Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's not about 'allowing' someone to have an abortion. It's about not using taxpayers money to pay for it. I'm pro life, but I'll also defend the right of another woman to be pro-choice. What I won't do, is pay for her abortion.
I really feel like this taxpayer money issue is severely misrepresented. It's not like there's a tax credit on the 1040A that allows you to get back the money you spent on an abortion. We're talking about people who are on programs like medicare or state medical assistance programs that are funded with federal money. Part of their medical coverage is an allowance for abortion procedures under certain circumstances (those circumstances already having been explained in this thread). Abortion is a medical procedure, and if there is a significant medical issue to warrant an abortion, then government aide medical coverage is appropriate to cover such procedures. Federal law prohibits federal funding for elective abortions, so the only time when it would happen is when there is a significant medical issue warranting the procedure.
The real complaint that people need to focus on, then, is government provided medical coverage. There's no reason to break apart government funded medical coverage into pieces. Either you're okay with it, or you're not. If you're okay with it, then accept the fact that you're not a given person's doctor, and you have no place dictating whether said person should or should not have an abortion. That's like saying it's okay for the government to fund flu shots, but not okay for it to fund treatment for chickenpox.
]Sen. Richard Blumenthal: GOP Dials Back the Clock on Progress for Women[/url]
The bills introduced by Representatives Mike Pence and Christopher Smith take an unprecedented step of blocking women's access to the reproductive health care they need and have a right to -- and I will strongly oppose them. These bills seek to overturn years of long-standing legal doctrine and, even worse, they endanger the health of women in this country by attempting to end insurance coverage -- including private coverage -- for all abortions. We cannot allow women's health to be jeopardized by limiting the options that they and their doctors have when it comes to their reproductive health care.
What you seem incapable of understanding is that tax payer funded abortions already exist. It is allowed in cases of incest, rape or the health of the mother.
What the GOP is proposing is to redefine what qualifies as "rape". So let's make this clear. If you support the GOP's efforts on this matter, you support the denial of an abortion for a woman who receives federal health insurance subsidies, if that woman was raped but can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex. For example, if an underage girl is coerced into having sex by a 50 yr old man, and then that girl gets pregnant, you would support denying her an abortion because she wasn't physically held down and forced to have sex. And you want to talk about feminism? You need to take a closer look at feminism. You are not practicing it.
It's not about 'allowing' someone to have an abortion. It's about not using taxpayers money to pay for it. I'm pro life, but I'll also defend the right of another woman to be pro-choice. What I won't do, is pay for her abortion.
Well, I have news for you. You are paying for abortions for victims of rape and incest, and when the health of the mother is at stake.
Now that we've cleared that up, do you support the GOP's proposal to make it harder for rape victims to get abortions when they receive tax payer subsidies for health insurance? That's exactly what this proposal would do. There is no question about that. Do you support it? Would you like it if a "date rape" victim - and beneficiary of tax payer subsidies - was denied an abortion simply because she can't prove that she was physically held down and raped?
FYI.... comparing a child to a flu shots is moronic.
The mere fact that the Republicans took over a majority in the House would make some employers more hopeful for the future and thus willing to chance the hiring of new workers.
LOL Reproductive health!! Why don't you just have the balls to come out and be honest.. It's the systemic slaughter of an unborn child. Progressive chicks want unfettered access to Abortionists who plunge the knife in the back of the skull of a baby and on top of that, they want to give the bill to the American taxpayer because they couldn't keep their legs closed to begin with. Screw personal responsibility. God forbid a liberal has to actually take birth control!
LOL Reproductive health!! Why don't you just have the balls to come out and be honest.. It's the systemic slaughter of an unborn child. Progressive chicks want unfettered access to Abortionists who plunge the knife in the back of the skull of a baby and on top of that, they want to give the bill to the American taxpayer because they couldn't keep their legs closed to begin with. Screw personal responsibility. God forbid a liberal has to actually take birth control!
Wow, so a woman who gets raped "couldn't keep her legs closed." Wow, just wow. Absolutely disgusting. Maybe you should go live in Iran. You should get along just fine, you obviously think like the ruling class there.
Fair enough. But I find it a little disturbing that a woman would so easily be willing to throw out rights for women.
I find it more than a ltitle disturbing that a man would feel justified in telling a woman what her opinions about her own "rights" ought to be.
Feminists like to say that men don't have abortions, so they shouldn't get to have an opinion. Right at this moment, I'm inclined to agree.
So in your opinion, because I'm a man, my defense of women's rights doesn't matter? You assume that all women think like you and all men should keep their nose out of it? Well, I disagree. I'm not telling a woman what her rights "ought" to be. I'm defending the rights that women already have - which the GOP is trying to take away.
You all seem to be missing the point of this thread. It's not about your feelings on abortion. It's about the GOP redefining rape in order to limit the number of exemptions to the already existing federal ban on tax payer funded abortions.
Answer the question: Do you think it's ok for a rape victim to be denied an abortion because, since she was passed out at the time of the rape, she can't prove that she was physically forced to have sex? That's what the GOP's proposal would mean for some victims impregnated by their rapist.
You're ok with that and you want to criticize me for defending womens rights? I suggest you try defending women yourself. Right now, you're not doing a very good job of it.
On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?
This is no different than liberals trying to take my rights to own firearms away. You want abortions, fine! Pay for it yourself. I don't see the Government paying for my guns.
You want your rights, I want mine. We don't agree but in the end we both want the same thing, the Government to stay the fuck out of our choices and rights.
Yes it is completely different. We're talking about a woman's choice with her own body, not whether you choose to own a fire arm. Besides, liberals are not trying to take away anybody's right to own firearms. That is complete bullshit and you know it. Liberals are in favor of more gun control (like no assault weapons, extended clips, etc), but that is a lot different than calling for a ban on all firearms. And you know damn well that no politician is going to call for an all out ban on all firearms. If one did, you'd never hear about that politician again.
Good question. I suggest you ask the GOP. They seem to think that fed funding for abortion is in widespread use. But it's not. It's already banned except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. The GOP just wants to make it harder for a woman to prove that she has been raped.
On another note, I find it quite interesting that the GOP said they'd spend all of their time with in the House with their new majority tackling economic issues - jobs jobs jobs. They complained that Dems wasted time on health care, but so far, all they've done is attempt to repeal HC reform (which is a complete waste of time), attempt to force conservative ideals on women's rights, and suggest draconian cuts to much needed programs (notice they're not really touching defense). Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?
Not to put too fine a point on this, but unemployment is dropping. In November it was 9.8 and now it's 9.0.
The dog fight over the budget is coming and the lines are already being drawn. If you haven't noticed this, you just haven't been looking.
You're right - the UE rate is down to 9.0. I hope you're not suggesting that the GOP's new House majority had anything to do with it. They haven't touched jobs; and even if they did, those policies wouldn't have an effect on the economy this soon. So far, all they've done is focus on health care and social issues. Looks like they really got the message
Before you go getting your panties in a wad, show me the statistics on abortion and the incidence of rape? Need help in doing that? I thought you'd never ask.. my pleasure..
I have that url but cannot post it because of my being new and the rule of having at least 15 posts but ANYONE can google abortion and rape and the first thing that comes up our the stats.- Piles of them.
Oh snap!! Less than 1 PERCENT!? OMG- Say it ain't so!? Save your faux outrage.
Before you go getting your panties in a wad, show me the statistics on abortion and the incidence of rape? Need help in doing that? I thought you'd never ask.. my pleasure..
I have that url but cannot post it because of my being new and the rule of having at least 15 posts but ANYONE can google abortion and rape and the first thing that comes up our the stats.- Piles of them.
Oh snap!! Less than 1 PERCENT!? OMG- Say it ain't so!? Save your faux outrage.
I don't think you're actually paying attention to the discussion. We're talking about legislation regarding government aid programs that provide medical assistance to people, and the availability of abortion procedures through those programs.
Current law prohibits federal funding of abortions, except for reasons of rape, incest, or a woman's life is in danger. The legislation in question would further limit that to cases of "forcible" rape. In other words, if you went out with some friends, and a guy slips something into your drink, and rapes you while you're unconscious, then that would not qualify. If you were attacked and knocked out cold, that would not qualify. Furthermore, a woman would first have to prove the rape. What that means exactly, I don't know. But it's not something that sits very well with me. A woman should not have to go through the inquisition in order to make available treatment options subsequent to a rape.
So, whatever statistics you decide you might want to eventually reference when you can post a link, we're not talking about abortion generally speaking. We're talking about abortion subsequent to rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. These are the ONLY circumstances we are talking about.
Regardless, I don't care. If a woman wants to kill a child no matter the circumstance let her do it with her own money. Two wrongs don't make a right. While I wish rape didn't exist, the innocent child who was created with the breath of God did nothing wrong. How about women actually put their kids first? Imagine that?!
Regardless, I don't care. If a woman wants to kill a child no matter the circumstance let her do it with her own money. Two wrongs don't make a right. While I wish rape didn't exist, the innocent child who was created with the breath of God did nothing wrong. How about women actually put their kids first? Imagine that?!
Your religious beliefs are not justification for public policy. Other people have different beliefs, and in a decent society their rights cannot be determined by your religion. Imagine that?!
Regardless, I don't care. If a woman wants to kill a child no matter the circumstance let her do it with her own money. Two wrongs don't make a right. While I wish rape didn't exist, the innocent child who was created with the breath of God did nothing wrong. How about women actually put their kids first? Imagine that?!
Your religious beliefs are not justification for public policy. Other people have different beliefs, and in a decent society their rights cannot be determined by your religion. Imagine that?!
Regardless, I don't care. If a woman wants to kill a child no matter the circumstance let her do it with her own money. Two wrongs don't make a right. While I wish rape didn't exist, the innocent child who was created with the breath of God did nothing wrong. How about women actually put their kids first? Imagine that?!
Your religious beliefs are not justification for public policy. Other people have different beliefs, and in a decent society their rights cannot be determined by your religion. Imagine that?!
Show me in the Constitution where you are afforded the right to slaughter your unborn child on my dollar? I'll wait~
Your religious beliefs are not justification for public policy. Other people have different beliefs, and in a decent society their rights cannot be determined by your religion. Imagine that?!
Show me in the Constitution where you are afforded the right to slaughter your unborn child on my dollar? I'll wait~
The Commerce Clause? Seems to be the justification for almost everything with these people.
I can't wait to read her reply.
Show me in the Constitution where you are afforded the right to slaughter your unborn child on my dollar? I'll wait~
How about you stop playing with straw men?
