Busting out the economy -since 1934

 

1934 Cartoon from Chicago Tribune

"What's past is prologue." -William Shakespeare

Republican gives "Kennedy's seat" back to the people... White House yawns

White House: Mass. Vote Won't Change Anything -Newsmax

"One reporter suggested the political blowback in Massachusetts might indicate the administration was out of step with the American people.

[White House Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs replied: 'I think, according to any reasonable measure, the answer to that is, of course not.'"

While many democrats begin to abandon the burning ship of the Obama agenda in order to save their own skin, a few will remain defiant to the end, determined to carry on their course against a rising sea of popular opposition. Public opinion, outcry, and outrage will not deter the diehard radicals. No matter the cost, they will blindly pursue the most radical -and increasingly hated- elements of the Obama agenda, even if it brings about catastrophic losses for the Democratic Party.

For the radicals, it's not about the public good, and it's not even about their own party. It's about power, personal political power, the power to tear down and rebuild according to their own statist vision. To hell with democracy: they're in charge.

Illinois bureaucrats above the law

Abortion foes upset over delay in parental notice law - Chicago Breaking News

What authority does the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation have to "delay the enforcement" of a law that has been upheld in federal court?

This law has been on the books for 14 years. Hasn't it been delayed enough?

Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?

A few thoughts...

The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.

The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.

Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.

Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:

• The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
  
• Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
  
• Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
  
• The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
  
• Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
  
• Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
  
• Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
  
• The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
  
• Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
  
• And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
  

These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.

White House disables e-tip box

White House disables e-tip box - POLITICO.com

"Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box - flag@whitehouse.gov - that was set up to receive information on "fishy" claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan."

Apparently the White House received more than a small outcry of opposition to its "tip box".

Congress treads upon a dangerous serpent

Column: 'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com

"...These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views - but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

-Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Speaker Pelosi, here are some facts that You seem not to want to acknowledge:

The American people don't trust You, and they don't trust the plan for nationalized health care that Congress is hellbent on ramming down their throats.

Increasingly, Americans are horrified by the federal government's insatiable hunger to dominate the health care industry and other private sector industries. We're appalled that our government has become so insatiable, so overreaching, and so reckless in piling unsustainable debt upon future generations. And now it seems to be shedding any pretense that its members are required to listen to their constituents and represent their concerns. Rather, we are lectured about the predefined goals that Congress "must reach", "despite the disruptions" of a majority of citizens who strongly oppose the plans.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all members of Congress, should take heed. Their actions are causing cries of alarm to sound throughout the nation: the alarm of citizens who see that their government is increasingly out of control, increasingly deaf to their voices, increasingly menacing to the future prosperity and security of the United States. The rising voices have an edge of defiance and patriotic anger that only fools will attempt to dismiss as "manufactured" and "organized". Common cause has organized this uprising, and a domineering government has started the machine which is manufacturing the newly minted resistance.

Continue to tread on us, and we will strike back. We will sweep You from office, we will find new public servants who will share our ideals and represent our concerns. We will find a way to restore democracy and rid government of those bad apples who view public office solely as a path to power and profit.

Press on, Congress, show Yourselves... and discover what mettle still stiffens the spine of the American people.

When government turns ugly

Peggy Noonan: ‘You Are Terrifying Us’ - WSJ.com

To: flag@whitehouse.gov

President Obama,

I call on You to disavow and shut down the flag@whitehouse.gov program, which is so clearly intended to intimidate and stifle voices critical of Your administration.

Until You shut down this program, and for as long as pursue Your nationalized health care plan and other programs harmful to this country, You can expect energetic opposition and loud criticism from me and many others who will not be cowed into silence.

Until then, You can add my name to the Dissidents List.

Sincerely,
John Robin
(address and phone number provided)

Is the White House building an "Enemies List"?

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment - The Note

Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
-ABC News

To: The White House, flag@whitehouse.gov

Subject: Is the White House assembling an "ENEMIES LIST"?

Re: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html

I call upon President Obama to shut down this surveillance program in which citizens are asked to report directly to the White House (flag@whitehouse.gov) when they encounter private communication critical of the president's proposals and policies. Such a program, if it does not directly abridge the right to free expression, at least undermines and threatens this right, because it raises a legitimate concern that one's exercise of free speech, rightly or wrongly interpreted, may result in being counted a member of a government "enemies list", a target for harassment and retaliation.

Even if there is no intention to assemble such a list, the program reasonably can be perceived as a heavy-handed effort to stifle political opposition and intimidate those critical of the government. Is this really the image that President Obama wants to cultivate?

The president should shut down this citizen surveillance program immediately.

Sincerely,
John F. Robin
(address and phone number provided)

To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion

To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)

The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...

It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx

These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".


The author acknowledges,

"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."

Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!

As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?

The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.

U.S. government carjacks automotive industry

GM Files for Bankruptcy Protection - WSJ.com

Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended government intervention in GM as the auto maker enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the actions are part of a 'viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again.'

Which article of the Constitution authorizes the government to use public funds to "rescue" a private company?

This administration -to some extent like its predecessor- has an insatiable and rapidly growing appetite for expansion of its powers without regard for constitutional limits.

The American dream of liberty, self-reliance, and freedom from undue government intrusion, is being transformed systematically to a bleak, marxist nightmare in which the entire economy -and every aspect of life- is subsumed under government control.

When will the American public wake up and begin to exert pressure on Congress to stop this headlong race to a totalitarian future?

Media supports administration's interference in auto industry

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News

The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:

"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."

-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.

"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."

"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?

And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?

Conservative talk show host banned from U.K.

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

I have heard Michael Savage express many strong opinions, but I have never heard him advocate violence outside of legitimate warfare. For years his mantra has been the preservation of "borders, language, and culture", and has opposed those who desire the hostile overthrow of western culture.

It's ironic that the UK should single out such a talk show host and bar him from entry, in light of the fact that the UK has become increasingly a major producer of radical islamists who espouse violence... one of the very threats which Savage warns against.

Sad and worrisome. Freedom of non-violent speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. In the UK as well as in the USA, this cornerstone is being rapidly eroded by the forces of statism and those who determine that edgy political commentary at odds with state policy must be suppressed.

U.S. officials want 'swine' out of flu name

U.S. officials want 'swine' out of flu name - Reuters AlertNet


So the feds are bristling at the name, "Swine Flu"? Well, what alternatives do we have?

"Swine Flu" -that's what it's been called for years. Why do the feds have a problem with it now? Afraid of offending swine?

"N1H1 virus" -doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, now, does it? And why would we use this naming method when many other viral diseases are not known by the technical names of the viruses? ..."Common cold", "Stomach flu", "Warts", etc.

"Mexico Flu" -that would be appropriate, since it clearly appears that Mexico is its source. We'll see if that gets the nod from the Defenders of Political Correctness.


Well, how about the "Napolitano Flu", named after the head of the federal department who should have but failed to combat the outbreak at its ports of entry by instituting careful screening of all travelers entering the U.S. from Mexico, and by heightening border control efforts at the Mexican border?

But it's understandable that Janet Napolitano hasn't acted more decisively to protect the U.S. against the Swine Flu. She's been very busy protecting the nation against a more ominous threat: returning military veterans and pro-life soccer moms.

When should local authorities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities?

White House Apologizes for Air Force Flyover - NYTimes.com

In response to the FAA's secret mission to terrorize New Yorkers with a reenactment of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the mayor of New York city, Michael Bloomberg, said:

"Why the Defense Department wanted to do a photo-op right around the site of the World Trade Center catastrophe defies imagination. Poor judgment would be a nice ways to phrase it, but they did. I also think that once they had told us, we should have done a better job. Had I known about it, I would have called them right away and asked them not to. It is the federal government and they can do in the end what they please, but I would have tried to stop it. I don’t know there’s a lot else to say other than they shouldn’t have done it."

The mayor deserves credit for his willingness to frankly criticize federal authorities for this incident, and to acknowledge that his own administration could have done a better job in handling it.

But is it really true that the feds "can do in the end what they please"? Did federal law prevent local law enforcement or the mayor's office from revealing the flyover plan to the public?

The city, once notified by the FAA, should have firmly objected to the scheme. And if the feds refused to let common sense prevail, the city should have defied the feds and warned the public of the plan.

The federal government has constitutional and legal limits to its authority, and those limits should be insisted upon, especially when the good of the public is at stake.

Is it wrong to mention Hitler?

Townhall.com::Blog

John and Cisco,

On Your radio show ("Big John and Cisco in the Morning", 560-WIND, Chicago) this morning You ridiculed a demonstrator at yesterday's Chicago "Tea Party" because he displayed an image of Barack Obama portrayed as Adolf Hitler. You marginalized him as a kook, or perhaps a disingenuous political plant working to discredit the Tea Party and conservative movement. Your reaction, I think, suggests You may not realize that for many conservatives (like myself), the threat posed by the Obama administration extends well beyond higher taxes.

In just a few months the Obama administration has begun to implement a vision that exalts the power of the state above the rights of individuals. This is evident in government efforts that:

- attack human life (1);
- threaten democratic rights (2);
- erode personal property rights (3);
- and more.

The outrage felt by many conservatives, just as in that first Boston Tea Party, has at least as much to do with oppressive government as with taxes, and this did not begin only with the election of Barack Obama. Conservatives increasingly realize that our Constitution and democracy are threatened, and that historically nations which overturn their founding principles are in danger of tyranny or collapse.

Statism does not develop in a single day, nor does it manifest itself without warning, with parades of goosestepping brownshirts, concentration camps, and a citizenry cowering in silent terror. Statists in our state and federal government today don't wear swastikas, and they don't execute their political opponents or send them to camps. But they do work systematically to expand government power into every aspect of life, funding statist programs, suffocating our liberties through taxation and onerous regulation, and reinterpreting civil and basic human rights until they are no longer rights but privileges which now may be taken away: and all with the populist purpose of helping the common man.

Is it inappropriate or irrelevant to recognize that these threats to freedom are not new to history? The progressive path to statism and tyranny is paved with noble purpose, and has been followed by other nations under leaders who became notorious because of the terrible results of their misguided vision. This is a path strewn with the wreckage of ruined nations and tragic lives. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others, more or less gradually built statist machines in which salvation was to be had through the state, and only through the state. Therefore the state became not the servant of society, but revealed itself an insatiable and merciless taskmaster.

More than a few Americans today recognize that our federal and state governments are tightening their hands around our necks. There are plenty of historical reasons for Americans to recognize the threat for what it is, and to rise up in peaceful but effective opposition.

Some may use images of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, or other well known tyrants to convey in harsh but vivid terms the dangers of state power unrestrained. Such political discourse may ruffle feathers among those too naive to think such things could ever happen here, or who consider themselves too polite to mention the possibility. Yet such discourse remains constitutionally protected "free speech", and true Americans ought to have enough respect for free speech to enthusiastically defend the right of citizens to air strong views without impugning their sincerity or sanity.

_________
(1) eg: funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, FOCA legislation, elimination of conscience protection for medical workers.
(2) movement toward "Fairness Doctrine"; demonization of those critical of government policy as "right wing extremists".
(3) through "bailing out" and nationalizing select private businesses; fomenting hostility of the middle class toward corporate executives and the wealthy; manipulating the housing and credit markets; onerous taxation; expensive government programs that distort the flow of capital.

Outspoken conservatives: enemies of the state?

Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times
Do You disapprove of the Obama administration's manipulation of the banking industry? Its aggressive expansion of federal control over ever the economy? Its enthusiastic federal funding of abortion and embryonic stem research? Its moves to punish conscientious objectors in the medical profession? Its "blame America first" variety of foreign policy? Its "attack the prosperous" attempt to incite hatred of the wealthy? Its imposition of gargantuan public debt upon us and our children and grandchildren? Or are You a military veteran?

Do You ever speak or write about these issues or any other matters in which You think the current administration should change its policies?

If so, Your government has branded You potential terrorist, a "right wing extremist", a dangerous element to be monitored, according to Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security. A DHS report of April 7, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", warns that the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."

As a nation moves aggressively toward expansion and exaltation of government power, safeguards of the rights of citizens, even those long established and taken for granted, can be overturned quite suddenly.

The State versus individual conscience: pressuring pharmacists to disregard ethical limits

Illinois can't force dispensing 'morning-after' pill - chicagotribune.com

Freedom2Care

Should the state really have power to force You to do things that violate Your conscience? The military accommodates -not punishes- soldiers who refuse to kill as "conscientious objectors". Should this principle not apply to the professions as well, so that individuals are not pressured to do what they believe is evil?

Imagine Yourself a doctor... Suppose Your hospital directs You to euthanize -kill- a patient, and You, having vowed as a doctor to heal and never to kill, know that euthanasia violates Your deepest convictions of conscience. Do You really want the state to pressure You to do what You believe is wrong, even murderous?

Practicing a profession does not and should not mean that You blindly subordinate Your conscience to every government dictate.

What if the state were to mandate that grade school teachers must regularly display pornographic movies to their students? Would You, as a teacher, consent to this? What individual, upon entering a profession, agrees to abandon personal ethics and refuses to exercise discerning judgment when pressured by colleagues, employers, and bureaucrats to do what is controversial or blatantly immoral? No, a person of good will and integrity does not consent to carry out actions that he believes are fundamentally wrong, and no just government attempts to force individuals to do so.

A nation that tries to compel its citizens to do evil is a nation with a dark, inhuman future.

People who want the state to have such coercive power have been seduced by statism and fascism, despotic forces making a renewed and frightening assault upon the United States. These forces and their supporters must be firmly opposed.

Statist senators work to silence the nation's conscience

Senate Rejects Amendment Protecting Abortion-Conscience Rights for Doctors

Illinois Senators Durbin and Burris have voted to deny medical workers the right to refuse performing acts that violate their conscience. They support a despotic vision of society in which citizens are threatened with legal penalties if they refuse to commit the abhorrent act of killing an unborn child or other acts which violate their basic beliefs and conscience.

Senators Durbin and Burris have brought disgrace and shame on themselves for this cowardly and evil prostitution of their own conscience for the sake of political power.

In particular, shame on the many Catholic senators who voted to reject the amendment:
Begich of Arkansas,
Cantwell of Washington,
Collins of Maine,
Dodd of Connecticut,
Durbin of Illinois,
Gillibrand of New York,
Harkin of Iowa,
Kaufman of Connecticut,
Kerry of Massachusetts,
Landrieu of Louisiana,
Leahy of Vermont,
McCaskill of Missouri,
Menendez of New Jersey,
Mikulski of Maryland,
Murray of Washington, and
Reed of Rhode Island.

Francis Cardinal George urges opposition to Illinois "Reproductive Health and Access Act"

Office of the Archbishop
Post Office Box 1979 Phone: (312) 534-8230
Chicago, Illinois 60690-1979 Fax: (312) 534-6379


Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

In the midst of Lent, with its drama of sin and grace, of evil and good, I write about a threat to our freedom to practice our religion in our State.

Before the Illinois General Assembly there is a proposal (HB 2354, the “Reproductive Health and Access Act”) that would remove the right to conscientious objection to abortion and related procedures for all health care workers. Thirty years ago, we were told that abortion is a rare but necessary tragedy and that abortion providers should not be legally punished. Today we are being told that abortion is a human right and that those who qualify it in any manner or who will not provide it should be legally punished.

This proposed law will drive Catholic doctors and nurses from health care and will make it impossible for Catholic hospitals to continue to be places where life is always respected, where no one is deliberately killed. In our country, we recognize conscientious objection to war, even though defending one’s country is a noble and moral act. We recognize the conscientious objection of those doctors who will not cooperate in administering the death penalty, even for terrible crimes. Why do some Illinois legislators want to take away conscientious objection to abortion?

The enemies of human life and religious freedom in Illinois are well funded. Pressure on legislators is great and is increasing. I ask you to contact your Representative this week to express your dismay that the Illinois legislature, elected democratically, would debate a bill that removes freedom of conscientious decision-making for health care workers as a condition of their employment. If, as we are told, the State should not come between a doctor and a mother, then surely all can agree that the State should not come between a health care worker and God.

We have, unfortunately, had to get used to the fact that our laws no longer protect unborn human life; now we are to get used to the fact that our laws will no longer protect conscience. In 1844, Abraham Lincoln broke with his own party, the often anti-Catholic Whigs, and proposed: “Resolved, that the guarantee of the rights of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic, than to the Protestant; and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights, either of Catholic or Protestant, directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation, and shall ever have our most effective opposition.” Illinois HB 2354 betrays the legacy of Lincoln in his home State.

This proposed law will rend the already fragile garment of our civic unity and further alienate many from our government. Catholics and all people of good will should work to ensure its defeat. I also ask you to thank those legislators who are courageously opposing HB 2354 and to pray for those who are supporting it. To contact your legislator, please go to www.ilga.gov, or call 312-368-1066. Thank you and God bless you.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago