Kagan played doctor and babies died....

In 1996, as an associate to President Clinton, Kagan recommended that ACOG add language indicating that partial birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman"—a direct contrast to ACOG’s original draft statement which said under no circumstance would partial birth abortion be the only option to save the life of the mother. Ms. Kagan’s willingness to bend medical facts to support an ideological point of view is inconsistent with the temperament required of a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.


Passing along this information below - from Liberty Counsel:

Any abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, but
the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion (PBA)
is grotesquely inhumane. PBA is closely akin to infanticide.

For several years, Supreme Court jurisprudence on partial-
birth abortion relied upon evidence that was manipulated by
Elena Kagan in political service of the Clinton White House.
It led the Court to strike down Nebraska's ban on PBA in
2000 as being unconstitutional. From 2000 until 2007, PBA
was "legal" in America until the Supreme Court eventually
upheld the PBA ban in June 2007.

John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things."

Fact: Elena Kagan's "handwritten notes" are proof of her
manipulation of expert medical evidence submitted by the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
to the Supreme Court.

Fact: Her revised wording, which was quoted in the Court's
2000 majority opinion, played a key role in the horrendous
procedure continuing until President George W. Bush signed
a new ban into law in November of 2003, which ban was later
upheld in 2007.

Fact: Kagan never divulged to the Court that she was the
one who, in fact, had changed ACOG's official statement.

Fact: Kagan's radical political activism drove her to
manipulate expert testimony and to later avoid admitting
the fact that she had done so.

The Washington Times says Kagan "may be more
responsible than anyone for keeping partial-
birth abortion legal for an extra decade."

This nominee has been described as President Barack Obama's
ideological clone - and fellow academic elitist.

In any other period of American history, Kagan's
hand-written memo would be the "kiss of death"
for her confirmation!

In the final analysis, Elena Kagan's past actions
show that she is a political operative who would
use a seat on the Supreme Court to advance a
radical political agenda.

++Kagan undermines Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Reports are emerging that Elena Kagan has been working in the
shadows to sabotage the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and "The
Defense of Marriage Act." According to several sources,
Solicitor General Kagan's signals that the government will
not effectively defend DOMA made it possible for Judge Joseph
L. Tauro to strike down parts of DOMA in Massachusetts earlier
this month.

He deemed the state's DOMA unconstitutional by ruling that
the law, which defines marriage as one man and one woman
for federal purposes, has no rational basis - solely because
the Department of Justice refused to give one. The ruling
initially only affects Massachusetts, but is considered to
be a model ruling for other states.

The president of the Massachusetts Family Institute
said, "[The ruling is] another blatant example
of a judge playing legislator!"

And Elena Kagan admitted in written responses to Senators'
questions that she personally participated in a meeting in
which she compromised the United States' position in a case
against the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy (DADT) being brought
by the Log Cabin Republicans.

Elena Kagan's actions as Solicitor General to
undermine the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and
"The Defense of Marriage Act" provide further
evidence that she allows her ideological biases
to trump her clear-cut duty!

Elena Kagan is just not experientially qualified or discerning
enough in judgment to get past her own political views while
rendering judgment as a Supreme Court Justice.

In a special report from Liberty Counsel's Washington, DC,
office, we reveal the true Elena Kagan, "In Her Own Words."

This is Elena Kagan, in her own words, regarding precedence
and the Constitution...

"I think that there are some circumstances in
which looking to the original intent is the
determinative thing in a case and other
circumstances in which it is likely not to
be. And I think, in general, judges should
look to a variety of sources when they interpret
the Constitution, and which take precedence in
a particular case is really a kind of
case-by-case thing."

Kagan's calculated answers during her hearings were a masterful
performance of avoiding clear statements about her true
positions. Yet, the hearings revealed enough of her
political leanings, activist views and questionable
judicial philosophies for our Washington office to
produce a five-page summary written largely in KAGAN'S
OWN WORDS.

This document is a must-read for all Liberty
Counsel team members who are standing in the
gap opposing the nomination of Elena Kagan.
We have been told that many of our supporters
are printing multiple copies and passing it
out in civic groups and other places.

Click here to download your free special report:
"Elena Kagan, In Her Own Words":

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29902&CID=312&RID=24323415e

A SUMMARY:

*ANTI-FAMILY: Elena Kagan’s zeal for “homosexual rights” will taint her rulings on pro-family cases.
*ANTI-FAITH: Kagan has expressed hostility toward faith-based organizations and would limit their impact on public policy decisions.
*ANTI-MILITARY: Kagan opposes the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and banned military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during a time of war in protest of such “discrimination.”
*ANTI-SOVEREIGNTY: Kagan’s views on transnational law undermine America’s self-rule and national sovereignty.
*ANTI-CONSTITUTION: Kagan has called the Constitution “defective” and shares President Obama’s view that we should have an “evolving” or “living” Constitution, thus marginalizing its ultimate legal authority. She has written about a supposed need to increase the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of legislative bodies.

Petitions...

Sign the Fight FOCA Petition

Barack Obama is now the incoming President And he made a promise to Planned Parenthood last year they expect him to keep.

The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.

• FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
• FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
• FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.

Barack Obama believes this legislation will "end the culture wars." To him, "ending the culture wars" means eradicating every state and federal law on abortion — laws that the majority of Americans support.

Americans United for Life (AUL), a pro-life law and policy organization, has prepared an analysis of the "Freedom of Choice Act." Please click here to read AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke’s analysis of this horrendous legislation.

The time to Fight FOCA is now. With Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of Congress, we can expect a fight over FOCA to begin as soon as the next Congress begins.

Please add your name to the Fight FOCA petition and let your friends know about President-Elect Barack Obama’s promise to expand abortion throughout the country.

Fight FOCA Petition - CLICK HERE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO MOB VETO

Last week the a full page ad ran in the New York Times http://www.nomobveto.org/images/nytad_lg.png decrying the violence and intimidation that has been directed toward it in the wake of California 's Prop 8.

The ad, written by Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, is a project of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a powerful and successful Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. Operating in both the courts of law and the court of public opinion, they represent people of all faiths and have stepped up for Anglicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Native Americans, Zorastrians and any religious groups whose rights are trampled in the public square.

Hasson, who is a Catholic, said, “I think most of my clients are wrong theologically, but I think we should defend their right to be wrong.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a nonprofit, interfaith, public-interest law firm that defends the free public expression of all faiths. Our clients have included Agnostics, Amish, Baptists, Buddhists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Hindus, Jews, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, Santeros, Sikhs, Unitarians, and Zoroastrians, among many others. We have represented religious and civil rights organizations that are on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

The Becket Fund does not take a position on whether same-sex marriage should be legally recognized. The Becket Fund does defend the right of religious people and organizations to speak out on the issue—whatever their viewpoint—without fear of intimidation or violent retribution.

Excerpts from the ad that appeared in New York Times:

• “Participating in ballot initiatives is legally different from politicking for candidates. It is perfectly lawful for charities, including religious ones. It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard.”

• “Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism, Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.”

• "Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship — Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever — from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve. Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, of any side of any cause, for any reason.”

To add your name to their ad click here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sign the Critical Pro-Life, Pro-Family Petition to the UN
Stop abortion from becoming a universal human right.

Abortion advocates are trying to reinterpret passages from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to mean that across the world a woman has a “right” to an abortion.

Abortion advocates are hoping, through a petition drive, to present tens of thousands of signatures to the UN on December 10th, 2008, asking the UN to affirm their interpretation. This is the 60th anniversary of the Declaration.

This would be a travesty, a 180 degree turnaround from what the Declaration says.

This important document affirms and recognizes "everyone's right to life, liberty and security of person."

Sign the Pro-Life petition for UN here

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect and Preserve Your Free Speech Rights

The “Fairness Doctrine” is The Censorship Doctrine

First enacted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required radio stations give equal time to all sides on political issues. However, the result wasn’t equal time, it was zero time – as stations simply avoided topics that would fall under FCC equal time rules. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine and since then, talk radio has flourished. Conservatives dominate it, and liberals can’t stand it. By re-instating the Fairness Doctrine, liberals would effectively silence the conservative leaders of the day including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others, and would essentially take control of all forms of media. In recent months, the groundswell for reinstatement is intensifying. In fact, a growing number of liberal leaders in Washington, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have openly stated their intent to do so. As Americans, we cannot sit idly by while this gag order on conservative speech is resuscitated. The time to act is now—so when the time comes, we are mobilized and prepared to defend our Free Speech Rights.

Sign the Petition to Preserve our Freedom of Speech Rights Here

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Obama Nation Has Begun. Join the Resistance and Preserve Conservative Values

Who can stop the Obama agenda? Only an unprecedented idea-based Resistance from freedom-loving citizens can prevent the full implementation of Obama's march to the Left. That's why Grassfire.org is seeking to identify and mobilize grassroots citizens who will join "The Resistance"- an alliance of patriotic, resilient and determined conservatives who will not forsake their principles. Our goal? One million citizens joining together by Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. Join The Resistance Order Obama Nation--the conservative survival guide

To sign the petition/join the resistance click here

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Petition To Congress:
Bring The American People a REAL Energy Plan!

Intense blowback from grassroots Americans played a key role in Democrats deciding to allow the drilling ban to expire. While this is a victory, Americans still don't have a true, comprehensive energy plan on the table. Grassfire is urging team members continue to push Pelosi to offer REAL, comprehensive legislation that includes permanently lifting the drilling ban. Call her today and demand action 202/225-4965, or 202/225-0100.
Sign our petition demanding a lifting of the offshore drilling ban

Sign the petition to lift offshore drilling ban here
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who Are the Worst Pork-Barrel Spenders?

A visitor center that you can't visit, a federal grant to restore a mounted fish, $5.6 million for a parking garage to nowhere? These are just a few of the outrageous earmarks Congress greenlighted before taking off on vacation. But who is the worst offender? Click on the link below to see who is atop the list, and then join Grassfire to end the corrupt practice of earmarking. Alert friends to the dishonesty and unaccountability and encourage them to sign our nation petition to ban earmarks. It is no secret that The Congressional Earmarking system is corrupt. The system, allows Congressmen to direct billions of our tax dollars to pet projects and preferred supporters, companies or organizations -- all without public debate or even a vote in Congress. A failed effort to impose a one year moratorium on earmarks did little to temper Congressional earmarks for 2008.

Sign the Petition to End Earmarks here
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The North American Union: Fact or Fiction?

Along with the media, many in Congress think the NAFTA superhighway and the NAU are merely myth--designed to frighten citizens. However the reality that isn't being reported is that our sovereignty and security being undermined--moving us closer to a North American Union. Grassfire is urging citizens to take immediate action by signing our nation petition opposing "North American Framework." There is a strong movement underway to create a new North American “framework” that links the U.S., Mexico and Canada in ways that are a direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States. The centerpiece of current efforts is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) -- a trilateral arrangement made without Congressional approval to facilitate economic, legal and political integration in this new North American “framework.”

Sign the Petition to oppose NAU here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Border Fence Goals Not Being Met!

Grassfire has learned that the DHS isn't expected to make their goal on the Border Fence. Worse yet, very few miles of the promised double-layered fence has been built. Grassfire is eager to mobilize an additional 200,000 citizens who are demanding our borders and land are secured. In a backroom deal just prior to the Christmas break, Congress passed the omnibus Appropriations bill which included the Hutchison Amendment that gutted the Secure Fence Act. Her amendment essentially guaranteed that the DHS didn't have to build the fence!

Sign the petition to RESTORE THE SECURE FENCE ACT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop Income Tax for Two Months...

HUMAN EVENTS and its sister website RedState are fighting to get Rep. Louie Gohmert's income tax break proposal enacted. This saves the typical American family around $2,000 -- we think it makes sense for you to keep the money rather than throwing $350 million at bailout programs that don't help the American people.

In the Gohmert model of empowering the American people, you -- not some bureaucrat -- decide which auto companies ought to prosper by your decision about which cars you want to buy. If Washington wants to develop a better energy-environment strategy by having a tax credit for buying electric cars or hybrids or flex fuel cars, that changes the incentives for both customers and manufacturers but keeps the playing field fair and market oriented by letting you decide which product you want to buy.

In this citizen-empowerment model, you the customer pick the winners and losers and you have the power to decide where to spend your money and which innovations fit your values the most.

...For the $350 billion second bailout installment Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is going to request, every American taxpayer could have a two-month tax holiday from both income tax and the Social Security-Medicare (FICA) tax.

That means that for all of January and all of February you would pay no federal income tax and no FICA tax, which -- for most Americans -- amounts to about 33 percent of your gross income.

Sign petitions to stop income tax for 2 months here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Know of anymore worthy petitions??? - send me the link in a comment and I'll add it to the site.

More to read...

Calling In 'Gay' to Work Is Latest Form of Protest

"Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress.

Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" — scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants — also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage." ...

Abortion Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Unlicensed Abortion, All Facilities Closed

In a San Diego county courtroom, Bugarin admitted her guilt in putting women's lives and health at risk by doing abortions herself despite the fact she's not a licensed physician....

Bugarin once owned a chain of 11 abortion centers and she began doing abortions herself when some of the abortion practitioners she employed lost their medical licenses for various reasons.

Nicholas Braemer, the medical director of the abortion centers, surrendered his medical license under pressure in 2000 after Operation Rescue exposed his numerous botched abortions and other problems.

He was replaced as medical director by Laurence Reich, a convicted sex offender, who lost his medical license in 2006 for continued episodes of sexual abuse against his abortion patients. He faces his own trial sometime next year. ...

..."Bugarin acted as if she was above the law, as so many abortionists do. The prosecutors did not agree, and now Bugarin should remain behind bars for many years.

Georgia Clinic Did Secret Abortion on Daughter Without Consent

"Victory and Genevieve Patterson may have been able to help their daughter find an alternative to abortion, but they say the Northside Women's Clinic never gave them the chance. They sued the abortion business saying it broke Georgia law by doing an abortion on their daughter without their knowledge or consent.

According to Georgia statutes, abortion practitioners are required to notify an underage girl's parents of her desire for an abortion and obtain consent beforehand. ...

...The Pattersons say the Northside Women's Clinic put false information on its web site that misleads teenagers about the law. They contend Northside's web site said "unmarried patients under the age of 18 are required by Georgia law to have a parental notification note on the day of surgery."

The boyfriend's mother wrote the note and took Renee to Northside for the abortion.

In their lawsuit, Renee's parents say the web site was misleading because the state law clearly requires a legal parent or guardian to accompany the minor for the abortion, not an unrelated adult.

They also point out that notification and consent from the parent or guardian must be obtained 24 hours in advance, not on the day of the abortion."
"It was clear that Renee was a minor, the note was not from her parents, the note was not dated and a note was not an acceptable substitute for notice under Georgia law," the complaint says. ...

Supreme Court rejects claim challenging Obama's citizenship, but schedules another for Friday

"Not even the U.S. Supreme Court can kill the dispute that has developed over Sen. Barack Obama's

eligibility to occupy the Oval Office based on questions raised over his birthplace and citizenship and his steadfast refusal to provide documentation on the issue.

The high court today denied a request to listen to arguments in a case, Donofrio v. Wells, from New Jersey that addressed the issues. But literally within minutes, the court's website confirmed that another conference is scheduled for Friday on another case raising the same worries.

The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells claimed Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president because of his dual citizenship at birth."

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff were arrested in Chicago Tuesday on two counts each of corruption charges relating to trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

"Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested Tuesday morning in Chicago on two counts each of federal corruption charges stemming from allegations Blagojevich was trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Fitzgerald described the alleged behavior by Blagojevich, who was arrested Tuesday morning along with his chief of staff, John Harris, as "appalling." He said his "cynical behavior" reached "a truly new low."

The arrest is part of a three-year probe of "pay-to-play politics" in the governor's administration. The criminal complaint by the FBI says each man was arrested on two charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. ...

The charges also relate to allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with previously convicted defendants and Obama associates Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others to arrange financial benefits in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds. ...

FBI Special Agent-in-Charge in Chicago Robert Grant said he was asked by reporters when he first started the investigation "whether or not Illinois is the most corrupt state in the United States."

"And I didn't answer that question, yes or no, and I can't answer that question today. I don't have 49 other states to compare it with.But I can tell you one thing: If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, its certainly one hell of a competitor," he said".

Vatican Under Fire for Opposing U.N. Declaration on Sexual Rights

"Journalists and activist groups are blasting the Vatican for what they say is its "grotesque" opposition to a U.N. declaration on gay rights — even though only a small collection of countries has supported the measure.

The Roman Catholic Church is facing a barrage of protests and searing editorials for opposing a French-sponsored decree that calls for an end to discrimination based on sexual or gender identity. The U.N. hopes to abolish summary executions, arbitrary arrests and "the deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights" of gays.

The Church's opposition to the measure has enraged gay-rights activists, who are mobilizing nationwide protests at Catholic sites in Italy. Members of Italy's largest gay-rights group, Arcigay, gathered inside the Vatican on Saturday, hanging nooses around their necks as they accused the Church of being an "accomplice in the martyrdom" of homosexuals.

The Vatican worries that provisions in the document — the emphasis on "social and cultural rights" — could be used to pressure countries to embrace gay marriage, which the Catholic Church rejects. ..

"The fact that there are people who want to silence the Church is disturbing. If people want to disagree with the Church it's one thing, but when you start this kind of name-calling it is intended to have a chilling effect," said Susan Fani, a spokeswoman for the Catholic League."

"No" on Prop 8 Backlash an Outrage!!

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed appreciation today for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that decries the “violence and intimidation” directed toward the Church because of its support of Proposition 8.

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times . This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.”

The ad was sponsored by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and was signed by scholars, dignitaries and religious leaders from a variety of faiths."

excerpts from: Meridian Magazine

Statements from the ad:

• “Participating in ballot initiatives is legally different from politicking for candidates. It is perfectly lawful for charities, including religious ones. It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard.”

• “Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism, Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.”

• "Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship — Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever — from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve. Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, of any side of any cause, for any reason.”

To see ad click here NYTad

To add your name click here: add your name

Teenager banned from wearing Chastity Ring

"The item of jewellery owned by Kioni Lansbury represents her intention to stay a virgin until she marries.

But her school has deemed it potentially dangerous and against uniform rules.

Kioni, who is a regular church-goer, was inspired to wear the ring by the American pop group the Jonas Brothers, who have all made pledges of celibacy.

Purity rings are popular in America where organisers have persuaded a vast number of teenagers to abstain from sex.

Kioni, of Ottery St Mary in Devon, said: 'Lots of girls sleep around. I want to keep myself pure.

'Many of my friends want to get one. If people can wear head scarves, why can't I wear a ring?'

Kioni, who will turn 13 later this month, added: 'The ideas behind the purity ring are something I believe in. I believe in Jesus and a lot of his teachings.

'If you wait you know you're with someone who loves you'."

quoted from: daily mail online, tip from: Moonbattery.com

"Believing in Jesus and keeping yourself pure and waiting until your married so you know you're with someone who loves you..."

Wow! what dangerous thoughts......

Where are those thought police when you need them???... oh right... they're already there at the school banning her from these "potentially dangerous thoughts." whew....

The Catholic's response to Obama's promise to enact the Freedom of Choice Act

Obama has promised at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event, uttering the now infamous line, "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That's the first thing that I'd do."
This pledge to pass this legislation could threaten laws that allow health-care workers to refrain from carrying out procedures that violate their conscience, putting Catholic health care institutions in jeopardy. "If Catholic hospitals were required by federal law to perform abortions, we'd have to close our hospitals" More on the Catholic response to the FOCA below:


"In a direct challenge to President-elect Barack Obama, America's Roman Catholic bishops vowed on Tuesday to accept no compromise for the sake of national unity until there is legal protection for the unborn.

About 300 bishops, gathered in Baltimore for their national meeting, adopted a formal blessing for a child in the womb and advised Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference, as he began drafting a statement from the bishops to the incoming Obama administration. That document will call on the administration and Catholics who supported Obama to work to outlaw abortion. ...

Several bishops said that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights after Obama pledged to pass legislation that would overturn state's restrictions on abortion such as late-term abortion bans and requirements of parental consent.

"Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion," said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis.

Bishops Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said such legislation could threaten laws that allow health-care workers to refrain from carrying out procedures that violate their conscience, putting Catholic health care institutions in jeopardy.

"There are grave consequences," Paprocki said in an interview. "If Catholic hospitals were required by federal law to perform abortions, we'd have to close our hospitals." ...

In crafting the statement to Obama, the bishops urged the cardinal to indicate a desire to work with the administration in areas of economic justice, immigration reform, health care for the poor and religious freedom. But they stressed the church's "intent on opposing evil" and "defense of the unborn child."

They vowed to oppose any law or executive order that might loosen restrictions on abortion."
from: ChicagoTribune.com

"If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil." from: slate.com

Bush's Protection Act - Causes Uproar

I find it interesting that the liberals are fighting so hard to remove all Judeo-Christian religions and God from the schools, courts, every where, -in order to not "offend" those that don't believe in God. But they don't want to stop at that. They want to enforce their beliefs (i.e. that it acceptable to kill a unborn baby) and force religious people to do this procedures with Government laws and fines.

Bush's administration plans to grant protection to health care providers who oppose abortion (or other procedures) based on their religion/morals - they wouldn't be forced to do or assist in procedures they are morally against. The libs are in uproar over this new protection.

So it is not a "live and let live" world that the libs claim to want to have; they actually desire a "do what exactly we want you to do - even if it goes against your beliefs or else" world.

Excerpts of article by Robert Pear from - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/18/america/abort.php

"A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to "assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity" financed by the Department of Health and Human Services. ...

...Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives. Michael Leavitt, the health and human services secretary, said that was not the purpose. ...

...The proposal is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years, "we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations." ...

I find it very interesting that Obama objects to this protection for health care providers because it would "raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive services like abortion". He also voted "No" on the Born Alive Infant Protection act based on: (all Quotes are Actual Quotes from Obama)

• this would "create one more burden on women, and I can't support that"
  
• "I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."
• "Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."
• "T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus." quotes from: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553 and http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm
  

So what's my point? Obama is so beholden to the Pro-Choice Lobbiest and Planned Parenthood, that he will do anything to protect a woman's right to kill her child.

If a baby survives an abortion - Obama voted to NOT provide protection to this child and to NOT provide medical help for this child as it might be a burden on the woman, or a burden on the doctor, and saving a baby who survived an abortion might possibly prove that there actually was a living human person in the woman's womb and it might overturn Roe v. Wade.

Now Obama objects to protecting health care providers who morally object to this procedure and would force them to do it anyways as any protections for the health care provider might "raise new hurdles for woman seeking abortions."

No one's rights should get in the way of a woman's "right to choose" even if the government has to force the doctors to do the procedure. Apparently the woman's "rights" overrides the doctor's rights and the unborn baby's rights.

A History Lesson - Freedom of Religion

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." —George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

"When the founding fathers set up the constitution, to ensure that personal freedoms and liberties of its citizens would be guaranteed, ten Amendments to the newly created U.S. Constitution were ratified. The first ten, called the Bill of Rights, sets forth rights of the people against an oppressive government. The first of these Amendments provide its citizens particular rights and freedoms that are fundamental to any free society. These activities included the suppression of non-state religions, the suppression of speech in any form, the obstruction of the assembly of individuals, and the lack of representation of its citizens in the legislature.

The First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first of these rights concerns religion. What was the original intent of the framers when they drafted the clauses for the Freedom of Religion?

"The blending of religion and state is not a new concept and was created with the genesis of political systems long before the birth of the United States. This concept has been around for centuries. This gave the rulers the power to govern all the lands of their country, as well in many cases to also be the head of that religion. It became the common practice to include the church in all matters of state.

As the number of religions and religious sects continued to grow in Europe, the governments, and especially the established churches, were fearful that their power was in danger.

Most of the first colonists in America were concerned with the pursuit of their own religious freedom, but were not interested in the freedoms of other religions, or other sects of that religion. In 1610, the Jamestown colony enacted Dale's Law, named after the colony's first governor.[12] This law required all colonists to attend all Anglican worship, provisions against blasphemy, or even criticism of the church. Violations of these laws could eventually lead to death. This is contrary to the religiously tolerant county which Thomas Paine describes in Common Sense as:

"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embrace of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants home pursues their descendants still."

This was also demonstrated in colonies throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. The Puritans were a religious group which broke off from the Anglican Church of England, and those that openly practiced their beliefs were stricken of their wealth, and their lives. The Puritans came to the new world to get away from the religious persecution. They came in 1620 to Plymouth, Massachusetts, and later in 1628 to Massachusetts Bay.

Not all of the colonies were formed with the concept of enforcing established religions. Two notable exceptions were Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Roger Williams founded the Rhode Island colony in 1636 based on the idea that in order to keep religion pure, it must be separated from the constraints and regulations of the state. This new colony was based on a principle of religious liberty and took in individuals who were trying to get away from religious persecution at the other colonies. The colony at Pennsylvania was founded in 1682 by a Quaker named William Penn. The Quakers believed that religion should be free of state control in its thought or practice. Political office, however, was still only available to Christians. By the late eighteenth century many of the colonies were becoming saturated with individuals from many Christian sects and to a lesser extent from other religions.

When George III became the King of England, he put many new restrictions and taxes upon his North American colonies. The statesmen, leaders, and thinkers of the colonies decided that they need to come together and form some sort of coalition against the oppression. The First Continental Congress was thus created and a Declaration of Colonial Rights was created on October 14, 1774.

On May 25, 1787, fifty five delegates from the thirteen colonies convened upon Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. After the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation (which did not include any provisions for the freedom of religion) were created in 1781 to bring cohesion to the thirteen colonies.

These delegates drafted the United States Constitution that created a more powerful centralized government. The drafters, however, were still skeptical about placing too much power in the hands of a central government. They created specific enumerated rights for this government, and reserved all other powers to the individual states and its citizens. This new government was divided into three branches, each of which could place checks and balances on the next. The framers believed that if no one entity retains too much power, the government will be able to survive. As Madison wrote; "[B]y so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."

The Constitution, as it was written, only mentions religion once. In Article VI, paragraph 3, the Constitution states that state and federal office holders "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."{emphasis added} This paragraph allows any individual to hold office, regardless of their religion. However, there is no other reference to religion anywhere in the Constitution. Even with this silence on religion, the Constitution was ratified in 1789. By not mentioning religion, the delegates were avoiding controversy, since each individual state had their idea of religious freedom. By excluding religion in the document, the statesmen could also be silently advocating the separation of religion from this new nation, as expressed by Madison; " [the Constitution was not to grant] a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion."

The Bill of Rights was proposed to the First U.S. Congress, and there was debate on the matter. After some discussion, the Amendments were submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and ten of the original twelve Amendments proposed by Congress to the States were ratified.

We do know that there were several versions of the freedom of religion which were discussed. The one version, which was titled as Article the Third, stated; "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed." Other versions included "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others." and "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society." Finally, on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and the version which was agreed upon is as follows; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

During the late part of the eighteenth century, revolutionary events were being performed at all levels of society. The colonists were rebelling against their overseas' ruler and a new country was being born based on the principle of an individual's rights. The founding fathers, as you have already seen, had lived in an era where church and state in some places were inseparable. The history of church and state being intertwined was deeply rooted in their thoughts and beliefs. The idea of separating church and state was a revolutionary one, to say the least. But, did these founding fathers really intend to separate religion from the government completely? These men, whom were raised in homes where Christianity was deeply rooted may not have really intended to have a total alienation of religion from the government.

Every year, millions of Americans celebrate July fourth in commemoration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The document was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson and proposed to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The document contains references to a supreme being and the protection of such a being. The references are as follows: " Nature's God," "[T]hat they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." The Declaration goes on to speak of all of the reasons why the colonies are declaring their independence, but religious freedom is not amongst them. The document implies that there are natural rights which are given by a deity, and it is this supreme being that will protect them in their upcoming struggles.

The Continental Congress, soon after passing the Declaration of Independence, establish a new committee to develop a seal for the newly formed United States of America.

The "Eye of Providence" and the motto "E Pluribus Unum" (One out of many), which were in the committee's proposal did make it into the final design. The final design, which was approved in 1782, could be seen on the back side of the dollar bill and would have been one which would have been appreciated by the committee. The words "Annuit Coeptis" were written above the Eye of Providence "indicating that it was Providence [God] that 'favored our undertakings'." Once again, even in our nation's seal, which has been used for over two hundred years, there are outright religious connotations."

(sources for quotes: http://www.geocities.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_freedomofreligion.html)

As we look back through time, can we comprehend what our Founding Fathers meant by Religious Freedom? Our Founding Fathers wanted Church and State separate - so the individuals in this new country would have freedom to worship how they believed. They did not want an "American Church" or one State Church as there was in England. From their own words, there is an assumption that the government should not punish any individual for their religious beliefs, thoughts, or actions. The basic idea of freedom of religion is that no one, especially the government, is allowed to force religion on anyone else or prohibit anyone from practicing a religion. To force others to support a church or profess belief in a church's tenets is as much a violation of their civil rights as is preventing them from practicing their religion.

One component of freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. This is the freedom to hold and express our ideas sincerely. It is our civil right to accept or reject any religion or religious idea, and to do so openly and honestly without fear or coercion.

However it was not their intention to remove the Creator (as can be seen in the Declaration of Independence as it acknowledges a Creator) out of our country nor did the first amendment state that our country was free FROM religion or free FROM religious values.

Mitt Romney explains this concept very clearly: "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When one place his hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office, that oath becomes his highest promise to God. A President serves no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree. There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forebearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light'."

(quotes from: Faith In America by Mitt Romney http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/faith_in_america.html )

To more fully understand this concepts that Mitt Romney explains so clearly, here are some quotes from great leaders of our country and their views about God in our country:

"ROBERT E. LEE: "In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." (p. 21)

DANIEL WEBSTER: "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper." (p. 21)

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: "I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year." (p. 22)

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book." (p. 22)

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." (p. 22)

HORACE GREELEY: "It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people." (p. 23)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him." (p. 45)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian." (p. 47)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see." (p.49)

WOODROW WILSON: "The sum of the whole matter is this----that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit." (p. 143)

PATRICK HENRY: "There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations." (p. 145)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction." (p. 225)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." (p. 237)

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it." (p. 283)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped." (p. 301)

CALVIN COOLIDGE: "The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions." (p. 305)

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young." (p. 306)

Prior to our increasingly "Hell-Bound and Happy" era, America's greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we have forgotten God's threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22----"Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver"."

taken from Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right, by Dave MacPherson [quotes are from Vital Quotations by Emerson West]
from: http://www.scionofzion.com/radicals.htm