What did Rep. Stupak really say?

Is this what Rep. Stupak really thought all that time he was giving the impression that he was fighting for the life of the unborn?

This video is from a town hall meeting in November 2009.


Biretta tip    o{]:¬) to The Sacred Page.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. TJerome says:

    He’s a Democrat. Nuff said. Tom

  2. DisturbedMary says:

    Looking at the Stupak video and reading the timid language in the first paragraph of Richard Doerflinger’s letter to Congressional Aides about the meaninglessness of an Executive Order (“We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know Members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them”)…

    With these two outrages in mind, I’ve concluded that Sunday’s healthcare endgame was really a well planned and cleverly scripted event produced by you-know-who as the closing act of the healthcare battle, starring catholic Pelosi and catholic Stupak, aided and abetted by a hungry catholic UCCB advisory tempted so badly for universal healthcare “justice” that they went gently into the dark night.

  3. bruno says:

    With these two outrages in mind, I’ve concluded that Sunday’s healthcare endgame was really a well planned and cleverly scripted event produced by you-know-who as the closing act of the healthcare battle, starring catholic Pelosi and catholic Stupak, aided and abetted by a hungry catholic UCCB advisory tempted so badly for universal healthcare “justice” that they went gently into the dark night.
    This sounds a little like a conspiracy theory; however I do find very believable


  4. Tominellay says:

    Thanks for posting the video, Father Z.
    TJerome (at 10:18) said it.

  5. TomB says:

    Catolic Democrats: The Democrat Party is their religion.

  6. elmo says:

    He led us on for months for what was never intended to be more than an empty gesture. I am in shock.

  7. elmo says:

    I am (was) a Catholic pro-life Democrat. My grandparents were devout Catholics and staunch Democrats. This health care vote has convinced me that it’s no longer possible to be both.

  8. Andy F. says:

    I read a newslink about this back in November and sent a follow-up letter to Stupak telling him to retract my support for his candy ways. I never blew the whistle about it because I hoped he would deliver once he saw all the backing. My facebook update said it well: Why Bart, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the world; but for Michigan? St. Thomas More, pray for us.

  9. TJerome says:

    elmo, congratulations on your conversion. Just so you know, I was a Democratic Party Official at one time. But my conversion came much earlier, when the alleged “big tent” Party did not allow Catholic Governor Casey of Pennsylvania on the Platform at the 1992 Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. That did it for me. Tom

  10. priest up north says:

    Sounds like “the Seamless Garment” theology wins again. Thanks Cardinal Bernadin for your unfortunate legacy on this and many more issues…

    We should have known all along – especially since the president can as easily rescind his executive order this afternoon as he gave it on Sunday…

  11. TMA says:

    “abortion has been the law of the land for many, many decades…”
    Slavery was law of the land for many, many years. We must keep up the fight!

  12. KAS says:

    This is why I never vote for any democrat.

    Benedict Arnold/Judas=Stupak

    Do you realize there are fewer hits on Life by the Libertarians than by the Democrats? Because the Libertarians refuse to fund anything they end up being more pro-life than Democrats!

    the government is insane to the harm of all–lets all vote for good people who will bring some sanity to the government for the common good!!

  13. JonM says:

    Rep. Stupak says in the video that in the event public funding for abortion remains in the proposal, he would ‘stay true to his principles’ ‘vote his conscience’ and vote for it.


    This approach highlights the pastoral nightmare wrought by post VII thinking. It also suggests that Rep. Stupak was less committed to life as he indicated.

    As others have commented, this entire gambit was wasted energy since the Hyde Amendment doesn’t really restrict abortion funding in the way many, including the USCCB, suggest.

    Furthermore, the bill should never have hinged on abortion alone; the 2 000 page plus enigma is a mockery of subsidiarity. It also reinforces the false notion that only secular state initiatives can help people.

    Catholics command a majority on the Supreme Court. Let’s see if they have a deeper understanding of the faith than legislators (confidence is NOT high.)

  14. TonyC says:

    We now know that there WAS 700,000 pieces of silver involved too! I am beginning to think that what we have here is a pretender/poseur Catholic. Also, it was interesting that it has been reported that the final pen that BHO used to sign the bill was given to the president of the CHA!

  15. Grabski says:

    There are no pro life Democrats. They vote for the pro abortion leadership and stick w/ the abortion president.

    Stupak voted to finance abortion. That is beyond ‘pro choice’, since it takes away my choice to support Big Abortion or not.

    He voted pro abortion.

    “Section 213 [of the bill] describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum 1$ per enrollee per month.”

    The sham ‘executive order’ can not overtake a law that was passed.

  16. John 6:54 says:

    A Pro-Life Democrat is an oxymoron.

    When are the Bishops going to actually do something vs taking the “pastoral” approach? The “pastoral” approach is not working when it comes to our elections and our elected officials. I would challenge the Bishops to show us how its working.

    If you support abortion politically, financially, or mentally there has to be clear and actionable consquences, otherwise our country & world will continue to fall farther into a living hell.

    Action Bishops, Action Priests, & Action People!

  17. kelleyb says:

    Breaking: Bishops applaud health care expansion, concerned about deficiencies in the bill. Details coming.
    Just saw this on twitter. Are the Bishops really on board? Bishops- a picture of Courage in Faith…my aunt fanny’s backside

  18. You cannot be Catholic and “prochoice”, ergo, you cannot be Catholic and Democrat

  19. markomalley says:

    kelleyb (et al),

    The full statement:

    For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity. Christian discipleship means, “working to ensure that all people have access to what makes them fully human and fosters their human dignity” (United States Catechism for Adults, page 454). Included among those elements is the provision of necessary and appropriate health care.

    For too long, this question has gone unaddressed in our country. Often, while many had access to excellent medical treatment, millions of others including expectant mothers, struggling families or those with serious medical or physical problems were left unable to afford the care they needed. As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming. We have spoken for the poorest and most defenseless among us. Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the president address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good. We are bishops, and therefore pastors and teachers. In that role, we applaud the effort to expand health care to all.

    Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Its failure to preserve the legal status quo that has regulated the government’s relation to abortion, as did the original bill adopted by the House of Representatives last November, could undermine what has been the law of our land for decades and threatens the consensus of the majority of Americans: that federal funds not be used for abortions or plans that cover abortions. Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself.

    We share fully the admirable intention of President Obama expressed in his pending Executive Order, where he states, “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services.” However, the fact that an Executive Order is necessary to clarify the legislation points to deficiencies in the statute itself. We do not understand how an Executive Order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions.

    The statute is also profoundly flawed because it has failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context). As well, many immigrant workers and their families could be left worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money.

    Many in Congress and the administration, as well as individuals and groups in the Catholic community, have repeatedly insisted that there is no federal funding for abortion in this statute and that strong conscience protection has been assured. Analyses that are being published separately show this not to be the case, which is why we oppose it in its current form. We and many others will follow the government’s implementation of health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required.

    As bishops, we wish to recognize the principled actions of the pro-life members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles outlined above. They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds.

    As bishops of the Catholic Church, we speak in the name of the church and for the Catholic faith itself. The Catholic faith is not a partisan agenda, and we take this opportunity to recommit ourselves to working for health care which truly and fully safeguards the life, dignity, conscience and health of all, from the child in the womb to those in their last days on earth.

    Source: CNS Blog

    They didn’t come out and actually say that had this bill contained the Hyde Amendment language, they’d have been behind it 150%, but it sure sounds that way.

    Let me ask some here, does the Church teach that the common good is served if 70% of the people are hurt in the process of benefiting 20% of the people? (as long as they all are equal when it’s all said and done) I ask this seriously, because that’s what I’m hearing out of the USCCB.

  20. markomalley says:

    BTW, any thoughts on Randall Terry’s latest gig? Vatican Demonstration Calls for Nancy Pelosi´s Excommunication

  21. moon1234 says:

    The problem is too many Bishops are busy being politicians instead of Bishops. Charity and Love should NEVER be forced upon anyone. Making me contribute to pay for someone else is WRONG. That is the definition of SLAVERY.

    I am all for helping those who are truely in need as I am able to. I am NOT for helping people at the behest of the state, especially when that help may result in the death of another. The bishops seem to totally miss this. We did have Catholic hospitals in the past that provided for those who could not pay. Since the Bishops mostly abdicated their role in these institutions they now only have a bully pulpit and many have been sucked into the political instead of the pastoral realm.

  22. moon1234 says:

    When are the Bishops going to actually do something vs taking the “pastoral” approach? The “pastoral” approach is not working when it comes to our elections and our elected officials. I would challenge the Bishops to show us how its working.

    Actually the pastoral approach is what is needed. They need to start publically defending the faith and it’s morals. They need to call out publically those who publically scandalize others. That is truely pastoral because it teachs everyone what it means to be Catholic.

    The mess we have now is because we have a lack of pastoral action of our Bishops.

    Might I suggest this as a possible action for ANY bishop in todays world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym6Qgj55e3Y

    Public politicans need to see what the consequences are for their actions.

  23. New Sister says:

    A foolish man who built his house upon the sand…

  24. John 6:54 says:

    Here are 89 other Catholic Democrats that need our prayer. Stupak was just the guy who lead us on the most.

    YES VOTES from “catholic” Democrats
    Joe Baca, California
    Xavier Becerra, California
    Timothy H. Bishop, New York
    John Boccieri, Ohio
    Robert Brady, Pennsylvania
    Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts
    Dennis A. Cardoza, California
    Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
    William Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Jim Costa, California
    Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut
    Joseph Crowley, New York
    Henry Cuellar, Texas
    Kathy Dahlkemper, Pennsylvania
    Peter DeFazio, Oregon
    William D. Delahunt, Massachusetts
    Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut
    John D. Dingell, Michigan
    Joe Donnelly, Indiana
    Michael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania
    Steve Driehaus, Ohio
    Brad Ellsworth, Indiana
    Anna Eshoo, California
    Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York
    Charlie Gonzalez, Texas
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois
    John J. Hall, New York
    Phil Hare, Illinois
    Brian Higgins, New York
    Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
    Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Paul Kanjorski, Pennsylvania.
    Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
    Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island
    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
    Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona
    Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
    James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
    John B. Larson, Connecticut
    Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico
    Dan Maffei, New York
    Betsy Markey, Colorado
    Ed Markey, Massachusetts
    Eric Massa, New York
    Carolyn McCarthy, New York
    Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
    Jerry McNerney, California
    Michael H. Michaud, Maine
    George Miller, California
    Harry E. Mitchell, Arizona
    James P. Moran, Virginia
    Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania
    John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania.
    Grace F. Napolitano, California
    Richard E. Neal, Massachusetts
    James L. Oberstar, Minnesota
    David R. Obey, Wisconsin
    Frank Pallone, New Jersey
    Bill Pascrell, New Jersey
    Ed Pastor, Arizona
    Nancy Pelosi, California
    Tom Perriello, Virginia
    Charles B. Rangel, New York
    Silvestre Reyes, Texas
    Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
    Lucille Roybal-Allard, California
    Tim Ryan, Ohio
    John T. Salazar, Colorado
    Linda T. Sanchez, California
    Loretta Sanchez, California
    Jose E. Serrano, New York
    Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania
    Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
    Albio Sires, New Jersey
    Hilda L. Solis, California
    Bart Stupak, Michigan
    Ellen Tauscher, California
    Mike Thompson, California
    Paul Tonko, New York
    Nydia M. Velazquez, New York
    Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana
    Diane E. Watson, California
    Peter Welch, Vermont
    Charles A. Wilson, Ohio

  25. kelleyb says:

    Thank you for the links. My jaw dropped when I read the little tweet…gave impression to me that the Bishops embraced the bill….I will stop my knee jerk reactions to stuff. I promise.

  26. Bill Haley says:

    This is not too different from Sam Brownback who, when asked if he would support a pro-choice Republican candidate, replied, yes you have to stick with the party.

  27. momoften says:

    As my young sons reminded me…stupak backwards is KA puts…we should have known what he was going to
    pull. I am disappointed. I hope the RTL will no longer endorse him. He has failed us, and more importantly he has failed in his duty to God to protect the innocent.

  28. Peggy R says:

    Stupak doesn’t even get a souvenir pen, but Sr. Keehan does. See NRO here:


  29. chironomo says:

    There are Pro-life Republicans, and Pro-choice Republicans…. but there is NO SUCH THING as a Pro-Life Democrat… it is not an issue to be “moderated” in their political view.

  30. TNCath says:

    As my students say, when confronted with someone who has betrayed them: “Loooo-sahhhh!”

  31. gmaskell says:

    Nice catch. “We were set up” and this was a show directed by the dems to look like they care about the Pro-life movement. Everyone who has eyes should see and ears should hear.

  32. John 6:54 says:

    I posted in a hurry above with the list. Rep Jack Murtha is obviously dead and did not vote. I pull the 9 Catholic votes out of the list and forgot about the dead guy, although had Jack been a live to cast his vote I’m sure he would be in the yes vote company.

    Looks like there are plenty of Bishops who should publically rebuke those Catholics how voted for this.

  33. Geremia says:

    Comment by priest up north — 23 March 2010 @ 11:25 am:

    the president can as easily rescind his executive order this afternoon as he gave it on Sunday…

    He never signed the executive order. It was just a political sham.

  34. Jane says:

    When I saw Stupak’s turnaround, I thought that maybe the whole thing might had been a setup. It looks phony.

    I have just been to the funeral Mass of a baptised baby, (here in Sydney), who lived only a few days. This life mattered both to the relatives and to God. The lives of the unborn also matter to God. He will not leave their killing unpunished.

  35. bookworm says:

    John 6:54: Let’s not forget the 19 other Democrats (some Catholic) who did vote against the bill in the end — they too need our prayers, for protection, wisdom and discernment. I know one of them was Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois. He is Catholic and cited abortion as one of several reasons he switched his vote from “yes” in November (when the Stupak Amendment was included) to “no” this time.

    In the long run I still believe it would be best to have a pro-life presence in BOTH parties, so that the pro-life movement does not lose everything it has gained whenever the inevitable swings of public opinion take place and people tire of one party’s rule and switch to the other.

    But given that the present leadership of the Democratic Party is firmly committed to promoting abortion on demand, and has made it virtually impossible for pro-life Democrats to have any support or influence in the party, the only way to effect that change is to make an all-out effort to defeat EVERY Democrat who runs for office at any level for the foreseeable future. When the Dems lose the White House, Congress, multiple governor’s mansions and state legislatures, etc. and does so repeatedly over several election cycles, then maybe they will get the message that they can no longer afford to diss pro-lifers.

    Genuinely pro-life Democrats such as Rep. Lipinski and the 18 others who voted “no” on the bill should be encouraged to consider switching their party affiliation to Republican or Independent. If they stick with the Dems, however, I think we should vote against them unless they happen to be running against a staunchly pro-abort, grossly incompetent or corrupt Republican — and in that case, I’d probably go third party or not vote at all.

    Something else to keep in mind: Yes, I was outraged by Stupak’s last minute cave in and I hope the voters of his district send him (pardon the pun) Stu-paking in November. That being said, let’s not pile on him too much. Until just a few months ago hardly anyone outside of Michigan had ever heard of him. Suddenly he becomes a national figure and he ends up at ground zero of the most heated and controversial Congressional vote in decades. He said prior to the vote that he had been forced to disconnect his home phone because he was getting harassing phone calls at all hours of the day and night. Plus we have no idea what kind of pressure Obama and Pelosi were putting on him. Just following the debate drove me crazy with stress and anxiety — imagine what it did to him and the other members of his coalition. They still need our prayers too.

  36. EXCHIEF says:

    Stupak’s vote was not a last minute cave in. It was carefully orchestrated and he intended to vote yes all along. For most “catholic” democrats politics is their religion…it isn’t Catholicism.

  37. catholicmidwest says:

    He was looking for some pork. He got it and he bolted. He’s a democrat, what can I say?

  38. catholicmidwest says:

    I hope the whole damn bunch of them lose their jobs in December.

  39. catholicmidwest says:

    Er, November. The sooner the better.

  40. sejoga says:

    You know, when Thomas More and Martin Luther were exchanging polemical letters over the Reformation, Thomas More wrote of Luther’s lies that he was ashamed even to discuss them, because “while I clean out the fellow’s shit-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with shit.”

    That’s about how I feel about even discussing the so-called “Catholic” Democrats. Maybe it isn’t the saintliest of language to use, but their words and actions are so revolting that they aren’t deserving of saintly language. Where is our Thomas More, the politician who honestly serves the public while truly upholding the Church?

    St. Thomas More, pray for us!

  41. tired student says:

    I stopped putting my faith in either the Republican or Democratic parties years ago. The Republicans are acting like petulant children. They couldn’t stop the bill, so now they’re holding up Congress by not voting to extend work past the statutory 2pm close. I’m sure the Democrats would find obstructionist means if the angst were on their side. I’m also convinced that most GOP lawmakers care about the economics of health care. Abortion isn’t the main concern of most GOP pols. This entire bill is a textbook example of the utterly dysfunctional nature of a two-party bicameral system.

    It may be true that the Church and the faithful have nowhere to turn but the GOP. GOP behavior as of late has been frightening, to say the least. If we must vote for one party, we must also be cognizant of the dysfunction our votes implicitly support.

  42. catholicmidwest says:

    I’m an independent, tired student. But the disfunction is almost entirely on the democratic side this year, from Obama to Al Gore, from Pelosi to this health care fiasco. They’ve been the scary ones.

  43. EXCHIEF says:

    The system itself, regardless of party, is corrupt and dysfunctional. Our founding fathers predicted it when they said that to remain viable as a nation we as a people must rely on God. We haven’t. We’ve taken God out of schools, out of the public square and substituted “it’s all about me” for what should be proper and moral values. Rome, Part II. Pray

  44. Grabski says:

    Bill Haley There is a difference, though. Even a pro-abortion Republican will vote for a Republican Senate Majority leader and a Republican House Speaker, both of whom will be pro-life. A ‘pro-life’ Democrat (oxymoron) will vote for pro abortion leadership.

    Big difference.

  45. Bryan says:

    Consider this:

    This is a moment in the life of the Republic (what’s left of it) that, like every other political answer to a moral question, defines the next stage in either the building up, or tearing down, of that institution. Any institution guided by man is able to be perverted by man. Our faith speaks to the hereafter. Satan uses our desires for the ‘here and now’ to cloud the vision of what can be with empty promises of making it easy in this life so as to forfeit the next.

    While respecting the OFFICE of our joint and several bishops, we should not forget that they are human like the rest of us, and subject, just a much, to the sins we all face: pride, covetness, etc. That they were or appear to be useful pawns as individuals does not lessen their office per se, but certainly makes me wonder just what they were thinking. The old saying…you lie with dogs, you get fleas certainly applies here…and appearances count. The opponent knows this. And you can say what you want, rail mightily against the orchestrators of this. But, give them credit for absolutely deflecting the USCCB as a whole, to the point that they accept the legislation with the necessary ‘but…’ tagged at the end in an attempt to at least salvage some of their (now minimal) authority to speak with any sort of power.

    The 8th beatitude from St. Matthew’s Gospel: “Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” is the fate of the now sanctioned and paid for millions of people who will die with the overt support, encouragement, and active participation of the the government. Remember about the here and now? (as a real aside, think of the effect of removing 40+ million taxpayers from the tax rolls through abortion…people who could have contributed to society…instead, they were thrown away…that’s 40 million FEWER people to support a system that were originally projected to be contributing to its support when all these give=aways were imposed on us…talk about the practical effect of a moral decision…). We leave it up to God to have mercy on their immortal souls…never before in history have so many been destroyed in the name of ‘being a burden’; never before have so many in history been sacrificed, and untold millions more will now be murdered with state sanction and encouragement.

    We have a choice to make. Christ’s way is not easy. Our society has started down an unsustainable road of entitlement without total takeover of all means of production (GM anyone?), disbursement (this horrendous piece of legislation), career (wait for it…), and living means (confiscatory taxation by the war power of the state…) to a system of total dependence and subjection to ‘the government’. Because it’s all about the here and now…not the world to come, but RIGHT NOW.

    Forget the politicians. They (like us) will have their particular judgment. They are pawns in a wider game that stretches beyond mortal existence. Our problem (and it’s just as endemic on the good as well as the evil side) is that we actually have been lulled into thinking that they actually serve us. The majority doesn’t; they serve themselves first. Never forget that, demoncrat or republican. But do remember the ones who, exhibit at least one molecule of self-respect and ability to stand for something good. They are few and far between, and suffer the fate of say, Rick Santorum, who was, without a second thought, thrown under the bus by someone, for his own ends, he visibly and vocally supported. I’m sure he learned his lesson and has moved forward.

    Focus on what’s important. It’s not the here and now. That will end soon enough. Pray hard. Eternity is a Really, Really Long Time.

  46. DisturbedMary says:

    ECHIEF, Bryan, sejoga, et al, This is the homily we all needed to hear on Healthcare Sunday: http://www.stmarysgvl.org/discipleship/audio-homilies?song=780&homilyTitle=Fifth Sunday of Lent

  47. Paul M says:

    new Stupak interview in Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2248663/

    The more he speaks, the more pathetic he sounds.

    money quote for those in his district:

    When I asked the congressman about the highly political environment surrounding the bill’s passage, he said: “I’d rather lose my seat over something like this, a good piece of health care legislation that I believe in. And if I lose my seat over it, well, maybe it was worth it.”

    I hope this man is forced to find new employment at the end of the year.

  48. TNCath says:

    Way to go, Bishops! You’ve done it again. I hope you will eventually able to remove that hook, line, and sinker you swallowed when Stupak and company came fishing for your support.

    Perhaps Sister Carol will now take Rep. Stupak out to dinner, using her black American Express card, and paying for it with that $850,000 stipend she receives?

    This is infuriating and highly embarrassing to the Church.

  49. doanli says:

    As I said, where are our bishops reprimanding this man, this nun, so called Catholic politicians who vote for funding and campaigning for abortion????

    What does it take for excommunication?

    Of course what does it take for treason these days???

  50. catholicmidwest says:

    Does it really matter? In the end, he became just one more lemming over the cliff.

    Bert Who?

Comments are closed.