[Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work

[a]

http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/

If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrisic evil."

So, in order of asking, No and I want it to remain that way. Yes and yes.

g


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Sunil Ramalingam 
  To: jampot at roadrunner.com ; garrettmc at verizon.net ; vision 2020 
  Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work


  Gary,

  Can you identify any Catholic hospitals that have been forced to perform abortions?  Do you know of any trends leading to this outcome? Is there legislation forcing this?

  Sunil



  > From: jampot at roadrunner.com
  > To: garrettmc at verizon.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
  > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:59:51 -0700
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart Gets Nod for Starting Work
  > 
  > 1. My business is not located in Whitman county.
  > 
  > 2. Predatory? All business competes with other business. This is the nature 
  > of the game. Will Idaho lose some tax revenue? Some, but probably not as 
  > much as you think. Those same tax dollars are lost when Idaho residents go 
  > to Spokane to shop or make purchases through the intertubes because what 
  > they seek is unavailable in Moscow.
  > 
  > 3. Water. We've been over this one repeatedly. Whether it is delivered by 
  > the City of Moscow, pumped from private wells, or provided by the City of 
  > Pullman, it's all the same water. The folks who are working and shopping at 
  > the new mall would be using the same amount of water if they were working in 
  > Moscow, Pullman, Troy, or Colton. You don't uptake or download any more just 
  > because you're at the Hawkins development. I suspect that your vegetable 
  > production facility uses far more water than any individual business will 
  > and provides far fewer jobs. If the Hawkins property were to be turned into 
  > a truck farm the same argument you attempt to use applies. Competition with 
  > Moscow business. (you) No tax dollars for Idaho. Far higher water 
  > consumption. Perhaps you would prefer the land lay fallow?
  > 
  > 4. I am willing to accept any legal, legitimate business operation located 
  > on private property in Latah or Whitman Co. Pullman or Moscow, miles away or 
  > right next door to my shop. Period.
  > 
  > 5. I think that my answer regarding your questions concerning FOCA were to 
  > the point. One third of all hospitals in America are Catholic. If a doctor 
  > or nurse hired on with one of these facilities they would have a reasonable 
  > expectation of working in an environment that did not promote a culture of 
  > death. Forcing institutions such as these to provide a service that they did 
  > not originally is to force every person employed there to do something that 
  > was not in their original job description. I am not talking about the 
  > mythical minority that might have hired on at an abortion mill that suddenly 
  > don't want to perform their job. In my example I'm talking about thousands 
  > of real health care professionals, in yours you talking about a tiny handful 
  > (if that) of hypothetical employees. I stand by my red herring assertion.
  > 
  > It seems that you are arguing in favor of an employers right to can a 
  > hypothetical fraction of his work force rather than the rights of the very 
  > real thousands of doctors and nurses who will be adversely impacted by BHO's 
  > very bad decision.
  > 
  > g
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  ==========================



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1995 - Release Date: 3/11/2009 8:28 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090312/8df01094/attachment-0001.html