OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — For the third year in a row, Democratic state lawmakers are pushing a measure that would require Washington insurers offering maternity care to also cover elective abortions, but as in the past, it’s likely to hit a roadblock in the Senate.
maternity care implies plans to have a baby, not to KILL A BABY.
And looky here - its DEMOCRATS pushing it! :rolleyes:
Of course it’s the Democrat party that is behind this. They are the party of abortion. And in western washington , the Democrats are elected by the votes of Catholics. But this is another example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
And the difference between practicing, Mass going Catholics and those who don’t seem to take their faith seriously or are not well catechized.
It amazes me how determined certain state legislatures are to promote abortion. Oregon was one of the states that allowed abortion BEFORE Roe. It was a mecca for those seeking abortions from other states. Also the first to legalize euthanasia.
What is it about the Left Coast?
I think it is telling that the Democrat mindset links abortion with maternity care.
I don’t know for sure what it is about the left coast. For some reason the area is more liberal than elsewhere (except for perhaps California and parts of the east coast). The churches here tend to be more liberal and modern on the west coast than elsewhere in the US (from my experience). How liberal is the archdiocese of Seattle? They invited a pro-abortion governor to speak at an archdiocesan sponsored conference. When I raised the issue of the governor’s pro-abortion politics, the response I got was : “but the governor is not speaking about abortion, and she is an expert on poverty and immigration issues, blah blah blah…” That is one of the problems - lack of moral clarity which leads to moral confusion. That confusion is on display in our “catholic” schools whose students apparently think Catholic moral teaching can be changed by protests and campaigns. Moral confusion abounds, and I lay the blame on the leadership of the past 30 years.
As they say MASS confusion…
You are right, as a late comer to the Church I didn’t really understand what had happened along the way. I watch quite a bit of the EWTN programming and there is a series about the impact of Vatican II which I know had good features but one of the negative aspects was the focus on becoming “just another social services agency” rather than focusing on how we can live lives of holiness.
I am cautiously optimistic the tide is turning with the new “on fire for Christ” priests coming out of seminary. They are far less compromising than the Baby Boomer cadre that “grew up” in the 60s and I suspect were very influenced by the “anything goes if you’re a nice person, recycle and honor divsersity” crowd.
Our current Archbishop seems to be a strong leader and uncompromising on the faith while still being approachable and dedicated. We can hope!