Advertisement
This blog is no longer updated and is closed for comments. We welcome your comments about Catholicism in our Catholic forums.
Amy Welborn is the author of 17 books on prayer, saints, apologetics and church history. Her articles and columns have appeared in Our Sunday Visitor, Commonweal, First Things, Catholic Digest, Liguori, and been syndicated by Catholic News Service.
Amy has an MA in Church History from Vanderbilt University and spent several years working in Catholic schools and parishes before taking up writing full time. She was married to Catholic author Michael Dubruiel until his unexpected death in February of 2009. She has five children ranging in ages from 4 to 26.
Basically, what the budget would do (as I understand it) is let DC use its own locally-generated taxes however it sees fit and limit the restriction on abortion spending to federal funds.
As I DC resident, I wholeheartedly support this. Home rule is an important issue here. Let our elected representatives decide how to spend our tax money (just as happens everywhere else in the country gets to do).
bailey-
I assume, then, that you would also agree with the proposition that each state should be able to determine, for its own people, and through its own democratic process, whether abortion should be legal within its borders?
Mike
Two different issues, Mike.
DC is the only place in the country where it's budget is controlled by Congress, even money it collects from non-federal coffers. Imagine if Texas or Mississippi had its non-federal budget controlled and monitored from DC where lawmakers used the budget to advance political agenda.
That's different from the larger constitutional question of abortion.
It is ironic that President Obama will support the increased destruction of Washington D.C. children through abortion but will not support the continued education of Washington D.C. children through the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
I keep hearing how Pres. Obama is looking for "common ground" and wants to decrease the number of abortions. As far as I can see all of the administration's policies have been to increase the availability of abortion. As pointed out in the article, the change is likely to increase the number of elective abortions. I don't understand why so many pro-life people insist on defending him.
Michael-
The issues are different, but home rule is at the heart of the federalism question on abortion.
If DC should keep its hands off the self-generated money of DC and the states, it should keep its hands off the rights of states to regulate abortion.
Mike
i it should keep its hands off the rights of states to regulate abortion.
Which it does, as long as it doesn't violate the Roe principles. The federal government isn't stopping any state from regulating abortion. The Roe progeny merely places limits--which have been stretched beyond recognition--on how far states can go in regulating a fundamental right. Thus, states have been permitted to limit late-term abortions, add parental consent, regulate the practice of abortion providers, added informed consent.
Federalism is alive and well when it comes to abortion, just not the ultimate step of invalidating a fundamental right.
A fundamental right to kill an innocent unborn child.
Michael-
The ultimate step of which you speak is, as Donald points out, a matter of life and death.
The rights of the states are not alive and well as it relates to abortion.
You may recall that Nebraska's attempt to prohibit partial birth abortion was struck down by the Supreme Court.
But by all means don't let the Federal government lay hands on the money of the states or the District of Columbia.
Mike
Michael,
Slavery was also a fundamental right. Even those with no ground for any morality but there own fancy will not attempt to deny that slavery was an absolute moral wrong; always and everywhere for all time. And if this is so then laws can and have been wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court can be wrong. Such is surely the case now.
And no one ever has the right to do what is wrong. Abortion is murder pure and simple. Always, everywhere.
You can bluster about human institutions (inept though they are) calling it a Fundamental Right all you want, but you should carefully consider, there will be a reckoning. There are those large faces who watch us even now who are not laughing and are not mocked.
The great tragedy is this: if those who argue that there is no moral law that is given from above are right then all is ultimately meaningless and returns to the abyss, if those who think there is a law are correct, woe to those who spit in the face of that law and of its Lawgiver. They either face the abyss or the God who demands their soul, either way, it may have been better for them to have never been born.
Derek
PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING, it seems, and the Obama White House has mastered the art of affecting consciousness in presenting the “budget cuts.”
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-aggressive-budget-cuts.html
Obama is completely squandering an opportunity for reform.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.