RunRyder RC
 5  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1296 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › So this is what the problem is....Abortion...
04-08-2011 09:07 PM  6 years agoPost 21
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PsychoZ

"Now the tea party--among others, but they're the biggest push--is trying to move its extreme social agenda, issues that have nothing to do with funding the government," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday on the Senate floor. "They're willing, it appears--clearly, to throw women under the bus even if it means they'll shut down the government. Because that's where we are. That's the one issue that was remaining last night."
Hey Harry Reid, how about this: I don't want to pay for Planned Parenthood.

If this has nothing to do with funding the government, where do the funds come from? Yeah that's right, taxes extracted from working people by the government. This is exactly the type of crap that needs to be removed from the government's tax base...and that goes for your stinkin' Cowboy Poets too. Cowboy poets my rump, I got a few rhymes I could lay on Harry, but I won't.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-08-2011 09:17 PM  6 years agoPost 22
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Abortion IS a very serious problem. Here is just one reason why:

The Abortion Capital of America

As the pro-life movement intensifies nationwide, New York contemplates its history and future as a refuge.

* By Ryan Lizza

In 1970, New York passed the most permissive abortion law in America, one that defined the state as the country’s abortion refuge. Overnight, a new industry materialized in New York City, promoting itself to women across the country. The pitches were often blunt. A newspaper ad from the time inquired, “Want to be un-pregnant?”

Thirty-five years later, New York has the highest abortion rate in America. In 2000, the last year for which good data are available, 39 out of every 1,000 women in the state ended a pregnancy, for a total of 164,000 abortions that year. In America, one of every ten abortions occurs in New York, and in New York, seven of every ten abortions are performed in New York City. In absolute terms, there are more abortions performed on minors, more repeat abortions, and more late abortions (over 21 weeks) in New York City than anywhere else in the country. In parts of the city, the ratio of abortions to births is one to one.

The New Underground Railroad
The migration has already begun for a procession of women hoping to get second-trimester abortions. When liberal-minded volunteers play host, female solidarity and class anxiety collide.

Over the past twenty years, while legislatures have circumscribed access to abortion in state after state, especially for the poor and the young, New York has remained an island of unrestricted abortion rights. Medicaid pays for abortions for low-income women. Teenagers don’t need a parent’s permission to have an abortion. There are no 24-hour waiting periods. Thirty-four major clinics in New York City each perform more than 400 abortions per year.

New York becomes more pro-choice every year. After years of electoral free fall, the New York Right to Life Party failed to win enough votes in 2002 to stay on the ballot. The party doesn’t even have a Website anymore. The New York Right to Life Committee, which founded the national anti-abortion movement in 1967, hasn’t had a legislative victory in years. No pro-life candidate can win statewide office in New York. Ambitious Republicans climbing toward the governor’s mansion, like George Pataki, and now John Faso, hastily ditch their pro-life pasts. New York City’s mayor is one of the most pro-choice politicians in the country.

In short, New York is the abortion capital of America.

The United States is slowly turning into two places when it comes to abortion. In one, easy access to the procedure is being eroded by regulations, while conservative legislators dream up new restrictions, waiting periods, and consent laws. In the other, abortion is accessible, inexpensive—often government-subsidized—and safeguarded by powerful interest groups. The Supreme Court set the country down this path in 1992. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court retreated from a core principle of Roe v. Wade and upheld several restrictions in a Pennsylvania law called the Abortion Control Act. States, the Court said, could force women to wait 24 hours before having an abortion, and they could require doctors to read “informed consent” scripts to women before an abortion. The Court only struck down a more onerous section of the act that required women to notify their husbands before seeking abortions. The test for any future state regulation, the Court decreed, was whether it constitutes an “undue burden,” defined as a law that places a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.

The Casey decision inspired a crusade by pro-life lawyers. True, the Court had not overturned Roe, but the right believed Casey was the go-ahead to gut it. One line in Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent stood out as particularly inspiring: “Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere façade to give the illusion of reality.” The new strategy would be to systematically test the boundaries of what the Court meant by “undue burden” and “substantial obstacle.” Pro-life lawyers hatched a series of increasingly clever legal restrictions that have defined the abortion wars for the past decade and a half.

Now we are at another turning point. The Supreme Court will soon decide a case that may allow states to go well beyond current abortion restrictions. Last week, the Court heard arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a challenge to New Hampshire’s parental-consent law and perhaps the most important abortion case since Casey. The New Hampshire law prevents a doctor from performing an abortion on a minor until 48 hours after one of her parents has been notified. Most similar laws have an exception to the waiting period if the minor’s health is at risk, but the only exception in the New Hampshire law is if the girl is about to die. At stake are two issues. One is whether New Hampshire’s law is unconstitutional because it lacks a health exception, a feature of abortion restrictions that the Court has regularly required. The second issue is technical but of greater consequence. Until now, doctors and patients have been able to ask courts to strike down abortion restrictions if some potential harm can be proved. But the new standard requested by New Hampshire, and supported by the Bush administration, is to allow courts to leave potentially unconstitutional abortion laws intact unless it can be proved that application of the law is unconstitutional in every case.

More here:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/15248/

My Comments: A very sad part of this matter in New York is that today well over 50% of those abortions performed in New York are for black women and the largest share of those paid for by the Federal government. Google it yourself to see.

Is this what the Dems call family planning?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-08-2011 09:21 PM  6 years agoPost 23
PsychoZ

rrApprentice

Northern, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Would you rather pay for an abortion or pay support for the unwanted child for the rest of their lives. Plus the story I posted mentioned that federal laws prohibits federal funds to be spent on the abortion itself, that money comes from other places.

Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-08-2011 09:27 PM  6 years agoPost 24
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Would you rather pay for an abortion or pay support for the unwanted child for the rest of their lives. Plus the story I posted mentioned that federal laws prohibits federal funds to be spent on the abortion itself, that money comes from other places.
Thats a piss poor excuse and very irresponsible.

You forgot the little thing about ObamaCare repealing the federal law against providing funds against abortions, and making that take affect the moment the pres signed ObamaCare into law.

That was something the president himself said he would never allow to happen. But, mysteriously showed up in the ObamaCare bill that nobody read.

As far as paying for unwanted children instead of welfare for the same, I would rather help those families get jobs to pay for the families they create rather than have the feds pay for killing babies. To do otherwise breaks down the family structure and destroys any initiative do well well on your own instead of the tax payer paying your way.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-08-2011 10:18 PM  6 years agoPost 25
cvdiver

rrNovice

Orlando, Fl

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Listen, don't like abortions? DON'T HAVE ONE? You guys scream about government sticking their nose into your personal business. And now you want the government to continue to try to regulate what a woman or couple can and can't do with their own bodies. You can't have it both ways guys depending on your moral beliefs. And you can't disguise your anti abortion stance as a budget and spending issue.

Personally, abortion isn't any of my business, I can't get one and I can't cause one to occur. I have more important things to worry about.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-08-2011 11:30 PM  6 years agoPost 26
spaceman spiff

rrKey Veteran

Tucson

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-08-2011 11:31 PM  6 years agoPost 27
steve9534

rrKey Veteran

yakima, wa.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Abortion

I'd be happy not to have the government stick it's nose into my personal business, starting with them not taking my money to pay for abortion. I don't see anyone here calling for a ban on abortion, only that we not be forced to pay for it. It seems an odd twist that ani-abortionists are being blamed for shutting down the government because of this. If you think it's such a great idea for someone to finance abortions for the poor, then why don't all of you who favor such a plan come up with the money to pay for it and leave me out of it? steve.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 12:03 AM  6 years agoPost 28
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

cvdiver

Listen, don't like abortions? DON'T HAVE ONE? You guys scream about government sticking their nose into your personal business. And now you want the government to continue to try to regulate what a woman or couple can and can't do with their own bodies. You can't have it both ways guys depending on your moral beliefs. And you can't disguise your anti abortion stance as a budget and spending issue.

Personally, abortion isn't any of my business, I can't get one and I can't cause one to occur. I have more important things to worry about.
I don't want it both ways...let me be clear...I don't want the government taxing me to pay for someone else's abortion. I didn't create the problem. Let people who want the abortions start taking some responsibility instead of sluffing it off on the taxpayer.

Do you understand that not funding Planned Parenthood DOES NOT FORBID abortions? Do you understand that? I'm not telling anybody what they can do with their bodies. THEY ARE TELLING ME THAT THEY WANT TO FORCE ME TO PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES. It's the liberal Democrats that are trying to control the taxpayer...not the other way around.

As far as I know, a person can get as many abortions as they want. It's the funding that's the issue.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 12:06 AM  6 years agoPost 29
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

steve9534

Abortion

I'd be happy not to have the government stick it's nose into my personal business, starting with them not taking my money to pay for abortion. I don't see anyone here calling for a ban on abortion, only that we not be forced to pay for it. It seems an odd twist that ani-abortionists are being blamed for shutting down the government because of this. If you think it's such a great idea for someone to finance abortions for the poor, then why don't all of you who favor such a plan come up with the money to pay for it and leave me out of it? steve.
Well written steve9534. You are spot on.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 01:51 AM  6 years agoPost 30
cvdiver

rrNovice

Orlando, Fl

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't want it both ways...let me be clear...I don't want the government taxing me to pay for someone else's abortion. I didn't create the problem. Let people who want the abortions start taking some responsibility instead of sluffing it off on the taxpayer.

Do you understand that not funding Planned Parenthood DOES NOT FORBID abortions? Do you understand that? I'm not telling anybody what they can do with their bodies. THEY ARE TELLING ME THAT THEY WANT TO FORCE ME TO PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES. It's the liberal Democrats that are trying to control the taxpayer...not the other way around.

As far as I know, a person can get as many abortions as they want. It's the funding that's the issue.
Have any of you read about the Hyde Amendment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

It seems that paying for abortions with tax money is already illegal.

[quote]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,[5] 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.[6]

So if taxes aren't funding abortion, what's the problem?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 04:46 AM  6 years agoPost 31
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

cvdiver

So if taxes aren't funding abortion, what's the problem?
Here's where the hidden agendas lay for the Prochoice people. Once Obamacare is in full force, the Prochoice lawyers will make their case in court. This is from the National Abortion Federation web site:
Abortion and Health Care Reform

There are disagreements about whether abortion services should be covered in proposed health care reform plans. But as long as abortion funding is denied to low-income women, the effect is discriminatory and unfair. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to choose abortion is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If a government sponsored universal health care plan fails to cover abortion, all women will lose insurance funding for this procedure, and low-income women and young women will be especially penalized. The right to make private decisions about childbearing and reproductive health care should apply to all women, not just those who can afford it.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abor.../economics.html
As you can easily see, the Prochoice solution is simply to wait for Obamacare to go into effect and use the courts to cash in on the big federal dollars. The Supreme Court has already ruled that women have the right to choose abortion. If a universal healthcare denies a woman that right, then the courts will rule in favor of abortion.

The quoted words are not my words...they are the words from the prochoice website.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 04:58 AM  6 years agoPost 32
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And furthermore

Planned Parenthood is funded largely by the American taxpayer.

Planned Parenthood is a large provider of abortions in the US.

Planned Parenthood DOES NOT perform abortions on the sidewalk or in a van. They provide abortions in the Planned Parenthood Clinics.

Those Clinics are largely paid for by the American taxpayer. The day to day expenses to keep the clinics open are largely paid for by the American taxpayer.

Without the American taxpayer funds, there are no Planned Parenthood clinics. The abortions fees do not pay for the clinics to stay open.

If you think I am wrong, see what happens if federal funding is pulled.

And hey, if I'm wrong and the clinics stay open without federal funding...then they didn't need the taxpayers' money anyway.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 01:37 PM  6 years agoPost 33
cvdiver

rrNovice

Orlando, Fl

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So the fundamental problem is with planned parenthood and ALL of the services they provide?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 02:01 PM  6 years agoPost 34
cvdiver

rrNovice

Orlando, Fl

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Those Clinics are largely paid for by the American taxpayer. The day to day expenses to keep the clinics open are largely paid for by the American taxpayer.
So according to Planned parenthood's website, they receive about 400 million in funding from the government. That is a little less than half of there 1.1 bln total budget. Ok, it's a lot of money, in our terms. But on the world level, is it really worth holding up the entire countries' budget?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 02:41 PM  6 years agoPost 35
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I like the shut down plan. Stop spending 100%. That would be a good start to getting the country solvent again.
The Dems don't want to cut any of their vote buying programs and the Reps don't want to cut any of theirs either so we need to cut everything down until we can afford it and everyone is working again.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 07:59 PM  6 years agoPost 36
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

cvdiver

So the fundamental problem is with planned parenthood and ALL of the services they provide?
NO! NO! and NO! Geez, how many ways can I say this? THE PROBLEM IS FORCING ME TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!

If you want Planned Parenthood to stay open, then donate your money to do that. Anybody that wants Planned Parenthood to stay open has the option to donate all their money.

The Planned Parenthood Prochoice nutcakes are trying to force the American taxpayer to foot the bill. That's the problem. GET OFF MY TAX DOLLAR.

I'm sick of seeing liberal leftist organizations such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood DEMANDING American taxpayer money while continuing to run a completely leftist agenda.

I favor stopping all funds to any organization that has ties to ANY political party or has support from any political party.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-09-2011 08:06 PM  6 years agoPost 37
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

cvdiver

But on the world level, is it really worth holding up the entire countries' budget?
That's a good question. Why not ask Obama and the Democrats that question? The Republicans put forth the budget.

The worthless Obama and the less than worthless Democrats were the ones stalling and crying like spoiled brats. They were saying that the Republicans had "declared war on women." What a pack of lies.

Obama and the Democrats weren't interested in solving issues and moving the country forward. As usual, they make no contribution to this country at all.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-10-2011 04:24 AM  6 years agoPost 38
baby uh1

rrVeteran

St. James, Mo.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Obama and the Democrats weren't interested in solving issues and moving the country forward. As usual, they make no contribution to this country at all.
Oh, they have made a contribution all right! Look at the high number of unemployed, the high price of gas, and the total destruction of the healthcare industry.

Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-10-2011 07:22 AM  6 years agoPost 39
cvdiver

rrNovice

Orlando, Fl

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

NO! NO! and NO! Geez, how many ways can I say this? THE PROBLEM IS FORCING ME TO PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!
So you don't want your tax dollars going to ANY organizations?

How about the Salvation Army, let's cut their funding! I mean they just got a donation of more than 1 billion dollars from Ray Kroc's 3rd wife.
They are unabashedly a christian organization, what if they discriminate against a muslim or a jewish person? We just can't have that! Cut them off!
They took around the same amount as Planned Parenthood, something like 400 million.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-10-2011 07:25 AM  6 years agoPost 40
cvdiver

rrNovice

Orlando, Fl

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Oh, they have made a contribution all right! Look at the high number of unemployed, the high price of gas, and the total destruction of the healthcare industry.
Sure, it's all their fault......and Boehner is completely innocent in all of this mess. How long has he been in office? 11 terms since 1990. Of course he has had no hand in the state of our country.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ] 1296 views POST REPLY
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › So this is what the problem is....Abortion...
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 5  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, September 21 - 12:42 am - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online