The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

A Question of “Services”

January 19, 2009 | 35 Comments

To assist victims of human trafficking, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides food stamps, torture treatment, career counseling and other services. However, the Bishops do not provide referrals for abortion services or contraceptive materials, and forbid the social service organizations they use as subcontractors to provide such referrals. Consequently, the Bishops are now being sued in Boston by the “Reproductive Freedom Project” of the ACLU for accepting public funds to impose their religious beliefs upon their clients.

One of the kind and good people who has been involved with Catholic relief efforts is The Rosy Gardener of Hobbit-Sense at OneFreeGarden.com.  Rosy offers some valuable perspective and analysis on the lawsuit:

I actually interned at a diocesan office that was responsible for diocesan efforts in helping immigrants and refugees, and probably would be the one to take care of trafficking victims that the USCCB took on. The staff itself was not all-Catholic, it may not even have been half-comprised of Catholics (and this was a relatively large group). And as an intern helping clients, I didn’t actually work with any clients who were Catholic. I worked with Jewish and Muslim refugees from the former Soviet Union. The faith I saw was that for some staff it was the reason they wanted to help people; nobody was denied services based on it, nor did anyone proselytise. So the entire imposition argument simply rests on refusal to provide some (few!) services that are against Catholic moral teaching.

                                                                 *  *  *
 Let’s say that the [government] was funding the Jainist equivalent of the USCCB.  Jainism as a religion considers vegetarianism part of its overall philosophy.  So, any help that anyone received would not involve animal products.  In clothing them, there would be nothing of leather (such as gloves in wintertime), in sheltering them they would use nothing that involved products taken from dead animals, and stocking up their refrigerator would not include meat, eggs, etc., even though the clients may be meat-eaters.  If the Jainists were to extract some promise of vegetarianism from clients, or to prohibit them from procuring meat on their own (neither of which would likely happen), then I think there would be a case for them imposing their religion on clients.  Well, the USCCB has done in effect the same thing:  they have not included in their aid things which they believe violate life.  The difference is political, not religious or philosophical.  I doubt any reasonable person would expect the ACLU to take on this hypothetical Jainist organisation.

With the ACLU and the abortion industry being so concerned about women being advised of their “full range of options,” I sometimes wonder if there are there any options that they would object to being required to discuss with their clients. For example, many pregnant women could earn quick money towards childcare/childbirth (or abortion) expenses through work in the prostitution or pornography industries, at least in jurisdictions where such activities are legal. Why not make such advice a standard part the “counseling” process – including tips on how to avoid coercion by traffickers — and condition the receipt of public funds on referrals to such employers? It makes at least as much sense as requiring the USCCB to give abortion and contraception referrals.

Comments

35 Responses to “A Question of “Services””

  1. Christine the Soccer Mom
    January 19th, 2009 @ 11:44 am

    What silliness! The Catholic Church doesn’t help anyone because the people they help are Catholic. We help because WE are Catholic.

    When called on it, if forced to do otherwise, the Church would, sadly, shut Her doors on such activities. And then who will step in to help? Certainly the Pro Abortion lobby isn’t equipped to deal with the numbers the Church helps. Those who seek to silence the Church will not only NOT succeed (we’d just find unofficial ways to help, I suppose), but even if the Church is forced out of Her official efforts to help people, it only harms the needy.

  2. Skeptimal
    January 19th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

    The problem here is not the religion of the group providing the services. The church is not being required to provide abortions or to provide contraceptives. The problem is that they won’t even make referrals for those services. A referral does not imply endorsement. Refusing to make a referral does, in effect, constitute enforcement of their religion on the refugees.

    Certainly the church is providing important services here. If, on the other hand, they would rather end those services because of something as simple as a referral, that would not be the fault of the ACLU.

  3. Joanne
    January 19th, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

    “many pregnant women could earn quick money towards childcare/childbirth (or abortion) expenses through work in the prostitution or pornography industries,”

    *shudder*

    For the past few years I have been doing in a bit of charitable work involving women who have left the sex industry and the women (mostly former sex industry people themselves) who help them leave. I now see the sex industry (stripping, porn, prostitution) and the abortion industry as two sides of the same coin – they both turn a profit on women’s financial and/or emotional desperation.

    Sorry that this is only tangentially related to the lawsuit here, but I can’t let this topic go by without putting my .02 in on it. Thanks. :)

  4. Lily
    January 19th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

    It isn’t tangential at all, I don’t think, Joanne. When the Church refuses to refer for abortions and contraception, the Church is remaining true to its commitment to life and to respecting human dignity. I wonder how many women who have been victims of trafficking or torture think that abortion and birth control pills will make everything alright again?

    Let’s suppose the ACLU gets its way. Will the “Reproductive Freedom Project” be there to minister to the numerous needs the victims have that will not be helped in the slightest by a packet of birth control pills or an abortion? I think we can guess the answer to that.

  5. Joanne
    January 19th, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

    “constitute enforcement of their religion on the refugees.”

    What if it were a prolife atheist or secular group refusing to make the referrals?

    I was taught in NP school that it was acceptable to refuse to provide services to a patient as long as we would make a referral to a provider who wasn’t likewise disinclined. I know at least one of the instructors who told us that, however, did some work for Planned Parenthood, so I took her instruction for what it was worth. (I work as an RN now, so it’s not an issue.)

  6. Brian Walden
    January 19th, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

    “Refusing to make a referral does, in effect, constitute enforcement of their religion on the refugees.”

    How do you figure? What if one of the people they’re helping in Nevada (where gambling is legal) wants a referral for a bookie? Must they give a referral?

    Secondly, what is strictly Catholic about not administering abortion and contraception? There’s nothing specifically religious about objecting to them. Or are prohibitions against murder and stealing also religious ideas barred from the law and government services?

    Thirdly, what does the contract say. Is the USCCB in some way violating the contract they made in receiving the funds by not providing abortion and contraception? If they are, they shouldn’t have made entered into the contract in the first place and should find a way to get out of it and give the money back now. If they’re not, what’s the big deal?

  7. mk
    January 19th, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

    Good Lord,

    We’ll refer people to abortions when Planned Parenthood preaches abstinence only!

    So now the government is going to tell people how to DONATE!

    Are these woman paying Catholic Charities for their referrals, or their help.

    I suppose next they are going to tell me where I must voluteer? What kinds of clothes I can donate…if I don’t donate thong underwear, then keep my clothes for the poor? Or lobsters only for the food pantry?

    Since when do we regulate charities and what they “give away for free”?????

  8. mk
    January 19th, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

    In 2007, Catholic Charities provided help and created hope for 7,736,855 people (unduplicated) regardless of their religious, social, or economic backgrounds.

    http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=291

    So who’s going to take over when CC quits? Maybe Obama can pull the money out of a hat?

  9. Pikemann Urge
    January 19th, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

    The shrewdest thing would be to keep the status quo and just independently promote contraception etc. Flyers, posters, whatever.

    Just because someone (the RCC) is acting in a way you don’t like doesn’t mean it makes sense to take negative action. Instead, positive action would be a better bet.

  10. Skeptimal
    January 19th, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

    If we allow the church to start this kind of nonsense in a federally funded program, we’ll have the Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to refer people to clinics that might give a blood transfusion. The Christian Scientists would be permitted to refuse referrals to *any* doctors. The Scientologists would just start referring everyone to Scientology “doctors.” And all of this using our tax dollars.

    Joanne said: “What if it were a prolife atheist or secular group refusing to make the referrals?”

    Then they would be just as wrong.

    Brian said: “What if one of the people they’re helping in Nevada (where gambling is legal) wants a referral for a bookie? Must they give a referral?”

    Does that strike you as a serious question? Because I can’t think of a medical reason why someone would need a bookie.

    “Secondly, what is strictly Catholic about not administering abortion and contraception?”

    Obviously it’s not strictly catholic. Why does that matter? By refusing to even *refer* someone to another clinic, they are making the choice on behalf of the client that the client will not have an abortion or practice contraception. Hence: religious enforcement. Which religion doesn’t matter.

    “Thirdly, what does the contract say.” I have no idea, but it doesn’t matter. If the church is going to take government funds, it shouldn’t be restricting its client’s choices for legal medical options.

    mk: “We’ll refer people to abortions when Planned Parenthood preaches abstinence only!”

    Then don’t take government funds.

    “Since when do we regulate charities and what they “give away for free”?????”

    When they accept government funding. Tax money should not pay to have a woman denied a *referral.* I’d be more sympathetic with your position if the church were being required to give abortions or dispense birth control.

  11. Ruth Leone
    January 19th, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

    Skeptimal said:

    If we allow the church to start this kind of nonsense in a federally funded program, we’ll have the Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to refer people to clinics that might give a blood transfusion. The Christian Scientists would be permitted to refuse referrals to *any* doctors. The Scientologists would just start referring everyone to Scientology “doctors.” And all of this using our tax dollars.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses, as an organization, engage in ZERO charitable activities of the type being discussed. The only help they ever provide, even in a disaster setting, is to other Witnesses. If any nonWitnesses get helped, it is purely by accident. And I know of no charitable activity of theirs that receives federal funds (apart from the fact that they are tax exempt, which is a whole other discussion).

    Witnesses will come en masse to a hospital to stand watch to make sure a fellow Witness is not tempted to “give in” and accept a blood transfusion. They have special committees just for this purpose, called Health Liason Committees. So they go far beyond the “not referring” issue — they use mental coercion and emotional blackmail to prevent members from making decisions that could save their life or the life of a loved one.

    Catholic Charities, on the other hand, provide services to anybody who needs them. They are a TRUE CHARITY. By giving federal money to Catholic Charities, the government undoubtedly saves lots and lots of taxpayer money because Catholic Charities are many times more efficient in their use of funds than the federal government. They do not harass or attempt to coerce or force anyone to hold their personal beliefs. They simply refuse to violate their moral principals by recommending actions or supplies that they believe will hurt the person (in their body or in their soul) instead of helping them.

    I wouldn’t refer anyone to an abortion clinic, even before I was Catholic. Many years ago, while working in an alternative education setting, I had a young woman confide in me that she had had an abortion. As time went by, she had two more. I listened to her, but I did not refer her to any agency and she had no trouble finding the abortion doctor herself.

    It is ridiculous to conclude that individuals who are served by Catholic Charities are somehow “shortchanged” because they do not receive contraceptive or abortion information from the Charities. Such information can be readily obtained at any local Health Department.

    As a secretary in a school, I couldn’t give the previously mentioned young lady so much as an aspirin without her mother’s consent. But she killed three babies with no parental permission or involvement. And she and others regularly went to the Health Department to obtain large bags of contraceptive paraphernalia and medication, including prescription medication.

  12. Lily
    January 19th, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

    Abortion is not a medical procedure. It is a violent interruption of a normal, biological process. It is a cop-out to pretend that referrals are not collusion in a terrible sin.

    This politicizing of charity has got to stop. Who is going to pick up the slack, if Catholics are driven out of the arena? Do you have the slightest idea how many millions of people are served by the Catholic Church in its many ministries?

    We need to get clarity on this issue really quickly. If B. Hussein Obama gets his way and forces FOCA on all health providers and makes opting out impossible, what does anyone think will happen to all the poor, when Catholic hospitals and clinics are forced to shut their doors? Do those who huff and puff about how these women are being denied health services know how large a portion of the total health care system in this country Catholic hospitals and clinics make up? Who is penalized when one particularly blood thirsty group gets to force everyone to share in its crimes or go out of business?

    Honestly, tax money is not paid to make or deny “referrals” for abortion. It is paid so that the charity can provide as many services as it can that actually help as many people, as possible. How can preventing the provision of all those services possibly be justified? Is the moral calculus involved really so complicated?

  13. Paolo
    January 19th, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

    Skeptimal,

    I’ve no problem with referrals, if the laws dictates that, provided that the catholic (or whatever) organization makes it clear that it doesn’t endorse the referred practices. Of course, I’m annoyed because this is just a provocation, and you know that.

    A question, since I don’t live in the USA: is an abortion clinic, or a social service so oriented, required to provide referrals to anti-abortion counseling?

    PS: When you say:
    “Hence: religious enforcement. Which religion doesn’t matter.”
    you’re wrong, since you admit any atheist or secular organization could stand against abortion.

  14. Paolo
    January 19th, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

    Perhas a good referral could be:

    FOR ANY SERVICES NOTORIOUSLY NOT TO BE PROVIDED BY THIS CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION, FEEL FREE TO CONSULT THE YELLOW PAGES

  15. Brian Walden
    January 19th, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

    Brian said: “What if one of the people they’re helping in Nevada (where gambling is legal) wants a referral for a bookie? Must they give a referral?”

    Does that strike you as a serious question? Because I can’t think of a medical reason why someone would need a bookie.

    The aid being given in these human trafficking cases is not simply medical. I can think of an economic reason why someone might want a bookie – lots of people hope to make a good buck through gambling – and also why the charity giving them aid would refuse – many people lose money by trying to make a quick buck at gambling.

    FWIW, I can’t think of a medical reason why someone would need a direct abortion.

    Obviously it’s not strictly catholic. Why does that matter? By refusing to even *refer* someone to another clinic, they are making the choice on behalf of the client that the client will not have an abortion or practice contraception. Hence: religious enforcement. Which religion doesn’t matter.

    That’s the stupidest thing ever. If a doctor thinks chiropractors are quacks, is he required to make a referral to a patient who asks for one? Common sense says no, he’s there to provide his opinion for the best course of treatment. If the doctor refuses, does that in any way prohibit the patient from going out and finding a chiropractor on his own? Common sense again says no.

    You started a paragraph by saying contraception and abortion are not strictly Catholic issues and then you ended it saying that not giving a referral for those services constitutes “religious enforcement”. So if an atheist refuses to make a referral is that also religious reinforcement. Do all the other services Catholic Charities provide constitute religious enforcement, after all their religion tells them they must do good works?

    Gasp! They’re forcing these poor sex trafficking victims to be complicit in their religious works of charity.

    “Thirdly, what does the contract say.” I have no idea, but it doesn’t matter. If the church is going to take government funds, it shouldn’t be restricting its client’s choices for legal medical options.

    The suit is over the USCCB accepting government money in a grant for assisting victims of human trafficking. If the terms of the contract didn’t require them to administer contraception and abortion, then they’re not doing anything wrong. It’d be like suing the local soup kitchen for not having condom vending machines in the bathrooms.

    If they are in fact doing something wrong, I say stick it to ‘em. But I haven’t seen any evidence so far.

  16. Paolo
    January 19th, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

    I’m rather puzzled. I heard Planned Parenthood takes government funds, so I’m confidently looking for some anti-abortion referral at their web site.
    Thus far I’m not lucky, but I can’t believe they want to restrict their client’s choices for legal medical options: so I’ll continue the search.

  17. skeptimal
    January 19th, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

    “I can’t think of a medical reason why someone would need a direct abortion.”

    I’m not sure what a “direct” abortion is, but abortion may be medically advisable if the pregnancy is endangering the health of the mother. But let’s not forget, Catholic Charities is preventing all of its partners from allowing contraception as well, and contraception is also sometimes medically advisable.

    “If the doctor refuses, does that in any way prohibit the patient from going out and finding a chiropractor on his own?” For an American citizen with money who can read English? Not in *most* states, no. (In some states, yes.) But these are not the people being helped through the program being sued by the ACLU.

    “You started a paragraph by saying contraception and abortion are not strictly Catholic issues and then you ended it saying that not giving a referral for those services constitutes “religious enforcement”.”

    I think you know what I meant, but if you’re going to be that way, then “yes” if an atheist non-profit receiving federal funds refused to refer for a legal, medical procedure, that would also be illegal.

    “Do all the other services Catholic Charities provide constitute religious enforcement, after all their religion tells them they must do good works?”

    The phrase “religious enforcement” was poorly chosen, if that’s what you’re looking for. I can’t see another reason why you would ask such a meaningless question.

    “If the terms of the contract didn’t require them to administer contraception and abortion, then they’re not doing anything wrong.”

    The terms of the contract don’t necessarily need to specify “don’t do unconstitutional things” in order to make them wrong.

  18. skeptimal
    January 19th, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

    “I’m rather puzzled. I heard Planned Parenthood takes government funds, so I’m confidently looking for some anti-abortion referral at their web site.”

    Women already have the choice at Planned Parenthood: have an abortion, get birth control, or don’t. In order for your scenario to be analogous, Planned Parenthood would have to require any pregnant woman who came in the door to have an abortion.

  19. Joanne
    January 19th, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

    >Joanne said: “What if it were a prolife atheist or secular group refusing to make the referrals?”

    Then they would be just as wrong.<

    Hm. Maybe I didn’t ask the question well. How is it an “enforcement of religion” (whatever that means) if it were a nonreligious organization that was refusing to provide the kind of referrals in question here?

    On a related note, I wish that whatever agencies the bishops use would make a point of not taking taxpayer funds anyways. imo charitable endeavors should be just that – charitable. I don’t think that helping organizations should be taking money that has been siphoned from people’s earnings.

  20. Brian Walden
    January 19th, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

    I’m not sure what a “direct” abortion is, but abortion may be medically advisable if the pregnancy is endangering the health of the mother.

    Direct abortion is purposefully killing the baby (your standard abortion), as opposed to removing the baby alive but not being to successfully save him.

    Under what medical conditions is abortion required to save the life of the mother when some other treatment such as a c-section won’t work?

    But let’s not forget, Catholic Charities is preventing all of its partners from allowing contraception as well, and contraception is also sometimes medically advisable.

    Skeptimal, You’re supposed to be the smart atheist. Yet you’ve shown the least logic of everyone posting in this thread.

    What partners? Do you mean Catholic Charities in different cities? If someone wants contraception they can buy over the counter products or go to a different clinic that will give them a prescription. Otherwise if they ask, Catholic Charities is going to advise them in their own therapies for avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

    Oh I see. You mean you want them to do what you think is “medically advisable” and not what they think is medically advisable. When you say medically advisable, you don’t mean that abortion or contraception is the only possible treatment. You mean that you don’t want other treatments.

    I think you know what I meant, but if you’re going to be that way, then “yes” if an atheist non-profit receiving federal funds refused to refer for a legal, medical procedure, that would also be illegal.

    I’m not sure what you meant. The reason you gave for it being wrong is that it’s somehow religious. Now it’s apparently illegal. Insurance companies refuse legal medical procedures all the time. Is that illegal?

    Should Catholic Charities also be required to provide the people they’re helping with elective plastic surgery? Or just elective contraceptives and abortions?

    The phrase “religious enforcement” was poorly chosen, if that’s what you’re looking for. I can’t see another reason why you would ask such a meaningless question.

    I’m asking because I see a logical contradiction in your argument. If not giving referrals for contraception and abortion is wrong for Catholic Charities because it’s somehow religious, why aren’t the good works they do also wrong for being religious?

    The terms of the contract don’t necessarily need to specify “don’t do unconstitutional things” in order to make them wrong.

    I assume you’re not saying that Catholic Charities is doing is unconstitutional? You must be exaggerating to make a point. There’s nothing unconstitutional or even illegal about not referring contraceptives or abortion.

    If you hire someone to paint the outside of your house, you can’t sue him for not painting the inside as well. If the medical treatment listed in the contract did not require Catholic Chartities to administer contraception and abortion, you can’t sue them for not doing it. There are other organizations that provide those services to people who want them and can’t afford them.

    If the contract did require contraception and abortion, sue away – but for breach of contract, not for being religious.

  21. Christina
    January 19th, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

    A referral isn’t endorsement? It’s BEYOND endorsement and into participation.

    “Gosh, I didn’t actually shove any Jews into the cattle cars. I just referred the Gestapo to the place where the Jews were hiding. It’s not like I ENDORSED the Holocaust!”

    “I didn’t bring a rope. I just referred the mob to where the black guy was hiding. It’s not like I ENDORSED the lynching!”

    Get it? IF YOU REFER SOMEBODY TO A HIT MAN YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE HIT.

  22. the Rosy Gardener
    January 19th, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

    Thanks to TRT for the cross-post, and also to all of you for your interesting comments. I’m restricting my comments only to the discussion happening here in an effort to limit redundancy on my part.

    Just a factual note: Catholic Charities is only one org. receiving funding from the USCCB; local dioceses (regional bishoprics) also have offices that handle these, such as the one I worked in, which was a subdivision of the Office of Justice and Peace. Moreover, while the government does fund these groups, they also have private funding (fundraisers, the collection plate, etc.), which makes the issue somewhat murkier.

    Receiving public funds does not nullify the Constitutional right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The government can make funds conditional on certain things, and often does. The outgoing administration has not supported abortion in any way, and has not made funding conditional on that, and because of that it’s not really fair to claim that it is the USCCB that’s doing wrong here; they’ve been clear on that from the beginning. That is probably why the ACLU is actually suing the Dept. of Health and Human Services *over* the bishops, rather than the bishops themselves. I think that the ACLU’s case is weak because, atleast by reason and law, to prove that the funding violates equal protection, they will have to prove HHS makes funding conditional on pro-life policies, and/or does not fund any other groups that aid trafficking victims which give referrals to abortion services. This I think will be hard to do, but that does not guarantee anything in a Massachusetts court.

    And I’ll leave it at that and let you all carry on – thank you again.

  23. Livingstrong
    January 20th, 2009 @ 12:45 am

    Thank goodness not all Catholics oppose woman’s rights to choose. There are many Catholics out there who are compassionate and understand the importance of the separation of church and state for the benefit of a healthy society.

    “I am — and will remain — a pro-choice Catholic elected official. I don’t advocate for abortion. I believe it should be rare and safe and that alternatives should be available. But I fully support a woman’s right to make that decision herself, without government — or my — interference. And, for some women, there is no realistic alternative.” ~John Hottinger is a senator in the Minnesota state legislature. A longer version of this article appeared in the Aug. 2 Minneapolis Star Tribune.

    http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004d/102204/102204q.htm

  24. Christina
    January 20th, 2009 @ 1:02 am

    I do have to say that I consider it troublesome for a religious organization to take government funds in the first place. Remember some red letter words about no man being able to serve two masters, God and money?

    It’s not as if God isn’t capable of ponying up the dough if He wants something done.

    And with Obama in the White House a lot of religious organizations that have been taking federal money are going to learn the hard way that he who pays the piper calls the tunes.

  25. Brian Walden
    January 20th, 2009 @ 8:55 am

    Thank goodness not all Catholics oppose woman’s rights to choose.

    A right to choose what, Livingstrong?

  26. Erin
    January 20th, 2009 @ 9:20 am

    Does planned parenthood give referrals the various services a woman can tap into should she desire to keep her baby? Or do they just show her the door if she “chooses” not to abort? Do they give counseling to women to help them find a way to keep themselves and their baby alive and healthy? Somehow, I doubt it.
    And Catholic Charities is the villain here? As if these women are too stupid to know what an abortion is unless they are told by CC. The logic is twisted and evil.

  27. Metacrock
    January 20th, 2009 @ 10:01 am

    so are they suppossed to just convince themselves that it’s not murder, just because you say they are stupid if they don’t? At least they are fighting for what they believe in. Most atheists are just fighting out of hatred or because it makes feel superior.

  28. Metacrock
    January 20th, 2009 @ 10:03 am
  29. Jahrta
    January 21st, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

    Thanks for posting that clear-cut example of hatred, stupidity, perversion of truth, blind obedience to dogma, and the bald-faced lies perpetrated by people of faith. Oh, wait, was there some other reason you posted that link?

  30. Peony Moss
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

    You know, my dentist takes Federal money when he treats Medicare patients and Federal employees, and he doesn’t provide referrals to abortionists and purveyors of contraception. Is the ACLU going to go after him next?

  31. JC
    January 22nd, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

    Does every charity organization provide referrals to every other “charitable cause”? Hardly.

    My wife and I have gone through some tough times in our marriage, and we’ve gone to all sorts of places for help. People providing a service should have the right to provide what services they want to.

    Ever go to a *regular* doctor? “Yeah, I’m an orthopedic surgeon, but I don’t treat backs anymore.” “Yeah, I’m a gastrointerologist, but I only treat colon polyps. If you won’t let me stick my hand up your butt, I don’t want to treat you.” “Yeah, I’m a cardiologist, but I don’t know anything about congenital defects.” “Your MRI shows your liver is large.” “What do I do about that?” “I dunno. I’m not a liver man.”
    In each case, doc walks out. I guess I could sue an awful lot of doctors!!!

    Do OB/Gyns who don’t know NFP provide referrals to doctors who do?
    NO!
    They tell you, “rhythm method doesn’t work. Let me prescribe you birth control pills.’
    “Choice” is a lie.
    Planned Parenthood exists to eliminate minorities and poor people. That’s why rich white billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and TEd Turner spend billions of dollars to fund it.

  32. New Timon
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 2:12 am

    I still can’t fathom why contraception and abortion have been legalized. Is it because of the Lambeth conference back in the thirties?

    Perhaps the emanations and penumbras have merged with Miranda and therefore everyone must be informed on where to go and how to get their contraception. Wait till the suicide laws catch up.

    Sweet Mercy! but it isn’t them to blame, it’s just the drugs talking. It’s so tedious being ruled by dope fiends.

  33. Kelly Clark
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 9:18 pm

    Thank goodness not all Catholics oppose woman’s rights to choose.

    As Brian noticed, “Living Strong” forgot to finish the sentence.

    And am I am the only one who notes the irony in the user name “LIVING strong” and abortion support?

  34. Metacrock
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

    Thanks for posting that clear-cut example of hatred, stupidity, perversion of truth, blind obedience to dogma, and the bald-faced lies perpetrated by people of faith. Oh, wait, was there some other reason you posted that link?

    are you mentally ill? where’s the hate? I said those guys (right to lifers) think that abortion is muder. you telling they are stupid is not gonig to change them. how pelase tell why that’s hateful?

    since you apparently think any disagreement is hate, I can give you hate if you want it.

  35. Metacrock
    January 23rd, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

    I am not a right tot life person. I think right to life people are idiots. I’ve been in situations they tried to beat me up. But I see why they get so frustrated.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links