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.
So I am sure since Rightwingers are now trying to claim that abortion should be a states rights issue -- you will oppose any effort by Republicans to ban abortions federally huh?Yeah not quite.
It was written not to pass. They knew that what they wrote - effectively - abortion is a right no matter what - is never going to pass federally. Never.
Republicans have not fought RvW specifically because states had the right to reserve and use restrictions.
The fake bill that Schumer and Pelosi wrote had one purpose - to once again enable them to pound sand about Republicans hate women. When all they have to do is pass a realistic bill that keeps the states the right to provide restrictions.
www.rollingstone.com
I would be against a federal ban yes.So I am sure since Rightwingers are now trying to claim that abortion should be a states rights issue -- you will oppose any effort by Republicans to ban abortions federally huh?
Mike Pence Calls for National Abortion Ban
Former Vice President Mike Pence called for a national abortion ban following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
So federally banning a state's ability to decide on its open carry laws -- good...I would be against a federal ban yes.
Exactly why I am against federally mandated abortion rights.
We are a very large country. A nation that is the most diverse on the planet on every level, race, ethnicities and religions.
It is a better situation that these different cultures can vote on their own regions to make laws like these.
That last part won't happen......there will be more cuts to those programs -- we can call it a deterrent....As before women will have less control over there lives,
As before those with money will still be able to get abortions.
As before more unwanted children,
As before more welfare needed to feed & support those unable to provide on their own.
Obvious troll is obviously trolling.Simple question.....thru-out the 60's and 70's -- why did so many Christian Conservatives who professed love for the Constitution; get it so wrong about abortion??
"White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions, including Bob Jones University. The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society -- they concluded: “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,"
The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth
White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.www.politico.com
How could someone like the Christian Medical Society get it so wrong?? Did they not know Jesus is against abortion? The same Bible they used to condemn abortion now is the same Bible that existed then...how could they claim abortion is a necessity and permissible? Did they not care about the children? But it gets worse.....
"Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976. When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and sometime president of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement praising the ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared."
Again, what Bible were these people looking at?? Abortion is murder and mothers should be put to death for such an abomination....why was there so much ambiguity on this?? No such wishy washy language existed when they were using Biblical justifications to call for executing gays or railing against the evils of desegregation and miscegenation -- why not that same heat for abortion?? but wait, there's more....even Ronald Reagan, the second coming of Jesus himself, signed into law a big pro-abortion bill...was he not a conservative then?? Did he not love Jesus?
"When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.”
Reagan’s Darkest Hour | National Review
As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Un…www.nationalreview.com
How could he have never given much thought to it, but then signed the most liberal pro-abortion bill in the country that year? Hell, even the great superhero Libertarian Conservative, Ayn Rand said this about abortion.....
View attachment 662093
I mean I know she is an Atheist and you right-wingers give her a pass because she hated black folks and other shit as much as you did -- but even for a Jesus-hating atheist, this is pretty twisted stuff from her.....how did these Conservatives get it all wrong -- and then all suddenly in the span of a few years -- suddenly launch a crusade against abortion and women's health rights??
Oh, I remember......racism......
"After several decades of research, I can state without fear of contradiction that evangelicals mobilized politically in the 1970s not, as commonly supposed, in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, but rather in defense of racial segregation at Bob Jones University and at all-white “segregation academies,” many of them church-sponsored. The durability of what I call the abortion myth, the fiction that opposition to legalized abortion was the catalyst of their movement, can be attributed to the founders of the Religious Right themselves."
Column: Race, Reagan and the rise of the Religious Right
The overwhelming white evangelical support for Donald Trump is a puzzle that will occupy historians for generations. How can the Religious Right, a movement that trumpets its fidelity to “family values,” throw its support to a vulgar, thrice-married...www.vnews.com
Like how Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980 to defend the right of universities like Bob Jones to racially segregate....I guess that is how Bob Jones was able to get away with banning interracial dating on their campus all the way up to the year 2000....Or how the founder of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich was pissed that the IRS were planning to rescind the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions that instituted segregation....in the papers he wrote; he essentially admitted: "Now, Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right had a “respectable” issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals — and, not incidentally, divert attention from the real origins of "our movement."
Paul M. Weyrich papers - Archives West
Archives West provides access to descriptions of primary sources in the western United States, including correspondence, diaries, and photographs. Digital reproductions of primary sources are available in some cases. Archives West was formerly known as the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA).archiveswest.orbiscascade.org
So once abortion is banned at the federal level, because that is definitely next -- what more red meat can you offer to the rabid evangelical base?? Because the beast will have to be fed.....can't be abortion anymore....Contraceptives?? Yea, that may hold them off for a moment....but sooner or later, you are going to have to throw them a bone and do something about their first love....segregation....at least bring back the whole separate but equal doctrine and use that to get your segregation rocks off....it's definitely coming...people like me have been right about the religious right so far.....even when so-called "small government Conservatives" were assuring us "relax bro, you are just overreacting, no one is asking for that" -- when it came to banning abortion, same-sex marriages, epealing Lawrence v Texas; and ultimately attacking the very concept of the 14th amendment....oh, but when that pendulum swings back in the other direction....I doubt many of the reactionary right-wingers will be able to handle it...they are far too fragile to deal with an ounce of the oppression they love seeing inflicted on others...because for a right-winger, equality feels like oppression...always have been....
Refute a single thing I said or quit whining....Obvious troll is obviously trolling.
You have no idea what Christians think, yet you pretend you do.Refute a single thing I said or quit whining....
Yeah not quite.
It was written not to pass. They knew that what they wrote - effectively - abortion is a right no matter what - is never going to pass federally. Never.
Republicans have not fought RvW specifically because states had the right to reserve and use restrictions.
The fake bill that Schumer and Pelosi wrote had one purpose - to once again enable them to pound sand about Republicans hate women. When all they have to do is pass a realistic bill that keeps the states the right to provide restrictions.
That would be credible if you were to take that stance with everything the government demands you do or not do with your body. Do you?You're missing the entire point. States should have NO say in abortion because it's a private medical matter between a woman and her doctor.
PERIOD. End of story.
Did you know the person who founded Planned Parenthood did so to get rid of black people?Simple question.....thru-out the 60's and 70's -- why did so many Christian Conservatives who professed love for the Constitution; get it so wrong about abortion??
"White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions, including Bob Jones University. The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society -- they concluded: “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,"
The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth
White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.
How could someone like the Christian Medical Society get it so wrong?? Did they not know Jesus is against abortion? The same Bible they used to condemn abortion now is the same Bible that existed then...how could they claim abortion is a necessity and permissible? Did they not care about the children? But it gets worse.....
"Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976. When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and sometime president of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement praising the ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared."
Again, what Bible were these people looking at?? Abortion is murder and mothers should be put to death for such an abomination....why was there so much ambiguity on this?? No such wishy washy language existed when they were using Biblical justifications to call for executing gays or railing against the evils of desegregation and miscegenation -- why not that same heat for abortion?? but wait, there's more....even Ronald Reagan, the second coming of Jesus himself, signed into law a big pro-abortion bill...was he not a conservative then?? Did he not love Jesus?
"When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.”
Reagan’s Darkest Hour | National Review
As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Un…
How could he have never given much thought to it, but then signed the most liberal pro-abortion bill in the country that year? Hell, even the great superhero Libertarian Conservative, Ayn Rand said this about abortion.....
View attachment 662093
I mean I know she is an Atheist and you right-wingers give her a pass because she hated black folks and other shit as much as you did -- but even for a Jesus-hating atheist, this is pretty twisted stuff from her.....how did these Conservatives get it all wrong -- and then all suddenly in the span of a few years -- suddenly launch a crusade against abortion and women's health rights??
Oh, I remember......racism......
"After several decades of research, I can state without fear of contradiction that evangelicals mobilized politically in the 1970s not, as commonly supposed, in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, but rather in defense of racial segregation at Bob Jones University and at all-white “segregation academies,” many of them church-sponsored. The durability of what I call the abortion myth, the fiction that opposition to legalized abortion was the catalyst of their movement, can be attributed to the founders of the Religious Right themselves."
Column: Race, Reagan and the rise of the Religious Right
The overwhelming white evangelical support for Donald Trump is a puzzle that will occupy historians for generations. How can the Religious Right, a movement that trumpets its fidelity to “family values,” throw its support to a vulgar, thrice-married...www.vnews.com
Like how Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980 to defend the right of universities like Bob Jones to racially segregate....I guess that is how Bob Jones was able to get away with banning interracial dating on their campus all the way up to the year 2000....Or how the founder of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich was pissed that the IRS were planning to rescind the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions that instituted segregation....in the papers he wrote; he essentially admitted: "Now, Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right had a “respectable” issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals — and, not incidentally, divert attention from the real origins of "our movement."
Paul M. Weyrich papers - Archives West
Archives West provides access to descriptions of primary sources in the western United States, including correspondence, diaries, and photographs. Digital reproductions of primary sources are available in some cases. Archives West was formerly known as the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA).archiveswest.orbiscascade.org
So once abortion is banned at the federal level, because that is definitely next -- what more red meat can you offer to the rabid evangelical base?? Because the beast will have to be fed.....can't be abortion anymore....Contraceptives?? Yea, that may hold them off for a moment....but sooner or later, you are going to have to throw them a bone and do something about their first love....segregation....at least bring back the whole separate but equal doctrine and use that to get your segregation rocks off....it's definitely coming...people like me have been right about the religious right so far.....even when so-called "small government Conservatives" were assuring us "relax bro, you are just overreacting, no one is asking for that" -- when it came to banning abortion, same-sex marriages, epealing Lawrence v Texas; and ultimately attacking the very concept of the 14th amendment....oh, but when that pendulum swings back in the other direction....I doubt many of the reactionary right-wingers will be able to handle it...they are far too fragile to deal with an ounce of the oppression they love seeing inflicted on others...because for a right-winger, equality feels like oppression...always have been....
Actually it isn't.You're missing the entire point. States should have NO say in abortion because it's a private medical matter between a woman and her doctor.
PERIOD. End of story.
Ripping babies apart, that's real compassion all so you can be a bigger whore...nice.The great damage being done by back alley abortions was well known at the time. Nobody with even a small amount of compassion could deny the need for abortions in many cases. That horror has been forgotten over the last 50 years. I fear it will return after that partasan court ruling.
The great damage being done by back alley abortions was well known at the time. Nobody with even a small amount of compassion could deny the need for abortions in many cases. That horror has been forgotten over the last 50 years. I fear it will return after that partasan [sic] court ruling.
Pelosi has PASSED a law codifying Roe v. Wade and the Republicans in the Senate blocked it.
What rights of women? When did they get more than men?Except that they weren't "wrong" 50 years ago. They were absolutely correct in saying that this is a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
What the radical court did yesterday, was to rule on their "personal, religious beliefs" which completely ignored history and the rights of women. In fact, the ruling said that women have no right to privacy under the Constitution. That's because women have NO RIGHTS under the Constitution because it was written when women were considered "chattel" to their husbands.
Simple question.....thru-out the 60's and 70's -- why did so many Christian Conservatives who professed love for the Constitution; get it so wrong about abortion??
"White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions, including Bob Jones University. The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society -- they concluded: “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,"
The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth
White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.
How could someone like the Christian Medical Society get it so wrong?? Did they not know Jesus is against abortion? The same Bible they used to condemn abortion now is the same Bible that existed then...how could they claim abortion is a necessity and permissible? Did they not care about the children? But it gets worse.....
"Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976. When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and sometime president of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement praising the ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared."
Again, what Bible were these people looking at?? Abortion is murder and mothers should be put to death for such an abomination....why was there so much ambiguity on this?? No such wishy washy language existed when they were using Biblical justifications to call for executing gays or railing against the evils of desegregation and miscegenation -- why not that same heat for abortion?? but wait, there's more....even Ronald Reagan, the second coming of Jesus himself, signed into law a big pro-abortion bill...was he not a conservative then?? Did he not love Jesus?
"When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.”
Reagan’s Darkest Hour | National Review
As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Un…
How could he have never given much thought to it, but then signed the most liberal pro-abortion bill in the country that year? Hell, even the great superhero Libertarian Conservative, Ayn Rand said this about abortion.....
View attachment 662093
I mean I know she is an Atheist and you right-wingers give her a pass because she hated black folks and other shit as much as you did -- but even for a Jesus-hating atheist, this is pretty twisted stuff from her.....how did these Conservatives get it all wrong -- and then all suddenly in the span of a few years -- suddenly launch a crusade against abortion and women's health rights??
Oh, I remember......racism......
"After several decades of research, I can state without fear of contradiction that evangelicals mobilized politically in the 1970s not, as commonly supposed, in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, but rather in defense of racial segregation at Bob Jones University and at all-white “segregation academies,” many of them church-sponsored. The durability of what I call the abortion myth, the fiction that opposition to legalized abortion was the catalyst of their movement, can be attributed to the founders of the Religious Right themselves."
Column: Race, Reagan and the rise of the Religious Right
The overwhelming white evangelical support for Donald Trump is a puzzle that will occupy historians for generations. How can the Religious Right, a movement that trumpets its fidelity to “family values,” throw its support to a vulgar, thrice-married...www.vnews.com
Like how Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980 to defend the right of universities like Bob Jones to racially segregate....I guess that is how Bob Jones was able to get away with banning interracial dating on their campus all the way up to the year 2000....Or how the founder of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich was pissed that the IRS were planning to rescind the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions that instituted segregation....in the papers he wrote; he essentially admitted: "Now, Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right had a “respectable” issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals — and, not incidentally, divert attention from the real origins of "our movement."
Paul M. Weyrich papers - Archives West
Archives West provides access to descriptions of primary sources in the western United States, including correspondence, diaries, and photographs. Digital reproductions of primary sources are available in some cases. Archives West was formerly known as the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA).archiveswest.orbiscascade.org
So once abortion is banned at the federal level, because that is definitely next -- what more red meat can you offer to the rabid evangelical base?? Because the beast will have to be fed.....can't be abortion anymore....Contraceptives?? Yea, that may hold them off for a moment....but sooner or later, you are going to have to throw them a bone and do something about their first love....segregation....at least bring back the whole separate but equal doctrine and use that to get your segregation rocks off....it's definitely coming...people like me have been right about the religious right so far.....even when so-called "small government Conservatives" were assuring us "relax bro, you are just overreacting, no one is asking for that" -- when it came to banning abortion, same-sex marriages, epealing Lawrence v Texas; and ultimately attacking the very concept of the 14th amendment....oh, but when that pendulum swings back in the other direction....I doubt many of the reactionary right-wingers will be able to handle it...they are far too fragile to deal with an ounce of the oppression they love seeing inflicted on others...because for a right-winger, equality feels like oppression...always have been....
You ghouls have no right to murder babies.Except that they weren't "wrong" 50 years ago. They were absolutely correct in saying that this is a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
What the radical court did yesterday, was to rule on their "personal, religious beliefs" which completely ignored history and the rights of women. In fact, the ruling said that women have no right to privacy under the Constitution. That's because women have NO RIGHTS under the Constitution because it was written when women were considered "chattel" to their husbands.
