Saturday, October 13, 2012



As pro-Romney Catholics have gone silent following Romeny's most recent flip-flop on abortion, Catholic efforts for the Obama-Biden effort far exceed the Republicans.

Catholics for Obama - Biden organized debate watch parties throughout the country Thursday night. 

And it’s not the only way the Obama campaign and liberal groups are using Thursday’s debate to organize Catholic voters, one of the country’s big swing voting constituencies.

Beyond encouraging Catholic watch parties, the Obama campaign has been visiting Catholic colleges in swing states and dispatching Catholic campaign surrogates to address Catholic groups in the leadup to the debate.  Romney has made no apperences at Catholic colleges.

President Obama has regular briefings on the campaign's Catholic outreach with Roderick Johnson, the campaign's Catholic outreach director. 

Independent Catholic groups that aren’t officially connected to the Obama campaign have been even more vocal in attacking Ryan from a Catholic perspective.  “Some of his positions are fundamentally at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church,” said a Ryan critique issued this week by dozens of Catholic theologians and other Catholic scholars.

With Paul Ryan, progressive Catholic groups have taken particular aim his proposed budget, which passed the House but not the Senate.

A letter to Ryan from faculty at Georgetown, a Catholic university, summed up the Catholic opposition to the proposal: “We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.”

And then there is the “nuns on the bus tour” to decry the Ryan budget’s slashing of programs for the poor.  This week, the nuns reprised the tour, criss-crossing Ohio just in time for the vice presidential debate. “He clearly has not been where I’ve been," Sister Simone Campbell, an organizer of the tour, told MSNBC of Ryan. “He just is out of touch.”

The Romney campaign rolled out a Catholic outreach effort much later than the Obama-Biden campaign and has been hurt by the stridency and harsh rhetoric of their right-wing Catholic supporters.  The Romney campaign continues to approach nervously those who tell undecided Catholics they will go the Hell or be denied Communion if they vote for the President.


Susan W said...

Katherine, with all due respect, how on earth could you go on and on about Romney, who happens to be pro-life, but you are totally blind concerning Obama's militant pro-abortion at any stage of pregnancy? And don't forget Obama's support of outright infanticide. And regarding the so-called outreach for Catholics? What Catholic church might that be? The USCCB is the voice of the church in this country---------not colleges or other so-called Catholic groups. They are, along with other christian entities and private citizens are suing this government in order to protect their first amendment rights. Why did Obama reject conscience protections for health care workers? Because he wanted control. I pray every day that more Americans wake up to the truth of this corrupt and inept administration. I will welcome having an administration that will level with the American people and tell them the truth for a change.

Katherine said...


Romney pro-life? haha. I have to check the time of day, he keeps flip flopping.

Ohio Lady said...

Susan W: Why are you completely incapable of differentiating between being pro-abortion rights and pro-abortion? If anyone is pro-abortion, it's Romney as evidenced by his documented willingness to pay for the possibility of an abortion for his son and daughter-in-law. And are you aware that Romney and Ryan (how Catholic is he now after he flip-flopped during the VP debate?) support abortion in the case of rape, incest and the health of the mother? If you believe ABP Lori, you cannot in good conscience vote for Romney-Ryan in light of his teaching: "The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that's the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn't be voting for such a person."

Anonymous said...

It's 10:00 am. Do you know where Romney's abortion position is?

Susan W said...

To Ohio lady. I think I know where you are coming from. However, for me as a Catholic, the choice is clear. I will vote for Romney who is pro-life and who will uphold the first amendment. I could never ever vote for Obama who uses religion for political purposes, just like Lenin and stalin and Hitler, and then persecute christians after they got power. Obama is so far to the left of extreme he is frightening. Our religious freedom is under assault with Obama, as well as the 2nd amendment and our nations sovereignty. Obama would hand us over to the UN.

Anonymous said...

Do you know what Obama-Biden's abortion position is? The most extreme in US history. You criticize Ryan's position on abortion but ignore Biden's position of personally opposed but not publicly opposed. THAT is not being Catholic either. What if Christ was to have said, "I am personally opposed to what the Pharisees are doing but I'm not going to publicly object". How ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

Katherine is just displaying her shallow ignorance. She will not vote for Romney because of his flip-flop on abortion. However, she will vote for a man that voted as a stated senator to allow a baby that survived abortion to die on a table without any treatment. A man that pushed legal abortion into the new Kenyan constitution. A man that will force all Americans to pay for abortions and contraceptions through taxation and their medical insurance plans, etc.... Katherine's position has nothing to do about being a Catholic Christian. The choice is clear for all Christians that follow their faith. It ain't Obama.

Kurt said...

"What if Christ was to have said, 'I am personally opposed to what the Pharisees are doing but I'm not going to publicly object'".

And what if Christ said "I am opposed to abortion but it is not going to be part of my agenda?"

Romney fails this test.

William Blackwolf said...

Susan, your entire comment is simply absurd.

I'm aware that Mitt Romney is one to shy away from specificity on any issue, when it comes to what he intends to do if he were to become President. Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us, however, and spell out exactly how you believe Romney's supposed 'Pro-Life' stance will contribute to a reduction in the number of abortions performed in this country, can you do that? Or can you further explain just how a proposed Romney administration (who admits it has no legislative agenda with regard to abortion) would go about overturning Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land? Something that is no closer to being realised now than it was thirty years ago, despite the intervening twenty years of ostensibly 'Pro-Life' Republican presidencies.

The truth is that Presidents have about as much control over the rate of abortions in this country, as they do over the cost of fuel. Abortions have declined steadily since the 1990s, regardless of which party has had control of the White House, a trend which has continued under this President; and here's a prediction you may count on, that even if Mitt Romney were somehow elected President, and served two full terms - abortion will still be legal in 2020, just as it was in 1988, 1992, and 2008, at the end of previous Republican administrations.

With regard to your assertion that Mitt Romney would uphold the First Amendment... of course he would, just as the President and his predecessors have done. This silly notion that the President is somehow "waging war" on religion is preposterous. All this brouhaha over employee provided insurance with respect to contraception is terribly overblown. The fact of the matter is that insurance companies will be obligated to provide funding for birth control, when employers have religious objections to doing so. Where does this leave self-insured institutions? We simply don't know yet, as a compromise has yet to be finalised on that issue; but in the interim, the Administration has initiated a safe harbour reprieve, and I have no reason to believe an equitable and constitutional solution will not follow.

William Blackwolf said...

I'd be very interested to learn just how it is, in your estimation, that the President has used "religion for political purposes"? And further, how you, or anyone who intends to support the Republican party can manage to level this charge with a straight face. Any thoughtful individual needs only to look at the record of Republican political campaigns since the rise of the religious right, to be satisfied that it is political conservatives who have made every effort to translate religious fidelity into Republican votes, in the most craven and shameless manner. This, along with your assertion that the President is akin to Hitler or Stalin, and will prosecute Christians and "hand us over to the UN" is sheer nonsense and babble.

With regard to your claim that the Obama Administration somehow threatens American's right to bear arms... you do realise that gun ownership has increased during the President's first four years, do you not? Do you realise that the same claim was made by persons such as yourself four years ago, and that such predictions of doom have utterly fallen flat? The White House simply does not have a legislative agenda when it comes to gun control - something which the President has been roundly criticised for by the Left, yet you maintain that he poses a threat to the Second Amendment? Again, this is absolute blather, and ludicrous talk.

You would do well to question the reliability of your sources for these talking points. How many times do those who think as you have to make these claims prior to an election, have them soundly contradicted by the facts, and proven wholly fatuous by the record of the administration which follows, before you get a clue? It's no wonder that Conservatives share common political beliefs with Protestant Fundamentalists, who pour of money into the pockets of "Prophecy Experts" who are, time and again, demonstrated to have absolutely no knowledge of when "the end" will come. Both political conservatism and religious fundamentalism are coprophagial mindsets, in which the same set of silly notions is recycled over, and over again, without giving way in the slightest to facts and objective reality.

As I said at the outset of these comments, your views are absurd.

To Old To Run said...

We are all in this world together, and as Catholics we are called to love one another. We are allowed to disagree. Each of us are on a journey of discernment, please be kind with your words, you have no idea where any of these folks are in their journey. With that said, I am also on a faith journey and trying desperately to discern how each candidate reflects the Churches values and my personal values. It is very difficult to sort out fact from fiction, and I find it frustrating that when someone sincerely is trying to have a conversation and sort things out they are attacked for their beliefs. I have found in life that generally people will reveal themselves by their actions more often than by their words.

The number of abortions are going down, Bless the Lord, however we as God fearing people, continue to make excuses for our leaders and fail to call them to actually represent the people that elected them. The majority of people in this country recognize abortion for the culture of death that it is. We should all be offended by anyone that says they are pro-choice and should call abortion what it is – murder. If we all stopped with the political correctness and called evil by name we would return to being the moral country that God intended us to be. Saint Polycarp is a great role model for each of us.

To Old To Run said...

This site seems to be heavily focused on the abortion issue, so this is where I will begin comparing the candidates. I am researching as I write this, so feel free to show me where I can find additional factual information.
Romney favors a repeal of Roe v Wade;
“I'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and allow the states and the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves, have the ability to put in place pro-life legislation.” 5 June 2007, Romney at Republican Presidential Debate (Manchester, New Hampshire).
Obama supports Roe vs Wade;
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
January 22, 2012: President Obama’s statement issued on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade
In reviewing Romney’s abortion statements I struggle with his changing stances. So I have been looking at what he did when he was Governor
2005: Vetoed availability without Rx of morning-after pill
In 2005, Romney vetoed a bill making the morning-after pill available without a doctor’s prescription. For Romney, it was not only about contraception. He explained his decision in July 2005: “This bill does not require parental consent for even young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness of abortion but the importance of parental involvement.” These vetoes were overturned by the Massachusetts State Legislature where pro-choice Democrats hold an overwhelming majority.
Source: The Man, His Values, & His Vision, p. 52 , Aug 31, 2007
Anti-abortion views have “evolved & deepened” while governor
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney pledged not to change the state’s abortion laws, despite his personal opposition. But his veto Monday of an emergency contraceptives bill & his comments in recent months have fueled speculation among critics that Romney is hardening his opposition to abortion and other sensitive social issues to gain support from GOP conservatives. Romney says his anti-abortion views have “evolved and deepened” since he took office, colored in part by the debate over embryonic stem cell research.
“In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead--to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited,” Romney wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday’s Boston Globe. He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the “one size fits all” precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.
Source: Associated Press on , Jul 27, 2005

“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.”
July 26, 2005, Boston Globe, Why I vetoed contraception bill

To Old To Run said...

Still torn I researched Obama’s record on Abortion
• Insurers must provide contraception, but not employers. (Feb 2012)
• Catholic Bishops rejected segregated abortion funds. (May 2010)
• 2007 bill: discount contraceptives at college health clinics. (Nov 2009)
• No litmus test; nominate to Court based on their fairness. (Oct 2008)
• 1990: Wrote law article that fetus cannot sue mother. (Aug 2008)
• FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush. (Aug 2008)
• 1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion. (Aug 2008)
• Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions. (Aug 2008)
• Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
• We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
• Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
• Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
• GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
• Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
• Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
• Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
• Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
• Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
• Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)
• Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
• Protect a woman’s right to choose. (May 2004)
Voting Record

• Blocked IL law: Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (Oct 2011)
• Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)
• Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
• Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
Embryonic stem cell research
President Obama signed the Executive Order 13505 Removing Barriers To Responsible Scientific Research involving Human Stem Cells on March 9, 2009

"... By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Research involving human embryonic stem cells and human non-embryonic stem cells has the potential to lead to better understanding and treatment of many disabling diseases and conditions. Advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal funds.

For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions. The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.

Sec. 2. Research. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law."

To Old To Run said...

Looking at another option, Gary Johnson has some interesting viewpoints;
Johnson position on Abortion
A qualified yes. Johnson believes that a woman has the right to decide on the matter until a point of the viability of the fetus has been reached. As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson signed a law that banned late term abortion.

“ Well I support a woman’s right to choose up until viability of the fetus, as governor of New Mexico, I have signed a bill banning late term abortion, I’ve always favored parental notification, I’ve always favored counseling and I’ve always favored the notion that public funds should not be used for abortion. So running for Governor of New Mexico in a state that was 2:1 Democrat, I really didn’t get that vote in the primary, but I’d like to think that I got all of those votes in the general election and that’s a reality here also, for those individuals that hold that as their number one issue, I’m not going to get that vote, I would hope to get that vote if I were to move on to the general election.”
May 5, 2011 Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, Greenville, South Carolina
Federal ban on abortions/ Roe v. Wade

Johnson believes that Roe v. Wade is extraconstitutional and has wrongfully given the government the mandate to intrude on the private lives of Americans.

“Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states.”
Extracted from Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative site
Parental notification

“… and I’ve also as Governor of New Mexico supported parental notification. I’ve also always supported counseling.”
August 25, 2011: Johnson speaking to CNSNews’ Editor-in-Chief Terry Jeffrey (Online With Terry Jeffrey)
Since the church considers abortion, embryonic stem cell research intrinsically evil, I only see one choice. The best that I can pray for is that Mitt Romney’s actions in the past will carry over in the future in the event that he becomes President.

Anonymous said...

Here's one for you Paul Ryan - the Bible says (St Paul) Do not be yoked together with unbelievers,- How come Paul who flaunts his Catholic faith joins Romney who is a heretic (Arians
believed the same thing)