Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D, RI) denied Communion.

At least, he’s claiming that he’s been forbidden it by Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese, and Bishop Tobin hasn’t denied it – and Tobin has denied that he’s ordered priest under his authority to actually deny Kennedy the Sacrament.  Bishop Tobin’s office has also released a letter indicating that the bishop has chastised the Congressman on the subject of abortion since at least 2007; which will call into question the accuracy of Kennedy’s accusation that this is all about the Church’s firm line on abortion funding.  It’s probably a factor, and it’s certainly true that Rep. Kennedy has been obdurate in his heresy* for some time, so this is merely the latest salvo.

Still, it’d be nice if we didn’t have to deal with this particular legacy Congressman. There’s actually a serious candidate this go-round: John Loughlin.   State legislator, business owner, former military; not to be unkind, but Kennedy really hasn’t worked a day in his [expletive deleted] life, and it shows. Like, for example, in Kennedy’s ability to get himself sufficiently in trouble with the Church on this issue so as to actually be denied the Sacrament.

That takes skill.

Moe Lane

*The fact that the Church has neither the ability nor the particular desire to punish Rep. Kennedy (or other avowedly pro-abortion Catholics) for their shared heresy does not make it any less of one.

Crossposted to RedState.

‘…Mr. Axelrod’s not a legislator; he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.’

That was Rep. Stupak’s (DEMOCRAT) blunt response to David Axelrod’s assertion that the pro-life language currently in the health care rationing bill would be ‘adjusted.’ Stupak’s having none of it:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) pledged on Tuesday morning to defeat healthcare reform legislation if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to 20 anti-abortion-rights Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.

“They’re not going to take it out,” Stupak said on “Fox and Friends,” referring to Senate Democrats. “If they do, healthcare will not move forward.”

See Hot Air for the video. Stupak claims to have more than enough votes to shut down any final version that removes his amendment, which is both false and true. It’s false because the closeness of the original vote reflected a lot of horse-trading on the individual Member of Congress level; theoretically, the Speaker of the House could simply pressure the Democrats who got to vote ‘no’ last time to vote ‘yes’ this time.  It’s true because one of the reasons that they were able to get a final vote was because while the Stupak amendment was scored by NRLC, the final bill was not.  Strip out Stupak, and a vote for health care rationing becomes a vote for federal funding of abortions.  The NRLC pretty much cannot not score that appropriately.

I close with this observation: this situation for the Democrats is pretty much entirely due to the decision by House Republicans to oppose the health care rationing bill en masse.  They’re doing that because the Congressional Democratic leadership decided to shut out everybody except themselves and various outside lobbyists when it came time to put this monstrosity of a bill together.  And because the President didn’t intervene when it became clear that the process was disrupting his narrative, we’re now at the point where the Democratic party has to decide which side of the abortion debate is safer to infuriate.

But don’t feel bad for them: after all, they didn’t learn a blessed thing from their mistakes over the ‘stimulus’ and cap-and-trade.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

‘Real’ choices are for ‘real’ people, Megan. Not conservatives.

I’m moderately surprised that Megan McArdle doesn’t already know the answer to her implicit question here:

Obviously, since I’m pro-choice, I think you can argue against abortion control in many effective ways. But this[*] is not one of them–at least not if you hew to the feminist notion that women are entitled to their own choices and preferences as individuals, not lumped in with some vast undifferentiated mass of women who all want the same thing.

To too many of the people that she’s objecting to, women who aren’t pro-life aren’t actually ‘real’ women. Or particularly people, for that matter.

:shrug: You get used to it, of course: I’m just surprised that Megan hasn’t by now.

Moe Lane

*’This’ being defined as ‘dismissing conservative female objections en masse as being contradictory to a liberal tautology.’

Crossposted to RedState.

Traficant’s back!

He’s tanned (not really), toupee’d, and ready to… why, he’s ready to do anything at all for OH-17, really.


BOARDMAN, Ohio — Seven years in prison doesn’t appear to have changed former U.S. Rep. James Traficant’s style whatsoever, and the 1,200 supporters who gathered at a Boardman banquet hall Sunday afternoon loved him for it.

“I was a quarterback. I was a congressman. Now I’m a convict,” Traficant said, his signature toupee firmly back atop his head. “I wouldn’t change one single thing. And to the powerful enemies that I have, I’ll just say this to you: They had to cheat to convict me.”

The crowd roared. After 15 minutes of remarks, hundreds swarmed the make-shift stage to shake his hand or ask for an autograph.

Continue reading Traficant’s back!

Science Czar John Holdren denies the ‘right of women to choose?’

(Via AoSHQ) This was written by John Holdren, Obama Science Czar, in 1977:

Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the “right responsibly to choose” the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a “compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

This is, of course, appalling to any person who identifies as ‘pro-life’ – but it should be even more appalling to any person who identifies as ‘pro-choice.’  It is simply impossible to reconcile the position that the government may regulate the number of children with the position that a woman has a ‘fundamental right to choose’ whether or not to have an abortion.  If you consider that right to automatically overrule the government’s ability to force you to carry an unwanted child to term, then it logically follows that you must also consider that right to also overrule the government’s ability to force you not to carry a wanted child to term*.  And if you admit that the government has the right to dictate your fertility, then you don’t actually believe in a ‘fundamental right to choose’ in the first place; you believe in the government’s right to choose for you.  Reading the rest of Zombietime’s article, it is fairly clear that Holdren is firmly of the opinion that the government does have that right, and that it trumps individual opinions on the matter.  And now he’s in charge of science policy.

Or, to put this another way:  they told me that if I voted for John McCain the President would appoint an anti-choice fanatic as science czar, and they were right.

Moe Lane

*State-sanctioned population-control programs almost guarantee forced abortions.  Like it or don’t like it, as you please; it still happens.

Crossposted to RedState.

Governor Kaine signs law permitting “Choose Life” license plates.

Via Riehl World View:

DNC chair infuriates abortion backers

Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama’s hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes a long-sought victory.

Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting “Choose Life” specialty license plates.

Infuriated. How… brittle of them.

Crossposted to RedState.

Pope makes firm statement to Pelosi on abortion.

I’m going to put up the full text of the Vatican’s statement about Nancy Pelosi’s visit with the Pope, because I suspect that they want this put out there:

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

Continue reading Pope makes firm statement to Pelosi on abortion.

Speaker Pelosi to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.

Oh, to be a fly on that wall.

It’s always exciting when a notorious heretic meets the Pope. Particularly this Pope, who is quietly gearing the Church up for a long-delayed showdown with American Catholics over abortion:

Pope Benedict to meet Pelosi

In a move likely to stoke more controversy about whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights are in line with the church, Pope Benedict XVI has granted an audience to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Catholic News Agency confirmed Monday that Pelosi (D-Calif.) is to meet Wednesday with Pope Benedict XVI, who has said supporters of abortion rights should not receive Communion.

Pelosi, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, is on an official trip to Italy. The news agency said there have been contradictory reports about whether the Pope would receive her. The agency said the Vatican’s press office confirmed today that the audience would take place Wednesday. The Vatican reportedly made clear that the Pope is meeting with her as a head of state, since she is third in line to the presidency.

Continue reading Speaker Pelosi to meet with Pope Benedict XVI.

OK, folks: place your bets!

As we all know, the President decided to not Executive Order the Mexico City policy out of existence yesterday – can’t imagine why, at all, at all – but today is another day, and the betting is that he’ll get around to it Real Soon Now. So the real question is, when? Does he do it first thing in the morning and get it over with, or does he do it just in time for it to miss the Friday night news?

Hey, this is actually an important question: this is going to be the first thing he does in office that is guaranteed – absolutely, completely, and unquestionably – going to bother a significant hunk of the people who voted for him. How he handles it is going be… ah, diagnostic.

Moe Lane

PS: Notice that I’m doing President Obama the courtesy of assuming that he has at least as much spine as President Bill Clinton did.

PPS: That being said, if I was a betting man I’d be betting for somewhere around 4:45 PM.

Crossposted at RedState.

Liberal shocked, shocked! to find identity politics going on in the NY Senate pick.

Let the record show that I say the following without heat: I don’t think that I’ve ever met Robert Stein, and I certainly have nothing against him. But this plaintive question via (Hot Air) is a bit rich:

In Illinois, the future felon Rod Blagojevich appoints Roland Burris amid calls to retain the President’s seat for an African-American and now, with Caroline Kennedy gone, New York’s governor speaks publicly and privately about “the importance of selecting a woman to replace Mrs. Clinton.”

With the critical questions facing the Senate, when and how did substantive qualifications fall behind demographics in making choices for such high office?

The answer is “January of 2007,” which is of course the point where the Democratic Party took control of Congress. To evoke Fred Thompson / Admiral Painter, those guys don’t take a dump without reading a poll first.

Case in point:

Barack Obama Postpones Decision to Send Tax Dollars Overseas for Abortion

Continue reading Liberal shocked, shocked! to find identity politics going on in the NY Senate pick.