LifeNet

NY City Rally for Religious Freedom - a big success!

500 enthusiastic people of all ages and backgrounds were there, below the statue of George Washington at the Federal Hall National Memorial at 26 Wall Street.

Of course, this was only one of 140 Rallies nationwide.

FOX was the only television news at the Rally.

You can read about coverage in the local Journal News here Hundreds rally on Wall St. over contraception rule, claim attack on religion including 16 photos

In USA Today Religious rallies across USA protest birth-control mandate

In the Washington Post Social conservatives hope for renewed fervor in contraceptive controversies

No coverage in the NY Times. None. Nada. Didn't happen.

We will post more material from the Rally over the next couple of days.

Here are two short videos to give some sense of the flavor of the day.

The speakers have no sound system, so you have to listen carefully as Dr. Anne Nulte ends her brief talk, pointing out that the drug companies do not fully disclose the dangers of hormonal birth control pills. Then the facilitator of the event, Fr. Augustino, CFR, suggests the crowd sing "Amazing Grace."

 

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound ...

Annual Family Life Conference is Saturday, March 31st

You can go here 

Respect Life - Family Life Conference 2012

for all the information.

This Saturday Divine Mercy Conference - sold out!

Great -there's that much interest!!

Here's the website.

7th Annual Divine Mercy Conference March 24, 2012

Reminder: Rally for Religious Freedom, this Friday - here's a list of locations

As per our posting a month ago, Planning starts for Rally against HHS Mandate attack on religious freedom and conscience the first public demonstrations are this Friday.

There are numerous locations in the tri-state area. Go here to see the listing -

Stand Up for Religious Freedon - March 23rd

and there is more information here

more information - novena and speakers at varous locations

Here's the schedule in NY City, at the Federal Hall National Building, 26 Wall St.

The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.

The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.

We know that several people on the HVCL mailing and email list will be at this particular event.

Catholic Bishops March 14: "Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate"

Another strong statement. Here is an excellent commentary from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights - 

BISHOPS DON’T BUDGE ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

It speaks directly to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that seeks to force Catholic non-profits to cover services it deems objectionable in its insurance plans. Mincing no words, the statement declares the HHS edict to be “unjust and illegal.”

It debunks many myths about this issue: it is not about contraception; it is not just about Catholic religious rights; it is not about the Catholic Church trying to impose its will on others—it is about the federal government trying to impose its agenda on us; it is not about opposition to universal health care (the Church has long championed this right); and it is not about choosing political sides. It is about religious liberty.

Most important, the statement argues that the HHS mandate seeks to create a three-tiered class of citizens’ rights: by defining religious rights as applying only to those who work for religious institutions that hire and serve mostly people of their own faith, the Obama administration has relegated those who work in religious institutions that serve everyone to a second-class status; those who are not a religious employer but nonetheless reject on religious grounds to funding immoral insurance plans constitute a third-class of citizens.

and here is the full text from the USCCB:

March 14 Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate

United for Religious Freedom

A Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

March 14, 2012

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church's own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of "A Statement on Religious Liberty," a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for "religious employers" that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future "accommodation" for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin, first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church's hand and with the Church's funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops' somehow "banning contraception," when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops' Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a "religious employer" deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none. Cf. Deus Caritas Est, Nos. 20-33. We are commanded both to love and to serve the Lord; laws that protect our freedom to comply with one of these commands but not the other are nothing to celebrate. Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a "second class" of citizenship within our religious community. And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally-recognized right not "to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs." Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against our teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be "religious employers" will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. For decades, the Bishops have led the fight against such government incursions on conscience, particularly in the area of health care. Far from making us waver in this longstanding commitment, the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve to maintain that consistent view.

A violation of personal civil rights. The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing "services" contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.

Third, we want to indicate our next steps. We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others). We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours. We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts, under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws that protect religious freedom. All of these efforts will proceed concurrently, and in a manner that is mutually reinforcing.

Most importantly of all, we call upon the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition. Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.

Notre Dame law professor: "Obama's Freedom Deficit"

Published in the March issue of First Things, the inter-religious journal founded by the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus.

The author is O. Carter Snead, professor at the university of Notre Dame Law School, and one of the leaders in rallying lawyers and educators against the mandate.

Obama's Freedom Deficit

During the first three years of the Obama administration, the federal government has dramatically turned against religious liberty, prompting Timothy Cardinal Dolan, archbishop of New York, to observe that “never before have we faced this kind of challenge in our ability to engage in the public square as a people of faith and as a service provider.” The administration has ignored the concerns of religious (and nonreligious) citizens by conscripting taxpayer dollars to support organizations and individuals whose work involves the destruction of unborn human life and by erecting obstacles to the charitable work of religious bodies.

In November 2009, President Barack Obama, and shortly thereafter Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, abandoned the phrase “freedom of religion” when discussing administration priorities in favor of “freedom of worship.” The new, narrower term evoked the benign observance of private rites rather than the messy demands of public faith. It was a deliberate and telling change, one that helps to explain a protracted, and in many ways unprecedented, campaign against the faithful.

It began on his third day in office. President Obama restored funding to organizations overseas that provide abortions and moved to reinstate funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which supports China’s one-child policy, a program that involves coerced abortion. Three months after his inauguration, he authorized federal funding for stem-cell research that relies on and creates future incentives for the destruction of living human embryos. In an indication of what was to come, the president ignored the objections of citizens who do not want to see their tax dollars used to support abortion.

In July 2009, the administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reversed its own conclusion and accused Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts college, of violating federal employment laws against “gender discrimination” because it refused, on religious grounds, to pay for artificial birth control in its employee health plan.

The health-care reform bill that President Obama signed into law in March 2010 lacked long-standing restrictions on abortion funding and failed to include sufficiently robust conscience protections for pro-life health-care providers. In February 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded regulations offering conscience protections for health-care providers and replaced them with a more limited and ambiguous set of rules. Most recently, the Obama administration has threatened to strip all Medicaid funding—necessary to provide health benefits to the poor— from any state that withholds taxpayer dollars from abortion providers.

The Obama administration’s HHS altered the grant process for the National Human Trafficking Assistance Program to favor applicants who offer referrals to “family planning services” and abortions. When the Catholic bishops’ highly regarded Migration and Refugee Services sought to renew its government grant, its application received the second-highest score and a recommendation of funding from an independent board of career HHS staff. But political appointees close to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius intervened to overrule the department’s professional staff, and the funding went to two applicants who scored substantially lower than MRS but who were willing to provide referrals for abortion and contraception.

In August 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the Supreme Court arguing that the religion clauses of the First Amendment do not entail any “ministerial exception” protecting religious institutions from governmental interference in decisions regarding who serves as a minister to the faithful. The DOJ did grudgingly concede that churches have the same “freedom of association” as “a labor union or a social club,” but no more. This argument was so extreme that not a single justice of the Supreme Court accepted it—not even President Obama’s former solicitor general, Justice Elena Kagan—and the court rejected the Obama administration’s arguments 9–0.

That same month, pursuant to the new health-care law, HHS issued guidelines requiring all non-grandfathered health plans to provide “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling.” Pro-life groups protested, pointing out that some of the covered “contraceptives” can (according to the FDA’s own labeling) prevent or disrupt implantation, thus causing the death of a newly conceived embryonic human being. Many also objected because they believe the use of artificial contraception and sterilization is contrary to the ends of human sexuality, rightly understood.

The administration attempted to deflect these concerns by carving out a very narrow “conscience exception” that covered only “a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions.” An organization can be included in this exception, the administration said, if it “(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.” Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches as well as the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. Any religious charity that did not exclusively serve members of its own church—everything from Catholic Relief Services to the Salvation Army—would receive no exception. The interim final rule claimed that the “conscience clause” would balance the good of extending contraceptive coverage to as many women as possible with appropriate respect for “the unique relationship between certain religious employers and their employees in certain religious positions.”

A large and politically diverse array of religious leaders called for the exception to be broadened. They noted that very few faith-based educational institutions, health-care providers, or social-service agencies would meet the narrow definition of “religious employer.” Those that did not would be forced either to violate the law and face ruinous Treasury Department penalties or to stop emulating the Good Samaritan through their work of educating, healing, and serving the weakest and most vulnerable among us without respect to their religious identity. Evangelical leaders raised an impassioned plea for a revised “religious employer” exemption that would include religious organizations not formally affiliated with a particular denomination, and more than four hundred Catholic leaders signed an open letter calling for health-care laws that “respect the religious and ethical convictions of all.”

On January 20, 2012, Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement that the Obama administration would not modify its contraceptive mandate in response to the concerns raised by religious institutions. It would, however, allow religious entities an additional year to make arrangements for compliance. She noted further that those religious institutions that refuse to provide coverage must “provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”

The vanishingly small “religious employer” exception tells us a great deal about how the White House misconceives religious practice. Notice how private this conception is—limited to sectarian activities that involve only co-religionists. There is no space in it for the living of fully integrated lives, with faith permeating every aspect of human activity. But being and acting in the world as a witness and servant to others—all others, regardless of their beliefs, circumstances, or station in life—is an indispensable aspect of many faiths. As Baltimore’s William Cardinal Keeler once stated, “We don’t educate [the poor students in the inner city of Baltimore] because they are Catholic. We educate them because we are Catholic.” The work of Catholic hospitals, social service agencies, and universities is a form of evangelization—of bearing witness to the love of Christ.

Yet the Obama administration’s religious exception would relegate religious practice to the purely private, insular domain of belief. Accordingly, the Obama administration is willing to defend religious freedom only within that narrow, private space. Understood in this light, it becomes clear why the administration prefers the phrase “freedom of worship” to the more capacious “freedom of religion.” The former is a private, individual activity that can be walled off from the public square. The latter describes the reality that religion is a necessarily public concern. This likewise explains why, in arguing before the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has drawn an equivalence between religious institutions and other secular voluntary associations (like bowling teams or knitting circles).

In a time of economic crisis and human suffering, the administration has imposed barriers on faith-based institutions that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and educate the young. For many, it has made the cost of admission to public service the betrayal of their most deeply held convictions about how to serve God and remain faithful to his teachings regarding human dignity, justice, and the common good. Let us hope not merely that the next president reverses Obama’s concrete policies but also that he embraces a richer conception of what constitutes religious practice. It is not just the freedom of the religious that hangs in the balance, but the welfare of the needy and the strength of our civic fabric.

"Little Sisters of the Poor urgently oppose HHS Mandate"

This is from The Catholic Key blog in the Kansas diocese. The Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home in the Bronx, The Jeanne Jugan residence, which you can find out about here.

Here is the Little Sisters statement in it's entirety.

Little Sisters of the Poor urgently oppose HHS Mandate

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international Congregation of Catholic women religious serving 13,000 needy elderly persons of all faiths in 31 countries around the world. Thirty of our homes for the aged, accommodating over 2,500 low-income seniors, are located in the United States. In these homes we quietly spend our lives in the humble service of the elderly, accompanying them with love and respect until God calls them to Himself.

Long-term care is considered the most highly regulated segment of health care in America. The Little Sisters of the Poor have always done their best to comply with all the government regulations applicable to our homes. We are not prone to making statements on politics or public policy. But at this moment in our country’s history we cannot refrain from speaking out regarding the Department of Health and Human Services rule for “preventative services,” and the “compromise” announced by President Obama regarding religious liberty.

We Little Sisters of the Poor stand with the Catholic Bishops of the United States, and leaders of many other religious communities, in strongly objecting to this mandate. We believe that it violates the individual and collective religious liberty and freedom of conscience of the Little Sisters serving in this country. To quote Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Surely it violates religious freedom to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.” Even the indirect subsidizing of such benefits, which would still be the case through the President’s “compromise,” is unconscionable to us.

‘As Little Sisters of the Poor we are not strangers to religious intolerance.’

As Little Sisters of the Poor we are not strangers to religious intolerance. Our foundress, Saint Jeanne Jugan, was born in the midst of the French Revolution and established our Congregation in its aftermath. In 1851 the first group of Little Sisters ventured beyond France to begin establishing homes for the elderly in Great Britain, where their selfless charity triumphed over the rampant anti-Catholic sentiments of the time.

In 1868 the first Little Sisters of the Poor to set foot on American soil were amazed at the warm welcome and generosity of the people of this country. For over 140 years Little Sisters have cared for the elderly poor, welcomed the collaboration of volunteers and benefactors from their local communities and employed lay staff and consultants to help in our mission—all without discriminating on the basis of race or religion. Nor have the Little Sisters of the Poor ever faced religious discrimination or persecution in this great nation.

The health insurance offered to employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor has always explicitly excluded sterilization, contraception and abortion from its covered services. This longstanding policy has never been a matter of controversy in our homes. Policy revisions put in place as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act clearly state that to the extent the Act would legally require our insurer to provide a particular benefit, they will do so, “unless providing the benefit would conflict with the doctrine or tenets of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Because the Little Sisters of the Poor cannot in conscience directly provide or collaborate in the provision of services that conflict with Church teaching, we find ourselves in the irreconcilable situation of being forced to either stop serving and employing people of all faiths in our ministry—so that we will fall under the narrow exemption—or to stop providing health care coverage to our employees. Either path threatens to end our service to the elderly in America. The Little Sisters are fervently praying that this issue will be resolved before we are forced to take concrete action in response to this unjust mandate.

Beyond the immediate issues related to sterilization, contraception and abortifacients, we are deeply concerned about the erosion of religious liberty and freedom of conscience which the HHS mandate signals and the impact this could have on our health care ministry. We fear that the successful implementation of this rule could set a precedent for further intrusion of government into health care, with an increasingly broad array of medical treatments and procedures—preventive or otherwise—falling under federal mandates. If the federal government succeeds in enforcing this rule, what is to stop it from rationing health care to seniors or including euthanizing procedures on the list of required “preventive services” as a way of eliminating the costs associated with caring for our aging population? Would health care providers like the Little Sisters of the Poor then be forced to cooperate in such practices?

In 1991 Mother Marie Antoinette de la Trinité, then Superior General of the Little Sisters of the Poor, took a public stand and made the Congregation’s voice heard against just such measures when the European Parliament was debating euthanasia. We now find ourselves at a similar crossroads in our nation’s history. We wish to affirm that the HHS mandate is an unjust and dangerous infringement upon the natural and Constitutional rights of Americans and that the only just solution is to rescind it. The Little Sisters of the Poor call upon Congress and the Executive Branch to reverse this decision as soon as possible and we pledge our prayers and sacrifices for the true good of our beloved country.

Obama Administration: Abortion yes, Adoption no

President Obama’s recent budget proposal would end a lifesaving adoption program while continuing to advocate for hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the abortion industry.

Snowflake babies begin their journey to an adoptive family when the in-vitro fertilization process of another couple generates “leftover” embryos. When this occurs, the genetic parents of these embryos have the option to give them up for adoption rather than allow for them to be simply destroyed. As evidenced by Hannah (and many more after her), the result can be truly life-giving, and can help couples realize the desire of welcoming a child into their family.

In recent years, the federal government has been promoting this embryo adoption program by providing funding to increase awareness of its existence. Last fiscal year, $1.9 million was used for this purpose. However, President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposes an end to this funding.

From PRI: "The Head of a Catholic Nonprofit Explains: 'Why My Employees Don't Want Free Birth Control'"

The Population Research Institute -

The Head of a Catholic Nonprofit Explains: "Why My Employees Don't Want Free Birth Control"

In violation of the First Amendment, President Obama has ordered all Catholic nonprofits to provide their employees with so-called “modern methods of birth control.” Even the openly abortifacient Morning After Pill is supposed to be included. It is “preventative health care,” he claims, and must be “free” for the asking.

We at Population Research Institute reject this unlawful “mandate.” Not only does it violate our deeply held religious beliefs, it also violates our mission: to protect and defend innocent unborn life.

You see, the pill — along with all its injectable and implantable counterparts — is abortifacient.

******

Most American women don't know that the pill they swallow with their morning orange juice can cause early-term abortions. They don't know that, while on the pill, they (1) may still ovulate, (2) may still conceive a child, and (3) may then abort that child. This is one of the ways that the pill works.

Odds are that PRI's employees also grasp something else that Sandra Fluke doesn't: That the powerful, steroid-based drugs that she is so eager to ingest may negatively impact her health. Not that this ignorance is her fault. How many American women have had the downside of contraception explained to them?

“The pill is not a warm little fuzzy harmless object,” Dr. Rebecca Peck notes, “but causes significant harm to women. As a practicing physician, I see the fallout every day — young women with blood clots in their legs, strokes, early breast cancer, HPV, and cervical cancer. But women aren't told. Informed consent provisions are simply ignored.”

We at PRI helped to get Norplant taken off the market some years ago, after thousands of women became ill after having the drug-laden capsules implanted under their skin. How many women know this? How many women know that there are currently a number of class action lawsuits going forward in the U.S. against various contraceptives because of the harm they have caused women?

 

News Flash! Prolife Randall Terry gets 18% of vote in Oklahoma DEMOCRAT primary; will have delegates at Democratic Convention

The President only got 57% of the Democratic primary vote in Oklahoma; Washington Post not impressed -

Poor showing in Okla. primary may cost Obama delegate; anti-abortion activist gets 18 percent

OKLAHOMA CITY — President Barack Obama’s victory in Oklahoma’s Democratic primary was far less emphatic than typical for an incumbent president, and his poor showing in more than a dozen of the state’s counties threatened to cost him a unanimous re-nomination.

With all the state’s 1,961 precincts reporting unofficial results from Tuesday’s vote, Obama had 57 percent of the ballot. An anti-abortion activist, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, had 18 percent and under party rules could lay claim to at least one delegate.

“This shows real dissatisfaction,” said Ben Odom, a political strategist and a former vice chairman of the state Democratic Party. “You had a pro-life activist and three people who didn’t mount a campaign get 44 percent of the vote. ... An incumbent president ought to be polling at least 80 percent, particularly against this kind of opposition.”

******

“I beat a sitting president as a voice for the babies that are being killed by Obama’s policies,” Terry said in an interview from Tulsa, where he was watching election results.

Terry’s anti-abortion campaign ads were so graphic that many Oklahoma broadcasters issued statements warning viewers about the content.

Here is the coverage in the NY Daily News:

President Obama loses Democratic primary in 15 Oklahoma counties on Super Tuesday

And here is the text of Randall's campaign email that he sent around this morning.

I beat Obama in 14 Counties; got 18% of state vote, and delegates!

 

 

Dear Pro-Life Friend,

 

Can you believe it?! I beat Obama in 14 Counties in Oklahoma. I came in first place in 12 counties, and 2nd place in two others (With Obama in third.) 

 

I beat him 40% to 23% in one county!

 

Hear me please: this campaign is, and shall be, a voice for the babies being murdered under Obama's policies, and a resistance to his attacks on religious liberty. The voice of the babies was the voice that called to the hearts of voters, and many voters heard their voice, and responded with their votes!

 

I will soon start campaigning in New Jersey, where I will be on the ballot. THAT MEANS I WILL BE ABLE TO RUN COMMERCIALS SHOWING ABORTED BABIES IN NEW YORK CITY!!!

 

Think well on that: NYC is the media capitol of the world, and it is the child killing capitol of America. This is a HUGE OPPORTUNITY to save babies, and attack Obama for his brazen promotion of murder. 

 

Next: Money...

 

I told my staff when we got to Oklahoma that we would spend EVERY PENNY at our disposal in this primary. And we did! And it PAID OFF!

 

So now, we need to start raising money again for New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia, where I will be able to run ads.

 

Our new ads will show the racist nature of Planned Parenthood, and how abortion in America is BLACK GENOCIDE. 

 

This will cause the biggest media crisis yet; and finally - in New York - the babies will have a voice like they never had before.

 

So...I have to run. I am getting on an airplane right now.

 

I BEG YOU...please give today to the campaign, and ask your friends to do so as well. (Click here to give.)

 

We have PROVEN that this will work...we just need A SUPPLY LINE! Please help today.

 

God bless you,

 

Randall Terry

 

"Cardinal Dolan Voices Dismay": March 2nd letter to Bishops about HHS Mandate

PLEASE WIDELY PUBLICIZE THIS:

We published the Cardinal's Feb. 22nd letter here Cardinal Dolan writes his fellow bishops on the HHS mandate: "Where does it end?" .

Dolan is the President of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops and his March 2nd letter is here.

 Here is an editorial in today's WSJ The Catholic Cardinal describes a chilling visit to the White House.

Below is the entire text and heading of the press release from the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops summarizing the letter.

THE PRESS RELEASE

Cardinal Dolan Voices Dismay at Handling by White House in Letter Updating Bishops on HHS Mandate Controversy

 

March 2, 2012

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York voiced dismay in the Administration’s handling of the church as the White House and the church seek to work out religious freedom problems found in a mandate in the new health care reform bill.

The mandate drew church ire when it required that all employers, including religious ones, pay for contraceptives – including abortifacients – and sterilization for employees despite church teaching against them.

He also promised to provide educational materials to parishes and to pursue legislative and judicial efforts to restore respect for religious freedom in the nation.

The letter can be found at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Dolan-to-all-bishops-HHS.pdf.

Given church concerns about religious freedom, Cardinal Dolan wrote, “the President invited us to ‘work out the wrinkles.’ We have accepted that invitation. Unfortunately, this seems to be stalled: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is scurrilous and insulting, not to mention flat out wrong.”)

Cardinal Dolan also said that “The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry ‘without change.’ He added that “The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, ‘Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets.’ That doesn’t bode well for their getting a truly acceptable 'accommodation.'"

Cardinal Dolan also described a recent meeting at the White House between bishops’ conference staff and White House staff, and said “our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for ‘working out the wrinkles.’ Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the ‘enlightened’ voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America.”

“The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.”

Cardinal Dolan also said “We will continue to accept invitations to meet with and to voice our concerns to anyone of any party, for this is hardly partisan, who is willing to correct the infringements on religious freedom that we are now under. But as we do so, we cannot rely on off the record promises of fixes without deadlines and without assurances of proposals that will concretely address the concerns in a manner that does not conflict with our principles and teaching.”

He added that “Congress might provide more hope, since thoughtful elected officials have proposed legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. Meanwhile, in our recent debate in the senate, our opponents sought to obscure what is really a religious freedom issue by maintaining that abortion inducing drugs and the like are a ‘woman’s health issue.’ We will not let this deception stand. Our commitment to seeking legislative remedies remains strong. And it is about remedies to the assault on religious freedom. Period.”

Cardinal Dolan added that “Perhaps the courts offer the most light."

Cardinal Dolan warned the bishops that “given this climate, we have to prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (in an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to ‘give up for Lent’ our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some, like Bishop Robert Lynch wisely noted, wonder whether we might have to engage in civil disobedience and risk steep fines; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.”

Cardinal Dolan added that “we know so very well that religious freedom is our heritage, our legacy and our firm belief, both as loyal Catholics and Americans. There have been many threats to religious freedom over the decades and years, but these often came from without. This one sadly comes from within. As our ancestors did with previous threats, we will tirelessly defend the timeless and enduring truth of religious freedom.”

-

Keywords: religious freedom, White House, Congress, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, HHS, mandate, Health and Human Services, President Barack Obama, health care reform,

                                                              # # # # #

MEDIA CONTACT ONLY:

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh

O: 202-541-3200

M: 301-325-7935

Email

Kirk Cameron gets it right about abortion

 Cameron and his wife, actress Chelsea Noble, have six children, four of them adopted.

Piers Morgan - he's not so sharp.

More Catholic Senators voted against religious freedom & conscience rights than for them

Pathetic. By 13 to 11, "Catholic" Senators voted in favor of the HHS mandate.

While the Bishops wring their hands ...

Thirteen Catholic Senators Vote Against Religious Liberty

The following is a list of how the 24 Catholic Senators voted on the Blunt amendment:

Senator Mark Begich (Alaska, D) – Opposed
Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska, R) – Supported
Senator Marco Rubio (Florida, R) – Supported
Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa, D) – Opposed
Senator James Risch (Idaho, R) – Supported
Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois, D) – Opposed
Senator Mary Landrieu (Louisiana, D) – Opposed
Senator David Vitter (Louisiana, R) – Supported
Senator John Kerry (Massachusetts, D) – Opposed
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Maryland, D) – Opposed
Senator Susan Collins (Maine, R) – Supported
Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri, D) – Opposed
Senator John Hoeven (North Dakota, R) – Supported
Senator Mike Johanns (Nebraska, R) – Supported
Senator Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire, R) – Supported
Senator Robert Menendez (New Jersey, D) – Opposed
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York, D) – Opposed
Senator Bob Casey Jr. (Pennsylvania, D) – Supported
Senator Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania, R) – Supported
Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island, D) – Opposed
Senator Pat Leahy (Vermont, D) – Opposed
Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Patty Murray (Washington, D) – Opposed
Senator Joe Manchin III (West Virginia, D) – Supported

Heritage Foundation: "Two Centuries of Religious Freedom Rolled Back"

UPDATE: Blunt Amendment defeated, 48-51. Three Democrats - Nelson, Casey, Manchin - voted for it but it wasn't enough. Senate Defeats Blunt Amendment to Stop Obama HHS Mandate

The Blunt Amendment to reverse the HHS Mandate comes up for a vote in the Senate today.

As we all know, President Obama’s health care law will mandate that religious hospitals, charities, and schools abandon the tenets of their faiths and provide their employees insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. This anti-conscience mandate is but the latest assault on liberty Obamacare has ushered in. Its shock waves are reverberating across the country, waking Americans to the fact that our first freedom — religious liberty — will be the first to fall now that the federal government has unfettered control over the country’s health care system.