row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 I accept that most would call themselves pro-choice when asked but these proposed acts of legislation are beyond the levels of any decency 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 34 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It's not my fault, or anyone else's for that matter, that you don't understand the concepts in play; and the argument only seems dumb to you because of your profound ignorance. "Rights" has a very specific and narrow meaning. They are fundamental to your humanity, and the basis of right and wrong. They cannot be taken from you, or given to you; only violated and protected. Anything beyond this which requires the intervention of other people is not a right, but rather is a privilege. Rights exist inherent to you in a state of nature, requiring the efforts or no other person or entity; as you cannot be said to have a right to anything which requires the labor of another person. What you are referring to as "legal rights" are not rights at all. They are social/legal privileges put into place, constructed on top of your foundational natural rights, and do not supersede, amend, or repeal them. These come from other individuals or societies intervention, and can be removed from you; meaning you had no right to them. They are not rights. This is a nice paragraph if we were in a high school civil class, or in a college philosophy class. But not when it comes to the law on this country. You are blatantly wrong. You keep mentioning inalienable rights, discounting there are other rights. It’s very stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is a nice paragraph if we were in a high school civil class, or in a college philosophy class. But not when it comes to the law on this country. You are blatantly wrong. You keep mentioning inalienable rights, discounting there are other rights. It’s very stupid. No, what's stupid is your insistence on comingling two very different concepts, inalienable rights and legal privileges, and then making an argument which insists that since the thing you comingled with rights that aren't rights are mutable, that actual rights are mutable as well. This is exactly what you're doing when you draw your line for "giving babies rights" at birth. It's introduction is either incredibly stupid or completely intellectually dishonest, and either way, I reject it wholesale. You'll need to make a much better argument, because the one you're making sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 26 lives are ended EVERY DAY. JUST IN CONNECTICUT, by abortion. a Sandy Hook a month. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 38 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Ummmm. Wouldn’t we all have that factor (“you”) as a common denominator? Its kinda inherent in you being in the argument.... Yes. You idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 29 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yes. You idiot. Ouch! 50 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, what's stupid is your insistence on comingling two very different concepts, inalienable rights and legal privileges, and then making an argument which insists that since the thing you comingled with rights that aren't rights are mutable, that actual rights are mutable as well. This is exactly what you're doing when you draw your line for "giving babies rights" at birth. It's introduction is either incredibly stupid or completely intellectually dishonest, and either way, I reject it wholesale. You'll need to make a much better argument, because the one you're making sucks. Whats your state, I’ll teach you some rights the government has given people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Ouch! Whats your state, I’ll teach you some rights the government has given people. lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Whats your state, I’ll teach you some rights the government has given people. Again, your ass is out. There are no amounts of legal or social privileges any state government has given to anyone which are tantamount to rights. You can show me as many as you'd like, but not one of them are rights unless they are directly, or directly related to, natural rights. Beyond natural rights there are no other rights; if someone can give them to you, or take them away, then you do not have the right to them. As such, rights do not come from government. Full stop. And again, your conflation of legal privilege with rights for the purpose of imposing mutability on the natural right to life is an absurd argument to make, and I reject it wholesale. Words have meaning. Simply declaring that something is a right does not make it so. Edited February 21, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Words do have meaning. What Is a Born-Alive ‘Fetus’? by Alexandria DeSanctis As the Senate prepares to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — which would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive in the process of attempted abortion procedures — opponents of the bill have begun to deploy an intriguing rhetorical sleight of hand. It showed up first in a letter from Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) to a constituent, in which he attempted to explain why he isn’t supporting the born-alive bill. “This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion,” Kaine wrote of the legislation. In the case of what? If a “fetus” survives an abortion, presumably it is no longer a fetus but a newborn infant. The word “fetus,” of course, is already working overtime to assist those who wish to disguise the reality of what takes place during an abortion procedure. It comes from Latin and means nothing more than “unborn child” or “unborn offspring.” But abortion defenders use the word as medical-sounding jargon, a crutch to dehumanize the unborn. It isn’t an unborn child, they insist; it’s a fetus. A fetus doesn’t have moral status. A fetus doesn’t have rights. But now, in their haste to justify their opposition to a bill that prohibits infanticide — whether of the direct or indirect variety — abortion supporters appear to think they can use a word meaning “unborn offspring” to describe an infant born alive in the context of a failed abortion attempt. This trick showed up again this afternoon, this time from Jennifer Conti, a doctor and abortion-rights advocate: Quote Dr. Jennifer Conti ✔@doctorjenn The bill would require emergency transport of the fetus & resuscitation in hopeless situations, like a pre-viable lethal fetal anomaly, even when such actions directly conflict with the wishes of the family or the expert medical advice of the doctor. Why is this a good idea? 11:34 AM - Feb 22, 2019 But the bill doesn’t require transporting a fetus to the hospital. It requires transporting an infant to the hospital. These supporters of abortion are once more twisting words beyond recognizable meaning in order to obscure and rationalize the dehumanization and persecution of vulnerable, unwanted individuals. In the process, they reveal that so much of the defense of all abortion is nothing more than a word game. It matters little whether we refer to the human being inside the womb as a fetus or an unborn child, or to the newborn infant as a child or a baby or even a fetus. It is the same human being both in and outside of its mother. That is the truth they are desperate to avoid. .https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abortion-protection-debate-what-is-born-alive-fetus/ AND We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child.” 'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious? - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../post/after-birth-abortion.../gIQADgiOsR_blog.ht... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, B-Man said: Words do have meaning. What Is a Born-Alive ‘Fetus’? by Alexandria DeSanctis As the Senate prepares to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act — which would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive in the process of attempted abortion procedures — opponents of the bill have begun to deploy an intriguing rhetorical sleight of hand. It showed up first in a letter from Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) to a constituent, in which he attempted to explain why he isn’t supporting the born-alive bill. “This bill would establish new requirements for health care practitioners in the case of a fetus who survives an abortion,” Kaine wrote of the legislation. In the case of what? If a “fetus” survives an abortion, presumably it is no longer a fetus but a newborn infant. The word “fetus,” of course, is already working overtime to assist those who wish to disguise the reality of what takes place during an abortion procedure. It comes from Latin and means nothing more than “unborn child” or “unborn offspring.” But abortion defenders use the word as medical-sounding jargon, a crutch to dehumanize the unborn. It isn’t an unborn child, they insist; it’s a fetus. A fetus doesn’t have moral status. A fetus doesn’t have rights. But now, in their haste to justify their opposition to a bill that prohibits infanticide — whether of the direct or indirect variety — abortion supporters appear to think they can use a word meaning “unborn offspring” to describe an infant born alive in the context of a failed abortion attempt. This trick showed up again this afternoon, this time from Jennifer Conti, a doctor and abortion-rights advocate: But the bill doesn’t require transporting a fetus to the hospital. It requires transporting an infant to the hospital. These supporters of abortion are once more twisting words beyond recognizable meaning in order to obscure and rationalize the dehumanization and persecution of vulnerable, unwanted individuals. In the process, they reveal that so much of the defense of all abortion is nothing more than a word game. It matters little whether we refer to the human being inside the womb as a fetus or an unborn child, or to the newborn infant as a child or a baby or even a fetus. It is the same human being both in and outside of its mother. That is the truth they are desperate to avoid. .https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abortion-protection-debate-what-is-born-alive-fetus/ AND We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child.” 'After-birth abortion': Can they be serious? - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../post/after-birth-abortion.../gIQADgiOsR_blog.ht... "The bill would require emergency transport of the fetus & resuscitation in hopeless situations, like a pre-viable lethal fetal anomaly, " That makes no sense. "Pre-viable" resuscitation? Then it's not "pre-viable," it's viable. "Lethal fetal anomaly?" That's literally prenatal - there's no such thing as a lethal postnatal fetal anomaly - that's called a "dead baby." Her tweet is nothing more than playing fast and loose with words to sound smart when she's actually being very, very dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: "The bill would require emergency transport of the fetus & resuscitation in hopeless situations, like a pre-viable lethal fetal anomaly, " That makes no sense. "Pre-viable" resuscitation? Then it's not "pre-viable," it's viable. "Lethal fetal anomaly?" That's literally prenatal - there's no such thing as a lethal postnatal fetal anomaly - that's called a "dead baby." Her tweet is nothing more than playing fast and loose with words to sound smart when she's actually being very, very dumb. No, she’s not. She’s very smart, and very evil; and it trying to push her agenda to people who are very dumb, and will accept what she’s saying because of her jargon and credentials. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, she’s not. She’s very smart, and very evil; and it trying to push her agenda to people who are very dumb, and will accept what she’s saying because of her jargon and credentials. It's interesting to watch the left see how vile they can get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 New Pro-Life Movie ‘Unplanned’ Gets R Rating By Grace Carr The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) officially gave the upcoming abortion film “Unplanned” an “R” rating Friday for “some disturbing/bloody images” of aborted babies. Movies are rated R for profanity, nudity, sex or violence. “Unplanned” contains no profanity, nudity or sex. “Ironically, the MPAA seems to be indirectly endorsing the pro-life position: namely that abortion is an act of violence,” writers and directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman told Movieguide. The film tells the true story of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson who worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, until 2009 when she left the organization after assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old unborn baby. Johnson was Planned Parenthood’s youngest director of a clinic in the nation. She helped over 22,000 women have abortions during her time at the clinic. Planned Parenthood named Johnson as the employee of the year in 2008. She worked at the abortion provider for eight years before leaving the group. Johnson also had a medication abortion before she became pro-life. The R rating will mean that “many teenage women in this country who can legally obtain an actual abortion without parental permission will be prohibited from going to see our film containing simulated images of abortion, without obtaining parental permission,” Solomon and Konzelman also said, noting the double-edged sword of the rating. More at the Link: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/22/new-pro-life-movie-unplanned-gets-r-rating/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoundryConservativePolicyNews+(The+Daily+Signal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1099023330533879808 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 This has to be chilling news for certain political circles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: This has to be chilling news for certain political circles... I'm thinking opinions didn't change, the polling questions were reframed by NY and VA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 4:27 PM, B-Man said: New Pro-Life Movie ‘Unplanned’ Gets R Rating By Grace Carr The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) officially gave the upcoming abortion film “Unplanned” an “R” rating Friday for “some disturbing/bloody images” of aborted babies. Movies are rated R for profanity, nudity, sex or violence. “Unplanned” contains no profanity, nudity or sex. “Ironically, the MPAA seems to be indirectly endorsing the pro-life position: namely that abortion is an act of violence,” writers and directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman told Movieguide. The film tells the true story of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson who worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, until 2009 when she left the organization after assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion of a 13-week-old unborn baby. Johnson was Planned Parenthood’s youngest director of a clinic in the nation. She helped over 22,000 women have abortions during her time at the clinic. Planned Parenthood named Johnson as the employee of the year in 2008. She worked at the abortion provider for eight years before leaving the group. Johnson also had a medication abortion before she became pro-life. The R rating will mean that “many teenage women in this country who can legally obtain an actual abortion without parental permission will be prohibited from going to see our film containing simulated images of abortion, without obtaining parental permission,” Solomon and Konzelman also said, noting the double-edged sword of the rating. More at the Link: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/22/new-pro-life-movie-unplanned-gets-r-rating/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoundryConservativePolicyNews+(The+Daily+Signal) The truth is always throttled by those who have an agenda to uphold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 New poll spells BIG TROUBLE for ‘pro-choice’ and they have Democrats to THANK for it From The Federalist: According to a new poll from Marist, Americans’ attitudes on abortion have dramatically shifted over the last month. Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as they are pro-choice (47 percent). A similar survey taken by Marist just last month found Americans were more likely to identify as pro-choice than as pro-life by a 17-point difference. “The recent legal changes to late-term abortion and the debate which followed have not gone unnoticed by the general public,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll. “In just one month, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of Americans who see themselves as pro-life and an equally notable decline in those who describe themselves as pro-choice.” Marist has been polling abortion views for more than a decade. Carvalho said this is the first time since 2009 that as many or more Americans have identified as pro-life as have identified as pro-choice. So in other words, Democrats have accidentally reminded the country what abortion is REALLY ABOUT by pushing legislation allowing for babies who are literally being born or having recently been born to be aborted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilzfancy Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 be embarrassed, libs, be very embarrassed... https://www.updateamerica.com/list_of_2020_dems_who_voted_no_on_bill_to_protect_born_alive_infants?utm_source=FFA&utm_medium=JAS1&fbclid=IwAR0wT8plf0cSCcQwo7AuxmEGXQS-rmHVQ2cSbW5_-XMQdKUlFxbAYX5J1Ew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 20 hours ago, DC Tom said: I'm thinking opinions didn't change, the polling questions were reframed by NY and VA. Well, they considered, “we should help living children live,” to be pro-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 More on the vote. Democrats block bill to ensure medical care for abortion survivors by Kimberly Leonard Original Article . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 For many, the rite of abortion now includes euthanasia. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris wants to force every American to give up his private health insurance, but she can’t get herself to support legislation that compels doctors to give an infant who survives an abortion attempt the same care they would provide any other human being. She’s merely one of 44 Democrats who voted to keep negligent homicide legal against babies marked for termination. Presidential candidates Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all voted against Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, as well. Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits euthanasia. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. Others claimed the bill would “restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.” Still others claimed the practice never ever happens. Other Democrats, who support government intervention in every nook and cranny of human existence, argued that tough choices should only be the domain of women and their doctors, not the state. Many of them saw no conflict between these ideas and argued all these things at the very same time. Sen. Patty Murray claimed the bill was “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family” and that “proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal.” This is untrue, regardless of a full-court press from Democrats and the media. As bills in both Virginia and New York clearly illustrate, the practice isn’t illegal. Both bills specifically provide legal protections for doctors who terminate babies who survive abortion attempts http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/senate-vote-born-alive-infants-proves-democrats-arent-pro-choice-theyre-pro-infanticide/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits euthanasia. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. I'm on board with this. It is already illegal, and I make the same complaint about superfluous legislation when Democrats propose it for gun control, or when they proposed it for financial reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 There’s no good way to spin the Democrats’ vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. So many in the Main Stream Media simply ignored it. Mainstream Media Blacks Out The Democrats’ Infanticide Vote by David Harsanyl So I was going to have a little fun at the expense of CNN this morning, contrasting the news site’s headline for the Democrats’ gun restriction bill—“House to vote on guns background check bill with bipartisan support”—which has garnered exactly four Republican co-sponsors, with its headline for the Sen. Ben Sasse’s anti-infanticide bill, which I was certain would be solely about the “GOP” despite having four Democrat Senators voting to move the bill forward. Turns out, it was even better. There was nothing to contrast because, as far as I can tell, CNN doesn’t feature a single story on their website regarding the Democratic Party blocking of Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have saved newborn babies who survive abortion attempts from negligent homicide. CNN didn’t even bother producing one of those predictably prejudiced pieces, like the ones we saw in Politico or the Washington Post yesterday, mischaracterizing Sasse’s bill as “anti-abortion.” They didn’t bother with the “conservatives pounce!” stories like the Daily Beast or Vox. They didn’t bother, like so many others, to distract from the number of viable babies being aborted by stressing only 1.5 percent of the procedures are in post-20 weeks, rather than pointing out there are somewhere around 15,000 to 18,000 aborted every year. They just ignored it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Bingo. Kamala Harris is the poster child for that image. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Please note................I am not Gorrell, Branco, or Lisa........................lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Quote CBS NewsVerified account @CBSNews FollowFollow @CBSNews "Record-breaking" preemie weighing as much as an onion at birth goes home healthy https://cbsn.ws/2NxTyyH . 24 weeks................................... Stop pretending like pro-aborts don’t know an unborn baby is a human being. They know. It’s self-evident. They just don’t care. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 9 hours ago, B-Man said: . 24 weeks................................... Stop pretending like pro-aborts don’t know an unborn baby is a human being. They know. It’s self-evident. They just don’t care. . Exactly, because feminist filth is more important than unborn children. This is the eventual evolutionary outcome of the feminist movement. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 11 hours ago, B-Man said: Thanatos has been great at harvesting votes for Democrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 On 1/23/2019 at 8:06 PM, B-Man said: In a late term abortion (which NY just legalized) the baby is killed by poison injection and then delivery is induced. Think about that. They're delivering the child anyway. Why kill him ahead of time? Why not deliver him alive and put him up for adoption? Why does he need to come out dead? Wow...that’s just effed up! I could understand not wanting to go through with delivery, but to deliver and still kill the child is just Satanic imo...they probably wear black robes and start chanting during the process- scum bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Exposing the obscenity of infanticide Washington Times, by Tammy Bruce Original Article . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 National News correspondent, Yahoo News Quote Alexander NazaryanVerified account @alexnazaryan FollowFollow @alexnazaryan "It's not late term abortion; it's murder," @GOPChairwoman says of VA measure. She is basically accusing Democrats of killing children. That seems like an incendiary charge. 7:24 AM - 28 Feb 2019 Ummmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Quote Ben DomenechVerified account @bdomenech 2h2 hours ago Illinois is next on the abortion extremism front: bill would repeal the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act, Abortion Performance Refusal Act, and life and health requirements post-viability ..http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/01/illinois-considers-another-terrifying-law-allowing-infanticide/#.XHlWH8ohWMk.twitter FTA: The bill’s definition of abortion makes it clear that abortions are intended to result in the death of the child: “‘Abortion’ means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of an individual known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.” If that isn’t enough, the bill goes further: Any qualified “health care professional” — “including, but not limited to, a physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant”—may provide abortions (emphasis mine). There’s more: Abortion clinics become exempted from rules for ambulatory surgical treatment centers, unless they use “general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia.” Any health insurance policy issued in the state must include abortion coverage without any cost-sharing requirement. All instances of the phrase “pregnant woman” are changed to read “pregnant individual” and instances of the phrase “her unborn child” (in a section which, as small consolation, remains, on the intentional homicide of wanted unborn children) have the possessive pronoun removed, in order, it appears, to make allowance for pregnant transgender people. Separately, a companion bill, HB 2467, would repeal the parental notification law. This bill, however, has a mere three sponsors. Why this law? Why now? Although CBS News, for example, describes it as motivated by “uncertainty surrounding the fate of Roe v. Wade,” the 2017 law was already billed by its supporters as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” so whatever desire abortion rights activists in other states might have to eliminate any laws that would criminalize abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is not an issue in Illinois. Instead, this bill is part of a larger strategy to normalize abortion, under any circumstances, at any point in pregnancy. As Rewire.News reported, “It’s pushing back against a deliberate strategy of the anti-abortion movement of stigmatizing and siloing women’s reproductive health care, and these bills are saying we need to treat reproductive health care like any other health care,” said Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 18 hours ago, B-Man said: ..http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/01/illinois-considers-another-terrifying-law-allowing-infanticide/#.XHlWH8ohWMk.twitter FTA: The bill’s definition of abortion makes it clear that abortions are intended to result in the death of the child: “‘Abortion’ means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of an individual known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.” If that isn’t enough, the bill goes further: Any qualified “health care professional” — “including, but not limited to, a physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant”—may provide abortions (emphasis mine). There’s more: Abortion clinics become exempted from rules for ambulatory surgical treatment centers, unless they use “general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia.” Any health insurance policy issued in the state must include abortion coverage without any cost-sharing requirement. All instances of the phrase “pregnant woman” are changed to read “pregnant individual” and instances of the phrase “her unborn child” (in a section which, as small consolation, remains, on the intentional homicide of wanted unborn children) have the possessive pronoun removed, in order, it appears, to make allowance for pregnant transgender people. Separately, a companion bill, HB 2467, would repeal the parental notification law. This bill, however, has a mere three sponsors. Why this law? Why now? Although CBS News, for example, describes it as motivated by “uncertainty surrounding the fate of Roe v. Wade,” the 2017 law was already billed by its supporters as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” so whatever desire abortion rights activists in other states might have to eliminate any laws that would criminalize abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is not an issue in Illinois. Instead, this bill is part of a larger strategy to normalize abortion, under any circumstances, at any point in pregnancy. As Rewire.News reported, “It’s pushing back against a deliberate strategy of the anti-abortion movement of stigmatizing and siloing women’s reproductive health care, and these bills are saying we need to treat reproductive health care like any other health care,” said Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois. . I wouldn't mind seeing the ACLU shut down and their assets seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 On February 28, 2019 at 6:01 AM, /dev/null said: Thanatos has been great at harvesting votes for Democrats I didn't know that dude was political but most in Hollywood are. I thought he was pretty good in Infinity War. I wonder what role he'll play in End Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 11:37 AM, LABillzFan said: And that is the ultimate result. Getting you or anyone to agree and admit: Anytime. Anywhere. Any reason. It sounds good until it's openly practiced. That said, I don't read you as a 34/Tibs/TH3/Coach Tuesday leftist. You seem a bit more balanced. It's the far left -- the part that has all the money -- that will explode when they find out women are aborting babies because they're gay. We’ve been told a million times that being gay is not a choice. Therefore it must be genetic. Won’t be terribly long until the human genome map will be completely understood and the “gay gene” identified. That might cause the gay community to suddenly become pro life. On 2/20/2019 at 9:16 PM, PBLESS said: Glad your mother didn't feel that way. Just think of him as another missed abortion opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Abortion Bias Seeps Into News FTA: A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play:* The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.* Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.* Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.* Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.* Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.* Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.Television is probably more vulnerable to charges of bias on abortion than are newspapers and magazines. The time constraints and ratings chase intrinsic to most television news programs often lead to the kind of superficiality and sensationalism that result in bias. In addition, says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, the "insular culture that produces network newscasts" create an "implicit bias (that) is more pervasive . . . than in the print media."But throughout the media, print and broadcast alike, coverage of abortion tends to be presented--perhaps subconsciously--from the abortion-rights perspective. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Webster case a year ago Tuesday that states could have more latitude in regulating abortion, for example, ABC News termed the decision "a major setback for abortion rights."Couldn't it also have been called "a major victory for abortion opponents"?Yes.But most reporters don't identify with abortion opponents. MUCH MORE at the link: https://www.latimes.com/food/la-me-shaw01jul01-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts