Ann Coulter: Why Can't We Get A List Of Women Who Have Abortions?

[logical4u]

its more like another failed attempt by a partisan to compare abortion with Gun rights.

I mean why not cancer victims? Or Aids, Or herpes? No it just had to be abortion. The agenda is quite clear.

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on abortions.

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on guns.

The difference one is a private matter between her and her doctor. The other isn't.

It is a "lawful" use of purchases and services. Why don't we list what "everyone" lawfully purchases or uses, according to name and address? It is a silly question. It is to illustrate the point that notifying criminals of where "guns" are (or aren't) could endanger people and property. If the criminals know who doesn't have guns, aren't they more likely to "target" those homes, over homes that do have guns (unless, they want guns to commit crimes, and are not prosecuted according to gun laws on the books). If you have daughters (or "little" boys) and you do not have a "dot" on your house, I would recommend that you do some extra work to protect your family.

 

[logical4u]

Ann Coulter: Why Can't We Get A List Of Women Who Have Abortions?

Publishing the names of women who have had abortions is an interesting strategy to win back the women's vote and convince the nation's voters that the Republicans/Tea Party isn't being led by a bunch of conservative extremists.

The more attention Coulter receives, the less the Democrats need worry about 2014 and 2016.

vile ugly thing, isn't she? can you imagine if a democrat had wished for a republican presidential candidate to be killed in a terrorist attack?

they'd still be posting a dozen threads a day about it....

but mostly, someone needs to talk to the coultergeist about HIPPA

Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule

Liberal newsman calls for killing of NRA members, drag GOP leaders behind trucks - Wilmington Conservative | Examiner.com

Still waiting for the libs to speak out against this..........

 

[logical4u]

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on guns because murder is never a private matter.

The difference one is a private matter between her and her doctor. The other isn't.

Care to point out one single example of me saying no right is absolute? How about me ever insisting that the government does not have the power and responsibility to restrict some people from owning guns? I guess that puts the ball back in the partisan court about restrictions on abortion.

funny how you only think the right to restrict behavior only applies to government's power over women's bodies.

but health insurance? airline safety? oh hell no!! cause those affect you!

Not wanting to support the murder of unborn children is not using gov't power over women's bodies. Women are "free" to kill their unborn children any time they want (and there are methods that do not need a doctor). The taxpayer should not be "forced" to pay for this EVIL practice.

 

[logical4u]

Those who publish leaked medical records would have their asses sued off and face criminal charges.

Yeah, in this atmosphere of ENVY that the President is promoting.... hold your breath.

 

[Ernie S.]

Those who publish leaked medical records would have their asses sued off and face criminal charges.

exactly right.

So why is your right to privacy any more important than mine?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

^^^^^^

another man who thinks women shouldn't be able to govern their own bodies

but keep pretending you're for 'small government'.

We're for small federal govt. The constitution never mentions or implies abortion so by the 10A it's a state issue.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Ann's not a female version of anything.

Ann's not a female.

A lot of people believe that. She does have a lot of masculine traits such as height and deep voice and big hands.

 

[earlycuyler]

Ann's not a female version of anything.

Ann's not a female.

A lot of people believe that. She does have a lot of masculine traits such as height and deep voice and big hands.

Adams apple to. We need a volunteer to check for a coin slot. Think it could be found with a Google search ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on guns because murder is never a private matter.

The difference one is a private matter between her and her doctor. The other isn't.

Care to point out one single example of me saying no right is absolute? How about me ever insisting that the government does not have the power and responsibility to restrict some people from owning guns? I guess that puts the ball back in the partisan court about restrictions on abortion.

funny how you only think the right to restrict behavior only applies to government's power over women's bodies.

but health insurance? airline safety? oh hell no!! cause those affect you!

Funny how you can't actually prove that, yet you say it every chance you get.

 

[jillian]

Care to point out one single example of me saying no right is absolute? How about me ever insisting that the government does not have the power and responsibility to restrict some people from owning guns? I guess that puts the ball back in the partisan court about restrictions on abortion.

funny how you only think the right to restrict behavior only applies to government's power over women's bodies.

but health insurance? airline safety? oh hell no!! cause those affect you!

Funny how you can't actually prove that, yet you say it every chance you get.

Prove what? That you're a pretend libertarian who thinks government should force women to carry pregnancies to term???

Why would I have to prove the obvious?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

funny how you only think the right to restrict behavior only applies to government's power over women's bodies.

but health insurance? airline safety? oh hell no!! cause those affect you!

Funny how you can't actually prove that, yet you say it every chance you get.

Prove what? That you're a pretend libertarian who thinks government should force women to carry pregnancies to term???

Why would I have to prove the obvious?

Feel free to point out where I say that government should force people to do anything, including not kill themselves. I bet you can't find a single post that even comes close. I don't like abortion, I also don't like cranberries, I have never demanded that the government protect me from either.

 

[Plasmaball]

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on abortions.

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on guns.

The difference one is a private matter between her and her doctor. The other isn't.

It is a "lawful" use of purchases and services. Why don't we list what "everyone" lawfully purchases or uses, according to name and address? It is a silly question. It is to illustrate the point that notifying criminals of where "guns" are (or aren't) could endanger people and property. If the criminals know who doesn't have guns, aren't they more likely to "target" those homes, over homes that do have guns (unless, they want guns to commit crimes, and are not prosecuted according to gun laws on the books). If you have daughters (or "little" boys) and you do not have a "dot" on your house, I would recommend that you do some extra work to protect your family.

this is just stupid. You people will cling to anything to protect this stupid tool.
I seriously don't give a shit if you have a gun or what gun you own, but you are damn right you need to have background checks for them, and on some of them you should be registered period.

You don't like it? Tough fucking shit. nothing in this life is free, not even owning a gun.

 

[Plasmaball]

Care to point out one single example of me saying no right is absolute? How about me ever insisting that the government does not have the power and responsibility to restrict some people from owning guns? I guess that puts the ball back in the partisan court about restrictions on abortion.

funny how you only think the right to restrict behavior only applies to government's power over women's bodies.

but health insurance? airline safety? oh hell no!! cause those affect you!

Not wanting to support the murder of unborn children is not using gov't power over women's bodies. Women are "free" to kill their unborn children any time they want (and there are methods that do not need a doctor). The taxpayer should not be "forced" to pay for this EVIL practice.

nobody hasnt said you have to support it. Its when you make laws that counter that is where people get into trouble.

Shrug.

 

[FJO]

Q: Ann Coulter: Why Can't We Get A List Of Women Who Have Abortions?

A: Because Ann wouldn't be able to handle the news that her mother aborted her.

Obviously, your mother was too stupid to abort you.

 

[FJO]

Ann's not a female version of anything.

Ann's not a female.

A lot of people believe that. She does have a lot of masculine traits such as height and deep voice and big hands.

Adams apple to. We need a volunteer to check for a coin slot. Think it could be found with a Google search ?

Check out the Adam's apple on Karen Finney, a frequent guest on many MSNBC shows.

 

[logical4u]

I see partisans talking all the time about how n right is absolute, yet not one of them wants any reasonable restrictions on guns.

The difference one is a private matter between her and her doctor. The other isn't.

It is a "lawful" use of purchases and services. Why don't we list what "everyone" lawfully purchases or uses, according to name and address? It is a silly question. It is to illustrate the point that notifying criminals of where "guns" are (or aren't) could endanger people and property. If the criminals know who doesn't have guns, aren't they more likely to "target" those homes, over homes that do have guns (unless, they want guns to commit crimes, and are not prosecuted according to gun laws on the books). If you have daughters (or "little" boys) and you do not have a "dot" on your house, I would recommend that you do some extra work to protect your family.

this is just stupid. You people will cling to anything to protect this stupid tool.
I seriously don't give a shit if you have a gun or what gun you own, but you are damn right you need to have background checks for them, and on some of them you should be registered period.

You don't like it? Tough fucking shit. nothing in this life is free, not even owning a gun.

Are you really failing to use your "ability to reason" to this extent? How about if all drivers' licenses are published, completely (including name, address, license number, and picture)? How safe do you think people would be?

How about if we publish all the people that spent over $1000 in jewelry in the past year?
How about if we publish all the people that bought 4 wheelers, jet skis, motorcycles, or other expensive toys?

Most of those things require "background checks" (credit ratings), it should be public knowledge, right?

This discussion is not about "registration" (a Nazi principal); it is about lawful citizens being outed for a newspaper's "agenda".

The news papers did not list those DUI drivers in the counties, it did not list the pedophiles living in the counties, it did not list the burglars living in the counties, it did not list the rapists in the counties, it did not list those arrested for assault or battery in the counties. Yet, when questioned on why it did this, the people at the paper claimed it was for public safety. It made everyone less safe in those counties: those without "registered" guns will be targeted because chances are...no guns, those with "registered" guns will have small armies invading their homes (hope they have an assault rifle), for the guns. Yet those that choose not to "reason" want to pretend that "guns" are the reason for crime.

Lack of Christian values is the reason for crime in this country, but that is not "politically correct" to say, let alone, use in a discussion. So just go ahead and pretend that a piece of metal with plastic or wood attached is dangerous, all by itself. Keep promoting fatherless children that get no religious instruction. Keep voting for corruption. Vote to be a subject. Vote to have others' freedoms removed (right to private property and a means to defend it). Who will you turn to when you are informed that you are now a slave, and that this bureaucrat is now your "master", and if you don't do as you are told, all life support will be removed from your family and you? What choice will you have? Will you ever consider, that you, "you" voted for this, and voted to have everyone else enslaved, alongside you? Or will you just be glad to see those that reached for glory or success, ruined and broken?

 

[logical4u]

funny how you only think the right to restrict behavior only applies to government's power over women's bodies.

but health insurance? airline safety? oh hell no!! cause those affect you!

Not wanting to support the murder of unborn children is not using gov't power over women's bodies. Women are "free" to kill their unborn children any time they want (and there are methods that do not need a doctor). The taxpayer should not be "forced" to pay for this EVIL practice.

nobody hasnt said you have to support it. Its when you make laws that counter that is where people get into trouble.

Shrug.

"My" tax dollars help fund abortions. That is supporting it (here we go with that ability to reason, again). The laws (some of which have not been written) in Obamacare "force" every single taxpayer to fund women's birth control and support abortions. You were saying...... ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seems like Liberals don't want to discuss the issue, namely what private information should remain private.
Some have qualified by saying that names of pistol permit holders shouldn't have been published, but there's always the requisite dig at Coulter, herself.
I find it interesting you've all been able to form your opinions of Ms. Coulter without actually reading her columns or books. If HuffPo says she's evil, well, that's all you need.
You take a few shock lines out of context and think you have her all figured out while she laughs at your silly ass for taking the bait. She points out daily how hypocritical the left is. Without a cogent argument, they invariably revert to personal attacks.

Why should Coulter be immune from personal attacks? Personal attacks are a core component of her act.

 

[LilOlLady]

Straw hump back scare crow Ann just want to sell another book.

Ann Coulter, the right wing's dial-900 girl—a rail-thin, chain-smoking, hard-drinking, big-eyed leggy blonde who winkingly serves up X-rated ideological smut on liberals—is at it again. "Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy," Coulter writes—or sneers—in Treason, her follow-up effort to the best-selling Slander. Like its predecessor, Treason sits atop the best-seller charts, riding higher than one of Coulter's signature miniskirts.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2003/07/a_vast_rightwing_cry_of_treason.html