While the waviness of Tuesday’s midterm election continues to be debated, Sister Simone Campbell called the day “a tremendous success,” at least when it came to the dozen U.S. House races targeted by the “Nuns on the Bus” national tour that ended earlier this month outside President Trump’s Florida home.
Sister Campbell, executive director of Network Lobby, said one factor shaping the results in eight House races was the “substantive conversations about the common good” the group facilitated. They focused their criticism on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and on last year’s federal tax cut that critics say puts funding for social programs at risk.
They focused their criticism on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and on last year’s federal tax cut that critics say puts funding for social programs at risk.
She said she was encouraged by women voters, who appeared to break for Democrats in key suburban congressional districts, as well as the record number of women headed to the House of Representatives as the Democrats take control—including the first two Native American women and the first two Muslim women elected to Congress.“I take heart in that people are standing up for the common good,” Sister Campbell said.
A number of ballot measures supported by other Catholic leaders passed on Tuesday.
In Florida, voters approved a constitutional amendment that will automatically restore voting rights to more than one million convicted felons. In the runup to the election, the Florida Catholic Conference urged voters to accept the proposal, writing in a voters’ guide, “Restoring their right to vote is a meaningful step to engage their full participation in their communities.” Most felons automatically have their voting rights restored when they complete their sentences or go on probation. The amendment does not apply to those convicted of sex offenses or murder.
A minimum wage increase was approved in two states. An Arkansas measure will raise the wage from $8.50 an hour to $11 by 2021, while Missouri will gradually raise the $7.85 minimum wage to $12 an hour.
In Florida, voters approved a constitutional amendment that will automatically restore voting rights to more than one million convicted felons.
Catholic bishops in Missouri had come out in favor of the minimum-wage increase, writing in a voting guide, “We have seen within our own parish communities the effect that unemployment, underemployment, and low wages have on our own parishioners and on society at large.”
Expanding Medicaid to cover people who cannot afford health insurance was on the ballot in three states. Voters in Idaho, Nebraska and Utah approved the move by solid margins. The Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City was part of a coalition of religious groups urging voters to pass the initiative in a state where most residents belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Catholic voters made up about a quarter of those voting in House races on Nov. 6, according to a CNN exit poll, and those voters were almost evenly split between Democratic and Republican candidates. (The AP VoteCast poll found a similar result; see table above.) Writing at Religion News Service, Mark Silk noted the change from 2014, when exit polls showed 54 percent of Catholic voters favoring Republican candidates.
“[This shift] may reflect the higher turnout in the Latino vote, representing a larger, more Democratic portion of the Catholic vote as a whole,” Mr. Silk wrote.
Catholic voters made up about a quarter of those voting in House races on Nov. 6, and those voters were almost evenly split between Democratic and Republican candidates.
Though the Catholic vote was important, the polling group P.R.R.I. estimated that white evangelicals continued to be overrepresented at the polls this year.
Robert P. Jones, the group’s founder, noted on Twitter that white evangelical Protestants comprised 26 percent of this year’s electorate, though they make up only 15 percent of the overall U.S. population.
|
Among all voters, according to the CNN exit polls, those who say they attend services weekly or more went for Republicans, 58 percent to 40 percent. Those who attend a few times each month voted for Democrats, 52 percent to 46 percent.
Pro-life measures were on the ballot in at least three states. Voters in Oregon rejected a ban on public funding of abortion, 64 percent to 36 percent. But West Virginia prohibited the use of state funds to pay for abortions by a four-point margin. And Alabama passed a constitutional amendment banning public funding of abortion and “declaring...the state’s policy to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life,” 60 percent to 40 percent.
While pro-life groups found plenty to like about Tuesday’s results, particularly a Senate that appears ready to confirm conservative judges, Kristen Day, head of Democrats for Life, said her group is “really sad” at the defeat of Senator Joe Donnelly, Democrat of Indiana, who lost to pro-life Republican Mike Braun. But she also pointed to re-election victories for Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who sometimes cast pro-life votes, as signs of hope. With the exception of Republican Dean Heller of Nevada, senators who supported Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court were re-elected, while at least two other Democrats from red states who opposed Mr. Kavanaugh, Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, were both defeated.
Ms. Day said she was encouraged by the election of Ben McAdams to the House, a Democrat from Utah who defeated a pro-life Republican incumbent but said during the campaign that he wants to reduce the number of abortions in the United States.
Ms. Day said she is hopeful that a Democratic majority in the House may be able to work with Senate Republicans and the president to enact paid maternity leave, an issue she hoped would not “get bogged down in the abortion debate but could help reduce abortions.”
In other races of interest to Catholic voters, Rep. Conor Lamb won re-election to the House from Pennsylvania. Mr. Lamb, a Democrat, won a special election earlier this year in a normally reliably Republican district. The Catholic candidate had faced controversy over his views on abortion, which he said he personally opposed but would not seek to ban.
Rep. Dan Lipinski, a Democrat from a Chicago suburb who is against abortion, handily won his seat, following a close primary challenge earlier this year. Mr. Lipinski’s Republican opponent was a self-described neo-Nazi who denies the Holocaust.
And in the first statewide referendum on transgender rights, Massachusetts voters on Tuesday beat back a repeal attempt and reaffirmed by a 2-to-1 margin a 2016 law extending nondiscrimination protections to transgender people, including their use of public bathrooms and locker rooms. Catholic leaders were mostly silent on the question.
In Colorado, Jared Polis became the first openly gay man to be elected governor, while Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon, who identifies as bisexual, was re-elected; both are Democrats.
Republican Kim Davis, who became something of a folk hero to conservatives in 2015 when she refused to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples, was ousted from her seat as county clerk of Rowan County, Ky. Ms. Davis was part of a controversial meet-and-greet with Pope Francis during his 2015 visit to the United States. The Vatican quickly distanced the pope from the meeting, saying he did not know Ms. Davis and that the meeting had been orchestrated by the then-papal nuncio, who in recent months caused a stir by accusing Pope Francis of covering up sexual misconduct committed by a former U.S. cardinal.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Source for infographics: The AP VoteCast, conducted on Election Day and the preceding week by telephone and mail by the University of Chicago for Fox News and the Associated Press, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Is this a Catholic mag or a Democrat publication? Catholics are supposed to be anti-abortion; this piece seems to be hoping for legal, safe and rare abortions. Certainly fewer abortions would be a good thing, but the objective should be to have none at all.
It quotes people from Democrats For Life and praises the election of Democrats who advocate for "choice" [read abortion].
Why pretend to be what this is not?
This is a partisan magazine which uses our religion as a shield to press its progressive agenda.
Catholics are supposed to be pro-life in reference to the garment of life. Global warming, reduced oversight, reduced environmental and workplace regulations will result in far more deaths than abortion, and the 'abstinence only' policy of the GOP and their ilk will cause far more need for abortion. It quotes Democrats For Life because Democrats represent the truest sense of pro-life work that covers the entire garment of life. Shame on you for pushing your partisan politics in the face of facts.
Shame on me????
I am responding to a progressive article which purports to be a religion oriented piece in a magazine supposedly devoted to religious matters. I do not cloak my views with the entire garment of life - whatever that may mean.
Nor do I express my opinions and predictions as if they were gospel. According to past predictions, global warming should have inundated the coasts and much of the mainland years ago.
Any prediction of the effects of certain reductions of oversight and different types of regulations as well as deaths caused by abstinence will have to wait for the results of such actions.
How abstinence would cause death is a puzzle only intellectual progressives can solve I guess; I certainly cannot fathom that one.
Since you gave absolutely no facts to face, your defense of Democrats For Life makes clear exactly who is promoting partisan politics.
Your statement about past predictions predicting complete inundation of coasts and mainland at this time is false. There never were any such predictions by professional climatologists, certainly no consensus. Predictions for sea level rise are about one meter by the end of the century although it could be more depending on what happens with Greenland and Antarctica. However, communities along the Atlantic coast are already experiencing "nuisance" flooding at high tides. That's the beginning.
Stan -
https://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/a-consensus-us-scientists-discover-another-major-climate-model-flaw-past-model-predictions-are-incor.html
https://www.c3headlines.com/
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications/
As someone who can see the Atlantic Ocean from my house, I notice the ocean has not risen and there has been no "'nuisance'" flooding at high tides."
Recently, a "climatologist" lost a (relatively small) bet on his prediction that major roadways in NYC would be inundated by sea level rising.
Have you never heard of Climategate?
Your references are cherry picked garbage and misrepresentation, not science. I've read the science with a background in physics and engineering. It is coherent and consistent with observation. Remember, this is a GLOBAL phenomenon. One of the tricks of denier liars is to pick a statistical outlier and extrapolate to the global or just construe a misrepresentation. I'll go with the theory consistent with physics and measurements. As for your "observation" from your house, it is not a measurement. But it is a way to rock yourself into complacency. Nuisance flooding in Miami IS occurring and is the result of both the increase in seawater volume AND the slowing of the Gulf Stream. But if you think you know better than hard working scientists, fine. When coastal property values start to decline due to SLR and powerful hurricanes, outsmart everybody by buying it on the cheap. By the way, the clown president is applying to build a sea wall for one of his silly golf courses. Watch where he puts his money or someone else's money, not his mouth.
I gave references, but you choose to dismiss them - OK, you are entitled to your opinion. I see you want others to believe the science you choose and not believe their own "lyin' eyes." Those "hard working" scientists are not working with computer models for altruistic reasons; they are paid to make findings. The Russian computer models are more in line with conditions on the ground, as opposed to the models many of the Western scientists rely on.
The reasons the stable genius President of the United States' company wanted the sea wall om Scotland are complicated and not relevant to this issue.
Who is to say that the climate we have been experiencing is the only "correct" one? Long Island, where I live, was created as the result of global warming. LI is a terminal moraine, that is the end result of a glacier's movement which is left behind as the glacier recedes. Thank God the earth warmed so that this glacier melted - because this lovely island wouldn't be here without it.
I have a strong belief in God and do not think mankind can have such a negative effect on the globe that we have to curtail our desires to have improved lives using technology.
Change is the one constant in this life, so maybe climate change is in the cards already and there's nothing we can do about it.
When you think about it, it's very conceited to believe man has the power to control natural forces such as the climate. When you think about it, believing that carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas, will be our undoing is completely bizarre. To spend enormous amounts of money to bankrupt us and issue regulations which only hinder our development in order to limit the amount of that gas in the atmosphere is fool's errand.
Yours is an opinion based not on science but deceptive and distorted science reporting. I try to understand the science and I've learned some of it over the last several years. And it is interesting. Things like the lapse rate. Whether the reradiation of infrared radiation is thermal or fluorescent.
You say it is being conceited to think man can change the climate. Well microscopic cyanobacteria caused a snowball earth 2.6B years ago. You bring up the multiply debunked so-called climategate. These are nonscientific punk lawyer strategies to generate false skepticism.
You blaspheme God by using bad theology to build your cocoon of compacency.
You malign scientists just because they earn an honest living. How about billionaire scum like the Brothers Koch who fund denialist BS websites like the one you referenced who will profit in the billions from destroying the balance of the atmosphere? Whatever descendants who survive will curse the greed and insouciance that ruined their world.
Anyway, 75% of republicans, the same percentage as democrats, believe in sustainable, renewable energy, so there's hope. A lot of repubs come from rural small states. Maybe their working common sense helps them overcome the deluded ideology of citified elitist republicans.
Stan -
It must be wonderful to know everything and be able to predict the future as well as knowing the facts from 2.6 B years ago. I applaud you.
To accuse me of blasphemy is ludicrous, but you are entitled to your own opinions.
Perhaps you can answer: 1- How does one discern what the climate should be? 2- Is change not the only constant on earth? 3 - How do you explain Long Island's existence?
Thanking you in advance.
Stan -
Here are some more sites you might find interesting:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications/
Well, maybe you won't find them interesting because you probably already knew everything they have written, and you know better than all these scientists (they must not be the hard working ones of whom you wrote).
Terry, there’s an old saying that goes something like “where one stands on an issue is heavily influenced by where one sits.” Unfortunately, there are participants (a few legitimately credentialed, and others completely unqualified) in the debate over climate change who are paid by those who have an interest in the status quo, and this causes them to cherry-pick, skew, or misrepresent facts, reports and findings on the subject. One needs to be on guard as to where one’s information comes from, and who sponsored those sources.
I trust and hope you’ll agree that our own NASA scientists are as objective as they come; and if so, you might want to peruse NASA’s website on this issue — https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/. From there you can go deeper into their findings, showing historical data on rising sea-levels and global temperatures, and their findings and interpretations regarding the human impacts influencing these changes.
In addition to NASA, the US military establishment has repeatedly identified climate change as a strategic threat to the United States. You can access a short DoD statement to that effect here — https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/ — and a short internet search will reveal many other sites providing access to our nation’s senior military leaders’ statements on this issue.
Lastly, as to Long Island you’re incorrect in suggesting the entire island is a terminal moraine. I too live on Long Island, and the terminal moraine is the ridge (higher elevation) that runs along the north shore of the island. It ends roughly in the middle of the island, and the southern half or more of the island is a relatively flat plain that runs all the way to the south shore. The Ice Age glacier certainly had a profound impact on the shape and geography of the island, but to suggest that the glacier “created” the island is a gross exaggeration.
^5
2018 Elecrion results: we have condoned the killing of a million+ children, each year, for the next 2 or more years. There is now no hope of protecting 2million+ of the most vulnerable and helpless Americans - the least among us. The Democratic party has become one of great evil. They have also taken a stance of no longer allowing/endorsing pro-life Democrats to run for office - publicly announced this 3 years ago.
It is immoral for any person to vote for any candidate that supports and condones the barbaric and violent act of abortion - as it directly kills a child and destroys the family. (Has horrible affects on the women who experience them too!) Without life, immigration, equal job pay, insurance, pardoning criminals and other issues, mean absolutely nothing! It takes life for these things to matter. We can not ignore all this violence and death, as human beings, we must "save those from the slaughter" above everything else. We have lost more children to abortion than the deaths from every single American-involved war, throughout history, added together! 1/3 of my own generation was killed in the womb. This is a devastating autrosity - that pits mothers against their own children as enemies. Mother against child - the direct opposite of what the Blessed Mother was to Jesus during her own crisis pregnancy.
Abortion is satans direct attack on the family; only death and heartache remain after this act.
Also, why on earth would the Vatican want to distance themselves from Ms. Davis? She was upholding Catholic teaching: Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Is this news paper actually Catholic?
The Democrat Party has NOT made any such public announcement. There is a group within the Democrat Party called "Democrats for Life."
You will have to provide the link to your source that backs up that outlandish statement. You are not being honest what so ever. You discredit your own comment by making up that lie about the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has never ever stated that they will not allow or endorse pro-life Democrats. Don't inflame this debate with baseless statements. Both political parties have pro-life and pro-choice candidates. Libertarians in fact support abortion rights 100% and view it as an issue that should not be of interest to the state and not be legislated in any way---and left to the woman's own conscious exclusively.
I don't know if the DP made such a public announcement, but Democrats for Life did not endorse even one Democratic candidate in competitive races this cycle, and the number of pro-life Democrats continues to dwindle (thehill.com). While both parties may have pro-life and pro-abortion politicians, I think it is deceptive to imply that both parties are even close to being alike. I also disagree that the state has no interest in the killing of human beings, but I accept that the law allows women, in their own conscience, to abort their children. If, however, they want the legislature to mind its own business, then quit asking the legislature for money to do it. I will also add that the abortion industry does not want formed consciences; they want abortions. That is why they vehemently resist informing women that they have rights to ultrasounds, or that clinics provide information on alternatives to abortion. And they vehemently insist that doctors cannot exercise their conscience and must provide abortions or provide information on where to get one. Democratic legislators submit bills to support both actions, and to fund abortions--so much for not being legislated in any way. (You shouldn't have any trouble finding sources to back my facts. They abound.)
Sadly Jen, I have to say it is NOT a Catholic magazine - it is a progressive magazine which is insidious, and it subtly attempts to pervert normal, common sense Catholic ideas and ideals to comport with the agenda of globalists who do not have the welfare and salvation of individuals in mind.
The writers of this mag seem to believe the government of the United States of America should be what it was not intended by the Founders. The writers appear to want the USA's government to be the granter of all secular wishes to all people - citizens and non-citizens alike, here and elsewhere in the world.
Instead of true salvation, the writers believe we should signal our virtue by behaving as a Santa Claus instead of a Jesus Christ.
A poster here actually thinks that abstinence would cause more deaths than abortion! I believe that Catholic has gone around the bend because of writings such as those which appear in this publication and others.
Sad.
Jen N---According to Ms. Davis, marriage is between 3 men and 1 woman. She has been married four times to three different men. If she is so devoted and takes the Bible literally, as she claims, then she should leave her current husband who, Biblically speaking, is not her husband. Hypocrisy, thy name is Kim Davis.
I'm 56 years old, and from the time I registered at age 18 until about 7 years ago I was a Democrat. I then became a registered Independent for about 2 years because neither major political party fully reflected my views. Finally, about 5 years ago I very reluctantly because a registered Republican although I still favor many views typically held by Democrats. I oppose capital punishment, and have for years been a pen pal with a man imprisoned for life for a serious crime. From our correspondence, I 'm convinced that my friend, a devout Jehovah's Witness, has reformed his life, and I occasionally send him modest sums for his personal needs. (Ironically, he supports capital punishment). I support stringent gun control laws. When my Dad died in 1994, I discovered a handgun in his bank safety deposit box. I immediately turned it over to my local police department, since I personally find gun ownership to be so unpalatable. I support reasonable laws and policies to protect our environment, and occasionally contribute to the Catholic Climate Covenant, a pro-life environmental group. I also support reasonable laws to assist the millions of Americans in need. Among others, these include people who are disabled (I'm a retired Special Education teacher who instructed children with brain damage), the homeless, senior citizens, veterans, people who are mentally ill, addicted to either illegal or legal drugs, victims of human trafficking, as well as people who are seriously ill. I live in a nursing home, and so know many people who are very elderly, severely physically disabled, or who have dementia, Parkinson's disease, chronic diabetes (which I have), or other serious diseases. Although I don't think that our nation can accept unlimited numbers of immigrants, I believe that we should welcome as many immigrants as possible, especially people fleeing violence. Years ago, I worked at a group home caring for disabled men, and several of my co-workers were immigrants from Liberia, who had fled from a brutal civil war, seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Although I 'm not a pacifist, I admire their convictions. I support war only as a last resort, after all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. Of course, civilians shouldn't be targeted, and I oppose the use of nuclear weapons. I also favor increased foreign aid for humanitarian reasons as well as economic development. I favor government regulations to provide safe workplaces, as well as an increase in the minimum wage. Since my views are so frequently at odds with the typical views of the Republican party, why did I leave the Democratic party? Because I believe that legal protection should be restored to innocent unborn human. beings. My view (which is shared by millions of Americans of different faiths, races, and women as well men) is often criticized. as being a mere "single issue." However , I believe that the deliberate killing of almost 1_million unborn human beings for any reason up until the time the fetus (which means "young one" in latin ) is viable is of such importance that it's reasonable to view the massive killing of abortion as being of paramount importance. I apologize for this being such a long post, but I 'd appreciate the chance to make several more points. I do sympathize very much with women who have unplanned pregnancies. Years ago, my best friend at the time who was 18 told me that his 17 year old girl friend was pregnant. He was in college, and she was a high school senior. Despite considerable difficulty, she gave birth to a son.one month after she had graduated from high school at age 18. My friends got married nine months later. With the support and love of family and friends, my friend graduated from college and became a mechanical engineer. Years later, his wife graduated from college and became a pharmacist. I was very happy to help them care for their son both by frequently babysitting as well as buying toys and clothes for him. I also know a doctor whose wife became pregnant as a result of the horrible crime of rape before they were married. She had the courage to give birth and release her child for adoption. This loving Catholic married couple also adopted into their family an infant who was severely disabled. Sadly, despite their loving cate, the infant died at a young age. Although I believe in ending the violence of legal abortion, I also believe in supporting crisis pregnancy centers. When I 'm able I make modest contributions to two such groups. One is a homeless shelter for pregnant women and their babies in my county that also provides other services. The other is "Mom's House," a network of about six homes that provides free quality day care for low-income pregnant women so that they can complete their education . I also know several women who've had abortions. Although I firmly disagree with their choice, I don't have feelings of hatred towards them. I certainly understand that people make poor choices; I certainly have. I'm a Catholic who's gay. Years ago, I had sex with men (although I 've been celibate most of my life). However, I regretted my acts, and received forgiveness and consolation through the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a compassionate priest. As I continue to struggle and commit various sins, I go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation each month. The 1973 Supreme Court decisions which legalized abortion have been frequently criticized, including by legal scholars who favor legal abortion. Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law professor who wrote an excellent book which I read several times, titled "Rights Taok: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse." The book discusses many legal issues. Regarding abortion she notes that prominent law Professor Lawrence Tribe criticized Roe vs Wade as being unreasonable.
if you really want to take a gun out of circulation, have someone ruin it with a tungsten carbide grinder. Then turn it into the police.
This article is actually a nice one it assists new web viewers and people who are wishing to learn blog writing. I have one top recommendation for best writing services for Essay Writing Service UK and Nursing Dissertation help
I'm with you Tim, I'm more left than right, but definitely torn because neither party represents what I believe in, which is Catholic (social and moral) teaching. I have become more offended by the democratics however, because I'd rather support someone whom I may disagree with than support a party that says they care for the 'little man' but really does nothing at all. They need to be held accountable. As far as abortion, I have come to believe that after 40 plus years of battle, the best way to start convincing people is, one, to support the mother in every way possible, and two, for our parish priests to be brave enough to call us all out, asking us if we have promised our children we will be there for them if they ever find themselves in that situation. I was very fortunate to have parents who stood by me and helped me through it. I know several girls from Catholic families who 'chose' abortion, either from fear of telling their parents, or from their parents telling them! Being against abortion is easy. Doing something about it is something else. It's time to move past the picket signs and care for ALL people, the unborn, the elderly, the refuges, the impoverished, etc. That is what being a Catholic means.
I think this was presented by a Catholic mag initially. abortion don't justify at all. it didn't spread a good messageto its followers
Some strive for justice (the word “justice” appears on the first line of the Preamble to the Constitution). Others would like “addressing an unwanted pregnancy” the sole criteria to run the country.
Establishing justice perhaps aligns well with "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's…”
Countries with a higher life expectancy than the U.S. all have universal health care. The number of countries with a life expectancy higher than the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. Cuba now has a higher life expectancy than the U.S.