I'm not Catholic. Never have been. I don't even know that much about the Catholic Church, other than, as a born-and-bred Protestant, I have a lot of theological differences with them.
But that's ok in my book, because we are both protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause.
Well, evidently there are religious (are they religious?) kooks with an anti-Catholic bias who are so bigoted as to believe the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Carhart on the basis of their Catholicism, not on the Constitution.
A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.
They said last week's Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.
The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.
"With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services," the group said in a statement.
"They are imposing their points of view," Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.
Do these misfits ever actually read the Constitution? Do they have any idea what judges do in this country?
I suppose one could always argue that judges are "imposing their points of view" on the rest of us when they hand down sentences. If what these numbnuts say is true, then the SCOTUS has been "imposing their points of view" on the American people since the founding of it. Did these people object to the court "imposing its point of view" on us when it gave us Roe in the first place? What about Lawrence? Was Kennedy, who is supposedly all scary Catholic, "imposing his point of view" then?
I really hate stupidity, and the nonsense the Left has been spewing about "the five Catholics" is particularly bad. Is it really that hard to believe that five justices could look at this case and make this decision based on the Constitution? I mean, given that these five justices didn't have to make stuff up like the justices in Roe did. And wasn't Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Roe decision, a Catholic? Or was he some secret branch of Catholic that these people approve of?
There's more stupidity from this story.
(Kavadias) noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.
All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including President George W. Bush.
The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.
"Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called 'religious or moral objection,' refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options," the group said in a statement.
"And now, to make it worse, the government is codifying these refusals, first through legislation and now with the recent Supreme Court decision, where five Catholic men decided that they could better determine what was moral and good than the physicians, women and families facing difficult, personal choices in problem pregnancies," it added.
The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women's reproductive rights and several physicians.
"The threat comes from a few, but powerful, religions and a few ... powerful religious leaders who pretend to speak for all religions," said Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.
"Health care decisions ought to be made freely, based on medical expertise and individual conscience," he added.
Ah, yes. Do these people support "choice" when it is a young woman wanting a tubal ligation? Many doctors don't perform tubals on women under 30 because they think the woman may regret it later. Why don't these people who are all for "choice" spend more time complaining about physicians making this "choice" for women.
I always enjoy the argument about "individual conscience" from a group that supports euthanasia and abortion. Basically, they are for "individual conscience" as long as the choice ends up looking like death for someone. And don't let that word "conscience" fool you. When someone wants to argue for partial birth abortion, it's hard to believe they have a conscience.
It's always interesting to hear arguments based on the idea that freedom of religion means going to church on Sunday morning, not living one's life like religion matters daily. This is what the Left means when it talks about Christians imposing a "theocracy." It's fine, in their opinion, if you want to spend an hour in church Sunday mornings, but don't let that actually affect the way you live your life the rest of the week. No, make sure that your religion has no influence on one's moral, philosophical, or ethical outlook. And you certainly shouldn't allow your religion to stop you from aiding in the killing of babies.
Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said she had grave concerns about the report.
"There is no recognition of the true meaning of the separation of church and state, which mandates that the free exercise of religion, including that of the provider, be respected," she said.
"What we have tried to avoid is to be coercive ourselves," Greenfield said. "We have tried to allow for the freedom of conscience of every participant in the health care system."
I understand that there are people who have a hard time dealing with freedom of conscience. But if you are going to respect a clerk's right not to scan your bacon, then you need to accept that some people are going to refuse to dispense abortifacients on demand, either.
The idea that the majority in Gonzales decided the case based on their religion is the height of religious bigotry...as well as appallingly stupid.
|