Hypocrisy is good coin of the realm for baby-killers. Eleanor Holmes Norton is a case in point:
Norton does not mind forcing everyone to pay for abortions with money she had nothing to do with, but she mounts her moral high horse in defense of killing babies with tax dollars. Where the hell does she think those tax dollars come from? Is she so stupid she believes abortionists are the only ones who pay taxes? I know that Washington, D.C. has more parasites per square inch than every other city in the country, but it’s safe to assume that at least a few residents of the nation’s capital object to paying for things they do not believe in.
Not satisfied with being an abortion hypocrite Norton noted that:
I’ll wager that Hypocrite Norton loves every federal law that forces the culture of death on the country, while she resents any law that protects an individual’s Right to NOT pay for abortions.
And, as usual, another liberal tried to make her case by asking a clever question:
I would have answered: Someone who is wise to a pack of goddamned lying baby-killing parasites.
It is a tax
Associate Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor were overjoyed when Chief Justice John Roberts called HillaryCare II a tax; so I can understand why Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius is such a problem. The First and Thirteenth Amendments mean nothing to liberals, while the trend to stop funding abortions with tax dollars has been going against the infanticide crowd since Roe v. Wade:
With all of the focus on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius it was a pleasure finding one article that takes on the issue of funding abortions through the United Nations.
First, let’s deal with the Mexico City Policy:
See this thread for another overturned RR executive order that is almost as bad as the one overturning the Mexico City Policy:
Question: Will the next Republican president have the guts to overturn Taqiyya the Liar’s EOs? If the answer is NO what does that say about Republicans repealing HillaryCare II?
Now, let’s look at some numbers:
Tax dollars are funding abortions in this country and abroad even though most Americans do not want to pay for abortions irrespective of their religious beliefs, yet the infanticide crowd has successfully separated abortion funding from everything else. Their arguments always end in the same place: You will pay for abortions and that’s an end to it.
Tragically, neither I nor anyone else knows how to make baby-killers justify their “Right” to force everyone else to pay for abortions. Every time they open their goddamned mouths it’s about a woman’s Right to choose, or the health of women.
. . . Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-Washington, D.C.) testified before the Rules Committee, having been denied the opportunity to do so before the Judiciary Committee, even though the bill contains a provision particular to her district and no other.
“[HR 7] targets my district, as a district, and insults us by having the audacity to say how we should spend money that you had nothing to do with,” Norton said.
Norton does not mind forcing everyone to pay for abortions with money she had nothing to do with, but she mounts her moral high horse in defense of killing babies with tax dollars. Where the hell does she think those tax dollars come from? Is she so stupid she believes abortionists are the only ones who pay taxes? I know that Washington, D.C. has more parasites per square inch than every other city in the country, but it’s safe to assume that at least a few residents of the nation’s capital object to paying for things they do not believe in.
Not satisfied with being an abortion hypocrite Norton noted that:
. . . in the 19th century, residents of Washington, D.C., had home rule, but that it ended when Reconstruction did (with the ushering in of the Jim Crow era).
The way in which HR 7 exercises its prohibition on the District of Columbia’s use of its own tax dollars for abortion care, Norton said, is to redefine D.C. “as a federal jurisdiction for purposes of abortion.”
I’ll wager that Hypocrite Norton loves every federal law that forces the culture of death on the country, while she resents any law that protects an individual’s Right to NOT pay for abortions.
And, as usual, another liberal tried to make her case by asking a clever question:
“How can you redefine who we are?” she asked the committee’s Republicans. “Who do you think you are?”
Her question went unanswered.
House Republicans Send Anti-Choice ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion’ Bill to the Floor (UPDATED)
by Adele M. Stan, RH Reality Check
January 28, 2014 - 9:23 am
House Republicans Send Anti-Choice 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion' Bill to the Floor (UPDATED)
I would have answered: Someone who is wise to a pack of goddamned lying baby-killing parasites.
It is a tax
Associate Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor were overjoyed when Chief Justice John Roberts called HillaryCare II a tax; so I can understand why Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius is such a problem. The First and Thirteenth Amendments mean nothing to liberals, while the trend to stop funding abortions with tax dollars has been going against the infanticide crowd since Roe v. Wade:
The Hyde Amendment should not be confused with the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited US government funds from going to agencies that promote or perform abortions in other countries. It prevented funds to agencies that promoted abortion regardless of whether or not they actually performed them, while the Hyde Amendment has a more limited scope.
The Stupak–Pitts Amendment, an amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, was introduced by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. It prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, and was included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009. However, the Senate bill passed by the House on March 21, 2010 did not contain that Hyde Amendment language. As part of an agreement between Rep. Stupak and President Obama to secure Stupak's vote, the President issued an executive order on March 24, 2010 affirming that the Hyde Amendment would extend to the new bill.
With all of the focus on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius it was a pleasure finding one article that takes on the issue of funding abortions through the United Nations.
First, let’s deal with the Mexico City Policy:
President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions, as first reported by ABC News.
Obama Overturns 'Mexico City Policy' Implemented by Reagan
Jan. 23, 2009
By JAKE TAPPER, SUNLEN MILLER and HUMA KHAN
Obama Overturns 'Mexico City Policy' Implemented by Reagan - ABC News
See this thread for another overturned RR executive order that is almost as bad as the one overturning the Mexico City Policy:
Question: Will the next Republican president have the guts to overturn Taqiyya the Liar’s EOs? If the answer is NO what does that say about Republicans repealing HillaryCare II?
Now, let’s look at some numbers:
For example, “empowering women” or “improving maternal health,” “combating HIV/AIDS” and “ensuring environmental sustainability” are frequently used as code words for introducing “family planning” methods and getting abortion legalized in every country that their advocates can (and illegally introducing chemical abortions into countries where abortion is still illegal). “Universal primary education” also incorporates the “comprehensive sex education” agenda in these countries.
The UN’s 2014-2015 regular budget is $5.5 billion of which the U.S. contributes approximately 25 percent, namely $1.4 billion. The U.S. additionally funds separate UN agencies annually. The last report we have states that in 2010 the U.S. gave about $7.7 billion to UN agencies. How much U.S. money is funding "comprehensive sex education" and "family planning" overseas? How much U.S. money is going to support organizations that promote abortion internationally?
The Department of State and USAID spends about $700 million a year for “family planning” purposes including post-abortion care for incomplete abortions. A report by UNFPA gives insight into the 2012 international contraceptive distribution, including breakdown of UNFPA and USAID monetary support of all kinds of contraceptives including abortifacients like Plan B, funded in part with U.S. money. The U.S. annually supports groups that promote abortions: the World Health Organization (WHO) received $386 million, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) received $255 million, and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has received between $35-51 million a year from 2009-2012.
What is U.S. Money Actually Funding at the UN and Overseas?
Arina Grossu | Mar 28, 2014
What is U.S. Money Actually Funding at the UN and Overseas? - Arina Grossu - Page full
Tax dollars are funding abortions in this country and abroad even though most Americans do not want to pay for abortions irrespective of their religious beliefs, yet the infanticide crowd has successfully separated abortion funding from everything else. Their arguments always end in the same place: You will pay for abortions and that’s an end to it.
Tragically, neither I nor anyone else knows how to make baby-killers justify their “Right” to force everyone else to pay for abortions. Every time they open their goddamned mouths it’s about a woman’s Right to choose, or the health of women.
Last edited: