Religion & Law

It would be helpful if Rick would explain (1) why the Senate?s version of the health bill is not abortion neutral enough (after reading the second link I supplied); (2)(a) how he expects thirty million men, women, and children to be covered without the health bill, (b) how he expects millions more near poor to pay less without the health bill (see the first supplied link), and (c) how he expects regulation of health insurance abuses to be effected without the health care bill. 

Rick only asserts that it is reasonable to think the poor would not be helped by the bill (if it passed), that it does not promote the common good, and that the Senate bill is not abortion neutral. He does not provide an argument for these propositions. And, if he has a convincing argument for the third, he has yet to provide an argument as to why the principle of double effect does not apply.

Perhaps he has provided such arguments in other posts. If so, I would be grateful if he just pointed me in their direction.