From the party who stand up and fight for the 'little people'. How much littler do they come than the unborn?
Dateline July 8th 2015
Life News
NATIONAL STEVEN ERTELT JUL 8, 2015 | 11:39AM WASHINGTON, DC
A pro-abortion Democrat Senator is getting criticism for a comment suggesting that only churches enjoy First Amendment religious freedom protections, and that those freedoms do not extend to individual people.
The comment is a huge concern for pro-life advocates who are worried about being forced to pay for abortions with their tax dollars or insurance premiums. The concerns also extend to pro-life medical professionals like doctors and nurses who do not want to be forced to perform or assist in or refer for abortions.
Balwdin’s comments are instructive for the pro-life movement because they come at a time when abortion advocates are pushing abortion well beyond its legal status to become a mandate where pro-life people are forced to pay for abortions, refer for them or promote them in some other shape or form.
Newsbusters captured the comments from pro-abortion Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin:
[Ed; Baldwin is as Bald Faced Proud of being as willfully Constitutionally ignorant/deceptive as Senator Feinstein is. Here's the 1st Amendment Senator, since your position is that you have No idea What you're going on about.]Tammy Baldwin: “Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Let's suppose that Senator Baldwin is - gasp - just pulling her position straight out of her party line rather than being as ignorant as her statement brands her as being.
Motive?
Individual American Citizens, unlike Churches, Don't Have a Federal IRS TAX EXEMPTION which the Democrat IRS can revoke or otherwise screw with.
Tom Blumer of Newsbusters responded to Balwin’s comments:
Baldwin is generous enough to say that “institutions of faith” are safe. What a pal.Baldwin seems to have missed the Hobby Lobby ruling. Though the video ends after Baldwin’s statement, it’s highly doubtful that Kornacki challenged Baldwin on this or any other aspect of her tyranny-supportive statement.
Thank You Life Site and Mr Ertelt.Many people don’t accept religion because they believe that many of its adherents mouth pieties on Saturdays or Sundays and act the same as non-religious people during the rest of the week. Now it’s becoming quite clear that the government and many of its elected representatives want to make sure that everyone who attends church gets forced into that mode.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All standard cautions apply. Your milage may vary.
So Try to be an Adult, [no carpet F bombings, Pron, open threats, etc.] and not a Psychiatrist, about it. Google account, for now, is no longer required to comment, but moderation is in effect.