![o{]:�)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Pelosi’s health care bill: supported by late-term abortionist
From CNA:
Nebraska late-term abortionist supports Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill
Washington D.C., Oct 31, 2009 / 04:51 pm (CNA).- Nebraska late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart was present at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s press conference in support of her new health care reform bill, a pro-life group reports. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), spotted Carhart holding a sign at the Thursday morning press conference in support of Speaker Pelosi’s proposal. [Ah yes… a bill a late-term abortionist could love.]
He is currently under investigation by the Nebraska Attorney General for unsafe medical practices. He allegedly allowed non-licensed persons to give injections, start IVs, and administer controlled substances.
A CWA picture of Carhart shows him at the press conference holding a sign for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).
RCRC says on its website that it is “deeply troubling” that coverage for abortions remains “unsettled.” It endorses the “status quo” of funding abortion with federal dollars only in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of a woman.
However, at present the health care reform bill lacks a Hyde Amendment or other explicit prohibitions on abortion funding. The Associated Press has reported that the proposed House health care legislation would create “a new stream of federal funding” not covered by current abortion funding restrictions.
Wendy Wright charged that Speaker Pelosi’s bill has gained the support of “the nation’s most notorious partial-birth abortionist.”
“Pelosi’s bill can now be rightly called an abortionist’s dream,” she added. “Under her bill, government money will pay for abortions, even the kind that Carhart commits—late-term abortions against viable babies that put women’s health at risk."
Carhart’s legal challenge to a federal ban on partial-birth abortions was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote in 2007.
And the reason she has not been excommunicated is…...?
Comment by EXCHIEF — 31 October 2009 @ 11:17 pmShe probably has been.
Comment by Geremia — 1 November 2009 @ 1:04 amAs a wife, mother and grandmother, I am ashamed that she calls herself a woman.
Comment by Kimberly — 1 November 2009 @ 8:13 amOr even human.
Pray, fast, and raise a din.
Comment by Agnes — 1 November 2009 @ 9:05 amOn Friday fifteen people stood in a cold, light rain outside of Planned Parenthood (sic.) in St. Paul, MN praying the Rosary and Divine Mercy Chaplet. At the fourth decade of the latter a second priest and five seminarians arrived. When the first of us left, they were beginning their Rosary. One can imagine those inside the building who stared out at us beginning to wonder just who are the weird ones.
Comment by Kerry — 1 November 2009 @ 9:44 amDoes this surprise anyone???
(maybe our bishops as a whole???)
Comment by JosephMary — 1 November 2009 @ 9:51 am“And the reason she has not been excommunicated is…...?”
bishops who think they are politicians dont want to cause any trouble.
Comment by Oleksander — 1 November 2009 @ 10:24 amThen one of the elders spoke up and said to me, “Who are these wearing white robes, and where did they come from?” I said to him, “My lord, you are the one who knows.” He said to me, “These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.” Jesus I Trust In You.
Comment by adagio48 — 1 November 2009 @ 11:44 amHow sad that we let barbarians run our country.
Comment by Supertradmom — 1 November 2009 @ 11:50 amI’m going out on a limb here, but, if I understand a little bit, an act of a Bishop is not required for excommunication. One seperates oneself from the Church. Fr. Z. will perhaps add the proper terms and conditions.
Please God, many will vote their Catholic consciences come election time.
Comment by wanda — 1 November 2009 @ 12:13 pmYes, just one mortal sin can excommunicate oneself latæ sententiæ (i.e., because of the law itself and without an ecclesiastical judge; cf. “Excommunication“). E.g., according to Can. 1398, “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Comment by Geremia — 2 November 2009 @ 1:33 amAs a non-American, should not someone tell this woman that she is excommunicated “latae sententiae”?
Comment by JARay — 2 November 2009 @ 5:14 amJARay
Yes, she is excommunicated “latae sententiae” but her Bishop should inform her of this, and tell her she should not present herself to recieve Our Lord at Mass, and if she does so, she will be refused. Let’s all remember, cooperate in another’s sin a-counsil, b-command, c-consent, d-provaction, e-praise or flattery, f-silence, g-assistance, h-defense, or concealment, i-not punishing the evil done.
Comment by ssoldie — 2 November 2009 @ 11:08 amYes, she IS being supported by the late term abortionist. They just finished talking about that on the webcast going on now. So, why would he be $upporting Pelo$i’$ bill?
They are now talking about conscience protection for everybody, but also cautioning people not to be fooled by tricky language. Apparently, you can report the discrimination, but there are no penalties for it. (per Christian Medical Association).
And FWIW, Planned Parenthood is using our Bishop’s campaign for a new fundraising effort – those uppity Catholics are trying to force their wills on women (I’m paraphrasing, not quoting).
Father Z was right – there is still time. I think it “ain’t over till it’s over” and maybe not even then. It seems to be riding on the pro-life Dems.
Comment by isabella — 2 November 2009 @ 10:00 pm