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.
Actually, in the words of the ACTUAL BILL - the actual statute, in plain language - prohibits the federal government from requiring organizations to train for, refer, or perform abortions and prohibits the government from discriminating against them.No, it does not do that. TPM may have told you it does, but they lied.
You need to stop letting folks think for you.
And, go straight to the horse's mouth. (I recall learning that in kindergarten. But, school qualities do differ.)
3/17/2011--Reported to House amended, Part I. Protect Life Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions. Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training. Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions. Requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion services.[Emphasis added for your edification]
H.R. 358 - Summary: Protect Life Act (GovTrack.us)
In other words:
Currently, hospitals that receive federal funds but don't have facilities to treat women who may need emergency abortion services are directed to transfer those patients to a health care facility that can treat them. The Pitts bill removes that requirement.
House passes bill on abortion funding - CNN
...and this brings us back to... :
George Will: Republican Leaders Are Afraid of Rush Limbaugh - ABC News
ABCs George Will told me Sunday on This Week that GOP leaders have steered clear of harshly denouncing Limbaughs comments because Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh.
[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rushs language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, thats inappropriate. Not this stuff, Will said. And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but theyre afraid of Rush Limbaugh.
Boehner (R) & Romney (R) will pay for their tepid responses down the road
The exit polls will reveal the extent to which the GOP's unofficial spokesman has alienated potential female Repub voters. I tend to believe that they won't forget it comer November.
Quit playing with yourself, Dot Com.
Santorum will be just a paragraph in the history pages by November.
Obama will have to be answering for his failures leading up to November.
That's what the females and the males will be remembering. Sheesh....
I can think of more GOP failures than any you might assign the President. You run w/ that though
Right. Because the First Amendment protects all persons from infringement on their practice of their religion and their religious beliefs.Actually, in the words of the ACTUAL BILL - the actual statute, in plain language - prohibits the federal government from requiring organizations to train for, refer, or perform abortions and prohibits the government from discriminating against them.In other words:
Currently, hospitals that receive federal funds but don't have facilities to treat women who may need emergency abortion services are directed to transfer those patients to a health care facility that can treat them. The Pitts bill removes that requirement.
House passes bill on abortion funding - CNN
From the Catholic Free Press:
In a statement released Oct. 14, Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops pro-life secretariat, said that by passing H.R. 358,..... helps ensure that the government will not pressure health professionals to participate in abortion against their medical judgment, moral convictions or religious beliefs, she added.
US House passes Protect Life Act in bipartisan vote The Catholic Free Press
Right. Because the First Amendment protects all persons from infringement on their practice of their religion and their religious beliefs.Actually, in the words of the ACTUAL BILL - the actual statute, in plain language - prohibits the federal government from requiring organizations to train for, refer, or perform abortions and prohibits the government from discriminating against them.
From the Catholic Free Press:
In a statement released Oct. 14, Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops pro-life secretariat, said that by passing H.R. 358,..... helps ensure that the government will not pressure health professionals to participate in abortion against their medical judgment, moral convictions or religious beliefs, she added.
US House passes Protect Life Act in bipartisan vote The Catholic Free Press
It's a constitutional issue and an inherent right guaranteed to all by the Constitution.
In my book, too. And, in the Catholic book. So, all your hand-wringing is for naught.Right. Because the First Amendment protects all persons from infringement on their practice of their religion and their religious beliefs.From the Catholic Free Press:
In a statement released Oct. 14, Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the U.S. bishops pro-life secretariat, said that by passing H.R. 358,..... helps ensure that the government will not pressure health professionals to participate in abortion against their medical judgment, moral convictions or religious beliefs, she added.
US House passes Protect Life Act in bipartisan vote The Catholic Free Press
It's a constitutional issue and an inherent right guaranteed to all by the Constitution.
Saving a woman's life trumps moral convictions or religious beliefs in my book.
Thanks (oxy)Rush
Recent debate over contraception comes as GOP loses gains among women - The Washington Post
The fragile gains Republicans had been making among female voters have been erased, a shift that has coincided with what has become a national shouting match over reproductive issues, potentially handing President Obama and the Democrats an enormous advantage this fall.
In my book, too. And, in the Catholic book. So, all your hand-wringing is for naught.Right. Because the First Amendment protects all persons from infringement on their practice of their religion and their religious beliefs.
It's a constitutional issue and an inherent right guaranteed to all by the Constitution.
Saving a woman's life trumps moral convictions or religious beliefs in my book.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
- That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
- That the immediate effect be good in itself;
- That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it a procedure never allowed;
- That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.
No, it does not. I linked to the actual bill. You really should read it.In my book, too. And, in the Catholic book. So, all your hand-wringing is for naught.Saving a woman's life trumps moral convictions or religious beliefs in my book.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
- That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
- That the immediate effect be good in itself;
- That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it a procedure never allowed;
- That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.
The language in H.R. 358 sets up the possibility for anyone with strong moral convictions against abortion to discriminately deny a life-saving abortion depending on which way the wind blows that day.
I have listen and heard what the left has said about abortions, and it is my opinion it has nothing to do with saving lives but a form of birth control.In my book, too. And, in the Catholic book. So, all your hand-wringing is for naught.Saving a woman's life trumps moral convictions or religious beliefs in my book.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
- That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
- That the immediate effect be good in itself;
- That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it a procedure never allowed;
- That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.
The language in H.R. 358 sets up the possibility for anyone with strong moral convictions against abortion to discriminately deny a life-saving abortion depending on which way the wind blows that day.
i love how everyone tosses around the idea that this is all fear driven...
i love how everyone tosses around the idea that this is all fear driven...
You fear the right don't you?
no
bull shit !! women are rushing into the republican ranks !!! and there is also an uptick in younger voters coming to the true American ranks !!! the faggot left is on the decline !!!Thanks (oxy)Rush
Recent debate over contraception comes as GOP loses gains among women - The Washington Post
The fragile gains Republicans had been making among female voters have been erased, a shift that has coincided with what has become a national shouting match over reproductive issues, potentially handing President Obama and the Democrats an enormous advantage this fall.
Thanks (oxy)Rush
Recent debate over contraception comes as GOP loses gains among women - The Washington Post
The fragile gains Republicans had been making among female voters have been erased, a shift that has coincided with what has become a national shouting match over reproductive issues, potentially handing President Obama and the Democrats an enormous advantage this fall.
Between Rush and Santorum, it comes as a surprise to me that any woman would stay with the GOP.
Another one calling women to stupid because they can't see a failed obama economy and would whether vote for obama.
Between Rush and Santorum, it comes as a surprise to me that any woman would stay with the GOP.
You mean most women don't believe they belong in the home barefoot and pregnant? Damn, who wudda thunk it?
No, it does not. I linked to the actual bill. You really should read it.In my book, too. And, in the Catholic book. So, all your hand-wringing is for naught.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
- That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
- That the immediate effect be good in itself;
- That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
- That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.
The language in H.R. 358 sets up the possibility for anyone with strong moral convictions against abortion to discriminately deny a life-saving abortion depending on which way the wind blows that day.
I am beginning to think you are dishonest.
Another one calling women to stupid because they can't see a failed obama economy and would whether vote for obama.Between Rush and Santorum, it comes as a surprise to me that any woman would stay with the GOP.
You mean most women don't believe they belong in the home barefoot and pregnant? Damn, who wudda thunk it?
LOL, what a joke..
women know they can get contraceptives and even their precious abortions..
this article is a joke.. but it's evident the Washington compost thinks women are STUPID
It's not JUST contraceptives and abortions:
Stop the War on Women
Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
There is no war on women - fearmongering propaganda for idiots.LOL, what a joke..
women know they can get contraceptives and even their precious abortions..
this article is a joke.. but it's evident the Washington compost thinks women are STUPID
It's not JUST contraceptives and abortions:
Stop the War on Women
Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
There IS a war on the Constitution.
