Is Evan Bayh's real goal higher office?

Democrat Senator Evan Bayh's shocked the political establishment when he announced he wouldn't seek re-election. Many saw it as a commentary on the dismal prospects for incumbents in November. Bayh said he was getting out because the Senate was not a fun place to be. The place was broken and too partisan.

I heard one of his TV interviews and he sounded very much like a man who was looking at higher office. He hammered the political extremists on both ends of the political spectrum and sounded like an outsider even though he's been in DC for quite a while. With $13 million in the bank, it sounded like he was trying to position himself as a middle of the road candidate who should be considered for higher office.

Gary Bauer noted that his record is anything but moderate.

This morning, many pundits are singing Bayh’s praises and bemoaning his retirement. I feel compelled to devote some space in this report to debunking the myth of “Evan Bayh, the bi-partisan moderate.” While Bayh occasionally threw a bone to his conservative Hoosier constituency, his rating with Citizens Against Government Waste is 25%, and 19% with the National Taxpayers Union. Bayh’s lifetime pro-family score with Campaign for Working Families is just 18%. That’s pathetic for someone who purportedly represents the “moderate center” of American politics. Here’s a sample of Bayh’s voting record:

• FOR socialized medicine.
• FOR hate crimes legislation.
• FOR Obama’s pork-barrel spending stimulus bill.
• FOR taxpayer-funding of groups that promote abortion.
• FOR card-check legislation.
• AGAINST English as our national language.
• AGAINST efforts to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
• AGAINST the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
• AGAINST domestic oil exploration.

"The Worst Bill Ever" and is history about to repeat itself?

That's the headline from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on the House Health Care bill. After looking into the bill I can see why the author would have those sentiments.

It's a massive expansion of government control and regulation of health care system which constitutes roughly 15 to 20% of our nation's economy. While the US has been slipping and sliding in a more socialist direction over the past several decade, this bill constitutes an aggressive movement in that direction.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

Here are some of the specifics. First, spending.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

Then taxes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

Government takeover of insurance.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

Expansion of government involvement in health care

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

In the last line, the author mentions the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill which was passed at the beginning of the Great Depression. Many "credit" Smoot-Hawley with extending and deepening the Great Depression. Is history about to repeat itself?

Here's what Pelosi's health care bill will do to you and our nation.

Here's a quick overview of what the Pelosi health care bill will do, compliments of Citizen's Council on Health Care.

Today, Speaker Pelosi released the U.S. House health care takeover bill, H.R. 3962. They say they want to debate the bill beginning on Nov 2nd. The 1,990 page bill is nearly 1,000 pages longer than the original House bill, H.R. 3200.

Do you trust a 2,000-page health insurance reform bill to keep your life and liberty intact? Will your Representatives read it? They didn't bother to read the first House bill when it was only 1,018 pages. Here are just 11 of many concerns in the bill:

• MANDATE: Mandates that every individual buy health insurance that meets federal approval or face fines and jail time. This alone will enable government-run health care.
  
• RATIONING ALLOWED: HR 3200's language prohibiting health care rationing was eliminated.
  
• SINGLE-SELLER BUREAUCRACY: Government-run National Health Insurance Exchange where "private" insurance is sold.
• SINGLE-PAYER: "Public option" plan, created for the purpose of moving everyone (except Congress) to single-payer.
• ENCOURAGES EMIGRATION: Eliminates 1996 welfare reform law 5-yr waiting periods for federal benefits.
• ENTITLEMENT EXPANSION: Adds 10 million people to taxpayer-funded Medicaid at a cost of $425 billion.
  
• FEDERAL CONTROL: Feds define "essential benefit set" for all insurance policies, allowing denial of care and rationing.
  
• END OF MARKET: Individual health insurance market is eliminated (individuals forced to use the Exchange).
  
• SMALL BUSINESS THREAT: New taxes, bureaucratic requirements, penalties and fees threaten survival of small business, but HHS today declares reform will "strengthen" small businesses. HHS Report
  
• MORE TAXES: New taxes on health plans and medical products passed down in higher health care premiums.
• PATIENT TRACKING NUMBER: Federal patient identification card - every patient tracked; every patient carded at the clinic; every medical decision controlled.
  

COST: Although the Congressional Budget Office reports a $104B reduction in the federal deficit, the CBO admits, "These estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty." They also note in the second sentence of today's report, "this analysis does not constitute a final and comprehensive cost estimate for the bill."

According to the CBO, the bill costs $894 billion over 10 years, and expects to raise $460.5 billion from a high income surtax. The bill makes $425 billion in cuts. After adding 10 million Medicaid recipients to the federal tax rolls at a cost of $425 billion, Congress will require state taxpayers to begin picking up part of the cost in 2015. The CBO says Congress can expect to raise $167 billion in new penalties on individuals and employers.

Isn't there something inherently wrong with depending on penalties for federal revenue??

What can you do? Call your Congressman or woman and tell them your opposition to the bill and why.

Here's what CCHC talking points.

1. Tell them to read the bill. Call your members of Congress (find them online here) or call the Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Call one or two of them every day. Make a schedule of each day of the week with names and numbers. Get up in the morning, drink your coffee, and give them a call.
   
2. ASK them what they are doing to protect you. ASK them what they are doing to preserve your freedom. Don't retreat. Don't give up. Don't listen to the propaganda intended to discourage you.
   
3. Email Congress by using the webpage from our friends at FreedomWorks. NOTE: Interject or use your own words for more impact.
4. Call the White House 202-456-1414 and 202-456-1111 AND email the President (www.WhiteHouse.gov/contact/)
5. Contact the Blue Dog's Policy Co-Chair (Rep. Baron Hill - IN) at BlueDog@mail.house.gov

Pelosi new, big government health care bill includes something for everyone -- higher taxes, mandates, subsidies, penalties, and deficits.

Here's Nancy Pelosi's new health care bill in the US House.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a $894 billion health care bill Thursday that would extend coverage to 36 million Americans through a mix of subsidies, tax incentives and penalties on individuals and small businesses, but the final package falls short of the more liberal vision of a public health insurance option.

Party leaders would like to start debate on the bill next week and hope to have a final vote before Veteran's Day on Nov. 11.

While it doesn't establish a single payer health care system, it certainly will move things in that direction. It's another example of a government "solution" which will cost lots of money and only make matters worse.

Unveiling the bill at the Capitol, Pelosi said the bill would meet the goals of “affordability of the middle class, security for our seniors, responsibility to our children. It reduces the deficit, meets President Obama’s call to keep the costs under $900 billion over 10 years and it insures 36 million more Americans.”

Pelosi says, “The bill is fiscally sound, will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system,” Pelosi said.

The legislation would require health insurers to offer broader coverage and end practices that discriminate against higher-risk individuals. It would also establish a national insurance exchange with subsidies to lower- and middle-income households to make coverage more affordable.

But then later in the story we find that in the second half of the ten year period it will create deficits.

The Congressional Budget Office offered Pelosi and her team some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the bill shouldn’t add to the deficit over the first decade after its enactment. The bad is that the legislation is projected to create deficits over the second five years, a fact that should give budget hawks plenty to worry about.

Yet the bill will have people opposing it for various reasons.

Pelosi’s decision to strip a $245 billion package of doctors’ payments also threatens to anger party moderates. The so-called “docs’ fix,” which would fill a long-standing shortfall under Medicare reimbursement rates, would put the overall cost of the bill well over $1 trillion and create more than $200 billion in red ink for the federal government over the next 10 years – two big “no-nos” from President Barack Obama’s perspective.

The bill should cause plenty of headaches for the industries impacted.

The legislation imposes as much as $150 billion in Medicare cuts on the prescription-drug industry – almost double the $80 billion cuts in the Senate bill. It imposes a 2.5 percent tax on medical device manufacturers, a quietly influential force on Capitol Hill, And health insurers, who have already agreed to end many of the practices banned by the bill, would have to compete with a government-run insurance vehicle that would put pressure on them to lower premiums.

In addition, businesses with a combined annual payroll exceeding $750,000 will be forced to pay penalties for its uninsured workers.

As expected, the House bill generates most of its income by imposing a graduated surtax on married couples who make more than $1 million and individuals whose adjusted gross income exceeds $500,000. The initial income thresholds were $350,000 for couples and $280,000 for individuals.

The bill is merely another step in the wrong direction. In the end it will cost more, reduce quality and affordability of health care. Government can't run or manipulate the health care economy in a major way without messing things up.

Again the result of a flawed worldview. One which fails to understand human nature and the proper role of government.

Business as usual and worse. STD funding in stimulus bill.

The $800 billion plus stimulus bill flying through Congress contains hundreds of millions of dollars for sexually transmitted disease prevention. What that actually means is more money for Planned Parenthood and its friends and lots of condoms.

Many rightfully ask how this is supposed to stimulus the economy as opposed to just being pork spending on a grand scale. It's hard to defend it's relevance to stimulating the economy with a straight face or a reasonable argument though Speaker Pelosi unsuccessfully tries to. Frankly, efforts to reduce birth rates via increased condom usage is not the way to expand an economy; having more workers in the economy does.

Sexually transmitted disease prevention programs have been an abysmal failure even for reducing STDs. An epidemic of STDs continues across our nation, because the problem isn't lack of condom use but people having sex when they shouldn't -- outside of a faithful, lifelong marriage relationship. A quaint notion in our "enlightened, postmodern" society but one affirmed throughout history and no doubt will be again long after we are gone.

The most Leftist presidential candidate in our nation's history?

Though he's attempted, generally successfully, to portray himself publicly as a messenger of hope and moderation, Barack Obama is in all likelihood the most Leftist presidential candidate in our nation's history.

His association and involvement with William Ayers' social engineering education initiatives and his own statements on the use of the courts to redistribute wealth show the coming of age of the political Left in American politics. What has percolated in our universities and elites circles is now coming to full bloom in mainstream politics.

Obama's success, despite his radical political views, can be attributed to his rhetoric and reticence to aggressively advocate for some of the positions he's voiced in the past. His recent rhetoric on guns, death penalty, offshore oil drilling and even abortion suggests he realizes the American people aren't where the Left is at. He is by nature not an aggressive risk taker, much more calculating and deliberate. Yet a Democrat controlled Congress, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will no doubt force his hand on many issues he may agree with but realizes they maybe going too far too fast.

He will ultimately, as Pat Buchanan has noted, do battle with his own party or the American people.

Doug Kmiec on Obama: moral confusion or worse?

I mentioned earlier this week a LA Times column by law professor Douglas Kmiec who's Catholic and active supporter of Barack Obama. His endorsement has generated attention because he's a Catholic and been viewed as a conservative.

It was bad enough he would support the strongly pro-abortion Obama, but since then he's attempted to justify his support for Obama by attempting to reconcile his pro-life beliefs with Obama extremist views on abortion. His attempts at self justification have only resulted in him digging himself a bigger hole which only further diminishes his credibility.

His effort to justify supporting a stridently pro-abortion political candidate in the context of his Catholic beliefs puts him in the same company as VP candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who attempted to justify their pro-abortion views with their Catholic faith. Archbishop Chaput's recent comments on such efforts by Biden and Pelosi also apply to Kmiec. Chaput said, "To suggest--as some Catholics do--that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

Kmiec does seem hypnotized by Obama rhetoric. He points to Obama's comment in the last Presidential debate when he writes, quoting Obama, "Abortion is 'always a tragic situation,' he said, and we should 'try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances.'"

Obama's comments are merely the rephrasing of Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra which merely served as a smoke screen for abortion on demand policies.

While paying lip service to the "tragic situation" of abortion, Obama remains radically pro-abortion. He opposes outlawing the partial birth abortion procedure unless it includes a "health exception" which everyone knows is a blank check for abortion for any reason any time.

And while an Illinois state senator he opposed the Illinois Infant's Born Alive Act which would have banned infanticide. I blogged on that early this summer.

And he certainly will appoint judges who will continue to uphold the current, judicially imposed "abortion on demand" regime.

Yet Kmiec is mesmerized by Obama. He asks the question: "So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes..."

What's the basis for this view? Obama's desire to provide "appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby."

In essence what Kmiec's saying is it's OK to support a person who actively supports policies which permit and encourage the unfettered killing of the unborn as long as the person also supports condom education ("Appropriate education" is a euphemism for condom and contraceptive education at the expense of abstinence education.) along with funding for adoption and government welfare programs.

The American Catholic bishops pointed out the inconsistency of this view in their 1998 "Living the Gospel of Life" statement which says,

Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.

Just because a politician may be right on other issues doesn't excuse their continued support for abortion. Kmiec totally ignores this reality.

Kmiec further seeks to justify his view by saying, the repeal of the judicial protection of abortion found in Roe v. Wade really isn't that important; it won't make any difference. Kmiec says, "Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion." That defies logic. The striking down of abortion laws by Roe v. Wade led to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions. It's repeal will no doubt change the public's understanding of the rightness of abortion and result in increased legal restrictions which will mean fewer abortions.

Of course, if Obama is elected president his commitment to appoint pro-abortion judges will only insure continuation of the current abortion on demand regime.

Kmiec then curiously suggests that pursuing a pro-life position will only cause division in our nation and will impose a religious view on the nation. "Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy."

Give me a break. He knows better than to suggest that protecting innocent human life is somehow the imposition of narrow religious tenet. If that's the case then our laws against murder are at risk because they're imposition of the one of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus. And do we back away from issues simply because they will cause division? If that's the standard then slavery and racial segregation would never have been challenged.

I think this statement shows Kmiec's true colors. It's an argument, tactic of the Left used to marginalize religious conservative voices. It raises questions as to the sincerity of his espoused support for the pro-life position.

Then Kmiec injects a postmodernist argument that we need to let indivdiuals decide what's true.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

Here Kmiec makes the pro-abortion argument that "this sensitive moral decision" depends on "religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths." So does that mean if you believe the voice of God is telling you to kill your unborn baby go ahead and do it? He certainly seems to be saying just that.

Kmiec needs to engage in some truth in advertising by no longer calling himself a pro-life Catholic. He's embraced the Joe Biden view of "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't want to impose that view on anybody else." That's moral relativism and fundamentally opposed to moral truth and the inalienable right to life.

Biden's, and Obama's, Catholic problem grows. Biden's guffaw problem is manifesting itself on national stage.

Pro-abortion VP Joseph Biden, self identified Catholic, is having more problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church over his efforts to justify his pro-abortion position as a practicing Catholic. On "Meet the Press", he said he believed life began at conception yet wouldn't allow that to influence his positions as an elected official.

The number of Catholic bishops who have spoken in criticism of Biden's positions has grown to 55. One columnist points out this can be problematic for Biden and Obama politically. Not that every Catholic will follow the lead of the Bishops but for those in the middle, efforts by Biden to misrepresent the Church's teaching could be taken as a personal affront. In a tight election every vote can make a difference.

What's incensed Catholic leadership is the false representation of the Church's position on abortion by Nancy Pelosi and Joseph Biden. It's bad enough they identify themselves as pro-abortion Catholics but then to misrepresent the Church's actual teaching on abortion is going too far.

Here's a description of what the Catholic Bishop in Madison, Wisconsin said.

In Madison, Wisconsin, Bishop Robert Morlino reacted angrily to Biden's televised comments, and tossed aside his prepared Sunday homily to focus on the question, realizing that this has become a topic on which Church leaders must speak forcefully. Bishop Morlino told his Sunday congregation:

Senator Biden does not understand the difference between articles of faith and natural law. Any human being-- regardless of his faith, his religious practice, or having no faith-- any human being can reason to the fact that human life, from conception until natural death, is sacred. Biology-- not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology; biology-- tells us-- science-- that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species.

Bishop Morlino went on to say that while Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi claim to be honoring the principle that religion and politics are separate realms, the politicians themselves are violating that principle by presuming to speak about Church teachings-- and stating those teachings inaccurately-- before a nationwide television audience. "They're stepping on the Pope's turf and mine," the bishop said, "and they're violating the separation of Church and state, confusing God's good people."

I found it interesting that during Obama's Saddleback remarks on abortion he noted consistency of those who believe life begins at conception and therefore want to protect life from conception. That's why he didn't want to answer the question of when life begins; it was beyond "his pay grade." He knew that if he said life began at conception he'd be asked why he didn't protect it at conception. Obama alluded to the issue of consistency when he said:

One of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

The problem Biden has is he's not consistent and he's stuck his finger in the eye of Catholic leaders. He's history of guffaws is showing itself at inopportune times now that's he's on the national stage.

Pelosi's misstatements about Catholic Church's position reverberating among Catholic leaders

Rep. Nancy Pelosi's misstatement of the Catholic Church's historical view of abortion is resulting in a broad response from various Church leaders. In a recent "Meet the Press" interview Pelosi said Catholic leaders “for centuries had not been able to agree on when life begins.”

St. Paul/Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt released a statement last week reaffirming statements made by other Bishops.

“On behalf of the 650,000 Catholics of this Archdiocese, I wish to reinforce what Cardinal Rigali, Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Conn. and Archbishop Chaput of Denver have said about Speaker Pelosi’s misinterpretation on the question of when life begins. The Church has taught for centuries that life begins at conception and there is no room for misrepresentation of that teaching. In addition, modern medical techniques have been able to confirm what the Church has already known.

“Surely, there may be some Catholic politicians who will take a different interpretation of this Church doctrine during the coming election campaign, but Speaker Pelosi’s remarks underscore once again the need for Catholics, and especially Catholic politicians, to form their consciences according to the moral truths taught by the Catholic Church.”

I think it's another indication that orthodox, scriptural-based Christian leaders across the denominational spectrum are re-engaging the public debate over the paramount moral issues of our day -- abortion and marriage.

Are pastors finding their voices on the moral issues of the day? I think so.

I noted yesterday that Catholic leaders took Nancy Pelosi to task for misrepresenting the position of the Catholic Church on abortion. We saw the Presidential Civil Forum hosted by evangelical pastor Rick Warren's church. And we recently hosted a pastors' briefing for area pastors. I believe this election year maybe the beginning of a new engagement of pastors in the public square on the great moral issues facing our state and nation.

It's both significant and important. Significant because pastors carry important moral authority in the community and their voices have not been heard enough. And important because the great moral issues of the day, e.g. abortion, marriage, sexuality and so forth are ultimately spiritual issues for which the spiritual leaders of the community need to weigh in.

I don't think the engagement will be so much partisan as it will be on the moral aspects of these issues. Of course, there are political implications, but that's a subsidiary effect of simply taking a stand.

I know many pastors have and will be challenging the IRS gag regulation on churches regarding political speech. Some pastors have engaged in negative endorsements in terms of telling people who they can't vote for because of the candidate's stand on issues. I think there will be more pastors challenging this rule in the future.

Nancy Pelosi's failed attempt at Catholic Church Theologian

US House Speaker, Catholic Church attendee and ardent pro-abortion advocate Nancy Pelosi attempted to play Catholic Church theologian and was immediate rebuffed by Catholic Archbishops' Chaput and Wuerl and other Catholic leaders.

Appearing on Meet the Press, Pelosi was asked by Tom Brokaw how she'd help out Barack Obama after his Saddleback Presidential forum comment that it was "above his pay grade" to answer the question when a baby should be granted human rights. She said:I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctrines of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose. . . . I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.”
In response, according to Fox News,

Archbishop Donald Wuerl said people need to reflect more before they start talking about church doctrine. He also issued a statement calling Pelosi’s explanation of the church’s abortion stance “incorrect.”

“The current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago,” Wuerl noted. “From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.”

Wuerl cited a passage from the church’s catechism that condemns abortion as “gravely contrary to moral law.”

“Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism states. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Chaput described Pelosi as “a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.”

It's exciting to see Catholic leaders forceful in their statements about moral issues like abortion and the responsibility of Catholic politicians to uphold and protect the sanctity of life if they wish to remain a member in good standing with the Catholic Church.

I think church leaders across denominational lines are increasingly speaking out on the moral issues of the day. Ultimately, these moral issues are spiritual in nature and pastors, as spiritual leaders, need to address them. As they do they will change the culture. That was true with the abolitionist and civil rights movements.

I recall the significant role clergy played during the founding of our nation. The British called the American clergy "the black regiment", because of their black robes and the impact they played in shaping American public opinion.