Chris Matthews: Why are Catholic bishops on Capitol Hill lobbying Congress?
posted at 7:54 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit
Because … they’re American citizens, Chris? Entitled to petition for the redress of grievances? Don’t get grumpy just because, for once, they’re making life difficult for your pal Nancy. What’s doubly strange here is that he follows up by clarifying that it was merely the bishops’ lay staff, not the boys themselves, who were leaning on Pelosi about the Stupak amendment, which seems to make a big difference to him for reasons I don’t understand. If you object to religious lobbying of politicians, what does it matter if the lobbyists are wearing robes or not?
They’d better keep up the pressure, too, because pro-choicers are “prepared to stop at nothing.” More demagoguery from the president of NOW:
She said she understood the president’s frustration in wanting to pass health care reform, but “it is not acceptable for him to achieve that goal by pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” And the anti-abortion amendment added to the health care reform legislation “does just that.”…
“The president has handed us a bill that reverses Roe v. Wade,” she told ABC News, condemning the amendment originally drafted by Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn. “Stupak-Pitts is such a sweeping denial of insurance coverage of abortion for women that it in fact in essence makes abortion unavailable to women. In Roe v Wade the court said the government may not restrict women from exercising their choice to have an abortion and Stupak-Pitts clearly stops women from doing that.”…
“There’s no question that Hillary Clinton would have fought for our rights,” she says.
Aren’t the pro-choicers going to end up winning simply because they can play the trump card of having five votes on the Supreme Court (Kennedy usually sides with the Roe crowd)? Why would Blue Dogs risk derailing the bill by digging in on an amendment that’s likely to get tossed by a judge after an inevitable lawsuit is filed? Or is that actually an argument Pelosi will use to persuade pro-choicers — that no one expects Stupak’s amendment to survive constitutional scrutiny so they might as well embrace it and wait for Kennedy to take care of business? Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
No Muslims allowed at Capitol Hill. I bet Matthews would fully support that.
BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM
This issue is a throwaway. Fakery for the masses.
We will be so happy when we get the final bill.
faraway on November 10, 2009 at 7:56 PM
For the Left Democracy seems to be a one way street…their’s!
Irenaeus on November 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Chris Matthews needs to be hit upside the head with a copy of the Constitution, preferably a cast iron copy.
jimmy2shoes on November 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM
I cannot express how sick I am of the entire abortion issue. I read an article today pointing out it’s the longest-running debate (short of slavery) ever.
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
You lie.
Doesn’t the amendment just maintain the status quo of not allowing federal funds to go towards abortion? So, people who want abortions have to pay for them out of pocket, just like they already do.
What’s unconstitutional about that?
BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
the let the court handle it argument blew up in their faces with the partial birth ruling.
rob verdi on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Chris, are you a Catholic-o-phob? Is that where the “tingle” comes from?
upinak on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Liberal democrats are full of shinola. They will vote for Obamacare with the Stupak amendment because it’s their holy grail. Seriously, who do they think they are fooling?
SouthernGent on November 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM
That is unless they are muslims…
theaddora on November 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM
V is on
faraway on November 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I agree. They already threatened once and caved. This will be no different.
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Classic as Keds.
The Race Card on November 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM
This is another reason why I lean towards believing the republicans did the right thing by voting “yes” on the Stupak ammendment. This was already a tough sell for the Dems, as evidenced by their polling numbers. Now you have established a loose baseline for the abortion issue, and you bring another hot button variable into the mix. The action was always likely to be in the senate, and how they have to navigate through this. Anything that can peel off some additional support is key, and this stuff will do it. From independents that have another reason to move towards us, and from the left that feels they are not moving their direction enough. Nobody is going to be completely satisfied with whatever role abortion ultimately takes in this trainwreck.
It’s not that abortion wasn’t an issue before. It was, but not the same extent it is going to be now that the amendment has passed.
stldave on November 10, 2009 at 8:02 PM
It’s actually the same debate as slavery. The whole argument revolves around one person’s ownership of another.
jimmy2shoes on November 10, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Private citizens shouldn’t have the right to lobby Congress, that is the purview of liberal media.
Bishop on November 10, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Bet they’ll just con the Bishes like they con the rest of us. Modus operandi in DC.
jeanie on November 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
So the Revrund Jesse Jackson and Revrund Al Sharpton should stay out of the capitol, too?
Wethal on November 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM
I did not surrender my citizenship when I was ordained a pastor. I’ll speak with our elected leaders just as much as I want to, thank you very much. That is my unalienable right, as our Constitution affirms.
Scribbler on November 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM
shup… I am looking forward to watching it.
upinak on November 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM
This is the ONLY issue that apparently gets women riled up enough.
Now, you can demean women, trash them unmercilessly…and that’s OK.
This is THE sacred cow of many, many women. (yeah, I know. Not conservative women.)
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Ditto that, Pastor.
jimmy2shoes on November 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM
DC sniper is executed at 9 pm EST
Wethal on November 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Why is this not characterized as hysterical rhetoric but the term “death panels” is?
NoLeftTurn on November 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM
This is the problem with health care reform. Eventually EVERY procedure will be debated like this.
It’s not as though they can’t get the procedure. . . the just can’t get INSURANCE to pay for it.
I saw a girl on Cavuto who was completely misinformed on this debate. She applauded tax credits for small businesses who offer insurance to employees – it’s been tax deductible for 70 years for small businesses.
ThackerAgency on November 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM
+1
GinaE on November 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Religious leaders played a huge part in the fight over slavery.
We have a precedent for allowing that, although most of the history I’ve read shows that most presidents were uncomfortable with overly zealous religiosity when it came to governing.
AnninCA on November 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM
We have a legal holiday on the third Monday in January to celebrate…
Wethal on November 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Even Politifact, the liberal’s bastion of fact checking, has said that the Stupak Amendment simply keeps the abortion at it’s status quo. It changes nothing.
But they don’t like they, because they were trying to sneak federal abortions though the system and they were caught.
Enoxo on November 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM
LMFAO I don’t think that will be aired up here.
upinak on November 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM
It’s an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Riiiiiiiiiight.
John the Libertarian on November 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM
As a Catholic myself, I see problems with the church’s stance on the reform issue: they are in favor of not funding abortion and I agree with that stance but they also want coverage for illegals, which I cannot support.
Onager on November 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM
The last thing an enlightened Catholic like Chris wants is to hear his church speaking publicly on the morality of abortion. Morality is great – on Sunday – in church – for 50 minutes.
ROCnPhilly on November 10, 2009 at 8:12 PM
OK…
Chrisy, then we should also ban this kind of stuff, right?
Seven Percent Solution on November 10, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Wait! Didn’t those bishops SUPPORT Obamacare? Now they’re pariahs?
OK–any time Catholics support Obama they are to be denigrated.
Talk about cannibalism…
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM
I’d wager it’s not that many. It may be for the one-issue extremists on either side but for most women, it’s no more or less important than other issues. I’m guessing for most voters — male or female — the economy is going to be the #1 issue in the next election. Possibly national security and energy independence as well if things keep unfolding like they have been.
NoLeftTurn on November 10, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Catholic bishops probably have as much right to lobby Congress as the the Media does to lobby the government for a bailout because their ratings and readership suck and their going broke.
Hellrider on November 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
I suppose im also entitled to a gun too. Constitution and courts say i can own one. But i cant afford one at the moment. Wheres my gun? Whos gonna buy my gun for me?
ThatMan on November 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Well, then, since the government has no authority to stop me and my family from visiting DisneyWorld our trip should be paid for by the U.S. Treasury, too.
Thanks, NOW. Space Mountain here we come!
Tuning Spork on November 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM
NOW understands the goal of Obamacare and that is to do away with PRIVATE health insurers and therefore everyone will be on the government plan. No one will be able to get insurance privately for abortion or any other procedure without risking jail time and massive fines.
Sporty1946 on November 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Fuck Chrissy.
If Catholics join conservatives, we’ll gladly have them among us. Libdemratf*cks can choke on their own ignorance.
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Speaking of which, if I’m not mistaken the Philly Inquirer goes on the block tomorrow. I hope someone buys it and sells it for scrap.
ROCnPhilly on November 10, 2009 at 8:19 PM
BTW..I was reading the blurb on that show in our local cable guide…Said the current version was conceived during the Bush administration.
Can you believe that $hit???
BigWyo on November 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
The Bishops are up there wondering if, when they pray for Matthews pathetic soul, the time can be tax deductable.
Rovin on November 10, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Paging Rev. Sharpton. Paging Rev Jackson. Please report to the nearest exit.
Pablo on November 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I don’t understand this whole premise that if someone else doesn’t pay for it, insureds in the same risk pool, or tax payers via subsidies that its the same as banning it.
Makes no sense.
p0s3r on November 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Must have had another spirit run up his leg.
bluegrass on November 10, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I get really annoyed when the Episcopal Bishops(my denomination)inject themselves into politics too(on ANY issue), so Matthews is not alone on this one. Organized religions, most of them, are in trouble. Not sure why, but I read that they are. The Episcopal Bishops should be brainstorming ways to bring their faith closer to the people and vice-versa. They, as I see it, have no place in politics no matter how demanding or definitive the issue. These Bishops do not always speak for me and they do not always speak for their congregations and I, for one, resent the appearance given that they do.
jeanie on November 10, 2009 at 8:28 PM
The fool’s ratings tell all the story that needs told.
Griz on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Funny, if I read the First Amendment the same way that Prissy Crissy does, the press should be banned from Capitol Hill, too.
carl todd hand on November 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
A more relevant question is why does Chris “it’s not illegal to contact Al Qaeda is it?” Matthews still have a television show?
Left Coast Right Mind on November 10, 2009 at 8:32 PM
A lot of this stuff getting proposed won’t pass, it’s just to feed their far left base.
Dr Evil on November 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Wait a minute, how does restricting taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions in a Bill that didn’t even exist last week overturn Roe v. Wade? These people are so confusing.
Cindy Munford on November 10, 2009 at 8:35 PM
OK, Wait a minute. I think Matthews was facetiously agreeing with Allen. They were out of time and Allen was criticizing Pelosi for meeting with pro-lifers in one conference room and pro-choicers in another.
It went like this:
Matthews, to my ear, is mocking Allen for complaining about Pelosi meeting with pro-lifers and pro-choicers as if Allen’s solution would be for Pelosi to meet with one and only one side.
Tuning Spork on November 10, 2009 at 8:36 PM
But, of course, “don’t show up” was NOT Allen’s argument and this was a case of Matthews getting in a snide jab as he was breaking for commercial.
Tuning Spork on November 10, 2009 at 8:38 PM
As well it should be. 3800 innocent children are killed every day in America. The day we stop talking about it, is the day we lose our collective soul as a country.
Vera on November 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Hey, if they promise to keep all the Environmental Zealots / religious fruitcakes, and all the Religious left “social Justice” types away from Capital Hill, then I’d be willing to see the Catholics kept away, too.
Greg Q on November 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
It will be interesting to see what talking points NARAL/PP come up with because so far they’ve got nothing.
Roe v. Wade is overturned by the bill. Ridiculous.
Women won’t be able to have an abortion. Ludicrous.
Women won’t be able to buy health insurance covering abortions. Yes they will. They’ll just have to use their own money for that coverage – as they do now.
I’m not seeing much of a strategy here yet. If the Pres and NARAL are going to go with the “this changes the current situation” at the least I would think they have to explain what that means at some point. So far, not even close.
jdp629 on November 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Why?
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Unless Matthews and his left wing buddies have changed it, I believe this government represents all of its citizens and they have the right to lobby for redress. . . even Christian priests. Sorry Matthews you and your ilk haven’t yet destroyed Christianity but I’m sure you’ll keep trying.
rplat on November 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM
God alone keeps His people, the Majesty of All Creation never fails. He is above even Satan.
Matthews is tiny even among men, as he shows himself. How much smaller is he before the Throne of Heaven?
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I bet Chris would STFU is Christians put a fatwa out on his ass…
/just sayin’
bluelightbrigade on November 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Well, some people do consider it the destruction of innocent life. It tends to bother people that something like that could be legal.
Esthier on November 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM
He’d whimper and demand US Marshals cover his lame ass
Liam on November 10, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Hey Chris Tingle why don’t you just shut your big YAPPER!
MCGIRV on November 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM
From the AP
CWforFreedom on November 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Esthier I know you won’t like this but ANNIN simply cannot face the sins of her past. She denies reality. Sorry facts is facts.
CWforFreedom on November 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM
It’s even more fundamental than that. It’s a debate over what can even be considered a person. We always seem to agree that people can’t be owned.
No, many conservative feel the same way. They’ve just come to a different conclusion on the issue.
Esthier on November 10, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Lol. +1
bluelightbrigade on November 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM
“………The clergy should stay off capitol hill”???
C’Mon Matthews,
Maybe islamist jihadists like KEITH ELLISON, D-MN, the MUSLIM congressman from the 5th District in Minnesota ought to GET the f*ck out of our CONSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
THERE’S NO GODDAMN ROOM IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR SHARIA LAW.
ANY A$$HOLE PROCLAIMING ALLEGIANCE TO “ALLAH” BEFORE OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR FLAG NEEDS TO BE SUMMARILY DISPENSED WITH. THEY ARE NOT AMERICAN.
bannedbyhuffpo on November 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Chris who? Isn’t he on that network no one watches…
If a pundit asks a question and no one watches, was anything said?
JIMV on November 10, 2009 at 9:12 PM
I don’t understand this. Why do you see it that way?
anuts on November 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM
It will be an issue as long as the ridiculous Roe vs. Wade decision is standing.
There is no right for a woman to kill her own baby in her womb.
It needs to be overthrown and the issue handled by the states so that it doesn’t involve the federal government unless the SCOTUS determines when the baby’s rights begin or Congress does at the federal level.
Dumb SCOTUS decisions create this stuff. Just like Dred Scot.
Sapwolf on November 10, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Dana Perino just said on Hannity that the Senate has, at most, 42 votes for Pelosicare…WTF? Someone cue the video!
SouthernGent on November 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Brilliant.
cannonball on November 10, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Thanks Vera.
Sapwolf on November 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM
No problem, Sapwolf. I appreciate you and Liam standing for life as well.
Vera on November 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM
My cats litter provides more intellectual curiosities than could ever be assigned to anything offered by Mr. Matthews!
dmann on November 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Obama: I don’t want to change the status quo on abortions.
Stupak: We’re not. Federal funds do not fund abortions now. It’s all private insurance.
Obama: But we plan to destroy private insurance, so you can see the problem.
voxpopuli on November 10, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Sick of the entire abortion issue? Or sickened by it? Slavery, too, was once legal.
publiuspen on November 10, 2009 at 9:53 PM
They don’t have the votes for this.
HondaV65 on November 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM
LOL! You hit the nail on the head. That woman is a blithering moron.
KS Rex on November 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Here’s a better question, Tingles: Why aren’t you calling out Obama on his broken promise of “No lobbyists”?????
ToddonCapeCod on November 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM
I am sorry, maam, but if the subject of the murderous dismemberment of countless millions of unborn American citizens upsets you, I suggest you go back to sleep, and let the rest of us handle it.
Joe Pyne on November 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Clergy , and their religions are only welcome, when it’s politically expedient. Remember Obama calling on Rabbi’s to get out the word on his health care, a few months back?
Don’t people get it? You’re only valuable to Obama, so long as you can help him achieve his agenda. After that….get yer hiney under that bus!
capejasmine on November 10, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Perfect answer.
sinsing on November 10, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Sure, as soon as the loony leftists supporting progressive causes with no supporting evidence or justification are prevented, then they can stop the clergy too.
ray on November 11, 2009 at 12:08 AM
So, Ann, when did you have your abortion?
tcn on November 11, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Nobody is pushing anyone anywhere they didn’t go all by themselves, honey. Keep ‘em closed and nobody gets pregnant in the first place, and with the options both financial and legal these days, abortion is just the murderer’s way out.
tcn on November 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled that Congress can restrict federal funding for abortion?
SukieTawdry on November 11, 2009 at 12:44 AM
When it goes to the Supreme Court it will be interesting what kind of backflips and gyrations they will do to conclude that Congress has the constitutional authority to jail people for not buying approved health plans but does not have the authority to say what those health plans cover.
pedestrian on November 11, 2009 at 1:04 AM
http://www.veteranoutrage.com
lets see the democrats dont want
Christians, jews or catholics on capitol hill
Nor do they want military veterans (nepalitano is afraid of them)..
Nor do they want honest capitolists..
Nor do they want any republicans, comnservatives, or especially teap party protestors (which are from all of the entire country)..
So that leaves the democrats with
Liars
Tax cheats
Swindlers
Lobbyists
communists
Islamic terrorists
Jihadist wannabes
drug dealers
Drug users (heck all of hollywood qualifies)
Traitors
Anti american
Anti capitolists
Anti freedom
Anti us constitutionalists..
Heck in really these are the only ones democrats and obama want to see and hire for the open positions in the senate, house and the whitehouse..
Sheesh and you wonder why our country is in such a mess in 9 months..
co
veteranoutrage on November 11, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Yeah, keep the Churches out of politics – unless, of course they’re in minority neighborhoods. What he’s mad about is the risk of losing the right to slaughter innocent life. Say, isn’t Chrissie one of those Swiss cheese Catholics, who’s Catholic belief system is full of holes – a do it yourself Pope?
Don L on November 11, 2009 at 6:15 AM
So sorry about your feelings. Imagine for a moment how those innocent little babies feel about it as they’re being torn from their “mother’s” womb or as Obama wants, left to die without food or water after they escape the abortionist’s horror chamber.
We have killed more innocent people than Hitler and Stalin combined and we should accept that quietly, because people like you are tired of hearing of the atrocious evil our nation does? Not as long as one dcent person is left alive will this evil go away from being condemned for what it is.
Don L on November 11, 2009 at 6:29 AM
That’s what happens in a democracy when one side imposes their view on the other via the court system. There wasn’t a controversy prior to Roe. Each state could have its own laws. That’s the way social issues should be handled in this country: at the local level. Unfortunately, the left has never been happy controlling mere states. They wanted it all and the SCOTUS was the way to get there.
Kafir on November 11, 2009 at 6:50 AM
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/vatican-engineered-victory-for-pelosicare/
mankai on November 11, 2009 at 7:57 AM
And I cannot express how sick I am of people who were blessed to have mothers who let them live, but who won’t bother to become informed about abortion. Since 1973 alone, more than 51 million babies have been deliberately killed; does that make you yawn, Ann?
If you won’t give a damn about the babies, how about their mothers? During this age of “safe, legal” abortion, many mothers have been injured or even killed in licensed abortuaries. Do you have the courage to Google “Synthia Dennard” and “Lou Ann Herron”? They are two of the many. Please stop yawning for a moment and read about what happened to them at the hands of “safe, legal” abortionists.
And how about taking a few minutes out of your busy day to visit a crisis-pregnancy center to see how they help the mothers? Many of those mothers are under great pressure to abort their babies — where is their “choice”? Does it bother you at all that six out of every ten abortions aren’t the mother’s choice at all, but rather the choice of the baby’s father, her own parents, etc.? Or that murder is one of the leading, and sometimes the leading cause of death for pregnant women?
Today, another 3,000 or so babies will be killed in abortuaries across this country, and mothers will be heartbroken and changed forever. And you just don’t can’t be bothered to give a damn.
KyMouse on November 11, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Don’t blame me… I just quotes ‘em.
(Remember that when you’re quoting the Koran)
mankai on November 11, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »