Even bulldozing the hospitals will save the Church money. These are not money-makers and are often the hospitals most willing to serve the poor. See, the destruction of the hospitals will be a win/win! The Church can keep from turning their hospitals into charnal houses AND save money!

And Jazz, any Catholic-founded hospital that performs abortions is no longer controlled by the Catholic Church in any way. In that case it is a secularized hospital with “St.” in the name. I only say that because any bishop in control of a hospital that performed abortions would be transferred to the non-existent diocese of Parthenia. It disappeared in the sands of the Sahara in the 5th century. Especially under the current Pope.

On a more serious note, can you explain to me how this argument:: “rmm… not only is Bishop Hermann willing to – I’m sorry… would be privileged to – die for the cause, perhaps he’s also willing to send his flock out into the streets as Christian Soldiers to die from any other medical emergencies they may encounter with no emergency services available close by. Well, well… very, ummm… Christian of you.

…how would that argument be any different if Obama was demanding that medical professionals were required to prostrate themselves and worship him in order to work? It seems like that argument would work fine for that instance too.

I only say that because that argument sounded so very familiar, similar to others I've heard, especially if you are familiar with the Roman Empire during the Christian persecution. Sometimes a hard line must be drawn. I think that's why “freedom” was considered such an important concept in the founding of this country. Seems rather quaint and out of fashion anymore, I know, but there it is.

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.

I highlighted the weasel words of this sentence, buried midway through the fifth paragraph: an admission that it's all a bunch of bull.

by Damozel |The Salt Lake City Tribune has a contrasting account of the LDS intervention in California now being “probed”—painfully, I hope—by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission.Hey, if they’re going to get involved in politics, l…

No one has yet commented on the purely rational discussion of citizen rights vs. potential citizen rights I have mentioned here many times (and repeated above). We're talking about forcing a citizen to have, or not to have a procedure that affects her life and health. On what conceivable basis, other than religion, can you justify elevating the rights of an unborn and potentially nonviable fetus above that of a living adult citizen?

I am a house painter, but I object to the use of the color taupe. I will not paint your house that color. I drive a trash truck but I won't pick up containers that have used milk cartons in them, for I object to the cruel treatment of dairy animals. I run a seafood restaurant but I will not serve shrimp because of a verse in Leviticus that deems them an abomination.(though tasty with lemon and cocktail sauce).

I do not know where in the bloody, fraticidal and murderous passages of the bible the church has found the basis for their healthcare mission but I believe that money will trump all things in the end. Threats of healthcare blackmail are empty.

I see no reason to think that the blue dogs will post a substantial obstacle. When the votes of the blue dogs (or any subset of them) are not needed, they will be free to vote as they please. When their votes are needed, immense pressure will be brought to bear on them, and it is entirely foreseeable that they will buckle when one considers their incentives.

Why? Well, consider a board member faced with a situation where he must anger the corporation's managers or risk angering shareholders will choose the former, because the managers are a direct and actual threat to their fortunes, while the latter can post a greater threat but are less likely to use it. This response is rational because managers are concentrated and strong while investors are dispersed and weak. See generally Adolf Berle & Gardiner Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932). Similarly, the people with the most direct say over the blue dog's day-to-day comfort and chances of advancement are his colleagues and leaders in Congress, who are concentrated and strong, whereas voters, like investors, are dispersed and weak. This would already incline the blue dog towards compliance, and it is bolstered by practical political realities: the advantages of incumbency even further limit the pull of voters vs. that of the leadership, and the threat to running afoul of liberal pressure groups increases the pull of compliance vs. the threat of the voters.

All of this adds up, it seems to me, to a cost-benefit analysis that eliminates any threat from the blue dogs, assuming that the leadership is smart in picking its battles and deciding where to apply pressure.

At the heart of the choice issue is this: There are over a hundred reasons why a fetus may fail to become a citizen (be born alive and survive). Many pregnancies fail. The concept that an actual citizen's rights should be subservient to the rights of a potential citizen is an extreme view. SimonDodd, that represents “the most radical element” of one side of the debate. It is YOUR opinion that protecting the right of a woman to make this decision is “radical”. Truth is, the opposite is true.

Follow the logic. If a woman must sacrifice her right to medical care to protect a fetus, why could she not be forced to stop chemotherapy or any other procedure that is important to HER life but may be risky for the potential life within her? In fact, Simon, why could YOU not be forced to give a kidney to save another American citizen? The inconvenient fact of this entire issue is that citizens have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They cannot be forced to give up any for the sake of another citizen, let alone a “potential citizen.”

FOCA is not yet a lightning rod in the Culture Wars.

But the passage of FOCA would be analogous to the Mayor of San Fran a few years back authorizing gay marriages on his own authority.
I am one of those who believe that . . . had the issue of gay marriage been moved more carefully . . . more and more states would be quietly legalizing gay marriage instead of enacting constitutional bans against it.

But if one raises an abolutist flag, then one encourages one's opponents to do the same. (I rather suspect Rahm Emmanuel will make sure this never reaches Obama's desk).

Beyond FOCA, of course, this also raises what will become a more and more compelling aspect of the Obama Administration:
As President, Obama can no longer continue to be all things to all people . . . so who is going to be tossed over the side (or under the bus, if you will)?

Will the Kossacks go first? Or will the pro-Obama Catholics?

In this case, the far Left has wanted to use abortion here as a political weapon, especially against one of its favorite objects of hate, and they may well get their way.

If the legislation were to be honestly named, it would at least be called (vaguely) the “Abortion Rights Act” or (more accurately) the “Abortion [Rights] Defense Act” or “Abortion Rights Protection Act” or “Abortion [Rights] Extension Act” but as usual, cowardice and dishonesty prevail.

The object of the Act itself, probably will be met, because with federal money it's legitimate to expect federal controls. This isn't a disgraceful case of peversion as with federal highway funds (so many things having nothing to do with highway construction or maintenance must be done to get federal highway funds) but addresses a medical issue directly, associated with federal medical money.

And I'll remind other readers once again, once Medicare for All is pushed, abortion will surface. (The smarter people on both sides of this Act know this already and in fact this may influence their responses and actions we'll see next year.)