Posted: May 18, 2012 at 5:08 pm
GUEST POST: Pam Bucy’s Volunteer Work Has Made Montana a More Just State
For professional and personal reasons, I have never commented or posted on a political blog. However, the fact that I have a unique perspective on Pam Bucy’s commitment to justice compels me to publicly support her in this context. Her varied and impressive legal experience is already well-known. What is less well-known is her 16 years of quiet, unpaid, tireless work for access to justice in this state. I know that her commitment to justice is genuine and deeply grounded in the core of who she is and what she believes.
I met Pam when I moved to Montana, right out of law school, to work for Montana Legal Services Association. Representing victims of domestic violence in eastern Montana, I was blown away by the utter and complete lack of access to justice for too many Montanans who couldn’t afford an attorney to help them exercise their rights in relation to housing, credit, parenting, and safety.
When I met Pam, at 33 years old, she had already put herself through law school as a single mom and was Executive Assistant Attorney General (aka Chief Deputy) under Mike McGrath. She was pregnant with her second child, and, somehow, she found the time to serve as the volunteer Chair of the Supreme Court’s Equal Justice Task Force. This was more than a title for Pam. She showed dedication in her passionate leadership, but she also got her hands dirty doing all kinds of work that needed to be done to increase access to justice for low-income Montanans.
In all of the years we worked with each other on access to justice issues, she was NEVER without a pro bono case. And she took the thankless ones that no one else wanted- complicated, highly contested, ugly, multi-year family law cases. There are women and children in Montana whose rights and safety were only protected because of Pam’s volunteer work. Her rare dedication has been recognized by her peers: In 2006, she was recognized by the State Bar with both a pro bono award and an award for distinguished service for access to justice.
When the State Bar received a bit of money to do a legal needs survey, she didn’t just lead the effort, she joined Americorps VISTA volunteers in conducting hour long interviews of low-income Montanans all across this state. Then she led the effort to have the legislature commission their own study of legal needs. That study directly led to the first-ever investment by the state in services, forms, and support for unrepresented litigants in Montana.
She helped create the first pro bono policy for state workers in Montana.
More recently, she demonstrated her commitment to access to justice on the Board of the Montana Legal Services Association. The list goes on and on and on….
I haven’t met a candidate yet who shares all of my beliefs or all of my policy positions. What I look for are people who share my core values, who I fundamentally trust to do the right thing, and who are committed to work hard for the people they represent. Pam is without question that candidate for me.
I can honestly say, without any fear of hyperbole or exaggeration, that Montana is a more just state because of Pam’s volunteer work over the last 16 years. Her commitment to justice is as deep and sincere as any person’s I know. I hope readers will consider this quiet, dedicated, and largely unknown part of Pam when they cast their votes for Attorney General in the primary.
Tara Veazey
Helena, MT
I met Pam for the first time about a month ago at a political function out in eastern Montana. I like Pam, she is good people, and she would make an excellent attorney general. I have already voted in the primary election this year, but if Pam wins the Democratic primary she can count on my support in the general election, without question.
Pam’s got my vote. She’s got 20 years experience on the other guy. That’s how we’re going to beat Tim Fox.
Bucey and Laslovich are both exceptional people. But Pam probably has a better chance to beat Fox, since she can benefit from the voter turnout/repudiation of the R’s war on women’s rights.
It’s time to end the fact that Montana has never had a woman in the AG’s office. I gotta’ say though the difference in years of experience seals the deal.
Laslovich is, in his own words, “a Legislator at heart.”
I believe he is a good legislator. I believe his continued work with Commissioner Lindeen will continue to produce amazing results in bettering Montana insurance.
I want my Attorney General to be…an Attorney – with a credible, documented record. Pam is that person.
I want my Attorney General to be Pam Bucy
This is an important Op-Ed. Also, readers of this blog should know that the competition to this blog, Intelligent Discontent, edits and sometimes completely censors pro-Bucy content like this.
It is utterly ridiculous to think that blogs “compete” with each other.
Evidence? This guest poster also posted essentially this comment on Intelligent Discontent, and it’s still there for you to see.
The Bucy Bots are out in full force.
A couple of things. I have met both Busy and Laslovich. I am still somewhat on the fence with this vote but I am leaning toward Laslovich – partially because of the kind of comments I am seeing on this blog.
A) Make no mistake, Jesse Laslovich is an attorney. Trying to depict him as a non-attorney is neither fair nor accurate. As an attorney, he has returned millions of dollars to hard working Montanan’s that have been screwed over by both insurance companies and scam artists.
B) It is not just women and children that need legal aid nor is the Attorney General’s office the place to run a crusade for women’s rights. While I have no doubt either candidate would do a fine job of protecting women’s rights, the office of Attorney General protects the rights of ALL Montanan’s… Men, Women and Children.
If we are actually going to discuss candidates, let’s at least be honest about it. You are not doing Pam any favors by misrepresenting Jesse Laslovich’s experience or dedication to either the law or Montana.
It is an absolute lie that my blog edits or deletes pro-Bucy comments but comments like that are a good part of the reason I had trouble supporting her. Pam is an excellent public servant, but her supporters online have behaved terribly throughout this campaign. Maybe the Bucy bots might rethink a strategy which has actually done their candidate harm.
I dont see my blog as a competitor to this one, either. Only someone incredibly myopic could fail to see that Cowgirl and ID are on the same side 96% of the time.
I have to agree with Don on this I have never seen him edit or delete anyone’s comments who is pro Bucy, and I am a Bucy supporter.
Bucy’s people need to step back from this comment. We are not to act like our Parinoid GOP Opposition……… Ever!!!!!
I usually enjoy your Comments Queen, but this was over the line.
When I saw this earlier today, I did not realize that it had originally been written as a comment on the Intelligent Discontent blog as a form of “response” to a post in which I recounted a professional interaction I had with Pam Bucy. My original blog post described several discussions I had with Pam Bucy about the illegal disclosure of private information by the Department of Labor and Industry to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers. I felt that this conduct was legally unsupportable, and was harming migrants by allowing ICE to engage in secret and illegal investigations without a warrant or legal basis. Pam Bucy generally disagreed, and felt that disclosure was permitted by law.
I included direct quotes from Pam Bucy, and discussed my disappointment with her handling of the situation. In conclusion, I stated that this may provide some insight into the manner in which she might fulfill her role as Attorney General if she were elected.
As many voters base their voting decisions on much less than this, I felt that this interaction would be of interest to others, and everyone could reach their own conclusion about how this impacts their vote, if at all.
I take issue with Tara’s comment as any form of response to what I wrote about in my blog post. Tara speaks eloquently and passionately about her friend’s professional accomplishments. I have no reason to doubt anything that she says or the fact that Pam Bucy has committed a significant portion of her career to public service. However, I don’t understand how that public service in any way contradicts or invalidates the professional interaction I described in my original blog post, or the concerns it raised.
Indeed, as one of the only people advocating for immigrant justice issues in the State of Montana, it appears dismissive of these concerns to minimize them because of Pam Bucy’s pro bono service on behalf of different constituencies. Unless we are to believe that Pam Bucy’s public service renders her infallible, then that public service is not directly relevant to the issues I was discussing.
I believe that this response is a good example of the way that some of Bucy’s supporters have attempted to minimize discussion of factual issues or political positions in support of more general endorsements of her personal character and accomplishments. At its best, politics is about high level discussions about ideas and ideology. At its most base level, the discourse becomes about “cult of personality.”
It has been disappointing and disheartening to see this campaign play out in Helena over the past several months. Rather than using the primary election as a means to flesh out the candidates’ positions on progressive issues, we have seen this campaign become nothing more than a popularity contest.
Some prominent progressives who are good friends with Bucy have naturally been vocal in their support of her campaign. Despite great respect for these people, personal recommendations only go so far, because if we are honest we know that every candidate has close friends who will advocate for them. Like many other progressives, I reject the premise that I must support a candidate just because my friends do. For the rest of us, we want to know the candidate’s actual positions — but we want these positions on the record, not through second or third-hand assurances from friends.
This has been part of the frustration that I and many others have felt with Bucy’s campaign. Whether intentionally or not, Bucy supporters have contributed to an atmosphere that has prevented a genuine discussion about the candidate’s positions on important issues. As many of these supporters would normally tell you, this type of discussion is why a primary is good for the Democratic party.
I can completely understand how these supporters feel passionately about Bucy because they have been friends with her for some time. However, instead of allowing their support for the candidate to be borne out by the candidates own statements, they seem to be asking us to just “trust them” because they know Bucy personally. These same people often demand that other candidates state their positions clearly on the record — and rightly hold them accountable when they do not.
While I don’t agree with Jesse Laslovich on all of the issues, I have grown to respect the fact that he has been clear about his positions throughout his campaign, while Bucy has appeared to benefit from ambiguity — stating moderate-left positions on the record, but making more progressive assurances behind closed doors. In reality, both candidates appear to be very similar on the relevant issues.
A few examples of what I am talking about:
On the death penalty, Bucy has stated on the record that she will “enforce” the death penalty. She has not publicly made any qualifications or limitations on its use, or any statement regarding her personal opposition to it. Nevertheless, there are progressives who believe that her “real” position is that she is opposed to the death penalty, and will take steps to limit its use. Whether this belief is based on private conversations or extrapolating from their personal friendship — this is not supported by anything she has said publicly.
On how she would vote on the land board, many progressives believe she will be a strong advocate for the environment, making tough votes like Denise Juneau did on Otter Creek coal. However, when she was endorsed by Montana Conservation Voters, she stated in her interview that she would have voted in favor of Otter Creek coal development as long as the company paid a fair price. Her endorsement by MCV was not based on better environmental positions than Jesse Laslovich — it was based on the fact that she was considered to be more knowledgable about the issues. However, this is another area where ambiguity or conjecture has benefitted Bucy.
On other issues from medical marijuana to alternative treatment courts, the candidates have stated very similar positions on the record. Nevertheless, within Helena circles one might be left with the impression that our very legal system was at stake in this primary election. This sentiment is based in large part on tensions that I believe to be fueled by the Bucy campaign.
It should go without saying that there is no accountability to the voting public for statements made behind closed doors. I’d like to see a simple and generally accepted principle be applied to this primary: If you won’t state your position publicly, then you don’t get credit for it. It never gets easier to take a clear position on a political issue, especially progressive issues in Montana. If she doesn’t do it now, she won’t do it in the general election, and she won’t do it while in office.
I believe I have now said all I have to say on this subject. As discussions of this nature are time consuming and try on personal friendships, I will attempt to avoid further engagement on this topic. It bears repeating that despite the unnecessarily personal nature of this primary, the candidates are objectively quite similar on the issues and I will support either one in the general election.
This is a very well worded responce that puts many of my concerns down in a manner that I was unable to do. When speaking to Pam Bucy and Jesse Laslovich at the Democratic Dinner, I got the same impression. Jesse was direct and very candid about his positions on issue where Pam was far more generic and spent most of her time talking about her resume. This is one of the many reasons I am leaning toward voting for Jesse.
Well said!
A little hope on the horizon? Maybe. Time to do it for all the right reasons. THE ECONOMY, STOOPID! And simply because it’s the right thing to do. People or profits, time to decide. I choose people. And I say SCREW the insurance industry, for it’s time to do unto them what they do unto us! It’s Biblical! And there is no higher authority that Biblical!
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/18-10
ALEC
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/alec-wants-make-it-illegal-state-ags-
ALEC, not by that name but in various shades, has been present in US politics since the beginning of time. Each legislator usually has a stack of bills to promote when taking office. Often s/he presents the goal to government scriveners, who craft it. But just as often, the bill appears pre-packaged and ready for consideration.
Marc Racicot’s electrical deregulation bill was pre-packaged, as was much of Conrad Burns’s legislation – one bill he introduced was so sloppily done that it still bore the fax number of the group that wrote it, Montana Wood Products Association, in the upper margins.
Two other examples of industry-written legislation carried by tools of industry: Obamacare, written by a WellPoint executive who now works for Baucus (she switched, him pretending to be on top for a while), and FJRA, most likely written, as before with Burns, by MWPA.
Dumbass. Just go away, dumbass. You provide NO credible source for your diarrhea, dude. Just your reminisces. Not enough. ALEC is indeed something quite unique.
Liz Fowler of WellPoint was the author of Obamacare, though of course only one af hundreds of industry executives behind it. The fax moniker story was told to me by a former legislative aide who now works Montana issues. It could well be apocryphal, but I doubt you question it, since CB is evil. You don’t believe that FJRA could be anything but Tester-inspired, as he is a force for good. But the bill has in it Burns-era objectives, so why should I not suspect the same forces are behind it?
ALEC may submerge and reappear under a new name, and is neither new nor unique. Our politics are financed by private wealth – do you honestly believe they have ever just sit back and allowed events to naturally play out? Important legislation that receives serous consideration is usually industry-written, with publicity and promotion a Kabuki dance.
Please tone down your rhetoric, as you make this place appear stupid to the point that people like me get ragged on for even commenting here. That’s the rolling-in-mud-with-pigs scenario, and you are in large part the source of the mud here.
Your point is non sequitur, Toke: you share it only as a self-serving masturbatorial.
LK is right: your appearances here are narcissistic apocrypha intended to drive traffic from democracy to your flawed anarchistic fatalism.
If indeed the Democratic Party is a force for progress, rather than just the pre-approved gelded alternative to the right wing factions that run the country, then by now, 3.5 years into an administration (oddly backed by the same financial centers as Republicans) that uses that party label, we ought to see positive change.
It ain’t apparent. Where’s the Kool-Aid stand? I need some pronto. I’m seeing intensified Bushism and self-hypnosis on the D side, just as in the Clinton years.
What change, what improvement, do you offer? Please be specific. Obamacare? No. More wars? Continued tax cuts? Stealth attack on Social Security? Privatize the Postal Service? Cuts in the Pentagon war budget? Financial regulation? Aid for troubled homeowners? Civil liberties?
If you got something, by now we oughtta see it. If you got nuthin’, as is apparent, by now you oughtta see it.
How is it you Spew such garbage Mark. Dont you know how at all, to talk like an Regular American? Or,have you had you head up your crack for just so long that all you can speak in, is what you hear from inside that bubble……. Incoherent Babble?
If the entire reasoning over the last four years for the Republican house was to stop the black man in the presidents office, with his democratic friends of America from passing bills intended on helping the masses( no matter what their color or station) …. just how much Positiveness for the people, can the president and his Democratic friends do, when the Current GOP can only utter three words?
CUT TAXES, NO!
Was that the question you were offering us? Were you comparing notes again with your do-nothing Teapublican white male friends?
The answer is Our president has done a lot of good for the country, even with Bull-spitters like you around trying to muck up the Works!
http://3chicspolitico.com/president-obamas-accomplishments/
Your a small little man with trivial pursuits of self serving bologna, just like your little group of conspiratorial Idiots…..
You have been told now Mark, at least a thousand times now, your input is not wanted here.It makes no sense, Get Lost!
As a rule of thumb I don’t answer you, as you are a surface phenomenon, like Kaily. This one time: I can be here, not your call. Go do something else. You’re not very good at this. Gardening, perhaps?
Mark if you have nothing good to add, or proof to aid in your take of the conversation, like the bull-pucky your comments have become, Why comment at all here? Seriously!
Cue the President’s hot-mic episode with Russia’s Medvedev.
Bill Maher calls Obama’s imminent second term the African-American term: the Green Term would be likely more preferable to most Democrats.
Agreed!
Avoiding the issues with Ad Hominem again, I see. Here’s the point, Tokarski. It doesn’t matter who writes the goddamned bill outside of what it says and what it does. The point of Lynn’s link isn’t “ALEC evil – Democrats Good!”. The point is that the legislative water they want carried is truly awful, likely unconstitutional and if passed and supported could hamstring state AGs and the people’s need for legal protections. That is an issue relevant to this post and the choice we face between Bucy, Laslovich and the Republican contenders (worth noting that Tim Fox has already mouthed support for the ideas behind ALECs crusade for ‘free market’ imperialism.)
See, Mark, that would be highlighting and discussing an issue. If you’re really concerned about the image of ‘rolling in the mud with pigs’ then get out of the mud pit.
Part of an AG’s job is protecting the People, ALEC wants it changed to protecting the Corporations
You forgot “actually.”
That aside, without ALEC, the problem of financial support for both parties from the same source persists. Some other gnome will guard the cave.
So, you have nothing to say about the issues, at least not any the rest of us are discussing. What a hypocrite you are.
Speaking for the group again, are you? interesting thing you do. You rely on the group for moral support, a sign of weakness.
I am discussing SLEC, saying it is just a surface phenomenon that will reappear under new cover if it goes away as is. it is always with us, and will be u til the corruption of private finance is removed from campaigns.
If not allowed to write legislation, why even buy politicians?
Never heard of SLEC! what is that?
Sick Lecturing Egotistical Cornholes?
Is that a group you would belong too Mark? Yeah, Your a surface phenomenon all right. Thank goodness you are speaking/ living in Colorado!
You are both a surface phenomenon and one who is riveted by such? Please, Norma, look a little deeper into ALEC, its purpose and function, and understand that it is nothing more than a manifestation of a corrupt system which, like WHACK-A-MOLE, will merely reappear somewhere else.
This corruption envelopes both parties and is so extensive that we need to pull the plug – the body politic is no longer self-sustaining. Good people cannot have success because the good thing to do – to reject private bribes – spells electoral defeat. So you either become corrupt or you perish in this system.
That is the system, that is why it is important to stay outside of it, to eschew party politics and work issues with others at ground level.
Mark, I Know of ALEC and The KOCH Brothers very well. In fact My first comments on the Internet in Montana Politics, were about the lawlessness of these guys.
So please do not lecture me about them I have done more research on shadow politics then your wee little brain can fathom. I am pretty sure I have been one of the most vocal on twitter as well,and was one of the first people here in 2011 who spoke of them.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/9033-subverting-the-statehouse-uncovering-the-other-alecs
Oh, little Tokarski … ~sigh~
When I make moral arguments, I’ve never relied on a group. When I make moral arguments, you flee like a cockroach. You aren’t making a moral argument, and neither am I. You’re avoiding issues and calling others “surface phenomena”. There’s nothing ‘surface phenomenal’ about you, of course. You’re just scum.
Unfortunately, it ain’t just the corporate fascists. It’s also local gubmints! Here in GF it’s absolutely awful! Our local Keystone Cops seemingly exist ONLY to provide revenue! They’re a pathetic joke. But they hire mainly guys from outta state who have no vested interest in the community. Hence, they are will henchmen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/us-poverty_b_1523865.html?ref=homepage
(Barb, good Butte gal)
It’s good to be a Big Kockh! Being a Kockh means you never have to say you’re sorry. Teatard Amerikkka. You wanted it. You GOT it!
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/when-you-hear-gop-call-repeal-and-replace-a
I see by Pam’s website that she a champion of women’s issues.
Would that include demanding that our MT Catholic institutions, schools and hospitals pay for partial birth abortions?
There’s no such thing, except in right-wing land, as a “partial birth abortion.” A late-term abortion is performed (and this is a very rare event) when a woman would die if she didn’t abort or if the fetus is so malformed– missing half its brain, for example — that it wouldn’t survive more than a few hours after being delivered.
When the anti-abortion types trot out the horrible images of late term abortions, they’re ignoring the horrible circumstances behind these abortions. And they’re ignoring how heartbreaking they are for women (who wanted to become mothers or they wouldn’t have gone so far into their pregnancies) to have to terminate them late.
Heart breaking (or heart stopping) for the fetus too.
Ok lets remove the “partial birth” terms. Will Pam have the guts to come out and support abortions and birth control demands for Catholic institutions?
And if she doesn’t does that make her a “champion of wpmen’s issues”?
I would guess whether by “catholic institutions” you mean catholic run hospitals. If those hospitals receive federal protection or federal funds, I would guess that they have to follow the same rules every other federally funded hospital has to follow.
It is sad, Ingy, that you have to resort to trickery to comment here.
I’m hoping this brings you up to speed, MC.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/breaking-cardinal-dolan-ny-cardinal-wuerl-dc-notre-dame-and-40-other-catholic-dioceses
One of the possible outcomes of this suit could be that the Catholic church loses it’s tax-exempt status in the US. Though it would spark many more lawsuits, I still think that would be wonderful!
This isn’t “Bringing me up to Speed”, Ingy, it is attempting to get me to agree to more of your idiocy. This suit is a non-starter (something if you had brain cell one, you would already realise) and is far more likely to have the outcome Rob suggests rather than the outcome you would like it to have. I am aware of the Catholic’s Church’s attempt to rewrite the Constitution… are you?
Both you and brother Rob need only to ask yourselves one question.
Can you win elections demonizing Catholics?
You mean the Pedophile Protection Program? The Catholic church shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on morality. But if they did, they need to keep it to their own membership. Once they start taking public funds, they need to follow the laws of the United States.
No, Ingy, we really don’t. The Catholics are doing what most other Christian Churchs are doing at this point – they are riding the current “revival” of the hard Christian right for their own profit and membership. Of course they want to be able to exert their domination over American Politics. What they will find is that the Constitution prevents them from doing so. Moreover, if they push hard enough, they will find that many of the current priviledges they enjoy would not stand up to constitutional challenge.
There is no place in politics for religious fanatism and if you weren’t a complete moron, you were realise that. In fact, I think you do realise it but are doing your typical troll thing…
That one brian cell I have must be a monster.
“As more than 40 Catholic groups file suit against the Obama administration over its HHS mandate forcing them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for employees, new poling data shows President Barack Obama is tanking with Catholic voters… [Recent Pew Surveys show a] huge 14-point loss the pro-abortion president has had with Catholics in recent months…”
And that quote comes from? Moreover, I don’t have a huge concern over Obama losing some of the fanatical religious vote. Those same fanatics will have just as big a problem it Romney’s religion.
That brain cell is still a lot smaller than you think it is. You still haven’t shown that that this catholic political suit will gain any ground, has any basis in law or will result in any positive outcome for the Catholic Pediphile Protection League.
I don’t know where you got that quote from, IJ, but I can tell you right now that there is a substantial number of American Catholics who don’t drink the Vatican’s Kool-Aid when it comes to women’s health issues. The Catholics who are upset about this issue hate Obama anyway, so why should he care what they think? No, I don’t have a source to back that last sentence up with; it comes from personal experience in arguing with conservative Catholics. It really comes down to one simple thing: if you take federal dollars to subsidize your operation, then you are beholden to federal laws, and those laws make no exemptions for religious dogma. If the Church wants to be a political entity, then I agree with both the Kaileys: they need to pay taxes. The rest of us have to pay our dues to the big club, why can’t they?
The one “brian” cell you have must be a monster? Good grief! Funniest thing I’ve read in weeks, right up ther with Bush’s “Is our children learning?”
The catholic church does a great job of demonizing ITSELF, Ingy. The church is NOT what you think it is, my friend!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/spains-stolen-babies-an-ugly-past-on-a-staggering-scale-2/
“Can you win elections demonizing Catholics?” Boy, Ingys full of reverse Propaganda today! A few republican Bishops argue on the side of republicans cuz thats what they are politicans….. no longer keepers of the scared heart, but keeper of the Green Dollar sign.
Willing to say they will to stop their churches from feeding the poor, and helping the needy if Washington doesn’t go there way!
Guess what?
Those Bishops that wish to hold hostage the very values that make a catholic, the Beatitudes of Matthew 5: 3-12:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
If the Vatican had any real faith, those men of the cloth that said those things should be Defrocked.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NMT3BaMLLnM/TiJk4XgRMlI/AAAAAAAANN8/0A9dfmWajt8/s1600/new-jesus.jpg
Gee Ingemar nothing new here, with the exception the catholic church has lost this kind of lawsuit before in over twenty other states!
The argument is old, and the religious guys in funny hats haven’t been winning before. And I believe their losing case will be used as evidence against them! precedent is an Ugly truth!
Has anyone else noticed the silence from other religions when it comes to the Catholics arguments on insurance coverage?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/Americans-Including-Catholics-Say-Birth-Control-Morally.aspx
Ingamar comments but does not read replies, Turner. Your analysis is spot-on, but Ingy is spot-gone.
To be Honest with you Ingemar, is they want to carry and serve patients outside of their faith for money, and therefore were not following Christs story of the “Good Samaritan,” but turning a buck ….. I would say Yes on cases of rape and when the woman would die without an Abortion, or the child would die because it was malformed! At the very least they should be taxed, because they are getting the same funds that any secular hospital gets from the government.
Why should they be treated differently if they are in competition with regular hospitals for services among non Catholic people in the community?
In 1992, the Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, upheld women’s constitutional right to abortion services, but allowed certain leeway in placing restrictions on access to reproductive healthcare. Since then, right-wing politicians have increasingly pushed through state laws meant to chip away at the right to choose and undermine the protections of Roe v. Wade.
These state-level draconian proposals are intended to cripple the ability of women to access reproductive health services, while men can still look forward to prostrate surgery and Viagria being paid for by insurance in religious hospitals. It is not at all fair.
http://mtprnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/democratic-attorney-general-candidate-looking-to-be-seen-as-passionate-family-man/
Let’s look at facts. Pam has more experience. She is consistent on her message. She hasn’t had a fundraiser by PPL and she didn’t take bundled money from oil and gas. Jessi did and it’s a fact. Jessi touts he was a laborer and an operator and part owner of a construction firm in anaconda. Implying he was a union member. Fact is he wasn’t. It’s a fact the company is nonunion. And it’s a fact when push comes to shove he voted with the MCA and against the unions.
Amen sister! It will be a proud day when Montana elects a woman as attorney general for the first time in Montana history!!