Bishop to testify in Congress today on religious liberty

Hopefully, someone will ask Bp Lori whether a woman has the constitutional right to approve an emergency abortion to save her life under the Emergency Transfer and Labor Act (EMTALA) rather than being transfered in extremis and on a ventillator to another facility.

A woman, already the mother of three children, is told by her doctor that her 10 weeks old fetus is dieing and cannot live - the doctors don't know what to do to save the life of the baby. The mother is also in danger of dying if she does not have an abortion.

I could choose. It would be awful but I could choose. I would tell the doctor to perform the abortion.

Sometimes life gives you thorns and nettles to choose between, a necessity of making an awful choice when only awful alternatives are available. It is not in God's hands - God has already ordained what must be for the child. But there are other children and a husband - there are their lives to be nurtured and loved.

A closer look at the bishops' position on "religious freedom" reveals that the only 'freedom' of interest to them is for themselves and those who are in agreement with their theological beliefs — specifically in the arena of their perverse obsession with 'pelvic issues'.
.
Protecting the God-given free moral agency of others who hold different religious beliefs is not part of their agenda   (note HR358 and S877 among numerous others both federal and state).     In fact,   the USCCB has lobbied vigorously to trample the moral agency of others via state and federal legislation,   specifically regarding reproduction   (contraception,   abortion),   limiting statutes related to sexual assault of minors   (to protect themselves and their financial assets),   and against civil law protections/civil unions for gays and lesbians.     They have thrown their significant money and influence behind the most extreme of rightwing political candidates,   and bedded-down politically with the most extreme of Protestant factions   (Reconstructionists,   et al.)   to achieve their goals.     It is a blatant attempt to codify RC canon law into U.S. secular law in our pluralistic,   non-theocratic nation.
.
The USCCB interest in "religious freedom" is disingenuous on the face of it.     During the 19th century   (post-18th century French Revolution 1789–1799)   the Vatican lost its formidable secular power and geographical territory in Europe.     The plan in process over the past three decades has been to merge itself to one political party and finally regain that secular power via the government of the United States.     It's no accident that our highest court   (SCOTUS)   is stacked with neocon ultra-conservative Catholics who have little regard for separation of church and state — the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment be damned.     Several bishop-backed pieces of personally and medically intrusive state legislation related to the pelvic issues have already been ruled 'unconstitutional'— in whole or in part — by lower-level federal judges.     The make-up of the courts does matter as a protection for everyone's freedom,   not just that of Catholic bishops.
.
Historically,   when the Vatican had significant secular power,   either directly or via alliances with secular government and politicians,   it used that power to brutally impose its will on everyone with NO regard for religious freedom.     That tiger has not changed its stripes — the primary loyalty of the members of the USCCB is vowed only to Rome.     Be very wary of bishops cozied-up to secular politicians pleading for their "religious freedom".     It's a Trojan horse full of little Olmsted's waiting to wield their additional secular powers over Catholics and non-Catholics alike by any possible means.
.

Bishop Lori forbade contributing Catholics parishioners who were VOTF members from meeting in their church. so much for fascist Catholic religious liberty.

Will, or did, Bishop Lori speak also for those of us who are opposed to war and the death penalty to make provision for us to not have to pay taxes to support those two evil activities?

Misguided priorities in era of austerity. With all the rising poverty across the US, this is the best they can do? This is political deflection through omission towards the poor. They are worried about their narrow circle to relegate care for the poor to farther down the list.

Will Catholic sponsored health and social services programs become incrasingly restricted to those in the public who are able to agree with the guiding faith principles and conditions of catholic social and health services?

It is unclear to me how the Catholic Church, in such instances as gay adoption and contraception, can use tax payer money to limit services to those who are able to ascribe to the church's moral position on these issues.

Is it possible that the Catholic church will need to raise its own funds and not accept USG money so that the Church can provide social services according to its own principles?

I am not sure of the legal and moral precedents pertaining to the above and I am looking for clarity.