The Bishops' Line in the Sand
The nation's Catholic bishops are in Baltimore this week for their annual meeting, a gathering that should have its fair share of victory laps (health care! no abortion funding!) and skirmishes (how to deal with the Obama administration, the Kennedys, marriage, and a new translation of the prayerbook). It's no secret that tensions have been running high inside the hierarchy lately. But given the stylized way that most bishops talk--something of a cross between diplo-speak and Jane Austen--it can be hard to spot the fireworks.
So for a lay translation of the week's proceedings, I'll be relying on the indispensable Rocco Palmo while I work on attaining my language proficiency. You can also follow along via live webcast, which includes entertaining commentary of the proceedings by a panel of nuns and priests whenever the meeting adjourns for a coffee break.
The last thing the bishops did before adjourning for the evening was approve a statement about abortion in health reform which appears to indicate that they will not accept anything less than Stupak language in the final version of the bill. The full text is after the jump, but I do want to flag this line:
In an essential step, the House voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm the longstanding and widely supported precedent that no federal funds will be used to pay for elective abortions.
As we've discussed before here, federal funds already indirectly subsidize abortions through a number of channels. In addition, the Stupak Amendment didn't just reaffirm the Hyde Amendment precedent, but went beyond it by preventing private premiums for being used to pay for abortions in the exchange. The phrase most likely to rile pro-choice leaders here, though, is "elective abortions."
Of course, the Hyde Amendment includes exceptions for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Abortion procedures sought by victims of rape and incest are elective, but almost everyone agrees that those women and girls should be able to end their pregnancies. On the other hand, abortions performed on women with severe pregnancy complications that go up to, but do not cross over, the point of threatening their lives--procedures that are not covered by the Hyde Amendment--would seem less easily termed "elective." At a time when anti-Catholic sentiment and rhetoric is already flying fast and loose in the pro-choice community, this implied assertion that anything short of an abortion to save a woman from imminent death is "elective" won't do much to calm the waters.
The full statement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
The US House of Representatives advanced major legislation to provide adequate and affordable health care to all. The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long advocated that adequate health care be made available to everyone. In an essential step, the House voted overwhelmingly to reaffirm the longstanding and widely supported precedent that no federal funds will be used to pay for elective abortions. In doing so, the Representatives honored President Obama's commitment to the Congress and the nation that health care reform would not become a vehicle for expanding abortion funding or mandates. The Conference will remain vigilant and involved throughout this entire process to assure that these essential provisions are maintained and included in the final legislation. We will work to persuade the Senate to follow the example of the House and include these critical safeguards in their version of health care reform legislation. We also thank the members of the House who took this courageous and principled step to oppose measures that would force Americans to pay for the destruction of unborn children, and the Democratic leadership for allowing the Representatives to vote on this amendment that protects the common good.
In the national discussion on how to provide the best kind of health care, we bishops do not claim or present ourselves as experts on health care policy. We are not prepared to assess every provision of legislation as complex as this proposal. However, health care legislation, with all its political, technical and economic aspects, is about human beings and hence has serious moral dimensions. Our focus is the concrete realities of families with children and their access to doctors, the poor and the elderly, those with limited means and those with few or even no means, such as the mother carrying a child in her womb. Our Catholic commitment to health care picks up the pieces of our failing system in our emergency rooms, clinics, parishes and communities. This is why we believe our nation's health care system needs reform which protects human life and dignity and serves the poor and vulnerable as a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.
We remain deeply concerned about the debate that now moves to the Senate, especially as it will affect the poor and vulnerable, and those at the beginning and end of life. We will continue to insist that health care reform legislation must protect conscience rights. We support measures to make health care more affordable for low-income people and the uninsured. We remain deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that they now have. We will continue to raise our voices in public and in prayer; we ask our people to join us in making the moral case for genuine health care reform that protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all.
-
1
Are we talking the Jane Austen with the zombies or just the old Jane Austen? Alot could depend on this. Zombies and Bishops. Who could ask for more? Take eat for this is my body. Ouch.
-
1.1
That was a classic. I was a hair's-breadth away from involuntarily redecorating my den as I read it.
-
1.2
FT: It's good to see you on here again. I hope everything is going well for you. Glad you got a chuckle out of it. I just finished reading the book and it was a major haha.
-
-
2
Thanks, Amy. You rock. Will you attend all the festivities? Do they serve fancy foods? Top shelf wines and liquors (if this was a Muslim or Mormon conference they would not)? Do please give us the behind-the-scenes gossipy stuff! Will top brass from the Holy See be there, even His Holiness himself? Per your quote “Abortion procedures sought by victims of rape and incest are elective, but almost everyone agrees that those women and girls should be able to end their pregnancies”, I'll beat stuart to the punch and rhetorically ask “who disagrees?” Actually, Sarah Palin disagrees. She has said the only exception is if the mother's life will end. Even if her own daughter was raped she'd insist on the full term.
http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm -
3
If the Catholic Church, or any other religious institution, wants to get involved in political matters - for whatever reason, be it social, moral or for its own financial benefit - I have no problem with that.
All they have to do is give up their privileged status and tax exemptions and be treated like any other political advocacy group. If they want to keep those privileges then they should stay the hell out of politics and public policy and concentrate on their religion, which to my mind involves only the relationship between their adherents and their God and their own personal behavior. They can tell their members to do and think anything they want but should simply shut up about what they tell government.
If adherents of any particular religious belief are going to base their public policy decisions on the peculiar (and all too often nonsensical, illogical, superstitious and destructive) beliefs of their religion then they are, at best, poor public servants, and at worst, traitors to the ideas of our Constitution, the document which they have solemnly sworn to defend and protect..
I understand that it may be difficult, perhaps impossible in all cases, to separate one's religious conviction from ones idea of correct public policy, but it is nevertheless incumbent on lawmakers to do so to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, most don't even try.
What's worse is that they then have the galling arrogance to be proud of it.
-
3.1
If the Catholic Church, or any other religious institution, wants to get involved in political matters - for whatever reason, be it social, moral or for its own financial benefit - I have no problem with that.
;
All they have to do is give up their privileged status and tax exemptions and be treated like any other political advocacy group.
..
I agree if these people are not paying taxes that means my taxes are subsidizing them. I am deeply offended by their conduct and I think this is a moral issue. -
3.2
…actually I do have a problem with any Christian church getting into politics, based on Jesus' wish to separate what to render unto Caesar from what to render unto God ...even though we have “In God We Trust” on our coins, as Sarah has pointed out.
-
3.3
But hasn't the lobbying profession been very lucrative for them? Throw in an amen and they could be K-Street.
-
3.4
After all, money is fungible. Every dollar taxpayers spend providing school bus transportation to students of Catholic schools is a dollar the Church has to lobby against the rights of women to control their own bodies.
We must immediately stop providing any education aid to parochial schools.
For the same reason, we must take away any contracts the Catholic Church's 501c3 subsidiaries have to provide social services and give those contracts to secular organizations -- or better yet, put those jobs back in the hands of government employees.
Let those fat-a$$ed bishops find out just what "separation of church and state" really means.
-
3.5
“Throw in an amen and they could be K-Street.”
.
Oh great, figures. No K Street but the USCCB is on 4th Street NE in DC. -
3.6
A little bit of sour grapes on my part. I think I've always wanted to believe but just can't make the leap. I've jumped from a train bridge into the river but could never make myself take the other leap.
-
3.7
"If adherents of any particular religious belief are going to base their public policy decisions on the peculiar (and all too often nonsensical, illogical, superstitious and destructive) beliefs of their religion then they are, at best, poor public servants, and at worst, traitors to the ideas of our Constitution, the document which they have solemnly sworn to defend and protect.. "
+
+
+Hmmm......... there are any number of socialist, communist, or dictatorial countries where religious belief would never be allowed to influence public policy.
-
-
4
There are more pro-choice Catholics than pro-life Catholics in the United States.
-
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1213/catholics-obama-notre-dame-commencement
-
At a time when anti-Catholic sentiment and rhetoric is already flying fast and loose in the pro-choice community
-
Substantiate that or correct it, please.-
4.1
…actually, I wonder if lovely Amy has written about this before. If you google the phrase [anti-catholic sentiment pro-choice community], you'll find a lot of heated stuff such as the feministing article, dive in. Here's an interesting broad-based article (2000) about US anti-Catholicism –
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=606 -
4.2
Please. Nunzilla? The Catholics I grew up with (ie, my family) found that stuff funny. That guy actually cites to the Catholic League as the prime source of a Catholic grievance list-- this Bill Donohue.
-
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28526
-
Anti-Catholicism is as serious a problem in this country as anti-Protestantism or anti-white bias.
-
-
5
Religion is simply politics seasoned with the extra confidence that comes from thinking that the Creator of the Universe has your back.
-
6
"they will not accept anything less than Stupak language in the final version of the bill'
Or what?
-
6.1
They'll take their God and go home? It worked on the basketball court.
-
6.2
Get in the van. We're leaving.
-
-
7
Nobody in europe pays attention to the Catholic church. Even in Italy or 90% catholic France. It is recognized as the archaic dead institution that it is. But religious zombie (50% ?) America is rich ground for these fools to even become directly involved in public policy. I would ask the spirit in the sky for help if there were one. The big question is, is America a secular country or not. If it is, and evangelical idiots argue that it is not, you could fool me. Of course, being a democracy, it would only be time before the islamists supplant the christians as the word of governance.
-
8
they will not accept anything less than Stupak language in the final version of the bill
.
Where do I submit my request to not have Papist running dogs interfering with my government?-
8.1
You can subit your request to my church. It's the Our Lady of the Sequined Pasties. We're not really an officially sanctioned church but our picnics beat the sh!t out of everybody elses'.
-
-
9
" ..while I work on attaining my language proficiency. .."
Hey, Bible gal, YOU LIE!
-
10
The fact that the Catholic Church runs a third of the hospitals in this country tends to give them a seat at the table.
If the Democrats are serious about adding 20 million people to the ranks of the insured without effecting those who are "happy with what they have", then they'd pobably be wise to consider what 33% of the hospital CEO's think.
-
10.1
I think an argument can be made that 1/3 of the hospitals are trying to force their beliefs on the other 2/3's. It's still a case of the religious trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.
-
10.2
"The fact"?
.
"615 Catholic hospitals account for 12.5% of community hospitals in the United States,"
.
My source is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops-what's yours?
.
http://www.usccb.org/comm/cip.shtml
.
Of course their number is from August of 2006 so perhaps your number is more accurate.
.
What a weird thing to lie about. -
10.3
I think this is referred to as circular reasoning. Of course, the proliferation of religious hospitals is due as much to the failure of government to provide this vital service as anything. Isn't this what the current debate is about to begin with?
Also, Lincoln said during the war that he would compromise in the issue of slavery, fully supported, validated, and sanctified by the holy bible, if only he could preserve the union. Guess what? It didn't work, he issued the emancipation proclamation for the slaves in the rebel states, and Grant and Sherman proceeded to destroy them anyway.
-
-
11
The number refers to community based hospitals. It doesn't include clinics, outpatient centers, same day surgery centers, etc.
Sorry for the confusion.
-
11.1
So they run hospitals and they interfere in our politics. Tell me again why they're not paying taxes.
-
11.2
Thanks for the clarification, now just the source rather than your assertion and everything will be cleared up.
-
-
12
Ah, if only the Catholic bishops worried as much about the welfare of born children as they apparently do for unborn children.
These bishops are still busily protecting pedophiles who for years preyed on children in parishes all across the country. The bishops still haven't opened their files and exposed all of these criminals. More names continue to trickle out, month after month after month.
Really, these guys don't have a leg to stand on. What massive hypocrites.
-
13
Separation of church and state has nothing to do with tax dollars. If the Pope offered to pay enough taxes to fund the Federal government himself, it still wouldn't be acceptable for catholic bishops to impose their abortion views on the legislative process.
This is so improper it boggles the mind. But conservatives will continue to argue that its health reform itself which is destructive to our Constitutional values. If anybody can get a picture of Boehner waving a copy of the Constitution around with a Bishop standing next to him, I'll pay top dollar for it, and it has to be happening at some point during one of these rallies.
-
13.1
Listen to yourself! You're advocating the suppression of the Church's views, even if it were paying taxes as an institution. This implies that you've went beyond the usual distorted argument of "health-care is a political issue and therefore the Church cannot opine on it." You're actually openly advocating the violation of the Constitution by infringing on the "free exercise thereof." Oh, but yet, no doubt, you'll cry and moan about the non-existent separation of church and state clause being violated. What a blatantly hypocritical and prejudiced position.
~~
How is the Church imposing anything on legislation? You simply disagree with the Church's positions and therefore you will say and do anything, including propaganda, slander, and libel, to discredit her. Pathetic. -
13.2
If the Pope did pay enough taxes to fund the Federal Government, then in my estimation he would have the right to outlaw abortions.
-
13.3
What I'm advocating is that the church shouldn't be able to lobby government, that our law should be made free of any and all religious entanglements. Catholics can have as many unwanted pregnancies as they like, but once citizens are forced, even by economic pressures, to forego an abortion because the church opposes it, I've got a problem. Separation of church and state isn't a phrase that appears in the Constitution, but the notion that this should be a secular government clearly is. When the Catholic church is exerting this sort of influence in the legislative process, I think it compromises the notion that that's what we have. They're not an official state religion, but they're in the proverbial room, and that's too close says this observer.
My point, of course, was that whether or not they pay taxes has no bearing on any of the above. Taxes or no taxes, I know religion when I see it, and the principles in question regard religion, not non-profit untaxed organizations.
-
-
14
As citizens the bishops have as much right as anyone to voice their opinions, whether they are imposed is up to Congress.
-
15
"At a time when anti-Catholic sentiment and rhetoric is already flying fast and loose in the pro-choice community..."
What? Nobody in the pro-choice community is telling Catholics how to live their lives.
So I don't think "anti-Catholic sentiment" is quite right. The pro-choice community is fine with Catholics believing whatever they want about anything, so long as Catholics don't try to impose those beliefs on non-Catholics.
The pro-choice position in this case, which amounts to: "leave me alone" and "mind your own business" aren't anti-Catholic sentiments.
-
15.1
No different then Moveon, The TEA Baggers, Insurance industry, military industrial complex, Planed Parenthood, or any other number of organizations that claim special tax status, as non profit or otherwise.
-
15.2
@allthings...
I have no problem with people expressing a point of view. I do have a problem with Sullivan claiming that there is "anti-Catholic sentiment" on the part of the pro-life community. That's what's BS. Nobody ever compares people who disagree with Planned Parenthood, Teabaggers or Moveon to religious bigots... We need to start treating and talking about religious groups the same way we treat any other special interest group.
-
15.3
Let's see what you said. "So I don't think "anti-Catholic sentiment" is quite right. The pro-choice community is fine with Catholics believing whatever they want about anything, so long as Catholics don't try to impose those beliefs on non-Catholics."
In a Democracy it is how it works. Everyone wants there view to be the law. You want your opinion to count, I want mine.
It makes no differance if we are talking tax rates, war, peace, health care, why should we exclude abortion debate?
It is the American way.
-
15.4
And tax them just like any other business.
-
15.5
"And tax them just like any other business."
+
+
Sounds more like you are trying to silence political opposition. Should we tax political parties? -
15.6
I'm not trying to silence the opposition at all. I just fail to see much difference between many religious groups and other "for-profit" corporations. Religious groups are all about raking in the benjamins and trying to run the country as they see fit. I think it's naive to think that prayer and salvation are the main focus of religious groups. It's about politics, influence and control.
-
-
16
The Catholic Church, or more specifically the Conference of Catholic Bishops, taking a position on health-care and/or abortion is in no way a violation of the non-constitutional principle of separation between church and state. These are social issues, not political. The Church, just as any other institution, has every right to take a stance on these issues without jeopardizing her tax-exempt status. That you overwhelmingly condemn the Church for taking this position and have wholeheartedly endorsed a suffocation of religious freedom and freedom of speech is a testament to the secularist despotism running rampant in the Swamp. And someone said anti-Catholicism is dead? Pffft! You distort a social, morally tinged issue as a political issue and then accuse the Church of breaching a forbidden line? Sounds like bigotry-driven propaganda to me.
-
16.1
…exiled, you'll probably remember that I'm quite religious but skeptical of many church politics. Thus, I can admire social justice work (as Catholics practice around the world, fighting Nazism in WW2, etc.) while questioning political lobbying given separation of Caesar / God stuff. Thus, no bigotry on my part, so don't go there. That aside, could you explain why the USCCB needs an Office of Government Relations in DC? Would the Catholic membership and status thru the world be sufficient enough to get the point across?
.
http://www.usccb.org/ogr/whoweare.shtml
.
“The Office of Government Relations (GR) represents the USCCB before the U.S. Congress on public policy issues of concern to the bishops. GR coordinates and directs the legislative activities of the USCCB staff and other church personnel to influence the actions of the Congress. Each Congress, specific set of issues is assigned to each congressional liaison staff person, who in turn, works in collaboration with particular policy departments at the USCCB.” -
16.2
...and exiled, there's this blog item too for your thoughts, thx...
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2025/why_don%E2%80%99t_churches_have_to_disclose_lobbying_activities/ -
16.3
Having liaisons with governments in no way bothers me. I don't recognize the so-called separation of church and state fabrication, so there is nothing precluding such relations. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," speaks to state religion. There shall be no government mandated religion, such as Anglicanism in the UK (which, by the way, still bans Catholics from the throne, or anyone married to a Catholic). There is no prohibition of interactions between the government and religious institutions, nor is there a prohibition from individuals within the government espousing their religious beliefs, nor is there any prohibition of religious officials campaigning for social issues, nor any other activity. Secular despots would like to purge society of religion, and therefore they fabricated the separation of church and state bullsh*t (which most Americans have been indoctrinated into thinking exists in the constitution) and now they use this fallacy for any number of assaults in the rights of the religious, including the rights of bishops to opine on their stance on health-care. I'm prepared to start a movement to purge the country of these rabble-rousing secularists. I'm first pondering a catchy phrase that sounds constitutional, though, for I'll need authoritative-sounding support for my cleansing of society.
-
16.4
“Secular despots would like to purge society of religion…”
.
…which religion? Yours? All of them? I doubt that. Don't most people have some belief in some thing or process to guide them? Even atheists (which I'm not) – take Ayn Rand. She openly worshipped Man, not God. Some place their “faith” in science. So do YOU think we should embrace England's system of state religion? Remember, even though Christianity, Judaism, and Islam worship the same God, they've been fighting for centuries. Who / How are disputes among them resolved? By whose standards? I'd ask instead why not embrace the differences? (I'd also ask under what constitutional grounds in our open society would anyone have the right to purge another group, but I digress.) Then again, if you need a phrase for your movement, how about “Resistance is Futile; You Will Be Expurgated”? Catchy? -
16.5
Decon-
I was, of course, being facetious. I am not starting a movement to purge the nation of any group. And I didn't say all secularists are attempting to purge society of religion, just the secularist despots, of which there are many. -
16.6
... therefore they fabricated the separation of church and state bullsh*t ...
Thomas Jefferson used the phrase 'separation of church and state' in his letter to the Danbury Baptists to describe the Constitutional provisions regarding religion.
More information on Jefferson here
-
16.7
Deggjr~
So, are we to begin declaring as constitutional law all the private musings of the founding fathers? Are we to include the Federalist Papers as binding constitutional law? You are aware, of course, that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were of different political, philosophical, and ideological minds and therefore often at odds with one another? So, explain to me why Mr Jefferson's notion of the role of religion is to become paramount to what the constitution actually states. Thanks.
-
-
17
Um... have you read Jane Austen lately? Because she is one of the clearest and most elegant writers in the English language. Except when she scathingly imitates people who use bad English, like Mr. Collins. Only a few writers, such as Graham Greene, can match her.
If you mean that the Bishops' style is excessively formalistic, old-fashioned and wordy, George Meredith or Maria Edgeworth would be a better comparison. (I like them both but they can be a bit of a struggle to read at times)
Now back to lurking...
-
18
Catholic Hospitals in this country are extremely important to the indigent, poor and uninsured. Holy Cross Hospital outside Washington, D.C., for example, serves many of the Metropolitan area's poorest immigrants and minorities.
The Bishops are within their rights to ask the U.S. Congress for clarification about laws that will impact that service. There is no issue here regarding separationof Church and State (which is not a Constitutional issue to begin with.) The Bishops also have the authority and the obligation to advise Catholics on the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion. If you overhear their counsel, you may ignore it or take under consideration as you choose.
As a Catholic nurse, I will not participate in abortion procedures nor care for patients in any setting that provides abortion, therefore, I am interested in what the Bishops have to say about Obamacare as it relates to abortion. As a taxpayer, I will fight efforts by Congress to use my money for abortion. As a citizen, I will fight to help Catholic hospitals remain open to serve the poor.
-
19
While you guys are arguing over whether the Catholic Church is within it's rights to lobby Congress (it is) I'm going to observe that the real source of the problem is that lobbying itself is distressingly effective. Apparently being able to run attack ads is a signicantly better predictor of campaign success than being able to pass legislation that serves your constituents. Sensible campaign finance reform would be a much more effective way of dealing with the problem than arguing over a particular denomination's tax-exempt status.
-
19.1
So well said and well thought, Dirks.
-
19.2
PD,
I have no qualms with this. I agree that lobbying organizations wield entirely too much influence. Reform that curbs this pervasive pocket-book power within the halls of government suits me just fine, even if the Catholic Church is one of the institutions affected by such. However, this argument is more than merely a debate on tax exempt status. There are those here on the Swamp openly suggesting that the Catholic Church, through the Conference of Bishops, has violated the so-called "separation of church" doctrine by way of it's private conference whereby bishops issued a statement espousing their views on health-care and abortion. Since when are religious groups and their individuals no longer allowed to speak out about important social issues? This is my concern. The hysteria driven anti-Catholicism has deluded many to the point that they confuse, or intentionally distort, opining with lobbying/imposing legislation. It's an absurd, and dangerous, sentiment with broader repercussions than many realize were their views to be implemented.
-
-
20
You know, I'm staunchly anti-death penalty, believing execution by the state to be immoral. Do you suppose that if a whole bunch of fellow opposers and I get together we can demand successfully that no federal funds be used to implement the death penalty?
-
20.1
No, and they'd probably execute you for even saying such a thing.
-
-
21
I am not exactly sure why abortions are always in the news in so many ways. I can understand some discussion of it, but at times, sometimes after reading articles like this, it seems to be wayyy too much in “issue”. Yawn?
So long as the case of “Roe v Wade” is not overturned, the debate about funding and so on will continue to be tangential and mostly just continuing banter and little else. The reason is because the key issue that many forget is that government monies can be used to fund LEGAL activity-- even if there are people and groups who matters such as these ones (abortion).
Religion aside, I hope that Catholics, no matter what their Bishops say, are aware that government is not doing anything illegal in subsidizing these costs.
LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/palin-a-woman-worth-emulating-yes/
-
22
Amy - It is not just the Hyde Amendment that consistitutes federal policy. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be a better example. Millions of employees recieve subsidies from the federal gov't to pay for private insurance. Yet they can't purchase any plans that have abortion within them. Unlike the Federal Employees Health Benefit's Program, Stupak does allow for private plans and for supplemental plans that cover abortion. Insurance companies may not offer these plans, but that doesn't mean that we should gut federal policy.
-
23
[...] Time magazine offers its take on the bishops’ meeting here. [...]
-
24
"...fabricated ... bullsh*t ..." No. "... binding constitutional law ..." No. "... private musings ..." Still no. "... fabricated ... bullsh*t ..." indicates a lack of knowledge of the origin of the phrase 'separation of church and state'. You are welcome.
-
25
In this case, there's a small gulf between legality and reality. True, Roe V Wade is law, but the majority of Americans are not comfortable with the thought of a life as disposable at will. You can split hairs all you want about the definition of terms, but enough americans are convinced that an unborn baby is a human life and think it is murder when you end it just because you can.
.
Thank God the majority of us are not yet "advanced" and "developed" enough in our humanity to think ending a human life is alright.
- TIME See a transcript of Obama's full remarks on Afghanistan | http://su.pr/1GtxGH - 5 hours ago
- TIME Can mammograms increase cancer risk in some women? | http://su.pr/2DJubu - 6 hours ago
- TIME See the top 10 people busted by Facebook | http://su.pr/6lQ4G6 - 8 hours ago
Most Popular »
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Dreaded X
- FX's Former Lawman Gets Justified
- Jay Leno a Failure; Also, Jay Leno a Success
- Jane Austen and Zombies and TV (and Twitter)
- Cheney: 'No Aspirations' for Further Office
- It's a Deal: 25 Days of Free MP3 Holiday Song Downloads
- The Kick-Ass Trailer
- Looking for Reasons to Care About Tiger Woods
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- Obama's Speech: Will the Plan Match the Stagecraft?
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Alleged Cop Killer Clemmons Is Dead; Tacoma's Anxiety Lingers
- The Women of Islam
- Transcript of President Obama's Afghanistan Speech
Quotes of the Day »
RSS