"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

“Does It Get Any More Pathetic Than This?”

January 30th, 2009 by mopns · 2 Comments

Wayward Catholic politicians accept millions from pro-abortion lobby and vote accordingly. Only 6 of the 24 Catholic Senators voted “yea” yesterday to restore the Mexico City Policy.

Six of the eight Catholic Republican senators voted “YEA.” These senators are Martinez (Fla.); Brownback (Kan.); Bunning (Ky.); Vitter (La.); and two newly elected senators: Johanns (Neb.) and Risch (Idaho).

Two Republican Catholic senators who frequently vote anti-life with Democrats on life issues, Murkowski (Alaska) and Collins (Maine), joined 16 Catholic Democrats voting “NAY,” including the “pro-life” Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (Pa.). Not voting was Sen. Kennedy (Mass.).

Does it get any more pathetic than this?

Similar Posts:

    None Found


Similar posts:
    None Found

Tags: Abortion · Senator McCaskill

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 modem // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:38 am

    I know & agree that contributions to candidates & elected officials should be made public, I am curious why the amount pointed out that Sen. McCaskill received from the pro-choice lobby is listed but none of the other Senators.
    The post then goes on to talk about other Catholic elected officials and how they voted on a certain bill. I would like to read/watch/hear a direct quote from any of these officials where they have stated: “I am pro-abortion.”
    What I find more pathetic is that we have citizens that don’t understand, want to do away with or do not recognize the basic principle of ‘seperation of church & state.’ I think it is found in some obscure document written back in the 1770’s……..
    If you must be reminded: Sen. McCaskill was elected to represent the citizens of Missouri (as the others were elected in their own states). They were not elected to represent any church or religion but rather the people.
    President John F. Kennedy catholicism was a big issue in 1960 and he spoke to this matter before the ‘Greater Houston Ministerial Alliance: “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
    I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me… on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views — in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. “

  • 2 Sam // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    “seperation (sic) of church and state” does not appear in any document of legal import from the 1770’s. It is a doctrine that has developed from the First Amendment prohibition on the “establishment of religion” to keep the Church of England, or any other church, from being supported by tax dollars. That does not prohibit public inquiry of a public official who holds him/herself out to be a member of a particular religion which, incidentally, considers abortion a mortal sin, whether their public piety and public policy coincide. The word hypocracy comes to mind.

Leave a Comment