The smiling Planned Parenthood emojis

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

First, only 3% of Planned Parenthoods funding supports abortion. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... ment-money
While the 13% number who receive the service is pretty accurate, the analogy it supports is terrible; it is not like a 13% failure rate on airline flights. That is purely an apples and oranges comparison. The only government funding per the Hyde amendment is for abortions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. That is it. All other abortions must find other avenues of funding.

A side note Michaels: I understand you are opposed to abortion. In as much as it is in my power, so am I. BUT I cannot tell other people how to live their lives or impose on them burdens, I might not be willing to bear myself. Not being a woman, I do not know what being pregnant and being abandoned feel like. I would like your sincerity a lot better if you offered a woman care for her children until adulthood in exchange for her right to an abortion or offered to adopt the child and raise it yourself in exchange for her right to an abortion. Because I know that you would do neither, I find your words hollow. I know that right wingers care about a babies life until it is born and then it is on its own.

Abortions have gone down dramatically. According to the CDC they have fallen to less than half since 1990 (1.429 million to 664 thousand) http://www.christianliferesources.com/a ... rrent-1042 They are going in the right direction. Someday, hopefully there will just be abortions for women who need them for health reasons and when we have gotten rid of enough of our shame to deal honestly about sex.

[Michaels153]

Leftyg,
First It is never "only" X % or X amount when it comes to the licensed murder of babies. It should always be zero dollars and cents of government money used for abortions. The use of the word "only" always implies that whatever follows is justified.
Next: The Hyde ammendment has always been a meaningless document that was crafted to allow abortions to be paid for with government funding. There is no accountability to the alleged restrictive use of government funding. A person is not required to provide documentation that the pregnancy of the mother was due to rape, or incest. And a medical inquiry is not required to make or verify that an abortion is necessary in order to save the life of the mother. While we do know that late term abortions are of a higher risk to the life of the mother and continue to be performed.

People have been using analogies to try to impress upon the citizenry that there should not be abortions. Those who use analogies in this issue think that they are adding additional reasons for not using abortions. The horror of government sanctioned murder of babies should not require anything else to convince people that this is wrong.
Any analogy that is used, however imperfect, should not take away from the issue of abortion.

[quote] BUT I cannot tell other people how to live their lives or impose on them burdens. The Government, our government, has already told women how they can live their lives. By law, the Government ignores the, biological science that identifies the pregnancy as a unique human life. So those that argue that "it's a woman's body, and she has a right to do what she want's with her own body ignore the biological science, and ignore common sense. Unless a woman is carrying a clone pregnancy, she is not talking about her own body. And if a pregnant woman is carrying a baby boy, how is that arguably "her body". The government is enforcing a bad law that denies due process for the baby regarding abortions, but then seeks out justice and legally defends the human life when someone causes harm or death to it by something other than abortion.
I would like your sincerity a lot better if you offered a woman care for her children until adulthood in exchange for her right to an abortion or offered to adopt the child and raise it yourself in exchange for her right to an abortion.Actually I have always supported a similar alternative, and others Because I know that you would do neither,Your wrong. Again. And you might have avoided this from being publicly pointed out if you had asked what my alternative solutions were before broadcasting your assumptions.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

https://www.priestsforlife.org/king-pla ... od-1-8.pdf

[leftyg]

Michaels, your link was compromised. I will try to highlight it, but you are probably going to have to fix it. https://www.priestsforlife.org/king-pla ... od-1-8.pdf] I looked at it, and it is a very interesting article I will read the pdf in full. Thanks.

You might be interested to know that the late Nat Hentoff, a free speech advocate, was opposed to abortion. He also said that Susan B Anthony and other early feminists were. So evidently both feminists and first generation modern civil rights leaders were opposed to abortion.

I also wish to tell you that this is a special subject. I am opposed to preemptive war, capital punishment and even gun culture. It troubles me when people who claim to be Christian embrace any of these. I am also do not listen to them much on abortion. But I did read your link. And it has excellent merit historically.

How abortion got all balled up the way it has is a direct result of the antipathy that many on the right have towards poverty and the poor, as well as the burgeoning middle class.

Abortion was never meant for eugenic purposes. Margaret Sanger meant it to alleviate the immense suffering of poor women dying in the slums of New York at the turn of the century (1900). They were often merely the sex toys of their abusive husbands who cared neither for them or the off spring they bore other than to carry on the family name and provide the world with one external reminder that they were men.

And these guys suffered too. But it was in this cauldron that modern notion of abortion was born. It was to alleviate the misery of these women and their families. It happened in a context we may not understand. It was not racism or anything like that; it was compassion, a modicum no doubt, to these people that society refused to acknowledge or help provide sustenance for. And often they belonged to minorities and were very poor.

It was not an ideal; it was a necessity because often contraception was as frowned upon as abortion. It created a double bind for people where they were damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[Michaels153]

Thanks Leftyg, I keep trying but no luck so far.

[hmmmmm]

[Michaels153]

Thanks hmmmmmm

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Michaels abortion and contraception have been balled up by people who do not want either to exist. You have an employer that does not want to pay for abortion or for contraception for his employees for his religious beliefs. Now if the employer honestly cared about life and did not want women to terminate unwanted pregnancies then he would provide birth control. And what business is it of an employers if a married woman has sex or if an unmarried woman has sex for that matter? Certainly a married woman having sex with her spouse is not a violation of Christian law or biblical law, and Separation of Church and State extends the right to unmarried people as well.

Seriously, there is so much here. Why does an employer wish to impose his or her moral values on employees? If women and men had access to all the birth control they needed, I believe unwanted pregnancies will go down. And they have dramatically, at least abortion has gone down dramatically, over the last 25 years. The one way to eliminate abortion is if nobody wants to have one. Contraception is the best way to limit unwanted pregnancies because people are not gonna give up doin' the wild thing. So you better get used to that.

It is just as important that men get it because in all reported history there has only been one virgin birth. The rest of them needed a partner. Which begs the question why conservatives whine about single men having to pay for pregnancy insurance. Are conservative men irresponsible sexually or are they just so repulsive they know that insurance does not apply to them? Seriously, ever man needs it because everyone is part of the problem and the solution.

[Michaels153]

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”
Now at this point in the history of our country we still believe in “justice for all”. We still refer to lady Justice and look at the scales of justice she holds with a blindfold over her eyes. The expression that “Justice is blind.,” means that the law is to serve all equally, to be impartial and objective, and not to treat young, or old, rich or poor, male or female, friends or strangers, - differently. This belief, is in complete agreement to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Which means Leftyg, that contrary to your opinion of Mothers being more important than children, this article declares that “all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” ] And Abortion law is contrary to both our original Declaration of Independence and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Along with Article 7, Article 9 and 17 reinforce the principle of all being equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Article 17 (2) says:
“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”
While Article 9 says:
“No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.”
The key connection here is the use of the word arbitrary: Abitrary means anything determined as if by personal choice, or whim. (Merriam- Webster)
Our Abortion laws discriminate between the born and the unborn, and between the mother and the father. Women have the sole discretion to choose between life or death of the unborn. They are not obligated by law to abort their pregnancy, thus it is an arbitrary decision left to them. If the father does not want the abortion, but the mother does, the law does not step in as in the form of an injunction to prevent the abortion from happening.

[Michaels153]

[quote="leftyg"]Michaels abortion and contraception have been balled up by people who do not want either to exist. That is a fallacious statement that lacks merit on a lot of grounds. You have an employer that does not want to pay for abortion or for contraception for his employees for his religious beliefs.That may be one reason, and it may be a reason shared by other employers. But to the extent that this is fallacious, is because it is not the sole reason why anybody would object to abortion or contraception Married couples use contraception, and there are married couples who have also had one or more abortions.
I submit, that if it is none of the employers business what their workers do outside of work, then why should he not enter the living quarters or bedroom (figuratively speaking, but make sure that the living quarters or bedroom is fully furnished? It is none of his business what goes on but he damn well better support the workers when they are behind close doors? Now if the employer honestly cared about life and did not want women to terminate unwanted pregnancies then he would provide birth control.Now if the employer honestly cared about life?!! What, are you already accepting that it is okay for the employee not to care about life?
Unless the employer is having a sexual relationship with an employee, why do you see him as having any responsibility in this. Did you notice that when a parent fails to pay child support that the court issues a warrant for the arrest of the delinquent parent. I am sure that the court is interested in the well being of society, but they don't issue an arrest warrant for the delinquent parent's employer. Now why do you think that is Leftyg. Could it be, and I am just taking a wild guess at this, but maybe the law does not recognize nor hold the "employer" as being obligated to pay for the parent's child support? Maybe the law does not hold the employer as being the responsible party because the employer is not the responsible party? And what business is it of an employers if a married woman has sex or if an unmarried woman has sex for that matter? It is both not his business, nor is any of this his responsibility.Certainly a married woman having sex with her spouse is not a violation of Christian law or biblical law, and Separation of Church and State extends the right to unmarried people as well.

Seriously, there is so much here. Why does an employer wish to impose his or her moral values on employees? Right back at you: why does an employee wish to impose their impulses onto the financial backing of their employer?If women and men had access to all the birth control they needed, I believe unwanted pregnancies will go down. This is not a matter of what you believe.And they have dramatically, at least abortion has gone down dramatically, over the last 25 years. The one way to eliminate abortion is if nobody wants to have one. Contraception is the best way to limit unwanted pregnancies because people are not gonna give up doin' the wild thing. Thank you for this public service announcement.So you better get used to that. Gee thanks Leftyg, Hey do you think that there are people anywhere who do not know this?

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

On April 21, 2003, Scott Peterson was charged with two felony counts of murder with premeditation and special circumstances. On November 12, 2004, Scott Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Laci, and second-degree murder for Conner's death. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she went missing.
The following comes from Wikipedia:

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice afterthought.
Manslaughter is the crime of killing another human being without malice afterthought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder. Scott Peterson was charged and then convicted of two counts of murder. There was nothing unclear about the circumstances of his actions from the time he was initially charged through the trial process up to sentencing.

The difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder is that a first-degree murder is established as an aggravated form of murder, while second-degree murder has it' roots back in English law and is referred to as common law.

In the U.S., the Federal law criminalizes premeditated murder, felony murder and second-degree murder at Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1111.
While it seems pretty clear cut who is who in a crime; who is the criminal and who is the victim, it is very important to understand the legal definition of victim to avoid misconstruing or overgeneralizing what we are discussing here. Nearly everywhere in the United States, a victim is called a natural person and is essentially someone who was still alive before being murdered. Legally, a person cannot murder somebody who is already dead, a building, a non-human animal, nor can you murder a non-human organism such as a tree or bacteria.

California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187 was interpreted by their state supreme court (in 1994), as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction. This holding has two implications that are pertinent to this discussion. First, a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime. And the statute re-establishes the biological fact that a fetus is a human being, which is important legally because only a human being can be a victim of a murder.

Again, outside of abortion, the fetus has legal standing under the law and is entitled to full due process of the law.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Last night (Thursday 9/14/17 ) ABC aired a documentary: Truth and Lies: The Murder of Laci Peterson. This was a two-hour presentation that reviewed the case with interviews from the investigation that began back in 2002.

Yesterday, Fox news posted the story of the Police arresting Tyler Tessier and charging him with the murder of Laura Wallens who was four months pregnant. Laura Wallen's body was discovered in a grave in Damascus Maryland. The case is very similar to Laci Peterson.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[JuicedTruth]

Abortion is legal.

[paulpjack25]

Watch and enjoy the hot romantic videos,,,, >>>> hotvideosxx.com

[leftyg]

First JT please delete the comment above by Paul Jack. I think it is a Trojan horse.

Now Michaels, JT is again right; abortion is legal. And no matter how much you or some other anti-choice surrogate argues against abortion, it is the law of the land. And advocates of choice do not view abortion as murder. Most view it as an unpleasant choice a person has to make based on their circumstances. So you are wasting computer space when you call it murder.

Like with everything else the idiot in the White House has tried to politicize this case instead of help this girl get the help she needs. This is just another attempt to gin up his base, the same people who do not think shooting an unarmed black child is murder or who think that a gun toting home owner is within his rights to shoot a 19 year old girl standing at his door asking for help. And it is the same base who wanted to illegally deny entry into this country to certain refugees because of their religion.

Michaels why don't you focus on that? You know focus on people seeking asylum from a horrible situation. That is Christian. Focus on helping this girl rather than harming her so she will not make the decision to get pregnant before she is equipped to be a mother again. Why don't you read Leviticus 19:34 where it says '"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God." Why don't you apply that to this girl.

[paulpjack25]

Watch and enjoy the hot romantic videos,,,, >>>> hotvideosxx.com

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

My whole point here Michaels is we are supposed to keep church and state separate. I admire many Christian values because they buy into a deep morality. But there are many aspects of Christianity you do not adhere to either. For example. I hardly see Jesus as the gun toting type. As I remember he had quite a spat with Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane when he said "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." I have always questioned the bipolar nature of a person who is pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, but anti-abortion. I admire Pope Francis and other with consistent values and dismiss the bipolar type.

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

Leftyg, I really do understand your point and your concerns about the separation of church and state but is death a characteristic of a certain religion? That may seem like an odd question, but the point is that the objection to abortion is not a religious objection. In our country, are the laws against murder taken from one religion, or is it accepted by our society as something that is unacceptable period. The same holds true of stealing, lying and other laws. Because you can find parallels between some of our laws and the ten commandments does not mean that are laws are laws from the church and we should be separate from them. What about the atheist? Does the atheist not believe that there should be laws against murder and stealing?
As to the Lord Jesus not being the gun type, well he does not have to be. There are other weapons besides guns. Remember the plagues of Egypt, the Revelation, the four horseman, the seven bowls of the wrath of God?


Michaels, believe it or not you gave the exact answer I was looking for. Decency is not derivative of any religion so much as religion derives from decency. So we largely agree. And that is good. I think you know I have serious problems with abortion, but I wold like to eliminate it another way: by women choosing not to have them because they have viable alternatives. Those include birth control (and religion stay out and let the woman's need for contraception, or her significant others, take precedent over the employers; he or she can follow their own conscience and choice when making health care and reproductive choices), sex education, family planning and sexual hygiene to think of a few things. You cannot be against birth control and contraception; it is kind of like training for the Olympics by smoking, drinking and overeating--not much of a prescription for success.

Also we have to keep religion out of it. Part of religious freedom is freedom from religion, and that refers back to the employer who decides for his workers what their health care plans will provide based on his not their belief system. It would be like a Jehovah's Witness who owned a company deciding that his employees could not get blood transfusions because his religion forbade it.

[Michaels153]

[quote="leftyg"

1) Decency is not derivative of any religion so much as religion derives from decency. So we largely agree. No, we don't agree on this. Your statement infers that decency exists as a conventional invention of man and lead to the development of religious standards. It is more complicated than that. Different religions have different dress codes but though different, they share a commonality in that they all have a accepted standard of right dress and wrong dress, or put more simply what is decent and what is not decent. Now C.S. Lewis did a marvelous job of explaining the "Moral law"(chapter 4 of Mere Christianity) which touches upon how we view things through our conscience. And the Bible has several passages that touch upon how we come to learn what is right behavior versus wrong behavior. See Romans chapter 7 verses 7 through 11. I believe that it was man's behavior that lead to his realization there are some behaviors that are not right and in his search to understand why he was questioning certain behaviors he found the explanation and direction through religion. So that in summary: no laws, and no standards of decency brought about the finding of some laws and standards of decency.

2) You said: "You cannot be against birth control and contraception. How ironic that you should state the true issue so concisely. There was a time when birth control and contraception both meant the "prevention of pregnancy." But today, there is a population that accepts the term contraception to mean to prevent pregnancy, and another population that accepts birth control to mean to control births, and this includes abortion. (see www.groundedparents.com). Your own statement says as much, otherwise why would you say the same thing twice? [color=#FF0000]And so, in contrast to your statement, You can be against both at the same time, but many people are not against both at the same time. You can be against abortion, and against contraception if you feel that contraception leads to behavior that you believe is reserved only for marriage. But once married, you could still not believe in abortion but now believe in contraception for a period of time because you were trying to delay raising children right away. The Catholic Church was once against both, believing that God was the one who chose if, and when a married woman was to become pregnant. Today, some people do not use any form on contraception, some use contraception to prevent pregnancy and are successful and some use it and it fails them and then some of these people turn to abortion.

3) You said: "Also we have to keep religion out of it. Why? If you truly would prefer that women would not choose Abortion, then why block one possible alternative that can help a pregnant woman without abortion?

Part of religious freedom is freedom from religion, No it's not. The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of;" People have a choice to choose a religion and practice it if they want. The first amendment does not say that it was okay to remove any sign, symbol, or custom ("the free exercise thereof") of a religion. You can join the Wisconsin group of Freedom From Religion, or any other such group that wants no part of any religion, but freedom of Religion (a choice) never meant, and never will mean - freedom from religion.

4) You said: " and that refers back to the employer who decides for his workers what their health care plans will provide based on his not their belief system." This statement is also ironic in that you think it identifies a group that you think violates the law. but your statement actually identifies the ACA, - Obamacare. where the Government takes on the role as everyone's employer, and it is the government who decides what their health care plan will provide, based upon Obama and some liberals belief system and not based upon the worker's choice.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Thanks for the articles. I didn't know that under a few circumstances under The Hyde Amendment abortions can be performed . Such as the case of incest. If a 12 year old gets pregnant by her dad, I don't think I would feel right forcing her to have that child. Shouldn't be my decision.

But my comment was on PPH, which doesn't receive ANY taxpayers funding for abortions.. Another myth, people think taxpayers money goes directly to PPH, they bill insurance for their services such as medicaid. Which under the law they are not allowed to Bill government agency for abortions.

I am thinking you are pretty upset that the republicans since they wont do anything of significance to stop abortion.

[Mrtazeman]

Why do people who call themselves Christians feel the need to lie?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... cking.html

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Did you read the Forbes article that i linked for Mrtazeman? If you read it, qoute which parts you dispute. My simple word picture 2 column budget is explained in a more detailed and more complicated way. But my example alligns to the forbes article.

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

I agree there is a lot of confussion. But for me, if PPH violated any rules i would have to believe that the republicans would have shut PPH down. That video was highly edited. I know plenty of transplant surgeons and all of them are very honorable and have great respect for the donors. This industry is regulated very tightly. u just can't harvest body parts and sell them at flea markets like the people who produced that video wants u to believe.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Ryan Bomberger |Posted: Jul 16, 2018

This article presents a few interesting side issues including exposing the hypocrisy of the Lefts's race -based quota practice.
First there is the headline of the article which stands out for the stunning word picture that it suggests, including the images of Racist's and racism that emanate from discussions of the KKK. It was a group of racist white men who formed a group to target and kill African-Americans. As this article points out in the origin and history of Planned Parenthood; there was not an altruistic impetus to rescue women faced with pregnancy. No. Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger was a member of the American Eugenics Society. She led the crusade to, in her own words, “prevent the birth of defectives”. Now Sanger found a kindred spirit and was more than a little influenced by Lothrop Stoddard, a eugenicist, klansman, Planned Parenthood Board member and a prolific writer whose words inspired the NAZIS.
Stoddard wrote: “The white race divides into three main sub-species the Nordics, the Alpines, and the Mediterraneans. All three are good stocks, ranking in genetic worth well above the various colored races. It was the "various colored races that were considered "defectives."
Margaret Sanger was also impressed with Eugen Fischer, the NAZI scientist who conducted heinous experiments in 1906-1908 in Germany’s Shark Island holocaust to try to prove that blacks were inferior to whites, was an esteemed colleague of Sanger’s. She included him on her advisory council in her 1927 World Population Conference.
*Note: Fischer’s work, Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene, heavily influenced Hitler’s vile manifesto, Mein Kapf (My Struggle).
From the time Planned Parenthood began through today, abortions are still being done. When Planned Parenthood first began, the focus had been to "prevent the birth of defectives". And the KKK used murder to rid society of people they were opposed to.
Both groups terminated life. And both groups have been linked to racist motivations.

When the "Promise" program was started in Chicago, the stated purpose was to curtail the "school to prison pipeline". It was observed that more minorities were found in the "school to prison pipeline" than other students and President Obama considered this fact alone to be proof that the school disciplinary system was racist. But using numbers alone, an argument could be made that Planned Parenthood today is racist today at any center. And the argument that X Planned Parenthood center can be made whether the number of abortions is measured by the day, by the week, by the month, or by the year. If there were more African American abortions than other abortions, the argument could be made that the center is targeting African Americans as in genocide. If the majority of the abortions for a given period were not for African Americans then the argument for X Planned Parenthood clinic as being racist would be that they are not reaching out to the needs of minorities in the community, that they were more responsive to the needs of others. And if there were an equal number of abortions in X Planned Parenthood Clinic for African Americans and others for a given period of time, then the argument that X Planned Parenthood clinic was racist is because the population of minorities in this country is not equal to the rest of the population, and therefore X clinic is targeting African American women. Seen here then in its totality, the definition of racism by arguing numbers only is and has always been a specious one.
The article does highlight one glaring difference today between the KKK and the Planned Parenthood Clinic abortions. Today the deaths of African Americans at the hands of the KKK is considered murder. The deaths of African American babies at the hands of licensed individuals at Planned Parenthood Clinics are not.

[v3garrett5]

[u6virgil7]

[k5kathy0]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

You do realize that the republicans aren't going to do anything about abortion?

Do you believe that women should be treated like Murder suspects if they have a miscarriage?

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

By Andy Chow

[quote]The Ohio Senate has passed the so-called “Heartbeat Bill,” SB23, which bans an abortion when a viable heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks.

Pro-choice groups have said if the “Heartbeat Bill” is signed into law, they plan to challenge it in court. This would likely result in a pricey court battle that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yea no kidding. Bring it.

Republican Senate President Larry Obhof says lawmakers don’t shy away from issues just because of the threat of litigation.

“There are examples on this issue here in Ohio where the legislature has been bold and has taken a stand and ultimately, while we would’ve expected there to be litigation at some point, we came out victorious,” says Obhof, who points to a ruling this week where a federal court sided with Ohio on defunding Planned Parenthood.

Opponents say this bill infringes on women’s rights and health. Opponents lie as they always do, about everything concerning anything that does not allow them to continue with abortion on demand.

“The six-week abortion ban is unconscionable,” says Sen. Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood). “This extreme bill is dangerous to the health, safety, and livelihood of women and threatens to criminalize doctors. This bill is unconstitutional and millions of Ohio taxpayer dollars will eventually be spent defending it in court. Ohioans sent us here to fix roads and help them put food on the table, not intrude into a woman’s private medical decision.” Senator Antonio, go ahead and work on road repairs (for all Ohioans) and help all Ohioans put food on the table. But if your not willing to help all Ohioans live then find another job. Abortion kills a living human being. You talk about the health, safety, and livelihood of women but not a word about the life they are carrying. You say the heartbeat bill is dangerous, that it threatens to criminalize doctors.
but that is another lie. The bill is a lifeline long overdue. It criminalizes no doctors. Doctors who perform abortions before the heartbeat is detected are not engaging in criminal behavior.

/quote]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

You will kill them anyway, Rep. John Rogers explanation that society and conditions in Alabama will kill poor people anyway. His emphasis was on the poor and their conditions in Alabama.. Not the best in speaking. According to Trump, the women should be convicted as well...

[Mrtazeman]

According to these republican laws, a murder investigation should be conducted against any women who has a miscarriage

[Mrtazeman]

You call your self "pro-life" but You stay silent when President Trump speaks of immigrants as if they are trash, rips children from the arms of their parents and puts them in cages...

[leftyg]

[Mrtazeman]

The thing is Lefty Ronald Reagan s daughter said that...

[Mrtazeman]

So the new laws white old men in Georgia created is to prosecute women for murder after an abortion, consiperacy for murder if they have an abortion out of state, and if you have a miscarriage then you will be investigated as a murder suspect. Totally Barbaric.. sounds like laws in Iran

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Do you believe that women who has miscarriages should be investigated as if they were murder suspects as the law in Georgia suggests?

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Not on a federal level. They will teak and tell all the sheep that they tried.. . Trump has the majority in the courts the republicans can overturn it. But if they do, why would you vote republican? You didn't answer the question.. Should women who has a miscarriage be treated like a murder suspect.

[Mrtazeman]

Enjoy your bone

[Michaels153]

[leftyg]

[Michaels153]

Hey Mr. Statistics, I did answer Mrtazeman/Reals question. The link is now working. I differentiated medical miscarriage from a criminal act. The law is the law. Isn't that what progressives preach about Roe vs Wade. Certain states have laws protecting the unborn outside of an abortion. If the situation looks suspicious, then it is investigated. Leave it to the hospitals to decide that and let them as they already do, make the call to the police if they feel the situation should be investigated. And Mr. Statistics, your preaching against anecdote's yet you have no problem sharing personal anecdotes? I'll remember this post of yours the next time you whine about a post of mine that includes an anecdote.

[Mrtazeman]

There are laws on late term abortion. It's not common unless mother's lives are on the line. You won't here that from the right. So the bottom line is that you are good for women who had a miscarriage to be investigated for murder.. Let's go back to the midevil years. What is next Michaels, stoning Gay people?

[Michaels153]

[quote="Mrtazeman"]There are laws on late term abortion. Already covered here in this thread you lying POS. It's not common unless mother's lives are on the line. Your telling me what is common or not regarding abortions! You didn't even know how common it was for government to pay for abortions in spite of the Hyde amendmentYou won't here (hear) that from the right. I am from the right, and you heard it from me here.So the bottom line is that you are good for women who had a miscarriage to be investigated for murder.. I already explained this to you Mrtazeman. I didn't realize you may require crayons and a flow chart to explain this. I just explained this to Leftyg in the previous post. And everybody can read exactly what I said, which is to leave it up to the hospital to make the call whether or not a miscarriage should be investigated. And if they feel it should be, yea than I am fine with that.Let's go back to the midevil years. Why don't you just go back to the rock you crawled out from? What is next Michaels, stoning Gay people? I don't know bigot, what do you plan to say next?[/quote]

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Hey "Real",
Since you only seem interested in what happens to gay people: Gay people buying a cake, Gay people going into a Hardware store, Gay people at a Pizza restaurant, Gay people renting an apartment, Gay people getting stoned. What about a gay couple lets say Bob and Ted, going to a Lesbian couple Carol and Alice, and one is seeking to have and raise a baby. What if Carol or Alice agree to help and one gets pregnant, and then at some point change their mind and decide they want an abortion? From your perspective is that alright? Is it okay if a Gay couple want to kill a gay baby, but stoning gays by whoever is wrong? So far from your keen intellect, you have declared laws limiting abortion (laws limiting the killing of babies) as barbaric. I think you would say stoning gay people is barbaric, but is aborting a gay baby barbaric? Is a law that limits abortion that would also limit gay couples having an abortion, is that barbaric. What if there were laws in those countries that stone gay people or throw them off the buildings, limiting the throwing of gay people off of buildings by age?

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Planned parenthood is a medical facility where women receive:
checkups when you have a reproductive/sexual health problem
breast exams
cervical cancer screening
hormone replacement therapy
mammogram referrals
menopause and midlife education
menopause and midlife testing and treatment
Pap test
sexual response education
routine physicals for women age 14 and older
urinary tract infection (UTI) testing and treatment
vaginal infection testing and treatment
Other services we may provide include help with irregular periods or no periods, painful periods, painful sex, bleeding between periods, menstrual problems (premenstrual syndrome).
Women's health services are available: during all business hours on a walk-in basis.

These services are a great benefit to women of all kind, most of which are poor mothers...
Sounds like a good thing to me...

[Michaels153]

Those are all great medical services for women. So why does planned parenthood close their doors when they can't do abortions. The answer is, they really are more interested in making money than in providing medical services to women.

[Mrtazeman]

Opening up in poor neighborhoods and helping poor people doesn't sound like a great money making scheme to me...

[Mrtazeman]

I could see your concerns about PPH. If you believe that they are killing babies to harvest their organs to sell in the black market, Like Carly Fiorina stated, then I would want PPH shut down immediately.

[Michaels153]

Mrtazeman.
First, Planned Parenthood does not open or have centers only in poor areas. And if they only had centers in poor areas then that would make their closings even more disgraceful. Planned Parenthood advertises themselves as being there, open for the women, addressing the needs of the women. But by closing when they can't do abortions, they expose themselves as the liars they have always been.
You can not see my "concerns" period. They are killing babies! That is my "concern." I am "concerned" that they are killing babies.
But to you, you could see my "concerns" if i thought they were killing them to harvest organs? And if you found out that they were doing that then you would want them shut down immediately. (But then what about all those services that you listed? How is that any different from Planned Parenthood closing when they can't do anymore abortions?
But your fine with Planned Parenthood killing babies. You draw the line if they try to harvest their organs after they kill the babies.

[Mrtazeman]

Planned Parenthood Recognized as Top-Ranking Nonprofit By Philanthropic Experts. They do allot of good for poor women and women who need their services. If you want to shut down this non for profit down, then base it on the truth. I know several Transplant surgeons and it is insulting to them to think that what Carly F. said happened. You are believing in lies.... If this was true, PPH would have been shut down already. There is a lot of regulations and security when it comes to transplants..

[Mrtazeman]

how can you consider yourself prolife when you approve of this:

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-aborti ... re-1426643

[JamesOa]

Further to my last post on this thread, I wonder why the meeting between Putin and the factory board was filmed, and full of photographers. Hmmm, did Putin want everyone to see him being Mr. Big?

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Lets get something straight, the republicans are not in any rush to stop abortion.. Why would they, citizens vote republican just by them saying they are prolife..


If you are prolife then why do you support Alabama Legislators that Refuse to Fund Mother and Child Health Care??

If you are prolife, then why do you side with weapon manufacutres profits over creating common sense laws that may prevent another childs death?

Would a prolife person support wars that are created to maintain Corporations profits?

You support kids being put in cages on the boarder

You support laws that a owner of a company can go up to a gay person and tell them they are fired just bc they are gay. Then justify your bigotry by saying it's the Christian thing to do ,(please don't use my faith to justify your bigotry)

If you are prolife then you wouldn't support those wacky Texans who wanted to give the death people for women who has an abortion..

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 426330002/

You would vote for a child molester like Roy Moore just because he is a republican

You are Pro Republican

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

If you are pro life and a conservation then you must be pretty upset with the republicants who created huge deficit (as posted by leftyG) and I am sure you wish that Republicans to get more serious about stopping abortion. I am for who ever does a good job. I don't define myself by who I vote for

[Mrtazeman]

And I did not vote for Bill Clinton but the Democrats had no problem electing him and had no problem making excuses for his behavior while he was the President.

Yet you support a guy that cheats on his wife with porn sluts who btw supported a known child molester....


Don't act like the Republicans have any moral authority

[Mrtazeman]

You do realize that the republican party isn't a religious organization??

[Mrtazeman]

If you are against abortion then you wouldnt be for an organization that prevents abortion??

https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/ ... thood-2015

[Mrtazeman]

[Mrtazeman]

The lie you believe in is Carly F. If PPH did what she claimed, there would be shut down. And I don't want women to have abortions. No one does but I don't walk in these women shoes.

[Mrtazeman]

The lie you believe in is Carly F. If PPH did what she claimed, they would be shut down. And I don't want women to have abortions. No one does but I don't walk in these women shoes.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Technically, PPH abortion can still continue even if they get shut down because that part of the organization is privately funded .

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

In Friday'Forum section of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, there was a commentary contribution by Bobbie Stein

For disclosure purposes: Stein is a member of the board of governors of California Attorney's for criminal justice, is a Bay area criminal defense and civil rights lawyer who has served on faculty at several California Law schools.

This is the story of Marshae Jones (described as a young women of color) in Alabama who was charged with manslaughter after losing her pregnancy when another woman shot her in the stomach.
"According to news accounts, Jones and another woman were quarreling in a parking lot in Pleasant Grove, Alabama, last December before Jones was shot. Police initially arrested the shooter for manslaughter, but a grand jury failed to indict her.
Six months later, in late June, Jones herself was indicted by the grand jury for manslaughter.
The police laid the blame squarely on Jones because they said she started the fight that led to the shooting. Lt. Danny Reid of the Pleasant Grove Police Department declared that the only"true victim" was the unborn baby". (who died) Marshae Jones survived.
From the description provided, I agree with the outcome of this incident. Bobbie Stein, does not agree.
This is a matter of the law. It is a matter of right and wrong as dictated by law. This is not a matter of a difference of opinion.

"According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Alabama is one of 38 states that have fetal homicide laws allowing criminal charges when fetuses are killed in violent acts.
(California is one of those states.)
It is not unheard of for women to be prosecuted for the deaths of their fetuses as the result of tragic circumstances like a car accident or a drug overdose....
According to an investigation by ProPublica and AL.com., in Alabama, hundreds of women have been prosecuted for exposing their fetuses to controlled substances under a 2006 "chemical endangerment" law.
In Pleasant Grove, a city of 10,000 people on the western outskirts of Birmingham where Jones lives, three other women who were addicted to drugs were prosecuted for chemical endangerment in recent years."

Whatever your thoughts were up to this point, consider the latest detail; On Wednesday, a week in advance of a technical hearing, the Jefferson County district attorney office dropped the charges against Marshae Jones.

Where is the justice?

[Michaels153]

Commentary:
The previous case (of Marshae Jones) is an example of the negative influence that Liberals and Progressive people have had on the law in our country. Their impact has always been negative.
The law is clear. There is no ambiguity to the fetal homicide laws. A bullet entered into the body of Marshae Jones resulted in a miscarriage and the death of the "fetus"
The woman who shot the bullet that entered into the body of Marshae Jones was initially arrested for manslaughter. ... But a grand jury "failed" to indict her. [ The law is clear, there is no ambiguity to the fetal homicide laws]. - The "law", was not enforced. The "law" was ignored.
Next, Marshae Jones was charged with manslaughter. But as we learned, the district attorney office dropped the charges against her! [The law is clear, there is no ambiguity to the fetal homicide laws]
For a second time, the "law" was not enforced.
Two people engaged in a fight that led to the death of "a fetus". Two people were charged with manslaughter. Two people were never prosecuted for manslaughter.
The "fetus" died. The fetus died as a result of those two women fighting each other. From Bobbie Stein's commentary, it does not say if either of the two women were charged or prosecuted for any crime!
No crime? Disturbing the peace? Discharging a firearm in the city? Child endangerment? Nothing. And why is that? If the law is clear, which it is. If there is no ambiguity to the law, which there is not. Then what explains the actions or rather the inaction's of the legal community to enforce the law? ....
Liberals, progressives can argue whatever they want to, but they cant argue that the law does not apply.

Erin D. Kampchmidt of Case Western Reserve published a journal article in 2015 - Prosecuting Women for Drug Use During Pregnancy: The Criminal Justice System Should Step Out and the Affordable Care Act Should Step Up.

In this article, a brief history of the fetal protection laws of our country is made along with a review of Criminal Law Theory. The conclusion of the author is that Prosecution of Pregnant drug users does not fit within the Justifications of Criminal Punishment.
The author is wrong. But the journal article is a good example of how liberal and progressive influences have affected the enforcement of law in our country when it comes to women, especially women who are also considered to be poor and or minorities.
Justice is supposed to be blind. Justice is supposed to be equally enforced throughout society. The question to ask is if women other than those who are considered poor and/or minorities would be prosecuted, than by not prosecuting poor and/or minority women for the same offense amounts to intentional discrimination and that is not how societies laws are meant to be applied.

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Since you are all for the wellbeing of children, law and order then you probably would want a full congressional investigation done on Jeff Epstein to discover how many politicians knew about this child slave island and said nothing about it?



Is this real about stopping abortions or creating a Christian version of Sharia Law?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.co ... nalty-bill

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

You are right Michaels, sorry to muddy the waters...

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

Ironically, you are using Rush "the community school drop out druggie" Limbaugh as a source. Not only he tried to publicly shame Sandra Fluke by calling her a SLUT bc she was telling Congress about her roommate who had to use birth control to regulate her period but he was busted with illegal subscription of Viagra coming back from an island where prostitution is legal and not uncommon of sex trafficking of minors.

I thought abortion services are explicitly excluded under the ACA, as are abortion inducing drugs? Is this about contraceptives mandate offered to women? Why is he referring to abortion if that is true?

Can't you use better source?

[Michaels153]

Rush limbaugh summarized the basics and you dont seem to understand that.
I provided a longer link, right after i typed "Related links. But you didn't see that. So go to the Life news link.
Even though the ACA has been ruled invalid since the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional, greedy murderers still are going to the courts to appeal and challenge these rullings.

[Mrtazeman]

Who are the murders?

Repealing the Affordable Care Act will kill more than 43,000 people annually

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzi ... story.html

[Michaels153]

[Fannieroask]

Remember that time you said you owned a restaurant.. then leased the restaurant.. then managed the restaurant.. then finally worked at the restaurant?

Yea... you should slink back to the hole you crawled out of.

____
: NEW the best program for solving any CAPTCHA, including Google ReCaptcha-2

[Michaels153]

Here we quote people when an allegation is made. I dont see a quote. Your not talking about me.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Mrtazeman]

[Mrtazeman]

"It is not compassionate to take those services away from the poor. But the only "one's" taking away those services from the poor, are Planned Parenthood. So Planned Parenthood is not being compassionate to the poor.

No they are not, they are still providing those same great benefits to the poor...

Where is the new Health care bill?? The current proposal for health care reform could leave approximately 22 million people without coverage.. You call that compassionate??

[Mrtazeman]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

2020 Dems Demand Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Hyde Anniversary
By Katie Yoder|Posted: Oct 01, 2019 8:30 AM

Now the Democrats are Demanding an end of the Hyde Amendment. They are demanding that tax payers pay for abortions, just as they demanded that tax payers pay for contraceptive measures.
What they are in effect saying is "Hey, you taxpayer's, that's right, you. You pay for my contraceptives so I can have sex whenever I want for free, and you pay for any abortion I want for free. I don't care what you think about this. Just shut up, and pay for it. Period!

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

Pete Buttigieg Tells Woman Her Pro-Life Views Not Welcomed In Democrat Party
By Ryan Saavedra
DailyWire.com

Pro-life Democrat Kristin Day got an honest answer from Pete Buttigieg, but it was not the answer she wanted to hear. Ms. Day wanted to know if Mr. Buttigieg would support language on the Democratic platform that there were democrats who support pro-life (21 million), and that these Democrats were still welcomed
in the Democratic Party. Mr. Buttigieg, acknowledged Ms. Day, and said he hoped he could earn her vote, but he also said he did not want to trick her into getting her vote. He said he believes that the woman should make the decision about abortion and that is the position of the Democratic Party today which he supports.

The choice left to Ms. Day is that she can still remain a member of the Democrat Party, but when it comes to abortion, she will not have a voice on the subject, she will not be heard. Much like the baby in the womb who wants to live, but whose voice is also not listened to.

[Michaels153]

[Michaels153]

A Republican Ohio lawmaker introduced a bill Wednesday that would outlaw abortion in almost every case in the state should the Supreme Court ever reverse Roe V. Wade. Because the bill wants to exclude abortions provided due to the risks of the mother, the bill included in its language the exclusion of prosecuting women for an abortion. The bill should also have excluded prosecuting doctors who perform abortions for the protection of the woman whose life is in danger. I don't know if it did.

In unveiling the measure, state Rep. John Becker called Ohio a "pro-life state," according to Cleveland Scene. Under House Bill 358, doctors who perform or induce an abortion would face a fourth-degree felony of "abortion manslaughter" and could have their medical license revoked and face up to 18 months in prison. Since the majority of abortions are not done to protect the life of the mother, that is they are not done because the life of the mother is at risk, then doctors who perform or induce an abortion for any other reason would be charged as stated under this bill.

Women who receive abortions would not be prosecuted. Only women who at risk of losing their life should be free from prosecution if Roe V.
Wade is overturned.

"If and when the Supreme Court decides to return the issue of abortion back to the states, we want to be prepared for what comes next," Becker said in a statement.
The Louisiana abortion case presents interesting arguments on both sides. While the media is looking at the impact of the two newest Justice's, the really interesting debates will come from the arguments of Roberts and Thomas. Chief Justice Roberts initially seemed curious as to a technical issue regarding the representation of a brief to the Supreme court by a third party. While interesting, there is a point of interest here because that argument tends to reinforce the Courts unwillingness to initiate political activism, but it also has to acknowledge that the court has been involved in cases where they were presented to the court by a third party. Justice Roberts almost seemed unwilling to take on this case for this reason. Justice Thomas made clear his views about challenges to Roe v. Wade last year, and seemed to rebuke his fellow justices on the court for, as he put it, their willingness to kick the can down the road, so to speak. Justice Thomas has also been "concerned" of challenges to the law that presents conundrums to precedents. These "challenges" strike at the very heart of "Law", and are perceived to be examples where a bad law or bad laws cannot be salvaged. Also, both Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg have spoken about concerns for the health of the mother, and this bill's stated focus is about the health of the mother.
I really do not know how the court will rule on this challenge.

[Michaels153]