President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 03, 2009 10:26 PM UTC
6 Comments
.
but these Catholics are focused on the actual language in the bill,
rather than on what some politician says is in the bill.
Just a suggestion, but you could go look up the actual language. In the version available before today, there was an explicit statement on page 110 about funding abortion.
Ms. Pelosi issued a new version this morning, so I don’t have the current page number.
.
You could also explain why you think its odd that the one most consistent voice advocating for immigrants, the Catholic Church, is once again advocating for immigrants.
Don’t go conflating “GOP” with “Catholic” or “Conservative.” The GOP has more in common with the Democratic Party than with either of them.
.
And it reads like medical insurance.
So if I have a moral objection to some other legal medical procedure, should that come out too? What if millions of Americans find it morally objectionable?
I know, the anti-abortion position is that abortion isn’t a medical procedure. But the way I understand it, the law in this country says it is.
The bishops are for universal access. not in the bill- not gonna be anytime soon.
They want a strong conscience clause (which I don’t claim to understand)
And they want no federal funds to pay for abortion.
And I’ve alwasy thought the Democratic Party had more in common with the Catholic Church than any other major American political party. But maybe that’s just the Chicago archdiocese in me.
…Should public funds finance treatment, and a possible vaccine, against HIV-AIDS in gays if it is shown to have been transmitted through a sexual act, and/or if such a vaccine were shown to remove inhibitions against same-sex sex?
…IF complications in pregnancy pose a dilemma–life of the fetus vs life of the mother–should the law mandate the former over the latter in all cases?
…Should the law ban insurance payments for birth control devices or medications IF citizens receive tax credits or other public assistance to acquire that insurance?
…Does the Church endorse incorporating its teachings into laws that affect all non-believers and non-Catholics? (We know the answer to that question, and I think we know the rationale behind it. Trouble is, of course, that every religion uses the same argument: WE know the Truth.)
…IF the answer to the former is Yes, what is the argument against incorporating the teachings of other religions–let’s start with fundamentalist Islam–into the law if a majority people vote for politicians favoring such laws? Or is democracy incompatible with Catholicism (or, indeed, with any other religion) as often seems to be the case, now as in the past?
…Should the tax code provide special exemptions for some political advocates over others, if those advocates cloak their positions in priestly garb?
It’s one thing to teach that Catholics should follow the moral mandates of the Church. It’s quite another to teach that the law affecting everyone must incorporate those same mandates. This is a slippery, slippery slope indeed. XVIth century revisited (yeah, I was there).
The standard should be assessed continuously by medical professionals- and any publicly funded/subsidized insurance should essentially follow the same medical standards as the private insurors.
And that standard should be something like:
Is it a recommended or required medical treatment for a human, American citizen?
ANd recommended should defined to exclude purely cosmetic stuff- making body parts a different size or shape or color just cause etc.
Citizenship has nothing to do with it.
… is that federal subsidy monies would not go toward abortion provision. However, plans that receive federal subsidy payments for their insured may still cover abortion with non-federal dollars. Also, this abortion non-coverage provision would be re-authorized along with all other Federal non-payment for abortion services (every few years that’s re-authorized).
The Catholic Church (and other conservatives) would like to throw in a change to current law which requires the re-authorization; they’d like to (a) prohibit any plan which receives public money from offering abortion, and (b) make the ban on federal abortion funding permanent.
Neither of these are acceptable to the majority in Congress, nor possibly even to the majority of Catholics in the U.S.