The One Non-Negotiable Core Value of the Democrat Party

UPDATE:  My apologies.  A reader informs me:

This is the record of a procedural vote on the anti-Hobby Lobby bill.

S.2578: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure that employers that provide health
benefits to their employees cannot deny any specific health benefits,
including contraception coverage, to any of their employees or the
covered dependents of such employees entitled by Federal law to receive
such coverage.”

The stick-scissors-in-infants bill is S.1696, on which hearings have been held but no votes.

S.1696: “It is the purpose of this Act to protect women’s health by ensuring that
abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion
providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions
that harm women by preventing them from accessing safe abortion
services. It is not the purpose of this Act to address all threats to
access to abortion (for example, this Act does not apply to clinic
violence, restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion, or
requirements for parental consent or notification before a minor may
obtain an abortion) which Congress should address through separate
legislation as appropriate.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/bil…

I had, stupid me, simply assumed that Gateway Pundit would not run blatantly false information. That’ll teach me.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

“To stamp out world Communism I would be willing to destroy the entire universe, even to the furthest star.”
This...
The Weaponization of "Safe Space"
NOW puts Little Sisters of the Poor on their "Dirty 100" Enemies List
  • Bill

    Shockingly, the lists indicate that Reid voted nay. I wonder why.

    • IRVCath

      Reid is a Mormon. Therefore not completely socially liberal. Naturally he is in the minority of his party.

      But yeah, this is the HL bill, not the abortion bill.

    • Dbom

      He voted no as a procedural maneuver to bring the bill back up again later…

  • CC

    I’m probably not reading the chart properly (As I’m not American, I know pretty much nil about US politics), but if “D” and “R” represent party affliations, doesn’t the chart show that one Democrat actually abstained from the vote, i.e. not *all* of them voted in favour?

    Sigh. I need chart-reading lessons :)

    • IRVCath

      Yes.

  • HornOrSilk

    From what I gather, that was NOT what was voted for. Seems like it was S.2578 which has its own problems. The right for life people continue to misconstrue the debate and positions (not 100% of Democrats, easily seen by who voted nay) and then wonder why people don’t trust them for their bills? I am pro-life, but the political right for life people, like liesite news, tends to be a cancer, imo.

    As one comment on the blog Mark referenced said:

    the vote was on S.2578 but the article references S.1696. I’m pro life, but our cause is not helped by sleight of hand in reporting. Get your facts straight.

    This I think is important. Debate the bill and point out its problems. Don’t misrepresent it.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2014/07/the-truth-about-s-2578-from-a-career-politician-with-an-assist-from-malcolm-muggeridge-and-james-madison.html

    http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/07/why-defeating-s-2578-is-vitally-important-to-pro-lifers/#.U8kFerEmTqw

    • Elmwood

      Depressing in the amount of misrepresentation and half-truths found in things associated with political ideologies. In the end it’s always about money and herding people into groups like sheep, which distracts people from the graft and corruption at the higher levels of government.

  • capaxdei

    This is the record of a procedural vote on the anti-Hobby Lobby bill.

    S.2578: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure that employers that provide health
    benefits to their employees cannot deny any specific health benefits,
    including contraception coverage, to any of their employees or the
    covered dependents of such employees entitled by Federal law to receive
    such coverage.”

    The stick-scissors-in-infants bill is S.1696, on which hearings have been held but no votes.

    S.1696: “It is the purpose of this Act to protect women’s health by ensuring that
    abortion services will continue to be available and that abortion
    providers are not singled out for medically unwarranted restrictions
    that harm women by preventing them from accessing safe abortion
    services. It is not the purpose of this Act to address all threats to
    access to abortion (for example, this Act does not apply to clinic
    violence, restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion, or
    requirements for parental consent or notification before a minor may
    obtain an abortion) which Congress should address through separate
    legislation as appropriate.”

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/bills_res.html

  • jroberts548

    Between this and the inaccurately reported on Louisiana case that had nothing at all to do with the seal of confession, you should probably not comment on legal issues if you can’t bother putting in even minimal effort to make sure what you’re saying is true.

    The article you linked to even linked to the bill text, which is about Hobby Lobby and RFRA. If you can’t take literally 30 seconds to click two links, how can I trust you?

    • Chase

      Our bishops and the priests in our diocese (Baton Rouge) sure as hell seem to thin that case is indeed about the Seal of the Confessional. How is it not?

      • Chase

        Never mind, I went and read the discussion on the relevant page on this blog. I see what your argument is.

        • jroberts548

          “Sure as hell” might be a particularly apt description.

          ETA: For the sake of someone who doesn’t want to go back and find that discussion: A girl was abused by a parishioner. The girl and her parents are suing that parishioner (or his estate, since he’s dead), his business, the parish priest, and the diocese. They’re trying to bring the priest and diocese in on the grounds that the priest is a mandatory reporter. The diocese sought to prevent the girl from testifying about what she said in confession, even though (1) the penitent isn’t under seal and (2) it’s the penitent’s legal privilege. The supreme court of Louisiana rejected the diocese’ argument; the diocese can’t assert the clergyman privilege to prevent her from testifying (there may be other grounds, but those weren’t before the court). The supreme court also held that the priest is a mandatory reporter, but not for privileged communications, so they remanded the case to determine whether the priest had knowledge from outside confession that triggered the mandatory reporting duty (however, the court’s language was than clear here). There is apparently also some evidence that the priest confronted the abuser and talked to the girl’s parents, suggesting the priest likely did have knowledge outside confession (however, because this was an appeal from a pre-trial motion, it isn’t clear if that’s true or not).

          No one was seeking to compel the priest to testify in violation of the seal.

  • Mike Blackadder

    Dumb asses.

  • Marthe Lépine

    I am not from the US, so the first time this item was posted I did not pay a lot of attention – there is enough political wrangling in my own country. But now as I read the comments below, I realize that it is another of these “lying for Jesus” thing. This is not a good way to promote life issues, since one of these days the same people might actually bring up something real and urgent, but because of that record of lies and deceptions, they may not be taken seriously, with serious consequences.

    • capaxdei

      My guess is it’s more a “too good to check for Jesus.” And to be fair, you really can’t tell the pro-death legislation without a program.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X