In the course of looking for links to this post I found an interesting document published last year at the Suffolk University Law Review on the matter The Gospel According to the State: An Analysis of Massachusetts Adoption Laws and the Closing of Catholic Charities Adoption Services:

The Massachusetts Constitution declares the equality of all people and the right of all people to practice religion as they see fit.2 In article XVIII, the Massachusetts Constitution also declares it unlawful for the state government to pass any law that prohibits an individual’s right to the free exercise of religion.

That John Adams he sure could write.

The Author Matthew Clark point out a salient fact:

Founded in 1903, Catholic Charities has placed more children in adoptive homes than any other state-licensed adoption agency.

Not any more they don’t. This document deserves a whole lot more attention that it ever got so read the whole thing but if you are not inclined to go for 18 pages here is the meat from the conclusion:

The debate over a religious exemption wrongly focuses on whether homosexuals should be able to adopt from all agencies in the state, regardless of a particular agency’s beliefs or founding principles. Safely couched in the language of antidiscrimination and equality, opponents of an exemption mask the unsettling truth that pursuing equality at any cost betrays the very purpose of adoption to serve and protect the welfare of children.

Denying a religious exemption to agencies providing services for needy children only serves to further the rights of a small group of potential adoptive parents rather than the best interests of children needing adoption… Ultimately, in the name of equality, Massachusetts has set aside the interests of needy children and contravened the very purpose of its adoption laws. (all emphasis mine)

That is called Narcissism.

…apparently not so well:

In his address at the University of Notre Dame, Obama talked a good game about respecting conscience on abortion rights. He did the same thing when he met the Pope.
But that was all it was — talk.

The Obama Administration’s attack on Belmont Abbey College proves that.

Apparently the Catholic College decided that the “Catholic” part actually matters as they were unwilling to cover contraception, abortion, and voluntary sterilization all directly opposed to the college’s faith so of course we had a lawsuit and the results were interesting…

Belmont Abbey College was not discriminating against women. Unlike many “believers in name only” the college was adhering to the principles of its faith.

At first, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of gender discrimination by Belmont Abbey College… After a few weeks, the EEOC mysteriously reversed course and announced, in effect, that the college had better toe the Administration’s line, or else.

They are now demanding the school go against the very principles it exists to serve.

I presume they are going to fight it as far as they can, if they lose then there is only one choice that is acceptable in terms of faith and that is to simply drop all coverage divert the cost into the pay of the employees so they can purchase private insurance to cover what they wish.

But I’m over-reacting after all the state wouldn’t go after Catholics for obeying their faith would they?

So how did that work out Fr. Jenkins?

Of course, this does not mean we support all of his positions. The invitation to President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Yet, we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement.”

Maybe you should thank him.

On Morning Joe this morning the talk is about the Baucus bill and how it manages to thread the needle on costs and how opposing this is going to hurt the GOP.

On Hotair Captain Ed Allahpundit says it will give the president cover:

but this does give The One political cover on his heretofore Big Lie about ObamaCare being “deficit-neutral.” Especially since CBO is the agency that’s been tormenting him for months with projections that the program will cost vastly more than the White House claims. Now, finally, they’ve handed him a politically salable option.

Red State sees the GOP folding:

I am told quite reliably that in a meeting today on Capitol Hill, Republican Senators began to rapidly move toward concessions on health care because they are afraid they cannot hold their members.

Robert Stacy is not surprised:

Aw, c’mon, Erick — “starting to waver”? As if, until today, Republican Senators were a formidable phalanx of conservative stalwarts standing on guard to defend our liberties against the unconstitutional schemes of the Left?

Are we talking about the same Republican wussies who endorsed Charlie Crist in Florida? The effeminate weaklings who supported John McCain for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination? So far as anyone can tell, there is not a single Republican in the Senate who possesses a sound brain, a straight spine and a functioning set of testicles.

Michelle has numbers to call with basic instructions:

Tell them to man up.

Anyway I imagine it will create some buzz on the bill, and when I say imagine it is significant, because as William Jacobson tell us THERE IS NO BILL

The Baucus Concepts are disasterous, but that’s for another post. For this post, let me get across a simple concept: THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Your esteemed Senators on the Senate Finance Committee will not be voting on legislation because THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Your esteemed Senators have so little respect for you that some of them are willing to vote in favor of legislation which does not exist because THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

The actual legislation will be drafted in secret by Harry Reid and a few other people, including staffers whose names and political connections you never will know, and the resulting legislation will be rammed through the Senate and House before anyone gets to read and analyze it.

You would think that this little fact that the bill doesn’t exist would have been mentioned on Morning Joe today, you’d think wrong.

Fausta gets it:

So, we’re being told that the bill on the Emperor’s New Clothes is going to reduce the deficit, only that the Emperor will still be naked.

And we’ll be the ones paying for it.

The CBO covered itself in shame this time.

Senator Alexander gets it:

“This is an estimate of a concept, not a formal cost analysis of an actual bill.

Sister Toldja gets it:

What a bunch of malarkey. How stupid do they think we are? Waiting

Remember this also, this bill hasn’t been written yet. This is a preliminary analysis that’s waiting for the final legislative language. And that’s just the Senate version. The House has its own bill and, assuming they insist on passing it, the two measures will have to be reconciled in a conference committee and voted on again. These so-called savings, pathetic as they are, could vanish as quickly as a snowflake in the Sahara. The “Baucus Bill” is a bad joke.

I think that pols are going to rush to embrace this summery and use it as an excuse to not read the actual language that we will have to live by and it will cost us dearly. I think the media is going to go on a full court press with this.

I predict that either Rush this afternoon or Sarah Palin in Facebook or both will actually point this bombshell out and won’t people look like fools when they do.

Remember elections have consequences and we always get the government we deserve. If this passes and becomes enshrined into law it will be our own doing and our own fault.

Update: Third sentence out of Rush’ mouth. Great minds and all that.

…is an ad campaign against a candidate designed to tweak his weight a good idea?

Mr. Corzine’s television commercials and Web videos feature unattractive images of Mr. Christie, sometimes shot from the side or backside, highlighting his heft, jowls and double chin.

Meanwhile, Mr. Corzine, 62, is conspicuously running in 5- and 10-kilometer races almost every weekend, as he did last Saturday and Sunday, underscoring his athleticism and readiness for the physical demands of another term — and raising doubts about Mr. Christie’s.

On Morning Joe where Corzine is often a guest and Mika is almost a health nazi they thought it was over the line. I think that kind of thing is going to turn off a lot of voters.

The Huffpost has the ad and a poll concerning it, but I think the ad has a bigger problem for democrats to wit:

didn’t pay taxes you owe
ignored ethics laws

There is some buzz on it but for myself I didn’t think that particular ad highlighted his weight but considering the Charlie Rangel vote yesterday and the acorn issues is it really a smart idea for a democratic ad to be highlighting not paying taxes and ethics laws? That is going to have ramifications all the way down the ticket.