Sen. Boxer (D-CA) tried to block resolution to welcome Benedict XVI

From and California Catholic Daily and Sancte Pater where WDTPRS’s photoshopper Vincenzo holds forth, we have news of this stunningly dopey move on the part of a member of the US Senate.

Sen. Barbara Boxer holds up resolution welcoming Benedict XVI because of objections to pro-life content

California Catholic Daily – U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, temporarily blocked approval of a resolution welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the U.S. because she disapproved of a passage referring to the pope’s respect “for each and every human life,” the online political journal Politico reports. [Apparently the Senator from California does not respect each and every human life.]

Boxer and other Democrats objected because they saw the phrase as a reference to abortion. [And perhaps a guilty conscience?  At least I hope so.] “Three Senate Republican aides involved in the issue say that Boxer objected to the ‘life’ language, [death language is preferable, perhaps.   this is a GREAT example of what Pope Benedict spoke of yesterday to young people in NY!] which Democrats see as an implicit reference to the Catholic church’s opposition to abortion,” said Politico. “Senate Democratic leadership offices declined to comment but referred questions to Boxer’s office.”

Boxer spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz told Politico in an email message after the controversy was resolved, "We are very pleased we were able to reach an agreement with Senator Brownback to remove the political language and pass this resolution welcoming Pope Benedict."  [Look what happened! "Life" language is political language!  Superb example of Benedict’s points.]

The resolution welcoming the pope later passed the Senate on a voice vote, but only after its sponsor, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, agreed to remove any reference to "human life." Politico reported that Brownback, “a devout Catholic,” agreed to drop the language because he “did not want a high profile fight over the resolution.”  [It might have been worse to force the issue and have the resolution fail, but it is really too bad they couldn’t fight it out.]

In fact, reported Politico, the Kansas senator, while attending a papal Mass at Nationals Park, used a hand-held messaging device to communicate to his staff that it was ok to delete the language to which Boxer and other Democrats objected.

"There was some politics involved here, [D’YA THINK?!?]  and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide told Politico.

This is the language to which Boxer objected and which was later removed from the resolution at her insistence: "Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life."  [Pretty bad.  That sort of language, life language, should be kept private, right?  Can’t have that in a chamber where elected officials uphold the Constitution!]

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Sen. Boxer (D-CA) tried to block resolution to welcome Benedict XVI

  1. Louis E. says:

    As long as the Church tries to stretch the definition of “human life” before birth,those representing the interests of the born will have to be alert for ambiguities.

  2. Gerry says:

    .. and of course Barbara Bouncer and her ilk took Communion at the stadium Mass. Now, we’ve learned that Rudy Guiliani did the same at the NY mass. Even worse, an NY Daily News story quotes a priest as saying that’s just fine:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/04/19/2008-04-19_against_faiths_rules_rudy_giuliani_recei.html

  3. We love being married says:

    …stunningly dopey move on the part of a member of the US Senate.

    One of many.

  4. Jordan Potter says:

    “Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life.”

    It was nice of Senatrix Boxer and her fellow Democrats to go on record as as opposed to support for the weak and vulnerable, and believing that some human lives do not have value.

    Louis E. said: As long as the Church tries to stretch the definition of “human life” before birth, those representing the interests of the born will have to be alert for ambiguities.

    Yes, because everyone knows before babies are born they are neither human nor alive.

    Those who do not want to represent the interests of born AND unborn are disqualified from holding public office — and from receiving Holy Communion.

  5. Trad Tom says:

    “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” Sadly, they (Sen Boxer, et al.) DO know what they do, what they choose to do, and what they will continue to do until they are voted out of office.

  6. magdalen says:

    At least she did not try to kiss the Holy Father’s ring or present herself
    for Holy Communion as though everything is just hunky-dory.

  7. Louis E. says:

    To impute rights to the unborn is to impermissibly reduce the rights of the born.

  8. Geoffrey says:

    I am ashamed that she technically “represents” me.

  9. Rather, to deny rights to any human life is to deny them to all.

  10. Jordan Potter says:

    Louis, how does acknowledging the rights of one human being reduce or eliminate the rights of other human beings?

    Please, examine your conscience and study this issue — killing unborn children is a serious sin, is incompatible with the Faith, only creates more suffering and unhappiness. Please stop defending the indefensible.

  11. Richard says:

    “Rather, to deny rights to any human life is to deny them to all.”

    Impossible to add anything to that – or improve on it.

  12. TJM says:

    The Dems are the party for everyone, provided you’re allowed to be born! Boxer is a nut-case. Tom

  13. It’s a shame, she’s supppoed to represent me, ha! a joke!

    It’s definately a guilty conscience, because in our hearts we know that life begins at conception…You don’t call the baby that’s in the womb a fetus, or zygote, it’s refered to as a child, that’s not coincidental, the natural law, that those of the democrat party generaly don’t follow.

  14. RBrown says:

    To impute rights to the unborn is to impermissibly reduce the rights of the born.
    Comment by Louis E.

    Do you know that most states recognize inheritance rights of the unborn?

  15. nobody says:

    It’s not a guilty conscience. That would require one, as we know it, to exist beforehand.

    A great many prominent and powerful politicians and businesspeople are either involved with, or lackeys/followers of, the ‘order of death’ and other occultic groups, whose ideals and principles lead them to think any perceived benefit they might gain, as rulers, from population control justify getting rid of unwanted babies and other ‘undesirables’ (see famine, disease, wars and genocide).

    No, I’m not kidding.

  16. nobody says:

    That reminds me… I wonder if it is known that Henry Kissinger is one of them. See his views on ‘overpopulation’, and his (Nixon term), State Department’s Office of Population Affairs. Planned parenthood, sex ed, contraception, etc..

  17. dcs says:

    To impute rights to the unborn is to impermissibly reduce the rights of the born.

    Similarly, imputing rights to other human beings reduces my rights! It’s hard being pro-thieving rights these days!

  18. Quirinus says:

    To impute rights to the unborn is to impermissibly reduce the rights of the born”

    Alfred Rosemberg would be pleased. Untermenschen have no rights. They reduce the Lebensraum of the Aryan race! I wonder if every time they see a pregnant woman they feel like invading Poland, to paraphrase Woody Allen on Wagner.

    Wait, what was the political creed of Margaret Sanger, the founder of NARAL, that great humanitarian organization that rates Sen. Boxer 100% and supports her campaigns and urges to vote democrat every time??

  19. Fabrizio says:

    Actually, Margaret Sanger was the founder of the “American Birth Control League” which eventually became Planned Parenthood. But that doesn’t change the fact that pro-abortion ideologues all share a frightening way of thinking.

  20. Antonia says:

    She made Bush sounds more Catholic than ever… It looks like the bishops have got plenty of formation work cut out for them!

  21. Louis E. says:

    A zygote,a morula,a blastula,a gastrula…these are stages of early embryonic development that are reached far more times than live birth.And at any time before birth the life of the foetus is not independent nor is it sustainable outside that of the person to whom it is attached…who is made less than a person by legal demands that it MUST remain attached.

    By all means pregnant women who wish to bear children should do what they can to make it happen for the best.But it must be their choice,or we are born as burdens and not delights.

  22. Habemus Papam says:

    The child would remain attached if he were not knifed, sliced, diced and sucked from his mothers womb.

  23. RBrown says:

    A zygote,a morula,a blastula,a gastrula…these are stages of early embryonic development that are reached far more times than live birth.And at any time before birth the life of the foetus is not independent nor is it sustainable outside that of the person to whom it is attached…who is made less than a person by legal demands that it MUST remain attached.

    Have you ever seen a baby who is independent? I just saw my 7 month old grand nephew, and he is anything but independent.

    By all means pregnant women who wish to bear children should do what they can to make it happen for the best.But it must be their choice,or we are born as burdens and not delights.
    Comment by Louis E.

    From reading your comments, which persist in more than a bit of ignorance, I would say that you are a burden not a delight. But that doesn’t mean I think you should be eliminated.

    BTW, you never replied to my response to you that in most states in the US, the unborn have rights of inheritance.