa de Lauro, Lois Capps, Nita Loway, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Louise Slaughter, Debbie Wasserman, Mides Quickley. Many women. I wonder why. What if their mom aborted them? I got this from an announcement right after the vote so you had to find out what state do they represent.

How 'bout we take away Planned Parenthood's tax-exempt status, too, Congresswoman?

Quite simply; Abortion is "evil." Forcing people to contribute to "evil" is an abomination! Case closed!

Guilda, mrssullo and azsis, The Taliban is looking for moral cops to patrol the streets and enforce some of the same rules the Catholic Church likes--address Afghanistan. They would love all three of you. Apply. They would house you in palaces there.
Ravensfan Anon

Someone needs to tell Rep. Woolsey that the Conference of Catholic Bishops is supported by money that people put into the collection plate and not by taxpayers. Perhaps she could encourage people in her state not to offer pot farming as a career for high school graduates and to discourage people from using this drug which is an increasing source of her own state's income.

What hypocracy and arrogance. So, on their moral authority the Bishops defend the unborn but folks like Dodd, Rangel, Frank get a pass because they have no moral authority? Regardless of your moral authority, why should I be forced to pay for something I have no say in or don't accept as ok? I wonder who gave Woolsey the moral authority to tell everyone else what is right or wrong?

Anon – You’re quite the story teller. That was a nice piece of fiction you wrote. Like any good fiction writer you took some truth and enhanced it to tell your story. For every wrong thing you want to mention I can counter with far more good things. I really don’t think you want to go there my friend. Your problem is you are blinded by your own personal animosity towards religion. Especially the Catholic Church It clouds your objectivity. By the way why should religious non profits be treated differently that others for being politically active? You didn’t really support that with anything logical reasoning. Then again you didn’t really support anything you said did you? How about non-profits who receive taxpayer money and lobby? You also failed to really explain how your tax dollars are wasted on the Church or how it freeloads or how its tax subsidized. I’d love read that piece of fiction sometime. You even got into the breeding and swelling ranks nonsense. You’re starting to sound more like Robert every day. I have to say it makes you seem just as hateful, petty and unintelligent as it did Robert. He wouldn’t be a relative of yours or maybe you alter ego would he?
Ravensfan

Gee, the Mormon church just backed gay rights in Salt Lake City. Time to take away their tax exempt status too! It probably wouldn't pass without them!

I really like this happening maybe this will wake up some of th stupid Catholics thar keep voting for the commie democrats.

Lynn Woolsey is a typical liberal jackass. She wouldn't dare oppose a church that supports her liberal ideology. She only will attack a church that opposes her. Last time I checked, this is America, and we have the right to voice our opinions.

I hope that someone digs some dirt on this bitch and gets her ass kicked off of the hill in 2010.

To borrow a word from Mr. Spock: Fascinating! I'm pro-choice, but I believe that the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious organization/denomination has the right to express its opinion on the issues. I guess that this Congresswoman and many of my other liberal cohorts either weren't alive during the Civil Rights movement or have forgotten that priests, ministers and rabbis were at the forefront of this movement. The First Amendment doesn't require clergy to be silent.

That being said, enough with idiotic comments like "commie democrats." If this person actually is a doctor, I hope his medical skills are better than his writing skills, or he must spend most of his time defending himself in Court.

Christianity is a way of life, not something that can be checked out at the door to your workplace. When Congress members claim that they are Catholic and yet vote against life (i.e. for abortion) they are denying their claimed faith. To be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus Christ, not a member of a group, and Jesus Christ wants all of you all the time. Not just when it's to your benefit.

It's always refreshing to hear the words of arrogant pipsqueaks like Woolsey. Comic relief, in this day and age, is sorely needed, so we must thank her at least for that. I have no doubt that she would like to back up her verbal threats, spoken "like a dockside bully", with Congressional action. To that eventuality I would say, please do so, Miss Woolsey. The more we see the iron fists of these swine emerging from their velvet gloves the better. Then maybe some people (and some namby-pamby Churchmen) will wake up and smell the coffee.

The comments of "Anon" (bravely identifying himself for us) and "Ian" are also welcome, if for no other reason than they illustrate the grotesquely unhistorical opinions that are out in the marketplace these days. It is good, really, to know the level of ignorance that is out there so that we can do our best to try to show them where they are wrong. The Church has managed for 2000 years to remain standing against every assault imaginable, and although this current one is going to be rough going they will weather that storm, too.

Even this recent infestation of homosexuals in the priesthood, unlike anything the Church has had to suffer in twenty centuries, will pass. It will pass when the Vatican and the Bishops once more grow a backbone and rid the holy Church of this filth. Perhaps this minor but very important initiative of the US Bishops will mark the beginning of a new breath of courage in the Church. Please God I am right.

That is plain BS. The vast majority of Catholic Democrats in the House voted against the Stupak amendment.

Here's the count:
http://arsorandi.blogspot.com/2009/11/stupak-amendment-tally.html

We Catholics are voters, too. Why shouldn't we voice their opinions?

We Catholics are taught that it is important to support the local government. In this country, this means voting in accordance with Catholic teaching, which means voting according to morals and what Jesus taught.

The Catholic Church is against abortion, therefore, obviously, we Catholic Americans are going to be urged to vote pro-life.

It just makes sense.

P.S. Whoever brought up the pedophila topic--not every priest is guilty of that crime. It's not right to blame all priests when not all of them are guilty.

Keep dreaming Dan--the Anon is Ravensfan Anon--just as clear a name as Dan--the Church has withstood every assault imaginable because it is a wily enterprise--the entire church is namby pamby when it comes to spirituality but when it comes to materialism, politics and behind the rosaries sexuality the church is tops. You say assaulted people like Ian coming forward and demanding justice is just a storm in the tea cup and you say it is the result of a homosexual infestation of the church that can be purged? Come on man, you are addlepated. The church has been paying out alimonies across Europe to illegitimate children begotten by heterosexual priests. (Germany is one place where this is common.) That too is a scandal the church has hushed. This Church needs a vacuum cleaner the size of Olympos. Priests married at one time but the church discovered that once the priests died the lands owned by the priests went to their wives. Greed played its role in keeping the priests celibate. Appropriate the lands of the dead celibate priests and swell the wealth of the church--thus the church grew opulent and then of course it collaborated with governments that ceded it land and dominion over the subjects of those lands. You are saying when the church banishes the violators it will shine again like a beacon on the hill. But in actuality once it starts this purge, you advocate, the church will collapse. That is why the church won't do it. The whole damn shebang is an unseemly enterprise.
Ravensfan Anon

For gosh sakes try to think positive on occasion. Thanks.

I am glad Clay you have nothing else to say. Why don't you write the positive spin on the Church? There are scores of others on this board doing it.
Ravensfan Anon

Coverage for all includes the unborn living babies others wise you shouldn'nt be covered , how can it be a insurance for all when it leaves out the living babies and says you have the right to take away their life, It like me or the government saying we have to put you to death because we cant care for you no longer and you are useless, think if it was that way there would be mass graves of humans like in wwII just like there are mass graves of unborn babies.

Anon – Yes I see Robert is back. Good for him he ought to express his views even if they don’t agree with mine. Kind of odd he shows up after I questioned if there was a connection between you and him don’t you think? I’m not taking up for South Carolina. All I said was Myrtle Beach is nice. I’ve been there a few times. As for the topic of the blog I agree that the state has no business producing licenses plates that advocate any religion. I don’t recall saying you needed to prove anything. I am well aware the Church is tax exempt so is every other religion and secular nonprofits. In fact some of the groups lobbying on the other side are partially funded by my tax dollars. That isn’t true for the USCCB is it. You failed to address why groups that pay no taxes or in some cases receive tax dollars should be afforded the opportunity to lobby and the USCCB not be allowed the same. You speculate on how the land was received. You may be right in some places, but in reality that’s more of an opinion of someone with an axe to grind. In the end it wasn’t the bishops who voted, but the congressmen including Democrats. The political reality is that they couldn’t pass the reform with the existing language and in order to get it passed they put in the amendment to gain the USCCB support. That’s why it happened. If the Democrats could have passed it without the amendment they would have. You know it as well as I do.

Anon - There are also many spinning the negative as well.

Life is sacred (worthy of societal protection), once the individual becomes self-aware. To insist that the purely religious position that it is "sacred" from the moment of formation is based on ensoulment by a god creature. Clearly, this curious notion cannot be forced on the totality of society by utilizing the coercive power of the state, due to constraints in the separation principle of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution. Religions, are either going to have to suck it up, exercising their right to not have an abortion, if they so choose and realize that their rationale for ensoulment is not shared by everyone and cannot be forced on everyone to assuage their peculiar beliefs.

Robert - First welcome back, my earlier message to you hasn't shown up. How exactly did you arrive at your belief of when life is worthy of societal protection? Even if we accept your opinion when does one become self-aware? We really don’t know the answers do we? Since we don’t abortion could be killing life worthy of protection by your own definition. Finally why should you or anyone else have the right to decide when a life is worthy of protecting? Regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof that’s a power no one should have.

ravensfan - My first recollection (awareness) has to do with a mobile that hung over my crib and reflected morning sunlight as it moved. I'm told I was one at the time, but I'm am told that when I was held up and slapped on the butt seconds after delivery, I made an announcement, loud and clear, that I had arrived and was not pleased about it. I'm willing to acknowledge that some awareness can occur in vitro, at later stages, but that these could be tied to a concept of self is doubtful. Your contention that such person-hood occurs at conception is absurd to say the least, so forcing a woman to breed an unwanted fetus to the point of my definition of person-hood, to assuage your religious sensibilities, is equally absurd and will not be tolerated.

Robert - I never said when person-hood occurs because frankly I don’t know when that is and neither do you. What I questioned was what right you I or anyone else has to determine the stage at which a life is deemed worthy of being protected. A question you chose not to respond to. Remember you were the one who called it life. You were also the one who came up with a fictional concept to justify why someone should be given the power to end life. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. I conceded a while back that if the time comes that science could prove when life did begin that abortion should be legal under civil law up to that point regardless of what the Church’s position is on it. What is it with you and this forced breeding nonsense? Most pregnancies are the result of a choice not force. A woman chose to engage in sex without contraceptives and got pregnant. Yes there is a chance that contraceptives could be used and a woman could still get pregnant. Again that’s something known going in. Unless she was raped it’s a situation self created not forced. Not to be rude, but what you can or can not tolerate really means nothing to anyone but you and perhaps Anon. Your attempt at righteous indignation rings hollow when you are defending the right to end a life.
ravensfan

The idea that the Church, exercising its historical prophetic role in society, should be INVESTIGATED just because it has a vested interest in the outcome of a piece of legislation, shows how pathetic the state of democracy is on this continent. Once again, separation of Church and State never, EVER, meant the separation of righteousness and State. God help us, if it ever does.

Ravensafan,
A lot of women cannot take oral contraceptives for medical reasons--due to side effects. That is the surest method of birth control for women. Condoms don't work a lot of times--diaphragms same. IUDs are not some women's choices. We are still not where there is a medically safe and foolproof way to prevent pregnancies. Although you would like to blame unwanted pregnancies on women who have been wanton and lustful, absolving the men involved--I notice you only make mention of women in your little para above-- tells me that you are exactly like the Catholic Church, a chauvinist--I won't go so far as to say a misogynist, although I am tempted. Anyway,dear Ravensfan, of the fetus advocacy camp, when you rush out with your rosary beads and moral instruction book, to declare that most women, must suffer the consequences of their tactless lust, except--mercy me!--in the case of rape, I say, you know nothing of the world, where in South Africa, in Botswana, Zaire and even Ghana, women consent to sex with men because they want food to eat--because they want to feed the children they already have, because they are lonely and they would be condemned and marginalized if they are seen as women without men to call their own. Not just rape Ravensfan, there are all sorts of sexual exploitation, when women feel coerced into relationships with men out of fear, desperation, sometimes a need to jump from the fire into the frying pan and at other times sheer mistakes are made by young men and women looking for intimacy in the midst of grief or poverty or hunger--just a human body to cling to when all things look hopeless. Your all or nothing attitude does not span the spectrum of sexual encounters and has the punitive flavor of the Taliban modality of justice that says--WOMEN--mind you--Women--not men--must bear the consequences of their actions except in the case of rape. Robert may sound rude but he is the better man of the two of you because he more then you seems to realize that pregnancy can be the result of unequal sexual encounters, with women often playing the subservient role, even in marriages, and for women in these relationships to be doomed to repeated pregnancies by religious folks who place more premium on dogmas about the sanctity of life, than on the debilitating realities these women face--Ravensfan, you are quite unmerciful to the female of the species.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon – Why is it that abortion supporters spend so much time focused on either the small minority of women who can’t use contraceptives, those who are raped or the go at lengths into the injustices in other parts of the world like Africa? Is it so you don’t have to think about what it is you are advocating? Rather than concern yourself with the possibility you advocate murder you try and point out extreme examples to justify it’s yours that is the position of compassion. By the way my comments were in regard to this country where I doubt there are too many, if any instances of women coerced in the manner you went at lengths to discuss. Those situations you mentioned are wrong and unjustifiable. Your position seems to be two wrongs make a right. The fact that women may have been wronged justifies the right to end a life. If that’s your idea of what a better man stands for you then all I can say is I feel quite sorry for you. For all your rambling you failed to address the central core of my position, when does life begin? For all your insulting comments about me and my faith you completely over look that I actually said if we could be certain of that that from a legal standpoint abortion should be legal up to that point. One last question for you how does allowing life to be terminated do anything to put an end to all the suffering of those women? ravensfan

For all your talk in favor of the fetuses Ravensfan your actual agenda is the shackling women. For you to conclude, the instances I speak of do not occur here in the US commonly, means Ravensfan, you have little acquaintance with the downtrodden side of the train track in this country. When does the life of a fetus become independent from the life of the mother? That seems to be the more important question--when the umbilical cord is cut and the fetus is delivered Ravensfan. Until then the mother's life is intricately tied to that of the fetus. How far will you go to save the fetus? Will you arrest every woman who is promiscuous while pregnant, those who smoke, drink, carouse and take drugs? All those endanger the fetus. Abortion may be the ultimate negative expression of a woman toward her pregnancy but surely there are many others that implicitly threaten, deform, disfigure and render the fetus useless even if it is delivered live. For the religious Ravensfan, to be offended by abortion and to rule over women comes quite naturally. I believe the deception in the argument lies with your side. The Catholic Bishops and you Ravensafn, simply take the woman out of the equation. She is queen over her body. The fetus cannot exist outside of her womb. She should make the decision about her on body, based on what is fundamentally possible for her to do with the fetus yet to be delivered. How would abortion make her happy? Not necessarily happy Ravensfan, but she should have the right to pick what she can live with--sometimes this is the lesser of two evils or two heartbreaks-- as dictated by her circumstances and her conscience--not you Ravensfan, not the bishops--she and her partner, she and her family, she and her doctor, they should make that decision--get out of peoples' bedrooms and uteri. Entering there, declaring that life is sacred at all stages, or using specious challenges about when life actually begins--to the bishops it begins in the test tubes as soon as the sperm enters the ovum--to me it doesn't begin in this dimension for the fetus as an independent unit until the cord is cut and the placental barrier ceases to exist--and let me tell you science will never answer this question to everyone's satisfaction, because every cell has mitochondria and ribosomes, can respire and metabolize, is that a sentient being? If science answers in the negative and says that life does not begin with fertilization the religious will continue to heckle the scientists as messengers of Satan--so science will not embroil itself in the controversy.
Ravensfan. Women are squeezed between the patriarchs of the church, the paternal controllers like yourself and their own needs and circumstances. The decision to abort should not be complicated by the moralizers who are in many instances failed and besmirched human beings, doing very litle for the already born, some of them with clear agendas for the unborn--do you remember Ravensfan--father Christancho in Bel Air, Maryland, went with a fellow parishioner, a woman, to Colombia, South America, found a donor woman who contributed ova, and he made the parishioner carry children to term, for him? He brought these children home hid them from the others in his parish and ultimately these children were seized from him because he was found to be sexually molesting them--that's how precious life is to the Catholic Church Ravensfan--create children, to have a ready made bank of kids to practice pedophilia--this you will say is an odd case--an extreme example, an outlier-- egeregious--think again--that's what makes this case so interesting Ravensfan--the impausibility and the improbabilty--those who carry the torch for the unborn are not exactly pure themselves, so their moralizing is a sickening piece of hypocrisy and the women are squeezed by the Talibanization of this country --the zealots who will never let the women be, because controlling women--keeping them as second class citizens and oppressing them is another agenda the churches and the temples and the mosques have made an integral part of their religious philosophy. The anti abortionists mask their hatred for women with sweet talk about saving lives--a large number of women who think male totalitarianism is a god given edict submit to this idiocy with passion.
Ravensfan Anon

Ah Ravensfan,
Forgive my spelling errors in my last post to you--little, implausible and own were all misspelled in a hurry--that's the way the cookie crumbles when you have to run. Ravensfan Anon

Anon – Such a lengthy response and so little of any real value was actually said. You sound like a politician sometimes. You presume to know not only my motives and agenda, but the Churches and all who are pro-life. According to you we are all chauvinist women haters. You do realize not all pro-life supporters are men. That kind of works against your theory a bit doesn’t it. The truth is you want to believe those are the motives so you can feel as though you are the compassionate one. I wonder who you are trying to convince of that me or yourself. I believe you’re who are the one ignorant to the situation with abortion in the US and are buying into the dogma spouted by those who support terminating life. I’d consider your view if it were supported with some objective information. Then again terminating an innocent’s life would do nothing to solve any women’s plight. You use the word fetus because it makes you feel less guilty about ending its life. Abortion supporters spend quite a bit of time trying to dehumanize the unborn. What does is say that the Roe in Roe v Wade is now pro-life. About the only thing I agree with you on is that science will probably never determine the point life begins and if it did religious organizations like the Church wouldn’t accept it anyway. The rest of your post was pretty much a mixture of pro-abortion dogma and nonsense. If it makes you feel better by all means keep telling yourself it’s you who’s the one on the side of right.
Ravensfan

For Rep Woolsey to ask for the IRS to consider pulling the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church because her agenda is not being met is not Christian. How many would suffer if the church lost this status? Many more than people Woolsey will help in her career.

Ravensfan do read the last line of my long post--I do acknowledge the role of women in this. Again what statistics do you want--a questionnaire returned from the pro lifers stating that they are not misogynists? By the way Ravensfan women are their own worst enemies. In Africa most of the female genital mutilators, who perpetuate this practice, so they will not be put out of business, are women. Just because women are pro lifers too one cannot conclude that men are pro lifers without being misogynists or control freaks. Can it be possible some are sincere? Perhaps, but most I find are bedroom intruders of the worst sort. They don't even seem to believe in privacy rights for women. Every fetus is theirs to save. Please get to the print edition of the Sun today. There is a great article in it from the Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon – Your last line. “The anti abortionists mask their hatred for women with sweet talk about saving lives--a large number of women who think male totalitarianism is a god given edict submit to this idiocy with passion.” What did I get wrong? It sure sounds like someone trying to label pro-life supporters as chauvinist women haters. You even go as far as to excuse women pro-life supporters as somehow misguided into doing as doing the chauvinist women haters bidding. How exactly does the possibility that some who are pro-lifers maybe misogynists or control freaks make all of them that? That’s what you want to believe in order to feel that you are somehow on the moral high ground. Something so you don’t have to consider that you might be supporting terminating life. You even went back to the injustices and abuses in Africa. You seem to flirt back and forth in some vain attempt to justify that one wrong can justify another one. As much as I’d love to read that article I’m not going to spend the money. If the article is somewhere online let me know. If I get a chance later I’ll check out there website for it. Have you ever seen or read about an abortion done?

Here’s an excerpt from “Won by Lov” by Norma Leah McCorvey. (Roe of Roe v Wade).

“I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma,' I said to myself, 'They're right.' I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear”

I guess she gave into that male totalitarianism you wrote about.

ravensfan

Rfan Anon - What are your motives? You are not a woman are you? Why are you so hard pressed to justify killing a fetus in a womb?

Why would a woman want to kill HER baby Rfan Anon? Could you get inside her mind to find out? Why would YOU want her to kill her baby?

My apologies, but forget your African example (it is far more complex than this argument on abortion), these procedures are AVAILIBLE HERE!
To woman who are NOT in those horrific situations and just need a "quick fix" for the slip-up her and the BF made the night before.

What is an ABORTION Ravensfan Anon? Do you know?