Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kaine ‘personally’ favors Hyde amendment but pledged to work for its repeal

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kaine ‘personally’ favors Hyde amendment [but pledged to work for its repeal]

Key doctrinal and moral rules apply to all Catholics in all contexts—in business, at home, or in elective office. One cannot “personally” oppose something while making a living advocating it. – Fr. Robert Sirico, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2016

Catholic World News – July 29, 2016

Senator Tom Kaine, the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee, has said that he still “personally” supports the Hyde Amendment, although he is apparently pledged to work for its repeal.

The Hyde amendment bars direct federal taxpayer funding for abortion.

Kaine said, on a July 29 CNN broadcast, “I have been for the Hyde Amendment, and I haven’t changed my position on that.” Just two days earlier, the Clinton campaign revealed that Kaine had expressed a “personal” support for the pro-life legislation. “But as he’s made clear, he is committed to carrying out Secretary Clinton’s agenda.”

Kaine has previously said that he is “personally” opposed to abortion, although he supports unrestricted legal abortion on demand.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/07/29/democratic-vice-presidential-nominee-kaine-personally-favors-hyde-amendment/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kaine ‘personally’ favors Hyde amendment but pledged to work for its repeal

  1. Quote: “The Hyde amendment bars direct federal taxpayer funding for abortion”

    There is no religious teaching or doctrine that requires federal funding of abortion. Senator Kaine would not be violating the “Separation of Church and State” by opposing federal funding of abortion on the basis of reason, prudential rational judgment, common sense, and natural law reasoning. Some Protestants and secular progressives might not like that kind of reasoning, but the liberal notion that liberal Catholic Democrats like Kaine (or Biden and Pelosi) are required to privatize their allegiance to Catholic teaching on every aspect of the abortion issue on the basis of some constitutional principle is false. There is no such requirement. Perhaps Kaine’s bishop or some priest from Rockhurst High School could explain that to him? Or any bishop, priest, or canon lawyer. The U.S. Constitution does not REQUIRE federal funding of abortion or Planned Parenthood. There is no basis in law, doctrine, reason, or sound judgment for Kaine’s liberal position. He is severely confused on these issues, as are his fellow, liberal Harvard Law graduates in the current White House regime.

    • HowlinglyAbsurd says:

      Perhaps Kaine’s bishop … could explain that to him?

      Kaine’s bishop, His Excellency Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, has “passed the buck” on that by issuing a statement that in the words of American Life League’s Judy Brown (Raising Kaine, despising Christ):

      … sort of gets in the way of truth and explains a whole lot …

      “We continue to maintain an open communication with public officials who make ongoing decisions impacting critical, moral and social issues. . . . It is the duty of all Catholics, no matter their profession, to decide through an upright and informed conscience as to their worthiness to receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.”

      In other words, Mr. Kaine, even though you have publicly advocated for abortion, your bishop will not instruct you on the reasons why, until you repent of your public advocacy of acts of abortion, you should not be allowed to receive the body and blood of Christ. Your bishop would prefer to pussyfoot around, enabling your scandalous public advocacy of abortion and other grave matters to go unnoticed and ignored.

  2. Kaine and other liberals like him (Biden, Pelosi, Kerry) could claim that they have permission from certain modernist bishops for their position on abortion. Didn’t O’Malley bury Ted Kennedy? However, other bishops have indicated that such liberal Catholics should NOT be receiving Communion while they persist in obstinate error on abortion. Biden thinks that the teaching on abortion is an article of faith (a revealed theological mystery of dogma) and, as an issue of faith, takes the privatization dodge of being “personally opposed” but not wanting to impose his faith with the nod to Separation of Church and State. It is not an issue of faith. The Catholic Church also teaches that stealing, rape, wife beating, child abuse, and the murder of adult humans is immoral, evil, sinful, and prohibited. Do Biden and Kaine want to assert that they do not wish to “impose their faith” on fellow Americans on these issues? Climate change is now a teaching of the Church and the magisterium according to Bergoglio, hence, an issue of faith in the Biden-Pelosi-Kennedy line of argument. According to these same liberal rules on issues of faith and Separation of Church and State, should not Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, and Kaine be recusing themselves on climate change and refusing to “impose their faith” on fellow Americans?

    It might sound silly that air conditioning and climate change are now issues of faith, but this is where this liberal logic leads. All Catholic opinions on climate change should be prohibited due to Separation of Church and State if this liberal reasoning is to be upheld. Sorry, Hillary, Senator Kaine can’t support any policies on climate change and global warming because he would be imposing his faith on other Americans which is prohibited according to liberal Separation of Church and State doctrine. Can Americans really have the Pope of the Catholic Church and a papal monarchy in Italy from the Middle Ages telling them how high to set their air conditioners? Likewise, with every other Social Justice policy that Senator Kaine claims is inspired by his faith. Minimum wage, immigration, women’s rights, multicultural diversity, all of these he claims are Social Justice issues of his “faith” which according to your liberal law professors at Yale Law he is prohibited from imposing on others.

  3. “While we’re personally opposed to excessive reliance on air conditioning, refrigerators, and gasoline-powered automobiles, as a matter of faith, because of papal doctrine on climate changed, we can’t impose that faith on others because of the Separation of Church and State which the Supreme Court has upheld….”

Leave a Reply