Obama Smuggling Abortion Agenda into Healthcare Sham

Search
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,998
Tokens
Smuggling abortion agenda into healthcare reform

<script type="text/javascript">var addthis_pub = 'onenewsnow';</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://s9.addthis.com/js/widget.php?v=10"></script>

<storylead>
abortion_forceps.jpg
If passed, two healthcare reform bills could mean more abortions at taxpayers' expense.</storylead>

<storybody></storybody>
The two primary measures -- the Kennedy bill and the House Democratic leadership bill -- contain provisions that would represent the greatest expansion of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized it in 1973, according to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee.

"These two bills contain multiple provisions that would result in federally mandated insurance coverage of abortion on demand, result in massive federal subsidies for abortion, result even in mandated creation of many new abortion clinics across the country," he explains.

Johnson adds the bills would nullify at least some state limitations on abortion. He concludes passage would result in an increase in abortions, but recalls the Obama administration promised to take steps to reduce them.

Douglas%20Johnson.jpg
"And it's quite true that the majority of Americans do not want the government to be promoting abortion as a method of birth control -- but that is what is imbedded in these bills," Johnson notes.

According to Johnson, the pro-abortion movement hopes to smuggle the policies into law by using healthcare as a vehicle -- and there is a grave danger they will succeed, he laments, unless the public urges their elected representatives to vote against the measures.

On a party-line vote Wednesday, the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed the $600 billion Kennedy bill. Democratic lawmakers in both houses of Congress are pushing for debate and passage of the bills before the August recess.
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
The house speaker has already said that they want control over EVERY FACET of your life ....to protect the planet.

If a Christian politician said they wanted you to give Jesus total control of your life they would be crucified.

If an Islamist politician said to give ALLAH total control of your life he would be beheaded.

But if EARTH worship is your bag,,Your free to impose it on every breathing human being....simply because they are breathing....
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
The house speaker has already said that they want control over EVERY FACET of your life ....to protect the planet.

If a Christian politician said they wanted you to give Jesus total control of your life they would be crucified.

If an Islamist politician said to give ALLAH total control of your life he would be beheaded.

But if EARTH worship is your bag,,Your free to impose it on every breathing human being....simply because they are breathing....

I'm confused. There are 2 groups one supports allowing a person control over their own body the other dosent, but you say the former is the one that wants to "control EVERY FACET" of our lives?
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
I'm confused. There are 2 groups one supports allowing a person control over their own body the other dosent, but you say the former is the one that wants to "control EVERY FACET" of our lives?

one supports allowing a person control over their own body

Who speaks for the innocent life in your situation and the control of it's body?

I know libs are all about protecting the innocent who are without a voice, from the too powerful. @) :grandmais
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,998
Tokens
I'm confused. There are 2 groups one supports allowing a person control over their own body the other dosent, but you say the former is the one that wants to "control EVERY FACET" of our lives?

Punter says:

"I'm confused"


Ain't that the fucking truth.

@)
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Who speaks for the innocent life in your situation and the control of it's body?

People who believe an embryo or a fetus has more rights than a real live pregnant female human being.

IOW, people who don't understand how things work in The United States of America
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Anything in the proposed legislation that will help finance Express Lanes at clinics which provide abortions?

I've been writing all three of my US Congressman a couple times a year to tell them to include such funding.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
People who believe an embryo or a fetus has more rights than a real live pregnant female human being.

IOW, people who don't understand how things work in The United States of America

You seem to lose your understanding of how things work when you use the wrong definition for murder...and then smear our troops and military with it.!~~~!

So you are right...this forum really is useless. We all have our bias and truth be damned...we're sticking to it. :grandmais
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
It's not the first time you've expressed your desire that embryos or fetuses be granted equal legal rights to live human beings. I'm sure it's an honest desire and as such an abortion of an embryo or fetus to you might constitute "murder".

I personally reserve that term for the killing of real live human beings.

Fortunately for the members of the US military who have killed innocent civilians and for those who ordered those killings, "I" was not consulted as to whether those killings would constitute murder, eh?

And likewise, it's fortunate for the tens of millions of American women who have elected to terminate a pregnancy that "you" are not the one who decides if those terminations constitute murder.

Seems that both you and I are right where we need to be.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
It's not the first time you've expressed your desire that embryos or fetuses be granted equal legal rights to live human beings. I'm sure it's an honest desire and as such an abortion of an embryo or fetus to you might constitute "murder".

I personally reserve that term for the killing of real live human beings.

Fortunately for the members of the US military who have killed innocent civilians and for those who ordered those killings, "I" was not consulted as to whether those killings would constitute murder, eh?

And likewise, it's fortunate for the tens of millions of American women who have elected to terminate a pregnancy that "you" are not the one who decides if those terminations constitute murder.

Seems that both you and I are right where we need to be.

Without a doubt...nobody ordered killings of innocent civilians in Iraq.

And if they did, I doubt the good soldiers of the American military...my neighbors, friends and family...and yours....I doubt very highly they would carry it out and/or not report it.

Your entire premise is completely false.
 

Pro Handi-Craper My Picks are the shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,098
Tokens
All these bills are so big no one will read them/.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Without a doubt...nobody ordered killings of innocent civilians in Iraq.

And if they did, I doubt the good soldiers of the American military...my neighbors, friends and family...and yours....I doubt very highly they would carry it out and/or not report it.

It's reasonable to conclude that you and I have differing perceptions of the events from "shock and awe", March 2003

Orders were most certainly given to US military to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq, including several primary population centers. It's most important here to sternly note that at the time of these bombings, the country of Iraq had taken absolutely no military action against the USA - thus the bombings were most certainly not employed as a "defense" of the USA.

To suggest that such a campaign could be waged (imagine a city like Chicago or Tampa where civilians live citywide within 50 yards or less of commercial and industrial facilities) and not take hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilian lives is to me utterly preposterous.

However, if you find it believable that such orders could be delivered with an honest expectation no innocents would be killed, it's understandable why you would take issue with my own perception that such bombings - carried out in the time and place they occurred - are tantamount to murder.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
7,924
Tokens
It's reasonable to conclude that you and I have differing perceptions of the events from "shock and awe", March 2003

Orders were most certainly given to US military to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq, including several primary population centers. It's most important here to sternly note that at the time of these bombings, the country of Iraq had taken absolutely no military action against the USA - thus the bombings were most certainly not employed as a "defense" of the USA.

To suggest that such a campaign could be waged (imagine a city like Chicago or Tampa where civilians live citywide within 50 yards or less of commercial and industrial facilities) and not take hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilian lives is to me utterly preposterous.

However, if you find it believable that such orders could be delivered with an honest expectation no innocents would be killed, it's understandable why you would take issue with my own perception that such bombings - carried out in the time and place they occurred - are tantamount to murder.

Unfortunately war has some unintended victims.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
It's reasonable to conclude that you and I have differing perceptions of the events from "shock and awe", March 2003

Orders were most certainly given to US military to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq, including several primary population centers. It's most important here to sternly note that at the time of these bombings, the country of Iraq had taken absolutely no military action against the USA - thus the bombings were most certainly not employed as a "defense" of the USA.

To suggest that such a campaign could be waged (imagine a city like Chicago or Tampa where civilians live citywide within 50 yards or less of commercial and industrial facilities) and not take hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilian lives is to me utterly preposterous.

However, if you find it believable that such orders could be delivered with an honest expectation no innocents would be killed, it's understandable why you would take issue with my own perception that such bombings - carried out in the time and place they occurred - are tantamount to murder.

Orders were most certainly given to US military to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq, including several primary population centers.

I'm quite sure there was no order to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq...or to bomb any population centers. Sorry...didn't happen...couldn't happen that way.

You are trying desperately to spin a targeted bombing campaign into something other than it was.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
I'm quite sure there was no order to bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq...or to bomb any population centers. Sorry...didn't happen...couldn't happen that way.

If you believe that "shock and awe" was simply a "targeted bombing campaign", then it's understandable why you would be troubled by my reasoning.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
If you believe that "shock and awe" was simply a "targeted bombing campaign", then it's understandable why you would be troubled by my reasoning.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that US forces ordered the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians...or that Shock and Awe was something other than a targeted bombing campaign.
================================

According to National Geographic researcher Bijal Trivedi, "Even after several days of bombing the Iraqis showed remarkable resilience. Many continued with their daily lives, working and shopping, as bombs continued to fall around them. According to some analysts, the military's attack was perhaps too precise. It did not trigger shock and awe in the Iraqis and, in the end, the city was only captured after close combat on the outskirts of Baghdad."<sup id="cite_ref-NatlGeo_14-0" class="reference">[15]</sup>

National Geographic researcher Bijal Trivedi stated that "Civilian casualties did occur, but the strikes, for the most part, were surgical."[15]

Shock and awe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (17 July 2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,787
Messages
13,572,981
Members
100,863
Latest member
brokenplanethoodiec
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com