was pushing for amnesty, open borders, “social justice”, no death penalty, etc. But let ‘em mention gay marriage or abortion and you suddenly have a bunch of cockroaches screaming, “THE WALL! THE WALL!”

Spouting the health care and how American system is unfair. The Blue Cross Gold members gets excellent treatment at the hospital and uninsured gets the shaft.. I had to get up an leave the service… Liberal priest have infuriated the catholic church…

Woolsey voted for the final bill that contained the Stupak amendment. He (and all of his pro-abortion buddies) voted for restricting abortion. How much are your principles worth, Rep. Woolsey?

Her voting record:

http://ontheissues.org/CA/Lynn_Woolsey_Abortion.htm

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

* Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor’s home state waive the parental notification required by that state
* Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
* Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor’s home state have been satisfied
* Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
* Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman’s actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as “partial-birth” abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women’s life is in danger, not for cases where a women’s health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.
Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Voted NO on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info.
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2002: Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit the federal, state and local governments that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. In addition the bill would expand an existing law “conscience clause” that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002

Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush’s restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.
Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001

Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions.
HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called “dilation and extraction” [also known as “partial-birth” abortion]. The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

Recommended by EMILY’s List of pro-choice women.
Woolsey is endorsed by EMILY’s list, a pro-choice PAC:

EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”
Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

that something is “subsidized by taxpayers”, because the something is not taxed.
As if any and all money in the country is owned by the Government first, representing ‘taxpayers’, so any money NOT spent by the Government is somehow a ’subsidy’ by the Government.
And it’s an argument that I rarely hear anyone contend is totally and completely false.

groups should have their tax status examined.

Tax exempt status is not the same as a subsidy, unless you’re a totalitarian who thinks all things in our country do flow out of government.

They have their fingerprints over the bill, especially Medicare supplemental insurance policieis.

But I guess it’s only opponents who are to be the objects of government intimidation; you can buy protection if you back the favored side.

However, if Lynn really wants to take on the Roman Catholic Church, this is the quintessence of taking a knife to a gunfight, given Who rides shotgun for Church.

The word is sic not sick

Woolsey and other libs continue to perpetrate a lie. Religious groups don’t obtain their tax exempt status from meeting the requirements of the tax code, as do other charities, instead they derive their TE status from being a “church” or a “Convention of churches”, the requirements of which are simple; regular meeting place, creed, trained ministry et al… only “charities” need abstain from political activity. Otherwise, there is no freedom of religion, which at its heart which leaves churches free to inform their flocks’ consciences free of state coercion or approval. funny how the famous “separation of church and state” disappears when the church isn’t having Al Gore preaching the sermon or ordaining political activists that never seem to preach a sermon on Sunday, in a church without a camera…

let’s remember that Woosley et al were pushing this healthcare legislation last week as a right to which all Americans were entitled. Now that it has passed, it could become the law, which, if violated, results in a fine and/or prison. I have quite no other right like that which has just been bestowed upon me by my benevolent Congress. So leave the USCCB to their position and let the hypocrites in Congress continue to condone murder and punish the uninsured.

Why is it only when communities of faith speak out in opposition to something the Lynn Woolsey’s of the world want that they’re somehow a threat to the Republic?

Hopefully this blatant attempt to intimidate those with the temerity to disagree with her will be slapped down hard, and Rep. Woolsey will have someone remind her that the First Amendment doesn’t have an asterisk that excludes the religious from being able to petition their government.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

So isn’t that Obstruction of Justice? Should not the FBI charge the Democratic Leadership with Obstruction of Justice? Why are our Congresspeople above the law?

None of us want any tax exempt organization advocating for or campaigning for any elected official or appointee. But is lobbying for or advocating a signature issue of a particular candidate all that much different?

Still, if people and/or policy positions of even tax-exempt organizations are denied their ability to speak their opinion of good, evil, right, wrong, helpful, destructive, etc. than what are such organizations for and why are they tax exempt at all?

No Catholic bishop, as a representative of the Church, should advocate for or against any person in elected or appointed office, no should any bishop urge his constituency to vote for the candidate who promotes “X”

But in my opinion there is nothing wrong with anybody, tax-exempt or not, stating their reasons for supporting or opposing abortion or stating their opinion of the effect of proposed legislation. Certainly if our fearless leaders presume to criticize one group for doing that, they should criticize all who do that, even those who support their point of view or desired goal.

JUST LIKE KENNEDY,REED, PELOSI, AND THE WH, THEIR ABUSE OF POWER IS SO OUT OF CONTROL. THEY FLIP-FLOP AS NEEDED. THEY HAVE SHOWN THEY CAN DO AS THEY SEE FIT TO MANIPULATE THE PRESS, BILLS, HUMANA AND THE CHURCH. WHATS NEXT, OUR RIGHT TO VOTE THE WAY WE WANT. OPPS I FORGOT, THEIR TRYING TO START THAT WITH THE UNIONS. TRUTH / JUSTICE / AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
MAYFLOWER BOY P.S. REMEMBER HOW BAD THEY SAID BUSH WAS, THAT CRAZY GUY WANTED TO LISTEN IN ON TERRORIST CONVERSATIONS. THE DEMS AND THE ACLU WANT THE TERRORIST TO HAVE MORE RIGHTS THEN US. GOV’T IS NOT THE ANSWER, GOV’T IS THE PROBLEM !!!!!!