Disqus - Friends of gloriaendres

Re: Gays in America: Unprecedented Progress in One Generation - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Christine Flowers — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:54:56 -0000

Opposing same sex marriage is not 'anti-gay' just as opposing incestuous relationships between siblings is not anti-sibling. Get real. The laws can't be twisted into bestowing a so-called right that doesn't exist just because people think they're entitled to it. And by the way, 'homophobe' means fear of homosexuals, not hatred of homosexuals. I don't know many people who are afraid of homosexuals. I do know some who are upset that they are demanding a complete revision of traditional social structures so that they can approximate their idea of 'equality.'

Re: Did Planned Parenthood Just Endanger Abortion Rights?

Christine Flowers — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:39:03 -0000

Really, Joel Mathis, a person becomes a 'person' only when the woman decides that it is, indeed human? It can be a mass of cells moments before it emerges from the womb, but once it actually leaves the vaginal canal it is, by some obstetrical alchemy, turned into a human being? If that is the way that you, and those who think like you are able to justify the termination of a pregnancy, more power to you. I understand that the weather, and morals, are quite interesting in that land known as LookingGlass.

Re: Did Planned Parenthood Just Endanger Abortion Rights?

Christine Flowers — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:39:44 -0000

Bravo, bravo.

Re: Did Planned Parenthood Just Endanger Abortion Rights?

Christine Flowers — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:43:41 -0000

We have tried to persuade you, and those who use your arguments in the past, Joel. It is a futile effort, since you will always have people falling back on the very easy platitude of 'it's a difficult and hard issue.' It is not that difficult. You can lobby for abortion rights, but you must recognize that what you are lobbying for is the termination of the human process. Until you can point to a moment on the continuum between conception and birth where the 'fetus' becomes animate and human, you have to accept the fact that abortion involves the destruction of a human being. We can use rhetoric and flawed arguments to try and make ourselves feel better about that fact, and we can have laws that enshrine that 'fact' in our body politic (we do, thanks a lot Harry Blackmun) But we cannot fool ourselves, or others, into believing that abortion is anything but what it is: the deliberate termination of human life. It might not fit the definition of 'murder' under a criminal statute. But it is its moral twin.

Re: New columnist Christine Flowers debuts Sunday

Christine Flowers — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:13:11 -0000

Hi, this is Christine. Wow, a great welcoming committee here. I can tell you that I am absolutely thrilled to be writing for the Delco Times, and that my only regret is that I have to take a space that the great Gil Spencer vacated. I have to confess (and I am Catholic, so I do that well) that I am indeed anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage, pro-immigrant, pro-Second Amendment to a large degree (although not the degree to which Wayne LaPierre might like), pro-Eagles and most importantly, pro-Delaware County where I have lived for almost 45 years. So welcome to all of you, I hope you will either comment here or email me, and I am both honored and humbled to be able to use this piece of oped real estate to open a conversation with all of you. And a big thanks to Phil Heron for giving me this opportunity to connect. See you tomorrow.

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 09:51:45 -0000

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act essentially overruled Scalia. And Schumer and Kennedy voted for it so it clearly attracted some honest Liberals Mike. As far as equal Protection, when someone explains to me how a same sex couple is essentially similarly situated to a heterosexual couple, I will reconsider my position that the 14th Amendment is irrelevant to so called marriage equality. The best article on how the ACA needlessly infringes on religious liberties is from Meghan McArdle at Bloomsberg News. RFRA is more relevant to this issue than even the First Amendment. The Scalia case had to do with allowing Native Americans to engage in an illegal Act for their religious services (smoking peyote) Here we are dealing with penalizing religious companies (and their owners) for not complying with a flawed mandate. Not the same thing. And that's why Scalia will be quite justified in departing from his prior ruling.

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:00:52 -0000

I respectfully disagree with the Third Circuit Mike (usually do anyway.) The 10th, which is the Hobby Lobby case, is I think a better indication as to how the justices will rule. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are sure votes for invalidating ACA mandate under RFRA. Kennedy is a probable vote with them. And given Roberts having written the Tabor case which expanded the ministerial exception, he'll probably vote with them as well. Don't know if Kagan will have to recuse herself but if so we won't even need Kennedy's vote.

The point is this; birth control is not an essential medical product. Even if it is, forcing employers to pay for it might not be compelling enough under RfRA to save the mandate.

Regardless of policy, and what anyone thinks about birth control (I am okay with it) thus is about numbers, judicial Moneyball if you want. And I think the numbers are on our side on this one.

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 11:01:35 -0000

Thank you Steve. Very good to be here too. Happy Thanksgiving.

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 13:15:27 -0000

Thanks Jim. I believe in Holmes' market place of ideas. As long as we don't kick each other in the aisles, it's all good. ;)

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 16:25:07 -0000

That is an excellent point. I do not often see criticism, except on talk radio and in traditionally conservative venues, of bigotry directed at people if faith. I recall the Act Up protestors disrupting Mass by screaming and throwing condoms at the parishioners in St Patrick's cathedral. Disagreement, even passionate debate, is one thing. Mob rule is another, as is politically or socially sanctioned hatred. Until those who attack people of faith are condemned as loudly as those who support bigotry against sexual minorities, we are a society of hypocrites. And excuse me if I reject the argument that we choose our religions and therefore faith is less valued, or less a part of us, than sexual orientation. Bigotry is bigotry, and the person who burns a cross on someone's front lawn is no more evil than those like Alec Baldwin who hurl anti-gay epithets.

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 20:34:16 -0000

Sorry Blueneck but you miss the point. It's Establishment v Free Exercise. Allowing sharia to impose its practices is acceptable as long as this does not conflict with a civil right of non sharia followers. In the birth control mandate, no one is telling female employees they can't use birth control. They're free to do so. What they are not free to do is force employers...for whom they willingly work... To pay for that affordable and incidental medical product if that violates said employers free exercise rights. Easy solution: don't like your employers' values? Get another job, or, perhaps, purchase your own birth control or policies that cover it.

Re: Christine Flowers: Church obligated to hold onto their marriage parameters

Christine Flowers — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 20:56:02 -0000

Indeed I di. And to your snide 'kissyfest' comment, perhaps you prefer personal attacks as a substitute for reasoned debate. Media Mike disagreed fairly strongly, but he has a respectful attitude. Maybe having the courage if your convictions doesn't require arrogance or rhetoric. To your point: no one is forced to work for any private employer. There is no indentured servitude. Birth control is not an essential, and weighing the infringement on religious rights against the goal of providing that non-essential free if charge it's fairly clear that religious beliefs trump convenience. And this is not a slippery slope argument: the RFRA allows for a case by case examination of the facts if each case so it is not a foregone conclusion that Scientologusts, Jehivah's witnesses or even Catholics will always prevail.

Re: U-S Bishops Face A Lawsuit Over Abortion Policies At Roman Catholic Hospitals

Christine Flowers — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:56:21 -0000

This is an outrageous and frivolous lawsuit, beyond the limits of what even the ACLU is noted for (defending the rights of Neo Nazis and KKK members, for example.) To sue the Bishops for a "tort" offense for simply hewing to their religious principles (to which they still has a right under the 1st amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) is simply another example of the pro-choice movement attempting to neutralize all opposition to its abortion agenda. If you do not want to abide by the requirements and regulations of a Catholic (or Methodist, or Jewish) organization, find one that better suits your needs. And while there is a legitimate issue about emergency cases, most cases can be resolved by a referral out to another institution that does not consider late term abortions infanticide, as I do and as most Catholic hospitals do. As a lawyer and a Catholic I am appalled at this dog and pony show masquerading as a lawsuit.

Re: U-S Bishops Face A Lawsuit Over Abortion Policies At Roman Catholic Hospitals

Christine Flowers — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:58:48 -0000

Bravo Eric, don't let the pro 'choice' apologists twist your argument.

Re: U-S Bishops Face A Lawsuit Over Abortion Policies At Roman Catholic Hospitals

Christine Flowers — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:31:35 -0000

It seems some doctors don't like having their 'medical judgment' interfered with. Well I don't like non-lawyers pretending to know what legal liability threshold you need to reach before your lawsuit is a joke, an insult, frivolous and a thinly-veiled initiative to keep abortion available at every stage of pregnancy. The medical ethicist on this panel clearly pointed out that the directives provided for procedures to save a mother's life even if the child might die. What they don't permit is abortion simply because it's marginally healthier for the mother (and lethal for the child). Those physicians who think they understand the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Hyde Amendment would know that. If they weren't shills for the abortion industry, that is.

Re: Evolving American Attitudes On Same-Sex Marriage

Christine Flowers — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:05:10 -0000

Any time I hear that phrase "men who want to control women" I really have to roll my eyes. Such a lazy argument. Here is a woman, me, who wants to control women, namely, control their ability for example to end a pregnancy and therefore end the life of a child. There are a lot of men out there who disagree with me and agree with those in the "choice' movement. So let's stop with the "anti-male" rhetoric and realize that opinions are not determined by gender and sex is not destiny.

Re: Evolving American Attitudes On Same-Sex Marriage

Christine Flowers — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:11:25 -0000

I'm not married, and have no children. I also do not want to have children although I love them, have been a schoolteacher and adore my nephew who lives with me. That said, Maggie Gallagher is absolutely right that one of the primary societal purposes of marriage is to provide a wholesome and loving environment for children, an optimal one from both an emotional and financial standpoint. You can disagree with whether heterosexual unions are the best framework for raising children (I think it is the only one that works, frankly, even though I was raised by a widowed mother who also raised four other children extremely well...three lawyers, a physical therapist and an international marketing director) but you cannot and should not disparage soceity's interest in given special status to the one unit that has been statistically shown to be better for children than any other. Gallagher is not just blowing smoke. She has the facts to back her up, and that is why so many people are upset with her. As one other poster noted, her brand of "homophobia" (really?, a bit over the top there) is the one that makes sense.

Re: Mark Tushnet: "In the Balance: Law and Politics in the Roberts Court"

Christine Flowers — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:44:16 -0000

Really? The Honorable White Supremacist title? Well done. And that allows me to nominate Harry Blackmun, posthumously, as the Honorary Baby Killer given his tortured, inarticulate and legally unsound decision in Roe (privacy allows women to destroy the human life growing within them because it covers their ability to prevent that life from developing in the first place through birth control? Griswold mandated Roe? Please.) Yeah, start throwing around those incendiary and unbalanced remarks and then see where your ridiculous 'logic' takes you.

Re: Your Side Tries to Impose Its Beliefs — My Side Seeks Justice

Christine Flowers — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:35:51 -0000

I was not surprised to find out that Ms. Stiehm went to Swarthmore, a college with which I am very familiar having gone to Bryn Mawr, down the road. Jamie and I were probably at our respective schools around the same time, as well, since we're both 52. Swarthmore and Bryn Mawr shared then (and perhaps still do share) the liberal revulsion for anything that smacks of "moralism" or social conservatism. It was impossible to find a pro-life organization on that campus, back in 1979. When I arrived at Bryn Mawr, I was a fairly anemic Catholic, one who went to church because she had to, one who had been wearing saddle shoes and uniforms for over a decade but who didn't really care to defend her religion beyond the casual "Yes, I'm pro life and I don't eat meat during Lent." But the absolute push back I encountered at Bryn Mawr to my faith, and the dismissive attitude of both students and teachers there made me re-examine both my faith, my philosophy and my politics. Going to Bryn Mawr turned me into a more devout Catholic, and a lawyer who is increasingly dismayed at the government's attempts to diminish the value of religion by calling it 'freedom of worship' (whatever that is.) Ms. Stiehm obviously learned another lesson at sister school Swarthmore, and has perfected the art of hiding bigotry beneath a call to 'tolerance for women's rights.' Take it from me, it's an indoctrination that only takes hold on those of limited intelligence.

Re: Reaction to the Pennsylvania voter ID ruling

Christine Flowers — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:02:07 -0000

Linda Kerns correctly noted that the right to vote is a fundamental right, one that forms the foundation for all other civic rights. Unless we can ensure that the voting process is free from any kind of taint, whether it be fraud or manipulation based on demographics, that right means nothing and the attendant rights are diluted. The ACLU dismisses out of hand Voter ID as an attempt to suppress minority votes. That's ridiculous. Most activities require identification, and the Consitution does not prohibit forcing people to prove that they are entitled to vote. As an immigration lawyer, I see the steps people go through to become citizens. Not protecting their right to a legitimate vote shows disrespect for their efforts and dishonors all Americans who appreciate and respect our system of laws.

Re: Access To Abortion 41 Years After Roe V. Wade

Christine Flowers — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:19:32 -0000

Scalia understands the extent of the First Amendment. You have a right to express an opinion, and to persuade short of harrassment. The term 'harrassment' must be very narrow when dealing with teh First Amendment so just because a woman approaching a clinic feels 'uncomfortable' that does not mean she has a constitutional right 'not to hear' some unpleasant commentaries. The whole idea of protecting a woman's sensibilities is an outgrowth of Roe which not only dehumanized the unborn child but basically made it disappear, so that the only one who now counts is the one we can see without an ultrasound, the woman. Anything that troubles these women must be eliminated, according to received wisdom. But guess what? The Constitution says there is a right to aboriton. It doesn't say there is a right to have society applaud your choice, or make it easier for you, or God forbid, pay for it.

Re: Access To Abortion 41 Years After Roe V. Wade

Christine Flowers — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:21:46 -0000

So well said, bravo. The hypocrisy of those in the pro-abortion rights movement is telling, and rests on some very specious interpretations of constitutional law.

Re: Access To Abortion 41 Years After Roe V. Wade

Christine Flowers — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:27:03 -0000

Let's see. We have the "children should be wanted" argument, which is not at all a constitutional argument but a societal plea for justice. Well, a child's dignity, humanity and right to life do not depend upon whether the mother 'wants it.' In fact, there are many who "want" a child, and would adopt across racial and ethnic lines, but they are prevented from doing so because the person who is carrying that child doesn't "want it and gets a final veto. Then, we have the "I have a right not to hear troubling things" argument, which I suppose derives from the Fourth Amendment right to privacy or the right to be 'let alone." That is clearly trumped by the First Amendemt, becausae while there is no actual right to be listened to, there is a right to express your opposition to abortion, and in fact, a right to be heard. Preventing someone from effectively communicating their message is a very real violation of the First Amendment, as the brilliant Scalia and I am assuming at least four other justices know. This is a slam dunk for the protestors.

Re: Virginia's New Attorney General Will Not Defend Gay-Marriage Ban

Christine Flowers — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:31:33 -0000

Being on the "right side of history" poses the question, "whose history?" Who gets to determine whether gay marriage is the fulfillment of a fundamental right or a rank violation of constitutional dimensions? The lawyers who presume to say that they are right (and it's usually those on the left who want to engage in social engineering) use that tired old "right side of history" language to avoid having to provide a legitimate basis for their actions. It is a more elegant way of calling someone a racist if they disagree with you. Virginia's Attorney General is as bad as my own in Pennsyvlania, who has flagrantly ignored our Constitution to curry favor with the LGBTQ? community. Frankly, I'm sick of people trying to shove their own poorly-thought out views and opinions down my throat in the name of being on the "right side of history."

Re: Access To Abortion 41 Years After Roe V. Wade

Christine Flowers — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:43:23 -0000

I'll try this again since my last attempt at commenting was censored and removed. Those who say that a child needs to be "wanted" to have value are effectively giving the mother a veto on the value of life. If she doesn't "want" the child, she does not have the right to deprive other people who want children, and would be very hapy to adopt the child across ethnic and racial lines if necessary. This whole "the child must be wanted" rhetoric plays into Roe v. Wade and the fact that it rendered the child invisible, inhuman and unimportant. As far as the constitutional argument here, no one has a right to be free from hearing words they don't like. If you feel harrassed, there are laws on the book that prevent that activity. But you don't have the right to have your delicate sensibilities wrapped in cotton and protected from offenseive (to you) comments. Women need to earn the respect they demand from others, and acting like sensitive little girls is not the way to go about getting it.