How a bill doesn't become a law

Don't worry. Obama was pandering. He never means what he says. And its "Basic Civics" that electing a pro-abortion President will make the FOCA less likely. Furthermore, those bad conservatives we opposed will be able to stop him, which is why we want to defeat the rest of them in 2010. And anywayhe is the pro-life candidate, since he will end Bush's wars except for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, of course. However, hype and fliers with screaming headlines are great fundraising devices which also present the opportunity for Republican sore losers to vent their spleen upon our new President-elect.

Thank you for bringing the God-given voice of reason to the discussion. As we move toward the season of advent, may we relinquish fear and embrace hope.

Thank you for this clarification. I had known that this bill had lain around for many years, and I couldn't understand why people were freaking out as if it were on the verge of passing as the new president's first act.

I think this is just another example of the scare tactics that have been used to deter people from voting for Obama. I deplore this. Give me the facts and let ME decide.

I voted for Obama but he seems to have become a typical politician - you say one thing to get elected and after you are elected you will do what pleases you. The Democratic platform has stressed funding to help pregnant mothers with health isurance and social services to lessen the thought of an abortion. Apparently this help is no longer a consideration. I have considered never voting for a Republican or a Democrat again. My vote will go to the Green Party, Indepenpent Party, or possibly the Socialist Party. I guess platforms do not matter!!!

But, if FOCA is not a threat, how will the anti-abortion agencies raise the kind of money it takes to support their staffs and their expensive offices?

Did Joe Feuerherd really use the phrase,".candidate Obama pandered to the pro choice lobby.."
Is "protecting abortion rights" something this NCR columnist thinks is a bad thing? Scary! Darlene White

Well now, what is the news about this? I already saw it coming. I already told you that voting for the "DEMOCRATIC Candidate Barack Housein Obama", was voting for the wrong candidate! Now I am a Catholic! I believe that if a child gets pregnant, it then becomes a whole family dedicated to the situation of does she want to keep the baby? Can the family provide for the upbringing of this child, if not then why can't there be adoption places like when I was a child? More of the people that want to choose life should be willing to accept another one or two children that that would be made, if we refused to put a stigma on a person, whether they were a Roman Catholic teaching in a Catholic school, and they made a mistake, and wanted to raise the baby in a good Christian home, or whether they were an agnostic who did not want to have a baby or wanted to get rid of a baby. I think that a person who wants an abortion should be willing to pay not only for the Dr and the nurses the bedroom, all of the medical necessities, in which their abortions are going to buy, and lets not forget the place, whether it be a Dr.'s office or a hospital, that can be quite an expensive thing. Let's say an abortion costs an average of one thousand dollars, then lets say that a TAX should be tacked onto it of $1000.00. It would be great! We would be getting so much money from the killing of all of these little babies, even wall street would be able to dabble into it! All the greedy and corruptible people who are only out for themselves would fall as this great nation is falling! God made Marriage a SACRAMENT. God did NOT create a sacrament for all of those people who want to marry of the like sex. People should be thinking about which road that they want to travel. The road to HEAVEN or the road to HELL!

It would be better if a man cut of his hand rather than commit a sin. Jesus Christ died on a cross so that we could be happy with Him in heaven. Every man woman and child should be made to pay for doing something wrong. If a person lies he should have to pay a dollar for everytime he lies. Can you even think just how rich this country would be if every congressman, senator, judge, President, and Vice President had to pay a $1000.00 fine for everytime they told a lie?

While I agree that FOCA is not a dire threat, and I do understand the way that Congress must act before something like this could even cross the President's desk, I do think that the continued opposition and discussion is good as a whole.

This ongoing discussion reminds the President - and those who support FOCA - that there is a very vocal outpouring against this proposed measure. That vocal support AGAINST FOCA will keep it from coming out of committee...

by silently sitting back, as is the case with any law, we risk its passage due to our apathy.

This discussion also allows us to move into and broaden our discussions in the areas of stem-cell research and the financial aid of NGOs that provide abortion counseling...

Again we become aware of how little our citizenry knows about how the laws of the land are made. So many good people are concentrating on this one issue to the detriment of so many others that have a chance of making lives better for all. Think of our country being made up of people who have jobs and medical care, their children can go to college, mother's have support systems that enable them to work if necessary, people are able to take care of their parents, children in foster care are considered valuable and care for them exceeds that eighteen year old cutof, then imagine how much easier it would be to decide to have the child you conceive.

So many good people and maybe not so good are only pushing for the issue they can force othrs to comply with and managing to avoid the issue that may cost them.

To FEUERHERD,

You are wrong. You are also stupid.

The Senate may become filibuster-proof.

Obama has promised to sign FOCA into law.

FEUERHERD, you are an abortion-rights supporter.

Only pro-life organizations are using the FOCA as a scare tactic to raise funds? So are NARAL and Planned Parenthood and, if I did further research, I would find more pro-abortion sources doing the same thing. (By the way, Planned Parenthood (501-C3)hosted a Democratic Convention party in Denver. Hmmm, is that allowed by 501-C3 law?) What I read from the comments so far is that Obama lied when he said that he would make FOCA his top priority if elected. Should I believe him now when he says he'll fix the economy, stop the war, and any number of other promises? It's OK to lie when speaking in "campaign rhetoric," but we should trust him now that he is elected and not worry about the millions of unborn babies who will continue to die and the millions of women whose bodies are "raped" by the lies that abortions are safe? Oh, it's just politics and those who don't "get it" are just stupid. Give me truth and call me stupid.

Let me get this straight. FOCA is not a threat because Roe vs. Wade is still in place and will not be changed by any Obama Supreme Court appointees. We should therefore ignore attempts to pass FOCA by Catholic politicians. A nominally Catholic publication thinks this is a good idea why?

FEUERHERD's SOPHISTRY MISLEADS

Although the diabolical FOCA didn't get anywhere last congress, the next congress will have liberal democrat majorities in both houses as well as a liberal democrat in the white house. So passage of such an ideologically partisan bill is very likely.

Feuerherd is a SOPHIST. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Feuerherd belittles the Catholic Church's efforts to fight FOCA, which is actually an exercise in civics and popular politics, while claiming that the Catholic Church doesn't understand civics in the first place!

Mr. Feuerherd, go back to school and learn logic. Or go to the confessional and repent.

Why are the left no matter where they are entrenched always so incredibly blind to the damage that their belief inflict on the society and individuals?

That's simple: They're evil and this chattering non-entity Joe Feurherd is truly bad. I like to see his Charitable giving records.

I hope that when the Bishops do decide to discuss the stem cell issue that they will inform themselves more of the observations of scientists and embryologists than to simply rely on what they believe are truisms. They were very wrong with the Copernican theories because they failed to understand them or even try to learn about them. They only wanted to put to death those that supported them. Are the Bishops repeating their historical ignorance about science? Are we, the People of God, supporting their ignorance? It all happened once before but there is not a Bishop among them that will today teach that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for infallible Bishops' teachings.

Why are Bishops so hesitant to admit to errors? It takes humanity out of anyone that fails to admit when they are wrong. Do we once again have a vindictive Episcopate fighting the observations of science?

Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD

Dr. Porch,

I'm confused -- you suggest bishops do not discuss the stem cell issue. However, I have read that some have come out in support of stem cell research: adult stem cell research. Is it not a fact that significant medical results have been made using adult stem cells, whereas *no* medical results have been made with embryonic stem cells?

Just A Guy At NASA

Mr. Porch,
you have said several misleading statements. First of all the idea that the sun revolves around the earth was never declared infallible by any Church council or pope. So I really don't understand where you are getting your facts from. As for "historical ignorance" I detest that statement as well. Various bishops and theologians within the Church, at the time of Gallileo, were very supportive of Gallileo.

2) What does ANY of that have to do with the issue at hand? You jsut fired off salvo after salvo at the bishops stance on stem cells and a whole bunch of other rubbish. So why, may I ask, are you not discussing the issue at hand? Am I to take it that you do not believe abortion is a grave evil or that FOCA is a problem?

Mr. Fuerhard, since my last message to you which I publicly wrote out here was not put up, despite that fact that it was polite, I will simply ask the following: what if you are wrong?

If Dr. Porch's knowledge of medicine is only as extensive as his knowledge of history I surely hope his malpractice premiums are current.

FOCA is just part of an aggressive, pro-abortion social policy that President-Elect Obama has promised to implement. I'm willing to take him at his word on this. In fact, given the gravity of the issue and his significant majorities in both the House and Senate, it is naive to assume that he's going to back off.

By the same token, there is good reason to believe that, even if FOCA isn't passed, President-Elect Obama will try to accomplish the same effects through a more subtle and palatable piecemeal approach.

Regardless, Catholics--be they Bishops, laity, or even self-styled Catholic publications--should raise their voice in defense of the most defenseless in our midst.

Lastly, regardless of FOCA's eventual fate, surely the bill will again come before Congress, at which time many Catholic politicians will have to choose between fidelity to their political party and fidelity to the Catholic faith and fundamental moral truth.

In that regard, the Bishops, in keeping with JPII's encyclical "The Gospel of Life" (see esp. nos. 73-74), have a special duty to reach out in a firm yet pastoral manner to pro-abortion politicians from within their jurisdiction.

Civics 101 will also instruct a person on how to have his or her voice heard by the Congress and President. To sit quietly and think good thoughts may work magic in Never-Neverland, but it will not ensure equal rights, human rights, the abolishment of torture, civil rights, dignity for the immigrant or the abolishment of the death penalty to name a few. Those opposed to the FOCA need to speak as loudly as any other group in order to influence their representatives, otherwise the controvery may subside. I'm sure I will not shock anyone here by stating that the American attention span on things political is related to the controversy surrounding it. Once upon a time there was an act that many found controversial because it suspended civil liberties and created an imperalistic presidency...certainly it was so controversial it wouldn't be renewed by Congress without a major make over. The Patriot Act remains the law of the land, and the voices once vehemently opposed to it remain silent. I think given the lack of attention span and the abundance of apathy of the American people on the daily important issues facing our nation, we shouldn't discourage anyone from clearly and loudly using their voice in this democracy of ours. That is the true lesson of any Civics 101 course...if it is isn't then the instructor has missed the mark.

Well, who in the world is Joe Feuerherd? What are his credentials to write on such an important issue as FOCA? Where in the article does he give us his sources? For all we know, he made it all up - a scare tactic used often by the new breed of writers who we now call anti-Catholic Catholics. Ignore them if you want, but best to keep your eye on them. They can influence many of the non-suspecting faithful.

So what the author is essentially telling you is Obama is a panderer - but then we already knew that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__ctD48nfQ

Everything about the Obama candidacy was about hope - hope that he will do something or won't do something.
Maybe all opposition voices will simply disappear and President Obama will never have to deal with disturbing realities at all, or take a position on anything...especially FOCA. Now Mr. Feuerherd isn't just hoping this will happen; he knows. That's "change" right? At least we hope so.

There are opinion articles in the National Catholic Reporter written by nominal Catholics, but they are almost always not the position of the Catholic Church. They are simply articles written by individuals who have decided to oppose the Church. How is that different from the heresy of Protestantism?

Everything about the Obama candidacy was about hope. Hope that he will do something; hope that he won't do something.
Maybe Mr. Feuerherd wants all opposition voices to disappear so that President Obama will not have to deal with uncomfortable realities at all, or take a position on anything, like FOCA. Now Mr. Feuerherd does not just hope this is so, he knows, and that is "change". At least, we hope so.

This is a terrible position to take. Complacency should be avoided, even if something is considered "unlikely."

You ignore the fact that democrats picked up a number of house and senate seats, and that a filibuster in the new environment will require ridiculous levels of participation from republicans in the senate. Filibustering may be effective, but the country doesn't appreciate a static congress, and pressure will grow on republicans to pass bills over the coming years.

This is one of the many calls for conservatives to quiet down, and step back from the soapbox.

I've posted a little bit about this here:
http://demablogue.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/moderating-conservatives/

Moderating and quieting down are not the answer. We don't need to get ridiculous, but we need a firm defense of our values, or we will lose our values.

-Demablogue