There have been plenty of religions in history that'd agree with her that the murder of innocents is sacred - but the Catholic Church is not one of them
The former House Speaker was not at all pleased with his line of questioning.
“You’re probably enjoying that question a lot, I can see you savoring it,” Pelosi said in response. “What was done in Philadelphia was reprehensible and everybody condemned it. For [the drafters of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act] to decide to disrespect a judgment a woman makes about her reproductive health is reprehensible.”
“Next question,” she added.
McCormack wasn’t finished: “So what’s the moral difference? I just asked a simple question. … What’s the moral difference then between 26 weeks elective abortion and killing of that same infant born alive?”
“This is not the issue. They are saying that there’s no abortion. It would make it a federal law that there would be no abortion in our country,” she responded.
As mentioned in the above, the bill doesn’t ban “all abortions.”
“As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,” she added. “This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”
Prominent Catholics, such as Priests for Life president Fr. Frank Pavone, have responded forthrightly to what Pelosi said:
Whatever Catholic faith you claim to respect and practice, it is not the faith that the Catholic Church teaches. And I speak for countless Catholics when I say that it’s time for you to stop speaking as if it were.
But I didn’t even have time to read Fr. Pavone’s sound and principled statement. I had to go on the air in 5 minutes to respond to this gruesome scandal, so I was forced to wing it. I answered, in essence, as follows:
If Nancy Pelosi says that partial-birth abortion is something “sacred” in her religion, I think it’s only right that we take her at her word. There have been a number of religions throughout history that relied on human sacrifice, some of them associated with quite advanced civilizations. (Think of Aztec Mexico.) A few of these civilizations have even practiced infant sacrifice, such as Carthage. Indeed, G.K. Chesterton in The Everlasting Man saw the Punic Wars as goaded by a healthy Roman disgust for their enemies’ annual slaughter of every first-born infant, offered to their gods in return for guaranteed wealth and success. Which those gods duly provided. More modern religions that practice or advocate such sacrifices include some wings of Satanism. I’m not sure which of these religions Nancy Pelosi practices. The one thing we do know is that she isn’t a Catholic. There is nothing Christian or Judaeo-Christian about a practice that the Jewish prophets denounced—preparing the way for Jews and Christians to rescue unwanted, abandoned infants from the walls of Rome itself.
To be fair, Nancy Pelosi probably does not belong to a cult that sacrifices children to a god or gods in the hope of gaining prosperity or conquering Rome. But there is a strange religious impulse at the heart of the pro-choice ideology she represents so ably in the Congress in defiance of Catholic teaching. And she does seem to have shoehorned what tenets of Catholicism she still accepts into this new religion she practices—rendering whatever creed Pelosi holds a kind of syncretistic mish-mash like Santeria. Her creed maintains that individual choice is absolutely sacred in certain matters and not in others. She isn’t a libertarian who wants to legalize drugs and prostitution, to peel back minimum wage laws or bans on racial discrimination—all of which would follow from a consistent belief in absolute private autonomy. No, as a modern