Catholic Lay Group to Spend $500,000 to Defend Perriello, Other Vulnerable Democrats
By Jason Johnson | Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 | PoliticsLess than a week after defundit.org held a press conference in Charlottesville to highlight Rep. Tom Perriello’s broken promise not to support any healthcare bill that provides federal funding for abortion, Catholics United, a non-partisan Catholic lay organization dedicated to promoting social justice, has announced that it will spend $500,000 on a media campaign to defend Perriello and other vulnerable Democratic representatives in Ohio and Pennsylvania whom it claims “are now facing a coordinated misinformation campaign from a host of self-proclaimed pro-life groups intended to perpetuate the misconception that the health care reform bill passed earlier this year allowed for federal funding of elective abortion.” Perhaps Catholics United should read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) before they attack its critics since the non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the PPACA contains a loophole—not covered by President Obama’s March 24, 2010 executive order—allowing federal funding for abortion via state-based, high-risk insurance pools. Without knowing the true contents of the PPACA, Catholics United claims that actually Rep. Perriello is a victim of politically motivated attacks by the “religious right”:
The attacks are all about politics. The religious right knows that Rep. Perriello faces a tight re-election race. That’s why opposition groups are gearing up to spend millions to convince people of faith not to vote for him.
Rep. Perreillo has worked hard to support and defend the common good and to protect human life at all stages. People of faith, especially fellow Catholics, must stand up for public officials who vote their values, particularly when they come under attack by single-issue extremists.
Help us send a message that people of faith in Western Virginia support those who vote their values.
It is unclear how Catholics United believes asking legitimate questions about a loophole in a public law—a loophole acknowledged by both the non-partisan Congressional Research Service and the Secretary of Health and Human Services—constitutes a politically motivated attack, especially in light of the Roman Catholic Church’s admirable and longstanding commitment to the sanctity of life (Nancy Pelosi’s revisionist theology notwithstanding).
Furthermore, if Rep. Perriello is as devoted to his pro-life Catholic values as he insists when campaigning throughout the 5th District, he should be willing to co-sponsor the bipartisan “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” proposed by fellow pro-life Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) that would permanently close this loophole and prohibit any future federal efforts to fund abortion. To date, Rep. Perriello has refused to co-sponsor the bill.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A lifelong political junkie, Jason caught the political bug as a fifth grader after meeting George Allen in 1993. Since then he has studied political science at both the undergraduate and graduate level. When not perusing the blogs or volunteering for conservative Republicans, Jason enjoys cheering on his beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and spending time at his Bedford County home.
Comments
6 Responses to "Catholic Lay Group to Spend $500,000 to Defend Perriello, Other Vulnerable Democrats"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shaun Kenney and Bearing Drift, Mark Brooks. Mark Brooks said: RT @bearingdrift: Catholic Lay Group to Spend $500,000 to Defend Perriello, Other Vulnerable Democrats http://bit.ly/ajTwap (via @svkenney) [...]
Perriello used the Executive Order as an excuse/reason to vote for Obamacare. He said that the EO would eliminate all fed funding of abortions. He can say he was duped or fooled. He can say Obama lied to him.
But Perriello need not lie to his constituents any longer. November is coming.
“dedicated to promoting social justice”?
Only if you define “social justice” as killing babies and robbing Peter to buy Paul’s vote!
This guy cannot even remember the basic rules of the House floor, even after being there for nearly 2 years.
“Periello votes in borrowed clothes
August 11, 2010, 1:49 pm by Christina Wilkie
There’s an unofficial rule in the House that men wear jackets and ties while on the House floor – but for Rep. Tom Perielllo (D-Va.) on Tuesday, staying within the dress code required a loan from a generous House aide.
Periello arrived for a noon set of votes without a jacket on, an understandable slip on a ninety degree day. Entering the House chamber, he apparently noticed what he’d forgotten, surrounded as he was by people in jackets.
But instead of just playing it cool like his fellow jacket-free Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) did, Periello went begging, and eventually found a coat on a House aide he could borrow.
The young lawmaker looked nearly comical in a gray suit jacket that was noticeably too big for him, but apparently it did the trick.
Periello didn’t make the same mistake twice. Later in the afternoon he arrived back looking dapper in a suit and tie.”
I know this is just a minor thing to most, but it implys to me that he does not pay attention to details (which is what you need in a legislator as the details are the most important), he is unorganized (which breeds inefficiency), or he is just not mature enough to be a representative of others.
Kelley: Didn’t Rep. Perriello announce his support for Obamacare before Rep. Stupak exacted the executive order? I tried contacting his office that weekend and he was at a fundraiser in Richmond.
Joe: Interesting story; thanks for sharing! I must concur with your assessment of Rep. Perriello. One of my undergraduate professors once told us that a representative is more than a voice for his or her constituents; a representative re-PRESENTS the district to the rest of the Congress who may be unfamiliar with the people of the district. Rep. Perriello is thus the public face of the 5th District and should conduct himself with an appreciation of that fact.
jason, I think you are right because he had already voted for the House bill & Stupak got his EO based on the Senate bill which was a re-write of the House bill.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.