i think the lieutenant governor has said it all for me
Lieutenant Governor calls for resignation of victim advocate
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press Writer March 7, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --The state's victim advocate should resign over comments he made against an emergency contraception bill being considered by lawmakers, Lt. Gov. Kevin Sullivan said Tuesday.
Sullivan, a Democrat, said James Papillo crossed the line when he spoke at a public hearing in opposition to a bill that would require all hospitals, including the state's four Catholic hospitals, to offer rape victims access to the morning-after pill to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
Papillo, an ordained deacon in the Roman Catholic Church, told the legislature's Public Health Committee that the bill is unnecessary and is an assault on religious freedom. He also accused victims rights groups that support the bill of having an anti-Catholic agenda.
The Archdiocese of Hartford has said it would oppose any legislation requiring hospitals to administer contraceptives in cases where an egg already has been fertilized or ovulation has occurred. Catholics believe life begins at conception.
"He can have all the strong opinions that he wants personally and privately, but he has an obligation to leave them outside the door of his office and to leave them outside of his job," said Sullivan. "Instead, yesterday, he abused his office, he abused the constitution that he swore to uphold."
Sullivan, joined by Rep. Denise Merrill, D-Mansfield, said Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell should immediately replace Papillo....
12 comments:
I agree. What's the point of having a Victim's advocate who doesn't actually stand up for the rights of victims?
he doesn't have to agree with all of the choices BUT he damn well better point out ALL of the choices
he damn well better point out ALL of the choices
I don't see any indication that he didn't, in the course of his work. All he did in this article was speak out against a piece of legislation that violates First Amendment rights. It's his right as a citizen – even a publically employed one – to criticize government actions if he wants.
yes he has the right to criticize government actions as i do. BUT when one of those actions is a valid safe legal alternative and his criticism is based on his religious beliefs alone it is unfair AND a conflict of interest
He made it very clear he WASN'T speaking from his religious beliefs. His ordination wouldn't even have been an issue if the article hadn't mentioned it; he didn't say anything about it himself.
Other articles I've seen on this guy (I did some Google research) indicate that he's extremely professional and compassionate. There's no excuse for the Lt. Governor to jump on him for expressing disapproval of a law that's designed to persecute his co-religionists.
joel, i wouldn't use the word persecute.
I would. The Catholic Church is the biggest thorn in the side the abortion industry has, and bills like this are aimed at eliminating its influence in the politics surrounding abortion. If the legal precedent can be established that abortion always takes priority over free exercise of religion, then there is effectively no opposition left.
i don't think of it as an abortion 'INDUSTRY' at all.
where is everyone's outrage at the death penalty? where is everyone's outrage at what was allowed to happen to the people of the gulf coast during katrina? where is the outrage at the elderly and the others who cannot afford health care? where is the outrage for abused children? i think we ought to concentrate on ACTUAL BORN PEOPLE, INDIVIDUAL LIVES that are here in this world right now who are dying and being mistreated and lost by the wayside.
I thnk there's plenty of outrage at all those things, some of it justified, some not. But the conscience laws apply specifically to the abortion issue. Although there was a case a week or two ago where several doctors refused to take part in an execution, and I didn't see the same anger directed at them that was loosed on those who won't participate in abortion.
As for "abortion industry," I don't know what else you could call it. There's a great deal of money in abortion, which I think is the catalyst for a lot of the political action on its behalf. Look at it this way: There are about 1.5 million abortions annually, at a going rate of (correct me if I'm wrong) $300-$600 apiece. Yes, many of those were performed on low-income women, but the cost in that case is subsidized by the government; the clinics still collect. I'm not denying that concern for women is a motivating factor, but so are the dollars. Hence the term "abortion industry."
no joel, there ISN'T a great deal of money to be made in abortions. if you think that you are VERY mistaken. no doctor gets RICH from performing them(well none i am aware of). their (the doctors) very lives are threatened as well as those of their families (now tell me how THAT is justified).
I don't justify the threats against abortionists, nor against protesters. (My wife could tell you about having guns aimed at her head – on numerous occasions – by clinic personnel.) As for the money behind it, take a look at the quotes from former abortionists here. The article is opinionated, but the quotes from doctors and counselors are hard to argue with. These people know the business from the inside.
Of the 1.5 million annual abortions, Planned Parenthood does about half. If you look at their financial statements (I can get you the links if you want), you'll see that while they're legally non-profit, they're still making money. Lots of it.
clinic personnel aimed guns at your wife's head? whatever happened no one should have guns aimed at them
i'm not clicking on your link. i am certain what i would find there.
joel, you are not going to change my mind about this subject no matter how much you preach to me.
Post a Comment