Got this today by email:
Dear Democrats: Why not keep federal funding and legislation out of contraception all together? Why not use this issue as an opportunity to set up an independent health system through the party, so all members agree on the policies, and quit going through Congress that is full of people representing opposing views because the entire public is included?
Can you understand the concept of keeping health care decisions out of govt, and govt out of health care decisions, so you don't have to fight other people who don't believe in funding the same things?
If you understand not giving guns to just anyone because of the danger, what makes you think you can hand power over to federal govt and expect to control the legislation?
When you know half the nation doesn't agree and even forms political parties to defend their beliefs.
Do you really believe you have the right to override those beliefs by majority-rule?
While complaining if they attempt to do the same?
If you know some magic trick to forcing people and govt to do what you want against the will of people protesting for the same reasons you do,
please explain to me how this works exactly.
I have never been able to figure it out, and now I am more confused than ever!
Thank you,
Emily
P.S. I'm still confused over how the ACA is prochoice
when it restricts, penalizes, and removes free choice of health care
while feminists oppose any restriction or penalty on the free choice of abortion.
Also how can we defend the right of consent, and argue that no means no,
yet when half the nation opposes ACA, we justify overriding their consent,
claiming they really want the benefits and will change their minds later.
How is that different from the mindset of people who justify rape
claiming the person agreed to sex in the past to override their objections?
Do the political and religious beliefs of opposing views not count equally in public policy? How can you justify excluding and invalidating dissent and input of others, then complain when people bully, oppress, or rape women by dismissing them as less than equal?
If anyone can please explain this, I am most grateful for the help to understand.
DCCC said:
Dear Democrats: Why not keep federal funding and legislation out of contraception all together? Why not use this issue as an opportunity to set up an independent health system through the party, so all members agree on the policies, and quit going through Congress that is full of people representing opposing views because the entire public is included?
Can you understand the concept of keeping health care decisions out of govt, and govt out of health care decisions, so you don't have to fight other people who don't believe in funding the same things?
If you understand not giving guns to just anyone because of the danger, what makes you think you can hand power over to federal govt and expect to control the legislation?
When you know half the nation doesn't agree and even forms political parties to defend their beliefs.
Do you really believe you have the right to override those beliefs by majority-rule?
While complaining if they attempt to do the same?
If you know some magic trick to forcing people and govt to do what you want against the will of people protesting for the same reasons you do,
please explain to me how this works exactly.
I have never been able to figure it out, and now I am more confused than ever!
Thank you,
Emily
P.S. I'm still confused over how the ACA is prochoice
when it restricts, penalizes, and removes free choice of health care
while feminists oppose any restriction or penalty on the free choice of abortion.
Also how can we defend the right of consent, and argue that no means no,
yet when half the nation opposes ACA, we justify overriding their consent,
claiming they really want the benefits and will change their minds later.
How is that different from the mindset of people who justify rape
claiming the person agreed to sex in the past to override their objections?
Do the political and religious beliefs of opposing views not count equally in public policy? How can you justify excluding and invalidating dissent and input of others, then complain when people bully, oppress, or rape women by dismissing them as less than equal?
If anyone can please explain this, I am most grateful for the help to understand.
Last edited:
