Search This Blog

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Catholic Senators Could Have Stopped This!

BREAKING: Amendment to protect religious liberty under Obama mandate fails in U.S. Senate 51-48 

Here's the list of Catholic senators and how they voted: 
Senator Mark Begich (Alaska, D) – Opposed
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska, R) – Supported
Senator Marco Rubio (Florida, R) – Supported
Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa, D) – Opposed
Senator James Risch (Idaho, R) – Supported
Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois, D) – Opposed
Senator Mary Landrieu (Louisiana, D) – Opposed
Senator David Vitter (Louisiana, R) – Supported
Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts, D) – Opposed
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Maryland, D) – Opposed
Senator Susan Collins (Maine, R) – Supported
Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri, D) – Opposed
Senator John Hoeven (North Dakota, R) – Supported
Senator Mike Johanns (Nebraska, R) – Supported
Senator Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire, R) – Supported
Senator Robert Menendez (New Jersey, D) – Opposed
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, D) – Opposed
Senator Bob Casey Jr. (Pennsylvania, D) – Supported
Senator Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania, R) – Supported
Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island, D) – Opposed
Senator Pat Leahy (Vermont, D) – Opposed
Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Patty Murray (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Joe Manchin III (West Virginia, D) – Supported
A vote supporting the amendment was a vote to protect religious rights. Those opposed voted for the persecution of people of faith. Thirteen Catholics made the difference and also demonstrated that Democrats always stay on the plantation. These Catholics are like Richard Rich who was willing to perjure himself to secure the death of Thomas More in exchange for being named Attorney General of Wales. They denied religious liberty to people of faith. 

Faux Catholic HHS head Kathleen Sebelius led the charge as cheerleader attacking the Republicans for trying to deny women their right to free contraception, sterilization, and abortion. (Frankly, I'll bet most women would rather have free tummy tucks, breast enhancements, eye lifts, and other cosmetic self-esteem boosters. But maybe that will be part of the next stimulus bill.)

Question for the bishops of all these Catholic senators who voted for the persecution of people of faith. Will you discipline these renegade Catholics? Will you impose Canon Law 915? 


  1. Senator Klobuchar:

    With respect, I think you and Senator Franken ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    If you and he had voted up Blunt amendment 1520, it would have passed 50-49. Not only would persons' conscience rights not be violated; but also there would not now be a big hole in the First Amendment. I will not insult you by quoting its second clause; I assume you know it. I am simply unable to see how you and he can justify voting against that clause.

    That is why I think you and he should bow your heads in shame.

    Robert Wirth

    (Sent this evening, 1 March, to her and Senator Franken)

  2. I have often asked myself the same thing...what will it take for the bishops to enforce canon 915? Already, many of these politicians have supported the murder of children in the womb and it is abundantly obvious that they support the violation of religious liberty. Must they call for the death of the pope before our bishops say that you are manifest in public and grave sin and have led to the corruption of countless others by undermining Church teaching? What does it take these days to draw a line, and say that a person who is open defiant would commit the act of sacrilege by taking our Lord into themselves and would it not therefore be bishops' duty to ensure this does not happen? I think many bishops have forgotten that they are not only stewards of the faith, but also protectors of the flock and the Eucharist.

  3. So you also support the "conscious objection" of parents to deny their children antibiotics for infection? How about the insurance companies' "objection" to provide a surgery for someone over 70? This is about insurance companies, not churches or religions. If they can "consciously object" to having to pay for one type of care, then it would be right for any and all types of care they deem objectionable. For someone who has written so much about "death panels" and such, I would think this is clear. I support the Church's right to decide what is moral or immoral for their members, I do not support making laws that will affect non-Catholics. If Catholic hospitals and institutions only serve and employ Catholics, then they can make rules that apply to the Catholics (such as Hasidic Jewish hospitals). Remember, no one is forcing the Catholic people to actually USE birth control, only that the insurance companies these institutions use pay for it. The best way to "protest" would be to make sure that no Catholic person ever tried to fill a prescription for it.

  4. There are lots of things not covered by insurance. What makes this special. It is a strong medication almost always taken for a non-medical reason. It increases women's risk of a serious medical condition, breast cancer. And by what rights does the government tell anyone what they MUST buy in their health insurance? I would like the freedom to choose a plan that excludes all those drugs. Why is my "right to choose" denied?

    Does the federal government have the right to mandate that every fast food restaurant serve Coke?
    You may believe that the feds have the right to control every aspect of our lives. I don't. And neither did the Founders. Jefferson's greatest fear was the power of the centralized government -- so much so that he wrote a letter during Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts saying "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing."

    Those who love the Constitution recognize that we need a "little rebellion" in this country.

  5. The only power we really have is our one vote in November. Don't waste your dime calling these catholics. Pray for them and vote them out. Vote all Democrats out. Out out damn Democrat. Oh, no wait that was Out out damn spot. Sorry Lady Macbeth!

    Mary G.

  6. To March 2, 7:01 to Anonymous and Kathleen Sebelius

    What about women's menstrual health? Give me sanitary napkins or give me death.

    And free Midol while you're at it.

    Mary G

  7. Last year I told my State SEnator in NY that if I ever found myself behind him on a Communion line I would very gently tap him on the shoulder and ask him to please get off the line and make a spiritual Communion instead.

    (And yes, I am "judging" him based on his political record against life and marriage.

    Mary G

  8. To Anonymous...March 2, 2012 7:01 AM who said that "Remember, no one is forcing the Catholic people to actually USE birth control, only that the insurance companies these institutions use pay for it"

    What you fail to recognize is that most Dioceses and Catholic Institutions are self-funded and their insurance is a self-insured program which then means you are, in fact, forcing the Catholics to pay for something that they do not agree with morally. If I work for the Church, which I do, and my church pays 100% of my individual health care coverage, which it does, then the church is paying for my contraceptive coverage if I want it - even though it goes against Church teaching.

    What's the option for our Church? Offer no health insurance. And then what happens? More of us join up on Obamba Care. Then what happens? Taxes get higher. Then what happens? I can not afford my house, car, children's education and can now depend on the governement for everything. Becasue why should I work if I can get it for free?

    It is a very slippery slope that this country is on. One can only pray that we can get some people with common sense, some morals, and a respect for the Constituion to run and be voted into government.