Crown Ministries is a family thing

A long time ago, when I was still single, I had a good amount of credit card debt that I racked up in college.  Wanting to get out of debt, I took a course at Sts. Peter & Paul Catholic Church – it was called “Crown Ministries“.  I learned a lot, got out of debt, and ended leading a teen Crown course and co-leading an adult Crown course a few years after that.

Then I got married.  I literally made the last payment on my last credit just a few weeks before asking my wife to marry me.  “No sense in saddling her with debt from my past mistakes,” I thought.  “We’re about to start our own lives together – best to do it with a clean slate!”

Then we got a house.  Then we had to buy all kinds of things for the new house (e.g., lawn mower, ladder, furniture, etc. – all the stuff nobody tells you you will need for a new house.)  Then we bought other, less necessary (and more foolish) things.  Then my wife quit her job and went back to school. Then I got laid-off.  Then I got a new job, but it paid less than my old job.  Then my wife needed to do no-pay or low-pay internships for her new career.

Yeah, I forgot all the lessons of Crown. (Or, at least, I forgot to implement them and let my wife know about them.  I just assumed she was better with money than I was, since she had a higher credit score and only had student loans.)

Eventually, a new parish opened nearby that was less of a drive.  Within the first year, they started offering Crown Ministries, so I volunteered to help lead a group.  My wife and I both learned (and re-learned) a lot, especially facing the finances together.

We started making some progress, but things really kicked into high gear when we got a couple of Dave Ramsey‘s books from the library: Total Money Makeover and Financial Peace.  Those 2 books provided, not just Scriptural lessons on how to handle money, but game plans, strategies, and mile-markers for how to get to be debt-free by “living like no one else [bare bones budgeting], so later we can live like no one else [debt-free, with significant retirement funds and able to give much more than just the required tithe].”

My wife followed Dave’s plan almost to the letter, including putting us on “a year of necessities“.  Dave talks about eating nothing but beans & rice and rice & beans – my wife almost did just that: she got real creative with couponing, planning meals for the entire week, and fasting twice a week on just bread and water (for both the religious and the economic impact it would have on us).  [Note: “bread” includes slices of bread, crackers, and pretzels; “water” means water and/or ice.  We did not make our children fast with us, although sometimes they wanted our pretzels more than the $1 frozen pizza that my wife made for them.]

We took a bit of a break from the severe austerity measures of last year, mostly out of… well, necessity!  I needed a new car, our house (especially the lawn) needed repairs, and several other things came up that didn’t necessarily blow our budget (because this time, thanks to Dave’s plan, we were prepared for them).  “Emergency fund” does not mean “spare credit card” – it means actually setting money aside ahead of time.

Now that those big expenses have been addressed, it’s time to get that “gazelle-like intensity” that Dave talks about and really pay down the remaining debts.  That means another year of necessities, but this time, my wife is blogging about it at:

So, getting out of debt and staying out of debt is a family affair: my wife is blogging about saving (spending on necessities only), I am keeping my spending under control while working to keep my salary increasing (I heard there’s a recession going on – I just refuse to participate!), and our daughters are doing chores around the house for commission, not allowance.  In this way, our “domestic church” is living by Biblical principles, not just in prayer, but in finances as well.

Posted in personal | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Q: Is the Church always so political?

A few months ago, I was asked by an RCIA candidate: “Is the Church always so political?”  He was referring to the articles, handouts, and other activities we’ve done related to abortion and the 2010 Healthcare Reform Act.  The ideal answer would be “No”, but then again, in an ideal world, Adam & Eve would have merely been tested by the forbidden fruit and not tasted it.

There are many areas of life where the Church is rightfully involved (i.e., matters of faith and morals).  There are many other areas where governments and politics are a “necessary evil”.  The confusion comes when the two appear to overlap.  The question then becomes one of precedence: whose views have priority on this issue? 

We can take a lot of guidance from the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.  This article of our Catholic faith does NOT mean that the Pope is always right and never sins – it means that his teachings (not actions or opinions) are free from error under certain strict guidelines:

1.       the Pope must be speaking publicly ex cathedra (“from the chair (of Peter)”), i.e., in his official capacity as Pope, not privately his personal opinion, nor as political head of Vatican City

2.       he must be speaking about a matter of faith or morals – the charism of infallibility is meant  for the maintenance, interpretation, and legitimate development of Christ’s teachings

From these guidelines (as well as from the USCCB document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”), we can begin to see where the Church has a legitimate claim on how we should consider a political or cultural issue (as well as where it does not!).

For example, issues of life (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, the bioethics of stem cell research and the creation of synthetic life) have to do with morality (right and wrong) as well as faith (our belief that God is the author of all life, and human life in particular is created in God’s image and likeness).  Therefore, we must pay very close attention to what the Church has to say: the Church has priority on these issues.  The Church was teaching on life issues long before governments got involved.

However, throughout history, there have been (and still are) areas of politics where the Church and various church officials have intruded where they have no practical knowledge or wisdom.  These issues are anything from tax policy to national defense.  In these matters, if it is not a clear-cut issue of faith or morals, the bishops, priests, and deacons may share their opinion (as any other citizen), but they do not do so with the weight of authority.  When it is not a matter of faith and morals, Catholics are free to disagree with one another (and even with the clergy) about methods for achieving certain goals.  Even St. Peter had to be corrected by other members of the Church (Gal 2:11-16), because, even though he knew the proper teaching, his actions were not matching his words.

This is why the document about faithful citizenship was written: to address those areas where a Catholic is left to make up their own minds.  The USCCB document essentially tells us that we must be informed and educate ourselves about the issues of the day, because we cannot (and should not) solely rely on church officials to tell us what to think about everything.  The teachings may be divinely inspired and error-free, but actions (i.e., policy decisions) are always prone to human error because it is humans who are entrusted to carry them out (to be the hands and feet of Christ). 

Case in point: the U.S. Catholic Bishops former support for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCR) now being withdrawn.  The bishops acted wrongly in supporting the LCCR in the first place, even though their teachings on human rights and abortion are nonetheless correct.

We are all made in the image and likeness of God, complete with powers of reason, as well as a desire for the virtue of faith.  We were never meant to check our brains at the holy water font – we are meant to use God’s gifts (including our intelligence), individually and in community, to build up His kingdom.  Sometimes, that means getting involved in the politics of our temporary home while keeping our eyes set upon our eternal home.  At other times, it means going against the actions of the clergy, when it becomes apparent to us that they are misguided in their actions.

Posted in News and politics | 2 Comments

Is “Catholic first, then American” always right?

There’s a saying about how American Catholics need to define themselves as being Catholics who happen to be American, rather than Americans who happen to be Catholic.  Lately, though, this phrase "Catholics who happen to be American, rather
than Americans who happen to be Catholic" is being used more as an excuse
for progressivism and socialism than as a call to activism and proper
allegiance.  This saying was meant to be a rallying call to get people
off their butts, out of the pews, and into the public square to stand
up for the truths of the Church.  It was not meant to be the equivalent
of "sit down and shut up you ‘patriots’, because I’m your priest and
you have to listen to me and take it."

When my country is wrong with regard to faith and morals, this
statement stands true and causes me to stand up and be counted.  When
this country wants to promote abortions (either passively by law or
actively using my tax dollars), I will proudly declare that my country
is wrong and my faith is correct.  When this country says that Michael
J. Fox, Christopher Reeve,
or some other celebrity is more valuable than the tens of thousands of
babies frozen in limbo who could be used as research subjects in hopes
of a possible (but unlikely) cure for what ills those celebrities, I
will boldly declare my country is wrong in its thinking and I will work
to convince others of the truth my Church teaches.
However, when my church (or rather, its representatives) are not talking
about faith and morals, but rather about politics, economics, the
environment, or my diet (as happened this weekend), I am free to
disagree and even disagree loudly and publicly, not just as an
American, but also generally as another human being, made with the same
dignity as an image and likeness of God as those church representatives
with whom I might disagree. 
There is nothing Catholic about saying I must be *taxed* higher to
support the food, clothing, and health care of the poor – the Catholic
faith only says that I should care for the poor; it does not specify
how.  And the faith
There is nothing Catholic about saying that I must understand the
plight of the illegal immigrant when their "plight" is: cutting in line
ahead of legal immigrants, stealing jobs from those who might otherwise
take those jobs, being a tax cheat, receiving free public education (as
well as free meals with that free education), receiving free health care
(i.e., not paying for the care they receive, while others must pay more
to compensate the hospitals and doctors for the lost revenue) and
receiving discounted rates for higher education.  The Catholic faith
says we must care for the resident alien in our midst (not bend over
backwards and become a doormat for them), but it also says that a
nation has a right to its sovereignty and to defend itself and its
citizens from threats.
There is nothing Catholic about a carbon tax
or placing a higher value on a bald eagle egg than on a human embryo. 
The Catholic faith says we must be good stewards of the gifts God has
given us – including this planet – but it also tells us that man, being
made in God’s image and likeness, is superior to the animals and the
planet and has dominion over them.
There is nothing Catholic about preferring a vegetarian
or vegan diet, especially when there are far too many stories about
parents who have neglected the proper care and growth of their children
for the sake of their being vegan.  The Catholic Church
only tells us that we should not eat the meat of animals that have been
offered in pagan sacrifice.  In fact, with regard to the eating of
animals, Jesus specifically told Peter (our first Pope) "You shall not
call ‘unclean’ that which I have made clean."  It was Abel’s sacrifice
of an animal that God preferred to Cain’s sacrifice of cereal grains. 
It was spotless lambs, not tofu and soy, that the Jews were told to
consume each Passover.  And it is Jesus command to "eat his flesh (in Latin, carne,
as in carnivore) and drink his blood" that we obey at the Mass – we are
specifically instructed that it is NO LONGER bread and wine, but rather
his body and blood – much as when grass, corn, and water cease to be
grass, corn, and water, but are transformed into the muscle mass of
cows, pigs, and chickens.
When your country is right, when your culture is right, when your
customs are right – there is no shame in being proud of it, even if it
means you disagree with the person who happens to be a Church official,
when he is not talking about strictly Church-related teachings.  The
same strength of love that allows me to tell my country, my parents, or
anyone else that they are wrong when they are wrong is the same love I
must answer to upon my death, because I have to answer to a Higher Power first: the Truth. "I am the Way, the Light, and the Truth." "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."
So when a church official uses their position as a representative
of the Church to espouse non-Church beliefs and teachings – I am an
American AND a Catholic AT THE SAME TIME, and I will not be guilted
into believing otherwise. 
Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

How the Healthcare Reform Act funds abortions

There has been quite a bit of static, regarding the supposition that the newly passed healthcare reform act funds abortions, that I decided I had to write something about it. 
Yesterday, from 6:09p to 7:02p EDT, I was part of a conference call with Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL-24), in which she was asked "Why is there federal funding for abortions?"  She replied, "There is no federal funding of abortions in this bill."  I contend that either Rep. Kosmas did not read the Senate version of the bill, or she did not fully understand it.  However, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has, and here is what they found:
  • Federal funds in the Senate bill can be used for elective abortions. For example, the bill authorizes and appropriates $7 billion over five years for services at Community Health Centers. (This would rise to $11 billion under President Obama’s new proposal.) These funds are not covered by the Hyde amendment (as they are not appropriated through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill governed by the Hyde amendment), and not covered by the bill’s own abortion limitation in Sec. 1303 (as that provision relates only to tax credits or cost-sharing reductions for qualified health plans, and does not govern all funds in the bill). So the funds can be used directly for elective abortions.
  • The Senate bill uses federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover abortions. Sec. 1303 limits only the direct use of a federal tax credit specifically to fund abortion coverage; it tries to segregate funds within health plans, to keep federal funds distinct from funds directly used for abortions. But the credits are still used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions. This violates the policy of current federal laws on abortion funding, including the Hyde amendment, which forbid use of federal funds for any part of a health benefits package that covers elective abortions. By subsidizing plans that cover abortion, the federal government will expand abortion coverage and make abortions more accessible.
  • The Senate bill uses federal power to force Americans to pay for other people’s abortions even if they are morally opposed. The bill mandates that insurance companies deciding to cover elective abortions in a health plan “shall… collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status) a separate payment” for such abortions. While the bill states that one plan in each exchange will not cover elective abortions, every other plan may cover them — and everyone purchasing such a plan, because it best meets his or her family’s needs, will be required by federal law to fund abortions. No accommodation is permitted for people morally opposed to abortion. This creates a more overt threat to conscience than insurers engage in now, because in many plans receiving federal subsidies everyone will be forced to make separate payments solely and specifically for other people’s abortions. Saying that this payment is not a “tax dollar” is no help if it is required by the government.

There are both tax dollars and premium payments going toward the funding of abortions.  If there weren’t any federal funding of abortions, Planned Parenthood would have been screaming from the rooftops.  As it so happened, they were quiet.  Now why do you suppose that might have been?

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Why the healthcare reform act is bad law

I am not opposed to people receiving proper healthcare.  As I said before, if you don’t have your health, you won’t have life much longer, and I am adamantly against anything that threatens natural life.  In that respect, I am in 100% agreement with the Catholic Church.
I say "natural life", because I do not believe in taking extraordinary measures to prolong life – we’re all going to die and meet our Maker eventually.  It is not spiritually healthy to have an attitude of "cling to life at ALL costs".  We should not fear death, but rather understand it as a transition or transformation from one life to the next.  This is one of the fundamental flaws with embryonic stem cell therapies and research: it is "MY life at all costs.. even at the cost of the lives of the unborn!".
By extension, this is precisely what is wrong with the newly-passed healthcare reform act – it is essentially creating a right where one does not exist, and it is at someone else’s expense.  No one has an inherent right to a specific product, but that’s what is being advocated here.  Health insurance is a product.  I am not born with a policy by WellCare or Prudential any more than I am born with a gun by Smith & Wesson or Remington.  I have a right to BUY those products (as well as the obligation to their proper use, not abuse), but not a right to automatically be given one.
Many have been fooled by the notion that the associated costs are only going to be applied to "the rich".  This is wrong for 2 reasons.  The first is: "healthcare insurance at ALL costs – especially YOURS".  This part is discriminatory, and it is confiscatory.  It does not promote unity and solidarity, but rather it stokes the fires of the "us vs them" class-warfare mentality that has a rotten history throughout the world (e.g., the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, anyof the South American "liberation theology" revolutions, etc.)  It also supplants an existing (and valid) right with a false right: it replaces "the right to private property" (cf., "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and CCC 2402-2409 ) with "the right to universal healthcare insurance", i.e., "the right to take the private property of some (without just compensation) and turn it into communal property".
The second reason this is wrong is: the poor always suffer, and this healthcare law will ultimately cause yet more suffering.  When Jesus told Judas, "the poor you will always have with you," he was not excusing us from caring for the poor, but rather He was acknowledging that there will always be suffering and poverty, until He comes again.  This healthcare reform act will not remove or reduce suffering or poverty – but it will transfer some of it, and it will spread it around.  That is because of "The Law of Unintended Consequences".  (This is assuming no conspiracy theories, such as they passed this intentionally aware of the consequences I will list.)  These consequences are two-fold.
First, when you attempt to transfer wealth, you will find that the wealthy will find loopholes.  An example of this was 2 years ago, when the state of Maryland imposed a new "millionaire tax" – a new upper tax bracket on those with incomes of more than $1 million per year.  Instead of increasing their state tax revenues, they found that tax revenues actually decreased, because 1/3 of the million-dollar income earners left the state.  They just sold their houses, changed their residency to another nearby state, and continued to earn their million-dollar incomes, without being taxed for it.  The same thing will happen here with this healthcare plan: "the rich" will find ways around the additional taxes on their businesses and personal incomes (they’re getting hit twice in this bill if they own a business, which most of them do!)  They’ll either move their money or move themselves to avoid having their personal property be confiscated from them.  The amazing thing is: this healthcare reform act allows them to do just that!  It gives them 2-4 years to move money, move house, or find other loopholes, before all of the taxes will be imposed.  Additionally, this act provides loopholes for specific health insurers (e.g, WellCare stock went up 3.7% the day after passage of the bill – why?  Because they are mentioned, by name, as being exempted from certain provisions of the bill that other insurers would still have to follow.) 
So, if the rich don’t foot the bill, who will?  Everyone else, including the poor, who thought they were getting something from the rich.
Second – and this is where the biggest hit to the poor will come from – the health insurers (except for those with favorable mention in the bill, *ahem* WellCare *ahem) will soon be raising their premiums even higher than they were before.  Why? Because they will get 32 million more clients.  Those making above a certain income will be forced to carry health insurance and have to pay the premiums (so you have a captive audience, which means it only makes sense to soak them, since they have to pay anyway).  But additionally, the health insurers will now have to pay for the care of all these millions of additional people who were not covered before – people who "need" care.  Let’s face it – when something is given for free (or someone else is footing the bill), all of a sudden, you *need* that thing more than you did before.  If you go out to dinner, you look at the righthand-side of the menu first.  But if someone says, "don’t worry about it – my treat!", you don’t care about that side anymore, so you’ll get anything that looks good.  The same thing will happen with healthcare (and has already happened in every single country that has socialized medicine).  The insurers, fully aware this will happen, will raise their rates, so they can stay in business.  Either that, or they will close up shop (take their money and run), which lowers supply which creates scarcity of options, which raises prices. 
And who will be paying those higher prices?  Everyone, including the poor, who thought they were getting something for free.
That is why I am against this healthcare reform act.  It reduces personal responsibility.  It breeds contempt and excuses theft-by-taxation.  It will raise the costs of healthcare.  It will also reduce the quality of healthcare because highly-profitable pharmaceutical businesses and high-income doctors (i.e., specialists and those who are at the top of their field) will close up shop or significantly reduce their costs (and quality).  (Who do you think are the high-income earners who will be taxed the most?  Doctors and those in the healthcare industry – the ONLY industry that was not heavily impacted by the credit crisis and Great Recession.)  These higher costs (passed on from employers to their employees), lower quality, closed businesses, and re-located investors will all adversely affect the main reason people are uninsured: unemployment.  And unemplyment ALWAYS hits the poor and minorities the hardest.  You think the economy sucks now? You ain’t seen nothing like the Depression of 2013.
Oh yeah!  I almost forgot.  It also uses my tax dollars to help people kill their babies (while forcing Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform those abortions or forcing Catholic pharmacists to fill orders for RU-486), while not providing many of them the insurance that would have covered their costs of carrying the baby to term.
Does that clarify my opposition (no – hatred!) of this healthcare "reform" act?
Can I get an "Amen"?
God bless America – what’s left of it…
Posted in News and politics | 2 Comments

Health as a right – I say “yes”

As I was watching the healthcare vote last night, with Boehner and Pelosi making their final speeches, I kept hearing the phrase "the right to healthcare" used over and over.  I starting thinking about this phrase, because it is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution or any civil rights legislation up to this point.  However, as the coordinator of the Respect Life ministry at my parish, it is my responsiblity to think about these kinds of things – everything "from womb to tomb" or "from gums to gums". 
As it turns out, I think that the right to healthcare does fall under the right to life.  After all, if you don’t have your health, you are not likely to have life for much longer.  Therefore, I think that it can safely be said that the right to healthcare falls under the right to life – one of the many rights that the Founding Fathers believed were unalienable and granted to us by our Creator, and as such, was explicitly listed in the Constitution: life, liberty, property, press, religion, speech, bear arms, representation in court, etc. etc.
But let’s have a look at these other rights.
I have the right to own a gun – it says so right in the 2nd Amendment.  However, just because I have this right to own one does not mean that the government must provide it for me.  In fact the only time the government will give me a gun is if I am working for them (in some protective service, like the police or military or the IRS).
I have the right to free speech and freedom of the press.  However, this is "free" as in "free to say what I want", not as in "free of cost".  In fact, sometimes my words cost something.  I might say the wrong thing, which might offend someone – this will cost me an apology.  I might say something unpopular – this might cost me friends.  Additionally, I have to pay for the free press – my newspaper, newsletters, magazines, internet service, etc. is not "free of cost".  If I can’t afford a newspaper, the government will not pay for me to get a copy of the NY Times or The Limbaugh Letter or National Geographic… unless I am a government employee. (The military has their own newspaper and different departments might buy some magazine or newspaper for the breakroom.)
I have the freedom to assemble, as well as the freedom of "redress of grievances", i.e., the right to protest.  However, if I want to do this, I’m going to need to get myself there to assemble and protest.  The government will not pay for my bus fare to go and attend a rally against the government.  (Well, maybe they will, if it is for something that ACORN wants to accomplish.)
The same thing holds for freedom of religion.  Whatever I need (or want) in order to practice my faith will have to be provided by me!  Our church is meeting in a public school cafeteria, but we are paying rent on that – it is not free.  We worked out a deal with the local developer for a tract of land on which to build our church, but a portion of that has to be for public use.  The government will not fund our church, and is actually expressly prohibited from doing just that thing!
So far, every right I’ve mentioned will cost me something if I want to exercise that right.  These rights are guaranteed by the government, but they are not guaranteed to be "at little or no cost".  There is no right to "cheap newspapers".  There is no right to "free guns".  My right to property means that no one can take my possessions without due process of law – it does not mean that the government has to provide those possessions in the first place.
In fact, the only service that, as a right, is mentioned to be provided by the government is representation in court.  According to the 6th amendment, I have a right "to have the assistance of counsel for [my] defence."  It was only after the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona that we heard about "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you by a court of law."  This was the first time that the government was providing a right – and this is only in your defence in criminal trials (not for a civil case), and only if you can’t afford one, and even then, you can choose to represent yourself and refuse the government-provided service.  Up until Miranda v. Arizona, the only ones who got attorneys appointed for them were specific government employees: members of the military (and only in military tribunals).
We are beginning to see the first cracks in the logic of "healthcare as a right".  In fact, what is actually being promoted in this healthcare bill is "health *insurance* as a government-provided right".  And so far, the government only pays for "rights" for those who are also government employees (mostly in the military).
Lastly, I have a right to liberty – to be free to do (or not do) my own thing.  And this is where the whole "right to health insurance" argument really falls apart.  I have the right to do something, e.g., smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, buy a car, sell goods, make a profit, donate to charity, etc.  I also have the right to *not* do something.  Nothing says I have to buy a car, although it’s probably a good idea to have one.  I don’t have to smoke or drink – in fact, it’s often better if I do not!  I don’t have to make a profit in a business – I don’t have to have a business at all! – but it would make it difficult to do anything else if I am putting out more money than I am taking in.  I don’t have to give to charity – the fact that it’s a voluntary decision is what makes it a virtue!
Therefore, as a right, I should have the right to refuse it, to choose to pay for something better (and admittedly more expensive) or to completely do without!  Although an attorney may be appointed to me for free, not many people would want to be represented by the court attorney, because we all know that, generally, you get what you pay for.
And this is where the health insurance mandate ceases to be a right and instead becomes a burden.  Your employer must provide health insurance.  If your family makes above a certain income, you must have health coverage (unless you are a legal immigrant for less than 5 years or you are a baby in the womb – then, you are on your own, and good luck with that!)
As far as rights go, I believe that health (and even basic healthcare) may fall into that category.  However, health insurance is not a right – it is a privilege, like a car or homeowner’s insurance (after the mortgage is paid).  As a privilege, it is something that I must either work for, so I can afford it, or I can ask (not demand) others to provide for me.  I am not allowed to demand that someone give me a gun or a church building, but that doesn’t mean I have any less of a right to own a gun or any less freedom of religion.
A right is to be protected, but not provided, by the government.  This current healthcare bill fails this test.  In fact, it not only fails this test, but it also goes against some of my other rights.  It infringes upon my right to liberty, as an individual or as a business owner, by forcing me to buy something I may not want. It also fails to protect the right to life for our most vulnerable members: our posterity. 
My copy of the Constitution contains these words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…"  This healthcare bill does nothing of the sort.  As such, it goes against our Constitution and against "We the People."
Posted in News and politics | 1 Comment

House sets pro-abortion healthcare vote for Sunday

The House vote is set for Sunday (because everybody will hear about it this weekend at Mass, so they are having the vote to make any words from the pulpit virtually pointless!), so please consider overnighting a letter to your Congressmen about this.

Keep in mind, the House is voting on the Senate
version of the bill – the one that provides for federally funded

(The original House version did not, so now, in order to
have bicameral agreement, the House is going with the Senate version,
and thumbing their noses at the Pro-Life groups.)

If you have not already been fasting about this, please consider doing
so sometime during the next 3 days. 
If you have not already been
praying about this… shame on you!

Posted in News and politics | 2 Comments