12 July 2012

Straddlin' Jay Decides Babies Come in Second to Campaign Cash, Vetoes Conscience Protection Bill




Moloch, the Chairman of the Democratic State Committee, could not be reached for comment. The bill was passed by veto-proof supermajorities, so we'll see if pro-lifers can get the veto overriden in September.

4 comments:

brian said...

Do you think the Archdiocese has finally realized that Big Labor is not our friend with the AFL CIO's activities in all this?

Anonymous said...

Neither party can step far away from campaign cash. The Republican party is awash in cash thanks to the SCOTUS decision that a corporation "is a human." Mind you, this court had 9 of its 11 last members appointed by the Republican party. Of course, because of the huge cash pouring in to defeat Obama, there has been absolutely NO outcry from the Republican side who doesn't get the irony here: That corporations are humans, but unborn babies are not.
Before you start blaming only unions for pumping in cash, remember that super wealthy corporations are pumping money in to defeat Obama by the rate of 6 to 1.

And I can hear your reactions now: "OH, then it's okay."

Which returns us to the point: there is a lot of relativism on both sides of the aisle.

America still has the best democracy money can buy...

TIYS

Anonymous said...

But this bill was backed quite strongly by the unions, so your comment is quite the red herring. The Archdiocese expressed sadness that Big Labor had turned on the hand that fed them for so long.

It's high time that the American Church re-read Leo XIII et al and realize that Organized Labor as we know it in the US is NOT what the Church calls for and denounce accordingly. A class warfare mentality and anti-life position does not help the worker at all. They have called their own bluff.

Brian

Anonymous said...

Both of these comments are besides the point. The issue is that an important fundamental constitutional right is being effectively wiped off the books. No longer can a religious institution refuse to provide coverage when it is diametrically opposed to It's beliefs and enjoy protection under the law. Now they are expected to cover that which is contrary to the law of God; to foot the bill of an individual's licentious acts. That's what the Gates Foundation is for, right?
/s