Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
You can have Lieberman if you’ll take him. As Glenn Greenwald notes, Lieberman wrote the same op/ed about a year ago in the WSJ where he asserted the existing strategy was working and the force levels were sufficient. Today, he writes the same op/ed with slight editorial changes.
WRT the “rape gurney joe” pejorative, you’re slightly mistaken. The Catholic Church currently does permit its hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims per the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. However, some Catholic hospitals elect to interpret these directives rather selectively in order to avoid providing emergency contraception to victims of rape. Frankly, Joe Lieberman’s stance on this issue is both wrong and, to say the least, callous to the victim.
As for Lieberman switching parties–when Lieberman ran as an independent, he swore up and down he wasn’t going to switch. I’m sure CT’s GOP would have been happy to offer him the GOP nomination but Lieberman wanted no part of it. I wonder why?
Remember Lex, algebra and monkeys……
Once again, it’s so important to get the language right: There is a difference, as you probably know (but I am assuming, chose not to reveal) between emergency contraceptives (your language) and abortifacients (mine) – at least from the perspective of the Catholic Health Association:
Wouldn’t it be better to encourage treatment for those needing it at places not holding religious objections to the treatment in question?
Of course it would, unless of course, the real goal was to 1) force a religious institution to shed its cherished beliefs in favor or yours, or 2) use a politician’s principled opposition to such arm twisting as a cudgel to wield against him because of his failure to adhere to orthodoxy.
How noble.
I thought you couldn’t type in a straight jacket.
As I correctly noted, nothing in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services prohibits FDA-approved emergency contraception from being administered. Your cite is no different than as I asserted.
Wouldn?
As I correctly noted, nothing in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services prohibits FDA-approved emergency contraception from being administered. Your cite is no different than as I asserted.
Wouldn’t it be better to encourage treatment for those needing it at places not holding religious objections to the treatment in question?
Rape and sexual assault are acts of violence; they are generally treated at emergency rooms–usually the closest available emergency room. Shall we have victims of such terrible crimes be shuttled around from emergency room to emergency room until one deigns to provide treatment which is both legal and conforms to the Church’s own directives? I’m sure you may find some nobility in that but I cannot.
Lieberman is a moderate Democrat – why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? And I highly doubt the CT GOP would have been “happy” to offer the nom to Lieberman; they had a candidate already. And he was a washout because Lamont (the ingenue) was so vocal with his ads and money. The Democratic Primary in CT was THE thing to watch at the time…
And yes, I should know I live in CT. As I’ve said here before, I’m no Democrat but I would have voted for Lieberman had I been a registered Dem for the primary. Say what you will about the fact that he ultimately ran as an Independent – he’s not cutting and running from his own voting record in the Senate, which is more than you can say about just about every other Democrat who voted in 2002.
And while I may not agree with the whole Catholic hospital/rape victim issue, I think the larger point when it comes to Lieberman is that he’s Jewish and pro-choice, yet he’s siding with the Catholic faith when it comes to adhering to their own doctrine and beliefs. You have to respect the man for that.
Black is white, up is down, emergency contraceptives are abortifacients, strong arming people of faith is an act of nobility.
Got it.
I like Sen. Lieberman and supported him as I could back in 2000. There are too many extremists on both sides of the aisle and all they do is hack and slash the opposition if they don’t hold their own narrow world view. Nothing substantive gets accomplished.
Pretty soon you’ll be hard pressed to find people to run for office in this kind of environment.
Go Joe!
I think that Lieberman likes his current situation quite fine. With Sen Johnson out of circulation and in the hospital-he gets to hold the Senate hostage by being able to threaten to turn the Senate over to Dick Cheney-and as an added bonus put a whole new slate of committee chairmen in place. That would last until Johnson recovers and or the next Congressman gets into a scandal………………..
Its one of the things I don’t understand about Harry Reid. He’s acting like he has a 10 seat majority when he doesn’t.
re: He?
re: He’s acting like he has a 10 seat majority when he doesn’t.
I’m not sure he can afford not to – the netroots folks would never forgive him for being insufficiently antagonistic to BusHitlerCoHalliburton. And so on.
Re: Vatos
Typical kneejerk emotional responsive fuzzy thinking. Yes rape and sexual assault are terrible but not one iota of compassion on the child conceived. After all, didn’t Barbara Boxer once say that “it isn’t a child until the mother takes it home”? I know two people who were conceived as a result of rape. One graduated from West Point and had a full and successful Army Career. I had served with him back in the day. (no wise ass remarks from the peanut gallery) The other became a Naval Aviator (again no wise ass remarks) and is now a mother of 3. How many of these have we eliminated from our midst in the past 30 years or so. As I understand Lex has stated, go ahead and contracept but not abort. Why should a religious hospital be forced to murder a human being because of the circumstance of its conception are heinous? Two wrongs must must be right in your world.
This may seem a rather idiotic comment but, it never ceases to amaze how “intolerant” the tolerant are when their priciples are challenged by those that truly believe something else.
The fact that some believe that abortion is murder is just inconceivable by some. I feel sorry for them because when their “tenants of faith” are challenged, what will they do?
Stupid question time – how do they decide whether or not to administer emergency contracetion? How do they know if an egg has been fertilized or not?
Thinking out loud here – doesn’t it take a little while before an egg actually gets fertilized?
Michelle: at issue is the morning after pill, which if administered within 72 hours of intercourse, will prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall (sorry if that was a little too much for some of you…). Based on your beliefs, it can constitute an abortion if there is a fertilized egg present, which is the crux of the Catholic hospital debate.
If it’s your choice to carry a rapist’s child to term, that’s your choice. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn’t. OTOH, demanding women do so is reprehensible.
As I noted, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services does not prohibit the use of emergency contraception in case of rape. If the Catholic Church really and truly believed the use of emergency contraception violates Church tenets, it would be a simple matter to revise the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services to strike that section which allows the use of emergency contraception and replace it with language that clearly and unequivocally prohibits the use of emergency contraception.
But they have not. And emergency contraception is provided to rape victims in some Catholic hospitals.
“…If, after appropriate testing, it is considered medically appropriate, approved FDA drugs can be administered in a Catholic hospital for contraceptive purposes for the prevention of fertilization…”
Does that “testing” take place within the 72-hour window, as #14 Kris above describes? Does it occur during the time a woman is in an ER following a sexual assault so she can make a choice, according to her own beliefs, of what to do? Is it a mandatory test, like a rape kit for the police or only if the doctor feels like it? What is the decision process?
Any medical professionals around here?
The question at issue here – about which Crazy Dude keeps changing the subject – is who gets to determine what consitutes supplying abortifacients (an embedded, non-principal discussion point in my post) vs. emergency contraceptives. The legislation Mr. Leiberman took heat for would have taken that medical decision out of the hands of the concerned hospitals and placed in the political realm. Hence the concern voiced by the CHA when they wrote “It would seem that the real purpose of this proposed legislation is to pursue the narrow agenda of the pro-abortion lobby.”
In a strange way, this once again goes to demonstrate what I wrote in the post above: “secular modernists.. see all moral choices as little more than expressions of personal preference.”
Lacking any sense of universal right or wrong, they cannot believe that another person’s actions in the world might be informed by anything more rigid than their own transitory sense of personal convenience. Hence, the decision of Catholic hospitals not to provide abortifacients is not tied to any moral conviction, but rather has to do with hating raped women. Or something.
Ill-content with living their lives according to their own elastic definition of right and wrong, they therefore insist that everyone else must make the same choice as they did. Ergo, Catholic hospitals must be compelled through legislation to sponsor abortions.
Only way to make it right.
What a timely and well thought out piece Lieberman has written.
He has as much said, many times, that he often votes with Republicans on security and defense issues while he normally sides with Democrats on social/domestic issues (except Abortion inducing drugs administered by Catholic hospitals, of course).
That being said, he is in the most important position in the Senate to support the GWOT. I’ll remind you (back me up Kris) he ran on that issue against Lamont and he won with the help of over 80% of CT’s registered Republicans (35% of all CT registered voters). He owes Democrats nothing.
While I do not think he will ever become a Republican (principle-again), I think he will eventually caucus with Republicans IF the Dems threaten Iraq funding in the Senate.
He only really asked was to measure miltary success by summer was all…
This op-ed was his warning. He has already displayed again & again that this is his most important issue. He definetly ain’t no Jeffords looking for alittle back-bench attention and milk subsidy or two…
Hey Loco,
I’ll take the Catholic Hospitals principle one step further- I think all the Catholic Universities like Notre Dame, Georgetown and even Holy Cross should throw out the lefty proff’s too!
b2
Facts apparently constitute “changing the subject” on NL’s planet.
It is a fact the Catholic Church doesn’t prohibit providing emergency contraception to rape victims. It is also a fact some Catholic hospitals have provided same to rape victims. It is also a fact some Catholic hospitals do not. It is also a fact the same Catholic hospital may offer emergency contraception to one rape victim and not another.
In essence, the application of the Church’s own guidance on this issue is arbitrary and inconsistent.
These are facts that aren’t in dispute.
What earned Lieberman the sobriquet of “Rape Gurney Joe” isn’t so much his support for legislation as his comment: “In Connecticut, it shouldn?
Facts apparently constitute “changing the subject” on NL’s planet.
It is a fact the Catholic Church doesn’t prohibit providing emergency contraception to rape victims. It is also a fact some Catholic hospitals have provided same to rape victims. It is also a fact some Catholic hospitals do not. It is also a fact the same Catholic hospital may offer emergency contraception to one rape victim and not another.
In essence, the application of the Church’s own guidance on this issue is arbitrary and inconsistent.
These are facts that aren’t in dispute.
What earned Lieberman the sobriquet of “Rape Gurney Joe” isn’t so much his support for legislation as his comment: “In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.”
Apparently, NL seems to find nobility in having a rape victim bingo from one ER to another.
I think all the Catholic Universities like Notre Dame, Georgetown and even Holy Cross should throw out the lefty proff?
I think all the Catholic Universities like Notre Dame, Georgetown and even Holy Cross should throw out the lefty proff’s too!
The lefty “proffs”? Hmmm.
Great idea; you could then get back to those right wing basics. How Adam and Eve rode the dinosaurs! Faith healing!
RE: Vatos Loco
Preventing a murder is reprehensible and denying the humanity of a person by labelling him or her a “choice” is virtuous? Pathetic. Lex had you pegged right off.
Your last line confirms you are a bigot. We will pray for you.
VL,
“Facts,” is it?
It’s a fact that my original post referenced “abortifacients.” It’s a fact that your first comment changed the language to “emergency contraception,” – a distinction with an important difference to the church in question – thus attempting to rebut an argument that had not been asserted. Challenged with this at comment #3 above, you retreated into repeated and truculent declarations (starting at comment #5) that “what I said was true,” – which is interesting but nevertheless non-germane to the discussion at hand, not to mention having only the slenderest thread of topicality to the thrust of the post itself. This sort of stubborn obfuscation and goalpost shifting has, in our very short acquaintance, become something of a defining characteristic for you. It isn’t nearly so clever as you clearly imagine it to be.
Some might call that the use of a strawman argument: I was trying to be polite and called it changing the subject. If you would like to open up your own blog and discuss the apparently inconsistent application of Catholic church canon as regards emergency contraception, you’d be welcome to track back to my post obliquely referencing abortifacients in pursuit of another point entirely. Who knows, perhaps you’d even get a visitor. In time, perhaps, a comment – there is, after all, a market for everything. Starting a blog is a relatively easy thing to do, and if you drop me an email through the “Contact” form at the top I can walk you through it.
Meanwhile: You state it as a fact “not in dispute” that certain Catholic hospitals have provided emergency contraceptives at certain times and not at others. Can you provide a reference cite? Because I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone state that before, as a matter of “fact.”
In the meantime, and conceding the possibility of human error in policy application arguendo who would you propose set policy for Catholic hospitals on the topic of birth control, for whatever reason. NARAL?
Otherwise, it seems only prudent that a hospital that has no intention of providing either abortion services or birth control – your Ethical Directives cite only says that hospitals may do so, implying equally that they may not -publicly broadcast that position in order to avoid just the sort of theoretical bopping from hospital to hospital that ostensibly gives you such a case of the vapors. Because I know you lie awake at night and worry about it.
Common sense says that you wouldn’t go to Catholic priest for your son’s bris. That’s not what he does. Neither does his hospital provide abortion services.
ALCON,
Forgive me for speaking for y’all but couldn’t resist my last comment to VL, not that I didn’t mean it.
Bad Bob, your comment on the lefty proffs opens a whole new unrelated can of worms (but I understand why you did it) Check out this as it is relatively germaine to this thread. And Lex’s forebearance.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=646
Well, I must say this emergency contaception/abortifacients policy has me somewhat confused. Off-topic (or only slightly related) to the original post or not (sorry, Lex), it perplexes me how the hospital would medically be able to ascetain whether or not an egg may have been fertilized. Just seems to me like a strange policy to have unless you have another policy setting out which is what (at what point will it be considred anti-conception and at what point will it be considered abortion). Then again, maybe they do. If not, it might make more sense for their policy to prohibit anti-contraception treatment period. I have no problem with a religious hospital following this standard, I just think their policy should be clearer.
As far as the original post goes, I am all for ANY politician of any stripe who can forego party poitics and the party line at times to actually examine and react to the real world.
Loco,
Sticks and stones..
Nah.
Look. I actually art a Mackeral Snapper, but I will not rise for the moonbat-bait you’re throwing out thar! If I want to run in circles I’ll go to the track.
Cmon Vat, all Catholics know the dinosaurs were around billions o’years ago..Heck. Adam & Eve? Who knows? Adam & Eve on Dinosaurs? Did James Cameron make another archeological find this week? Faith healings are for Evangelical Christians I might add, although our Saints have been known to be part of a miracle or two…
Wasn’t the entire subject here about Lieberman’s article and the potential swing vote he holds? Yes/no?
I do reckon though, we’ve seen your positions laid “bare”. You espouse abortion on demand and actually mandate it if need be? Sensitive on that, eh? Scared we’re gonna change da law, eh? Or are you perhaps another ex-Catholic who hates the Church? Cmon, you can tell ol’uncle Badbob.
Hmmmm. Wait a minute. Where you just fired by John “I got a Perm” Edwards as his blogger?
b2
Yep, GE06. Concur with the link. That wasn’t an original idea on my part. Would like to see it implemented though (fat chance)…
The way it’s gone beyond PC at some of those Catholic universities, perhaps Notre Dame should change it’s name to Anybody’s Lady U.
b2
Michelle,
I’m not a medical professional, and tend to leave discussions of medical ethics that don’t directly concern me to them. It’s not surprising that differing groups of people of good intent can look at exquisitely complex moral issues from different perspectives and arrive at starkly different conclusions. I’m in favor of allowing each to follow the right as they see it rather than demand some diluted, common standard.
It is probably just that difficulty in determining medically whether or not an egg has been fertilized that has led to whatever “inconsistencies” may exist in policy application that so burdens our guest’s soul.
Neither am I a Catholic, though I do support that church’s right to define its own doctrine, and apply that doctrine within its own hospitals. My guess is that if there is a question as to whether or not life “exists” many of them will default to the safer moral position and refuse to provide whatever treatment might result not merely in birth control, but also abortion.
People also make mistakes, a fact the church has recognized for quite some time. Some would argue that faulty execution of a moral policy means that we should jettison the policy. I’d argue that a better course of action would be to improve our execution.
Michelle,
I guess that 72-hour window between intercourse and fertilization is the key here whether it’s “emergency contraception” and “abortifacients.” Can they tell with a blood screen? Dunno.
As you know, I don’t work for a catholic hospital, so I don’t know what the rules/procedures are. And if those rules are consistent from diocese to diocese.
B2 – backin’ you up. Lamont was a one-issue candidate – get us out of Iraq. He had no substance to that issue either – he offered no plan, no timetable, nothing. He just flogged that horse beyond the grave.
However, Leiberman did not beat Lamont. He lost in the Democratic primary. BUT he did beat Lamont, as an Independent. Which just proves that the GWOT isn’t the ONLY thing that matters at the state level.
Loco said: “…Facts apparently constitute ?
B2 – backin’ you up. Lamont was a one-issue candidate – get us out of Iraq. He had no substance to that issue either – he offered no plan, no timetable, nothing. He just flogged that horse beyond the grave.
However, Leiberman did not beat Lamont. He lost in the Democratic primary. BUT he did beat Lamont, as an Independent. Which just proves that the GWOT isn’t the ONLY thing that matters at the state level.
Loco said: “…Facts apparently constitute “changing the subject” on NL’s planet…”
No, commenters have changed the original subject.
Psst, guys, ya think its very hospitable to call him Loco…. maybe we should play nice?
You don’t have to agree with him, you don’t have to particularly like him but…. just a thought.
Michelle, in general I’d agree – I do so regret the jejune tendency of people on line to twist names around: InstaCracker comes to mind.
But his online handle is “Vatos Loco,” which, unless I’m mistaken, means “Crazy dude,” or “Crazy Guy.” It seems hardly possible that emending that to merely “Loco” should present a reason to take offense. To me.
Michelle,
Ain’t dat his (or her!) last name? How’s about we call im (or er), “MR.” Loco? Would dat work M?
God forbid I (Moi) offend anyone!
b2
By the way, b2, his posts do come from the same IP range as yours. You’re not… stirring the pot, are you?
Nah, I didn’t think so. I know you too well, I believe. Just another guy on NMCI, I suspect.
Okey doke B2, I wasn’t advocating political correctness or anything nasty like that. So I guess from now on that will be Mr. Loco for you, no? Or you could go with Senor Loco if you were looking for something a little more ………elegant
Point taken, Lex, if you choose to call yourself loco, I guess you run the risk that people will take you at face value. Still, I could have sworn I was hearing something just not kosher in there somehow. Guess I best turn my supersonic hearing down NL. Now THAT one really bugs me, though I really have no idea why!
Lex,
Just cuz I run a 6 hr psyops on Ol’Snake once in here doesn’t mean I am capable of trash-talking my own religion and acting da Moonie role! I could never write “Alice in Wonderland”.
Ain’t in me.
Hmmmm. Snake’s always looking for “double agent turd-stirrers” in here. He must of been a intell SOF type..sort o’reminds me of that character Peter Graves plyed in da movie “Stalag 17″. Perhaps?
That Senor Loco really doesn’t bother me too much. He ain’t a raving “You suck”- No…you suck” kind of arguer..you ought to let a few of ‘em in here although for entertainment though it does pain me to see you spend so much time trying to edumacate ‘em…..
Scares me to think the Senor shares the same “domain” as me. Maybe it’s the MC3 in this clip:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012307B.shtml
1000 outta 1.5 million. How many % is dat?
b2