I'm all in favor of changing the Air Force policy in this matter, and not at all down on the young woman in this story who may be booted due to reason of pregnancy. But there was a little bit of this story that didn't make any sense:

Edmonds completed all her physical and academic requirements, telling only her boyfriend and her family of her pregnancy. Abortion was never an option, she said, because of her Catholic faith and her personal beliefs.

Ok, well and good, but I'm not sure you're up to date on quite everything your Catholic faith teaches on the subject of human sexuality.

Labels: catholic, prolife

Apparently Echo shut down, and I was too busy to notice!

Oh well, it's not exactly like the comments on this blog were a great asset of humanity. Still it would have been nice to have an archive. I'll get the Blogger comments turned on ASAP. I really have to self-host this thing.

Labels: metablogging

http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/2012/10/11/hhsmandatecourt/

With this action, the Catholic Church in Georgia joins more than 50 other dioceses, schools, hospitals, social service agencies and other institutions that have filed suit in federal court to stop these three government agencies from implementing a mandate that would require them to cover and provide for free contraceptives and sterilization in their health plans. 

The lawsuit states that the U.S. government “is attempting to force plaintiffs—all Catholic entities—to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate access to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.” 

Archbishop Gregory acknowledged that this lawsuit is unprecedented but necessary for the archdiocese, saying, “We are undertaking this action because the stakes are so incredibly high—our religious liberty and that of our fellow Catholics and people of other religious faiths as well as those with no professed religious belief throughout the nation are impacted by this proposed action.” 

He said, “The unchallenged results of the HHS mandate would require that we compromise or violate our religious faith and ethical beliefs. This might stand as only the first of such violations of our religious liberty if it were to go unopposed.” 

The lawsuit also stated that the archdiocese and other plaintiffs “acknowledge that individuals in this country have a legal right to these medical services; they are, and will continue to be, freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the government itself from making them more widely available.” 

It continues, “But the right to such services does not authorize the government to co-opt religious entities like the plaintiffs into providing or facilitating access to them.”

Go Georgia!! When will the Archdiocese of New York join them?

Labels: contraception, HHS Mandate, morality, politics, prolife, religious freedom

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/12/Catholic-Bishops-Blast-Biden-for-Debate-Lies

Last night Biden said:

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution — Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital — none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.

No, it’s not, and the USCCB harshly condemned Biden for lying. In a statement, they said:

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employers.’ That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to ‘Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,’ or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

I'm sure this not the first or last lie by Biden, and I'm sure that Ryan was less than truthful at time as well. However, and maybe it's just because I'm Catholic and this is an issue I care about and follow, but this lie was SO blatant and outright, that any respect or credibility I had for Biden and the Obama ticket is gone. (And I did have some!)

Labels: catholic, contraception, HHS Mandate, politics, prolife

The entire scenario is rather painful to contemplate - I can't quite imagine sending this query to an advice column. But here it is: What's the best way to sterilize myself without telling my wife?. Doesn't sound like a healthy relationship brewing there.

Labels: contraception, morality

Perhaps Popehat (no connection to the Pope of Rome, or any other Pope) has found one.

But in this article Gawker editor Cord Jefferson has crossed an event horizon of the belabored snark of literary poseurs and plunged into the genuinely scary black hole of people you would not allow in the same room as your kids. He has done so throughout the article — and not just in his opening, in which he applied the language of consensual relationships to the abuse of a seven-year-old, or in his follow up on (of course) Tumblr, in which he completely misses the point by arguing that it should have been obvious that by "had sex" he meant "raped."

Labels: morality, trends

The Straight Dope looks at the concept of taking sanctuary in churches. Sadly it has been abolished by legislatures, but it is often effective regardless. Apparently newspaper photos of police storming churches don't play well. My favorite bit is

In Norway in 2007, Iranian asylum seeker Shahla Valadi, tired of hiding from deportation in church sanctuaries for seven years, had an RV fitted out as a “rolling church” so she could travel to a demonstration in Oslo. The ploy worked — not only was she not nabbed and deported, she was granted asylum less than two months later.

That sounds so sweet, church in an RV. Makes it easy to find Mass if you're off in the woods camping. If we're willing to settle for a bus, I have a modest example of what it might look like.

Labels: humor, law, religion

On New York's Martin Act:

The Martin Act, which was enacted in 1921 as a deterrent against “blue-sky” fraud, allows New York’s attorney general to pursue criminal or civil charges against companies. But the law does not require the government to show proof that the defendant intended to defraud anyone, or that fraud actually took place. So the state has a lower bar to bring cases.

I've not read the underlying legislation. But that more or less seems like it allows the government to pursue criminal charges against anyone involved in finance, for no reason, whenever it feels like. Clearly no harm can come of that.

Labels: law