Right. Where are those papers?

[rolanni]

The Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied for striking abortion services from the health care legislation which yesterday passed the House of Representatives -- and won their point. Why the hell doesn't the Catholic Church pay taxes? Extra credit question: What is it that the Catholic Church wields that so frightens congresschickens? Oh, wait, I know! "We just organized a successful campaign to crush civil rights. We did it in Maine, we can do it again."

I never did finish the petition to withdraw my baptism. That may be my project for today.

Anyhow, health care passed the House. Notice the lack of the word "affordable" in the second sentence of the second paragraph:

In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

From the Bangor Daily News. Here's the rest of the story

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Are you guys Michaud or Pingree? I can email you a copy of Michaud's statement on the subject. It dodges any mention of the abortion issue.

I think he's Catholic . . .

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Mike Michaud is our guy. It would not surprise me to find that he was Catholic. Or that he was slightly confused about his duty to his soul and his duty to his constituents.

I can email you a copy of Michaud's statement on the subject.

Oh, what the heck; I'm already corked off. Send as you have time, please.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Sent, to the two addresses I have . . . if you have a preference, let me know some time.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Got it, thank you.

Good heavens, who taught this boy to write?

Ahem.

I can read and reply to gmail more easily, most days.

just sent

[lagilman]

Dear Representative Engel:

While I - as a freelancer currently spending more for health insurance than I do on food every month - am delighted to see that there is progress toward a single-payer system, I have one very important question that nobody in Washington seems willing to answer:

How does the Stupak Amendment not infringe on my established personal rights? I am Jewish, and pro-choice as is supported by my faith - why should the demands of another religious group be allowed to influence what health care I have access to?

Please let me know how you and your fellow Congressmen will be addressing that tangle - or explain how overnight the separation between Church and State was bargained away behind closed doors.

Sincerely,

Re: just sent

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Dear Congressman Michaud.

I read with interest your statement regarding the health care plan passed yesterday, and I applaud your commitment to making affordable, quality health care available to all Americans, while guarding the interests of Maine citizens and small business.

However, as you mention, the bill is not perfect. One glaring imperfection is the Stupak Amendment, which prohibits insurance companies from covering abortion care. This amounts to removing an already established and lawful right-to-care from citizens, and it imposes the morality of one religious group -- represented by the Conference of Catholic Bishops -- on those citizens who do not subscribe to those beliefs.

I encourage you and your colleagues in Congress to address this violation of rights immediately.

Thank you.

[starrcat.livejournal.com]

Of course, these are the same people who are so worried about not being able to keep the insurance you already have and about a government takeover. Apparently that is acceptable as long as it only applies to choice.

insurance

[tessie614.livejournal.com]

What upsets me is the idea that "everyone must purchase health insurance" - no mention of what has to be covered - and if you can't afford insurance you are going to be fined.

If you can't afford insurance - how the **** can you afford to be fined. You can't get blood from a turnip. And those who can not afford insurance will receive money from the government so they can afford insurance. Consumers will be fined and subsidized (SP) and at the same time??????

DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE SENSE?

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I never did finish the petition to withdraw my baptism. That may be my project for today.

You can do that?

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

You can.

Will relocate the information and post it at the top of my journal.

[baggette.livejournal.com]

I just declare that I am not Catholic or even Christian.

I can no longer justify identifying myself with either of those groups. I have beliefs that no single religion has yet to encompass.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I just declare that I am not Catholic or even Christian.

For years, I thought that because I have been excommunicated manymany times over, I was no longer counted as a Catholic. Alas, the Catholic Church keeps EVERY SINGLE PERSON baptized Catholic on their rolls, unless they formally withdraw. And it's a process, for formally withdraw. But it can be done. Until you formally withdraw, your name is among those "We control X votes," that they're using to threaten lawmakers.

I had the webpage earlier in the year. Will post at the top of the journal, when I find it again.

[baggette.livejournal.com]

she writes,
as she listens to the Roman Catholic Mass on

(YUP)

PUBLIC RADIO

[paulcory.livejournal.com]

Here's the IRS publication that spells out the limits on the church lobbying and political campaigning:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

See the loophole? There are no restrictions that I could find on church participation in campaigns on ballot initiatives, only on campaigns for individual offices.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Hmm....

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative
body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider
public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

[paulcory.livejournal.com]

The question would be, does a ballot initiative count as "legislation?" None of the examples given in the IRS document cover ballot initiatives.

Also, note this:

Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use the expenditure test described in the next section.

The regulations then go on to say that a church or religious organization can only be punished if it engages in excessive lobbying. Religious organizations, say the Council of Bishops, can opt to use the expenditure test, which basically clears any activity as long as it remains under a limit defined in another IRS document.