Dr. Nancy questions if involvement of Catholic bishops is violation....

[madfloridian]

of the separation of church and state.

I did not see her show today, and the video is not up at You Tube yet. But I did find the transcript up at the right wing site Newsbusters. I am reluctantly posting the link because it is the only place I have found the partial transcript of Dr. Nancy's interview with Terry O'Neill of NOW.

I have been feeling lost, waiting for Democratic males who have traditionally been supportive of women's rights to say something...anything. To speak up about the Stupak amendment.

So good for her.

Snyderman says IRS should go after Catholic Bishops

TERRY O’NEILL: Oh, it definitely caught me off guard. On Saturday morning, I started getting calls and E-mails and texts saying, you know, there's a deal that's been cut and a terrible, disastrous deal. The Stupak/Pitts amendment, in fact, I believe, essentially overrules Roe v. Wade. That's the intention of the Catholic bishops who pushed it. That, I believe, is the intention Mr. Stupak and Mr. Pitts who offered it. And it's an outrage and, and we are doing everything to be sure that it does not get into the Senate bill, that it does not survive the reconciliation process, because that's not a health bill if you take- it's not acceptable to change health care for America while sending women off into the back alleys to die.

SNYDERMAN: Terry, two things have come up over the last couple days that have really sort of fascinated me. And that is, people describing the House of Representatives as no longer being pro-choice. That is quietly pro life and perhaps even in the Senate. Now, I happen to think that abortion is one of the most divisive issues and you can't get one person from one side to the other side. But I also think most of life is quite gray and we think we have adamant solutions to things until they happen to mothers and children’s. And we can find ourselves changing our mind and it becomes our family. Nonetheless, this is a chip. It is an erosion. It is a very slippery slope. Seems to me, that the women of our ages have a hard time saying to the women who are 18, 28, 38 that you have a stake here. And I'm not so sure young women get that.

O’NEILL: Oh, if you listen to the young women that are calling me and that are organizing rallies all around the country even as we speak, I don't think that's really correct.

SNYDERMAN: Really?

O’NEILL: Young women are galvanized around this. Especially the young women who are able to hear the truth. There are people out there who are saying that the Stupak/Pitts amendment is no different than the status quo. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And when the young women learn the truth, they are outraged. Just as the women my age are outraged.

SNYDERMAN: This is going to be Pollyannaish statement. The Catholic bishops appearing and having a political voice seems to be a most fundamental violation of church and state.

O’NEILL: You know, that's the first thing that I said. I don't know where the Internal Revenue Service is, but I hope they're paying attention.

It does seem she is right, that our elected Democrats are now anti-choice. It happened as they decided women were expendable, winning was more important.

Schumer took women's rights off the table.

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

(unintelligible)

"And we're doing this in the other states."

So where are the Democrats who told us they would protect women's rights? Are they ignoring us? Are they too busy making the religious folks happy? Where are they and why are they not on TV apologizing to women for passing such a disastrous amendment?

I don't watch much cable TV anymore, so others may have spoken...and I just don't know it. But thanks to her show for this.

[polichick]

1. Good for her! It certainly is a violation - sort of like that damn faith-based office. nt

[Igel]

7. No.

Saying that the first amendment prevents organized religious groups from voicing political opinions and using any constituency as a political threat against a politician is akin to saying that freedom of speech prevents private citizens from voicing political opinions because that would be a political threat for politicians.

The non-profit laws say that non-profits are non-partisan, not apolitical. They take no side in partisan contests, nor favor any party in, say, voter registration (at least in theory) or GOTV drives.

Now, the faith-based office could arguably be considered having Congress establish some principle of religion as law. Then again, I continue to say that when Jefferson's prime example and the reason for uttering the "wall of separation" line is taken seriously *then* we can discuss the other issues. After all, that federal holiday, Thanksgiving, is coming up, and it was specifically a concern that Jefferson would issue a proclamation about a national day of thanksgiving that prompted his letter and the wall.

[madfloridian]

8. Could you explain the first amendment remark?

We are talking about the Stupak amendment. Seems to be that religion is encroaching on govt, not the other way around.

It's all okay with me if the party decides to go with the bishops....they don't need my money then at all.

We are saving oodles of money.

[tnlefty]

2. I saw a brief part of her show today with the president of NOW,

and Dr. Nancy was a little hot under the collar and ended the segment with something close to,' Henry Hyde and Bart Stupak, two white makes making reproductive choices for women'. Yep, I truly enjoyed that. :thumbsup:

A while back she had the good Dr., Gov., Chairman Dean that if a public option was in the health care bill she would take him out to dinner.

[tnlefty]

5. Oops, too late to edit - should be maLes

darned k and l keys beside each other.:blush:

[madfloridian]

3. Stupak said the Catholics HAD to use their influence on the bill....

because it is what they believe.

What an odd and disturbing statement.

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Bishops shape health care bill

"The Catholic Church used their power - their clout, if you will - to influence this issue. They had to. It's a basic teaching of the religion," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a leading abortion foe and architect of the health measure's restrictions.

It was Stupak who told Pelosi last Friday that if she wanted a deal on the health bill, she'd be well advised to invite the bishops' staff, who were already in his office, to her table. "I said, 'Well, they're here, and they're one of the key groups you want to have on your side, so why don't we just bring them in and work this out," Stupak said.

Pelosi did, and the result was a final measure that - much to the outrage of abortion rights supporters - bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage. If women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called rider on their insurance policies.

The outcome has put Obama and Democratic leaders - already struggling for consensus on the complex and politically tricky health measure - in a tough spot. Democratic abortion foes in the Senate vow they won't support health legislation that omits the strict restrictions approved by the House.

SO they HAD to get involved because it is their religious belief? And notice that Stupak is the one who took the Bishops to Pelosi's office Friday night.

[RC]

4. Where do the citizens of the United States fit in here?

Where is their say. Who is representing them?

[madfloridian]

6. I haven't heard any Democratic male leaders defending these rights.

Seems they are going with the Catholic point of view.

:shrug:

[tnlefty]

9. I know that you have more research experience with DFL,

or as I refer to them, democrats against women, but I did see that Stupak is a friendly, and that Lincoln Davis stated his support for them on the House floor in '05 (I think). Their ties are more with The Family, but religious influence is religious influence and has no place in policy nor legislation. Or does The Family include right wing catholics?

[madfloridian]

10. The Family has ties with them.

It has widespread tentacles.

[madfloridian]

11. I notice Ed Rendell really skirted around the issue on Rachel's show tonight.

He took no firm stand at all.

No one has taken a firm stand for women on the male side of the Democratic party.