Can Catholics be Democrats?


i don’t buy these figures either since no one knows because PPH doesn’t release the data needed to properly put a figure on it. imho that is because the number is revealing of what they do otherwise why hide it?

undercover video tends to dispute this unless by healthcare you mean provide abortions. obviously this is only a small review and other sites may actually do some good.

since they don’t release the entire picture no one can be sure of this either. what are they hiding?

the report said they were wrong also.

the bottom line is that since PPH doesn’t provide enough details, a true number can not be had and it is all speculation. what are they hiding?


Yes that is correct. PPH does not provide a money breakdown. Nor are they required to. They are only required to provide a break down of the services and that is what they have done. Correction, they do have to provide a money report back to the Federal Government just on the moneys the Federal Monies that were granted. They may have to do the same for the State, but that is on a state by state basis.


i’m never hillary and drain the swamp. i want term limits and all incumbents to be voted out. the career politician has their own best interest in mind which may or may not align with the individual voter.

i vote on issues not parties.

trump is as close as we have come to a third party candidate.


In fairness, that’s not correct. You just don’t like the numbers they have put out because they don’t portray the organization as the exclusive abortion-factory you’d like for it to be.

But if there’s no data out there that you find acceptable, then there really isn’t a way for you to objectively discuss the organization.

I’m not under the impression that they’re being any more elusive than any other medical provider that works with federally protected patient data. You have to be careful about what you can and cannot release.

I’m rusty… HIPA laws, are they called?


Roflmao. You got to be kidding?


Yep, I have worked under those laws for the last 3 years. Every time you walk away from your computer, you have to lock it!


I feel nearly the same. I was a hardcore Sanders man. If the dems didn’t cheat him out of the nomination, he’d be your president right now.

This was my greatest and best hope for Trump. He didn’t live up to it. If anything, he made the swamp even more swampy.

I’m all for it. You dump McConnell and I’ll dump Pelosi. Deal?

Ross Perot? Strom Thurmond? George Wallace? There’s like 10 others who have actually won electoral votes.


The brain washing causes people to defend evil Vonsalza.

This is what you have done in refusing to see the evil of northern Democrats believing pro slave states should have the say on whether black people should be enslaved.

That is unambiguously an evil position.

Let’s take the same case today where several states indicated their wish to enslave black people and there were a group of modern day “Northern Democrats” in the congress who wanted to reverse the Republican amendment and give the states the right to enslave black people if they wished (the “northern Democrat” position) would you support them? Would you somehow say that such a position was not a disgustingly racist position? Not one Congressman would hold such an evil racist position and they would rightly get zero support if they did. Such a position is unambiguously evil and racist and cannot rationally be defended or explained as anything else.

Yes, the Republicans won the war. According to Dinesh D’souza who I have not seen refuted no Republicans owned slaves at the time of the war. Democrats owned slaves. The first Republican President moved to outlaw slavery and Democrat states left the union. The first Republican president went to war, won the war, and then was assassinated by a Pro slavery assassin before all the proposed black civil right legislation was passed. If your northern Democrats had got their way then the war would have been null and void with the slavery states still having the right to enslave black people. A disgusting evil that you are defending.

Your mind seems to stop at the thought that northern Democrats ‘just’ wanted the issue to be decided by states without acknowledging the evil of what that actually meant. That is being brain washed.


i didn’t say they didn’t report. how can you evaluate a report when you don’t have all of the data?

nope, they are putting out a false number. it has nothing to do with me. i would like it to be only 3% but…

it is not what i like or don’t like. it isn’t what i find acceptable. the facts are the facts. unless you don’t report them.

why put out a false number? how many services are rendered during an abortion visit? how much of their money comes from the abortion services? some say it is 50% of their income.

they say they performed 329,445 abortions: there were almost a million abortions. they control a third of the market.


That aint gonna happen ever. You tell me what possible Majority of a Senate would vote to cut their own Job? The mere idea of “Draining the Swamp” by cutting terms was hysterically funny the very first time I heard Humpty Trumpty speak it.


OK, so do a rough financial analysis.

As compared with the nearly 334,000 abortions that Planned Parenthood provided in 2011, 28,674 women received prenatal services. And 2,300 were referred to adoption agencies.

Abortions generate about $668,000,000 in revenue for Planned Parenthood. [$200 each per abortion.]

Prenatal Services generate about $1,250,000 in revenue for Planned Parenthood. [$50 per woman per prenatal exam.]

Adoption referrals generate about $50,000 in revenue for Planned Parenthood. [$25 per couple for a phone number.]

So, add it up: $1.3 million for non-abortion services.

And $668 million for abortion services.

That calculates out to 1/668 or about 0.3% for non-abortion services.

Or about 99.7% of Planned Parenthood activity from abortions.


Now Ross Perot… A man who was, for all intents and purposes, a dyed in the wool Republican but ALSO had the interesting view of being anti-globalist and a firm foe of NAFTA for the sake of the American worker…

He’d have made a pretty good one…


Ross Perot HATED George H.W. Bush and wanted to turn the election to anyone else.

Perot’s hatred went back to when Perot wanted to broker the end of the Vietnam War. He was opposed by Bush.

Besides Perot was only 5’5" tall and REALLY REALLY hated George H.W. Bush.

So Perot did what he could to swing the election to Bill Clinton.


Stop. Right. There.

Number of folks served by PP in the US is over 2.5 million annually. You’ve only accounted for roughly 360,000 of them.

The “BS Alarm” just went off.


OK … so how about YOU correcting my numbers.

No name calling.

Simply provide the correct numbers!


You’re right. They’d never do it.

It would have to be done via the states convention process alluded to in the constitution.

As that’s never been done in that context, no one knows what it would look like and how well it would survive legal challenges.


i’m thinking biden would have won. if hillary and the dnc didn’t close the door on him

still time but there is a gop opposition. neither party wants change

if we only could!

wrong wording on my part i meant third party president. neither side really claims him and his supporters will turn on anyone gop or dem.

their is a push for a constitutional convention to get the job done

would have been interesting


As Biden is almost exactly the same kind of democrat I am, I wouldn’t mind having a little more “Uncle Joe” in the White House.

The catastrophic failure of the dems in this last election is that the institutional dems absolutely loved Hillary while poll after poll of dems at-large were tepid about Hillary at best.

They kinda figured the super-delegates in the party’s nomination system (which needs to go) would sufficiently counter that and they were wrong.

The dems at the top loved her. The dems at the bottom often didn’t. They didn’t listen to this and subsequently lost the election by forcing her candidacy.


Come to think of it, the last election was interesting.

On one side, you had dems that were upset with the super-delegate system because it unnecessarily forced an institutional candidate upon the voters.

On the other, there were quite a few reps that wished they had a super-delegate system in order to prevent the rise of a radical candidate like Trump.



I just wonder if a Rep will run against Trump in 2020.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit