Donald Trump Becomes First U.S. President to Speak at March for Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We sent a hospital ship to Venezuela, don’t think we aren’t doing a lot of things.

Venezuelan Kamila was born premature at 30 weeks, weighing just 900 grams (2 lbs). Her early entry into the world came with kidney problems and cerebral atrophy that have delayed some parts of her development and kept her limbs spindly.

She is one of thousands set to receive treatment this week from doctors and dentists from United States Navy hospital ship the USNS Comfort.

Many are Venezuelan migrants who have fled economic crisis across the border. Others are Colombians, including indigenous Wayuu, seeking care amid constant delays in Colombia’s overcrowded health system.
Click to expand...
There are some serious problems in the world, I think it has been shown children have been used and exploited to cross the border. It’s a no-man’s land.

Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela, all 3 too, have big problems and some of them are similar to those in Venezuela.

Since the article came out too, I believe we have sent millions in aid to help these refugees, hard to keep track of every story.
 
Last edited:
1cthlctrth said:
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Click to expand...
This bill had the standard abortion loophole/exceptions that would permit an estimated minimum of 13% (based on Guttmacher’s “Reasons For Abortion” study, around 13% of abortions are done for the exceptionable reasons)


The bill provides exceptions for an abortion: (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.

You will find these loopholes when you read the text of the legislation, I highly suggest always reading the full text of the legislation.

In the disability community, we are well aware that where abortion is already under legal restrictions, these “life of the mother” exceptions allow for just about any abortion to take place. The determination is made that the mother will be emotionally or psychologically affected if she is forced to carry the pregnancy, which can lead to depression which can lead to suicide, thus, the abortion is okayed.

Take for example this tragedy from Australia (link from the National Right to Life org)

https://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2000/NRL07/dwarf.html
 
TheLittleLady said:
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion: (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
Click to expand...
Half a loaf of bread is better than none at all. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the possible.

So, there are exceptions that probably cover .01% of all abortions, so that makes other abortions acceptable? I guess, if one is just hunting for loopholes but that doesn’t seem very pro-life.

I find it reaching to have the logic of these extremely rare abortions vs. 99.5 % of all abortions.

It’s a sensitive matter.
 
Last edited:
How could Judge Rosemary Márquez reliably characterize a wall here in the US as “deterrence by death” if there is no wall yet? (Or just bits and pieces of one.)

I would like to see that quote you are using in context please.
 
Last edited:
Once again, according to the Guttmacher reports, 13% of abortions are performed because of the “health/welfare/life” of mother or fetus.

As has been documented, all it takes is the woman saying that having this child makes her emotionally distressed so she may self harm and the abortion takes place. I have presented documentation that this is not simply my imagination, and have anecdotally heard this from the regional director of Planned Parenthood.

What report gives you the .01% number?

I suggest you look at the numbers, do not accept what I say, what anyone says, read the data yourself. The exception clauses are unacceptable because of the elasticity of those loopholes.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Guttmacher reports, 13% of abortions are performed because of the “health/welfare/life” of mother or fetus.
Click to expand...
I have searched for more information on the statistic of 13% and could find nothing. What I did find is that 7% of abortions are due to fetal health and mothers health. If you could provide a link, it would be helpful.

Yes, I did search the Guttmacher site. I also googled your sentence and the only hit was your post.
 
Apologize, I was under! Looks more like a quarter of abortions would be permitted under the loopholes. Memory does get jagged with age.


Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).‡ Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness.
 
Yes.

Roe’s companion decision, Doe vs Bolton defined health of the mother so broadly that economic health was considered a factor.
 
I thank God for President Trump, Vice President Pence and all politicans who stand up for life and God’s law!
 
flamingpuppet said:
"Anti-abortion” is a very revealing term. It reveals the manifestly wicked idea that abortion is some kind of positive good.
if anything, abortion is anti-LIFE.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We should not have any problem using the term" anti-abortion" and should own the term. The negative connotation is attached by those who support legal abortion.

Is anti-slavery a bad term?
 
Last edited:
A few of President Trump’s pro-life activity:
  • appointed dozens of pro-life Judges
  • enacted the “Right to Try”, in which those with terminal illness have the right to attempt experimental drugs, hoping for a cure
  • granted our veterans the right to avoid long wait times in the VA, and go to another health care provider
  • eliminated the forced abortifacient coverage that existed in Obamacare for churches and other Christian businesses
  • eliminated President Obama’s fornication-promoting $100 million per year sex-education program
  • executive order allowing churches’ free speech and religious liberty
  • withdrew U.S. funding from the abortion-promoting U.N. Population Fund
  • New Office for Conscience Protection at HHS
  • appointed a cabinet of many pro-life leaders
  • In May 2019, the Trump administration finalized new regulations to strengthen enforcement of federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care workers who do not want to participate in abortion.
  • Now PRO-LIFE women’s health centers receive the funds previously earmarked for Planned Parenthood in Title X.
  • Canceled Huge Contract for Taxpayer-Funded Experimentation with Body Parts of Aborted Babies.
 
Thanks for posting this summation of some of President Trump’s Pro-Life efforts 1cthlctrth.

Covfefe
 
Just grabbed a random bullet point.

As someone who has been dealing with the medical community and a life threatening condition in my husband up until he died, reading this tells me that it will help wealthy people only. Sad.

You see, insurance companies will not pay for all of the experimental treatments that one has to exhaust before you move on to a RTT treatment (which would also be out of pocket).

Heck, my husband needed a mechanical heart pump called an LVAD and Medicaid would not pay for that. They have been around for a long time, Dick Chaney had one prior to his heart transplant (BTW, Medicaid will pay for transplants). They are half a million dollars in equipment and other expenses to pay out of pocket.

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/right-try

This, like other policies, is one that looks great until you look into it.

On the rest of these, will you provide the information?
 
At the risk of sounding cold, I buried my younger sister four years ago. She had a “benign” brain tumor. She had five surgeries in two months, but the tumor wouldn’t quit. Each surgery caused additional brain damage. They offered an experimental RAF treatment that was going to be completely unaffordable. She lost her memory every time the tumor came back. We ended up quitting all treatment and she went into a memory care unit at the age of 59. She was very well treated and I spent some really good times with her in her last six months of life. Five years earlier, her husband died of lung cancer. He was kept alive for several years before he succumbed to the disease.

My mom is going through the dying process right now. She is in hospice in a nursing home. She suffered a stroke last week and now can’t speak or see. We did not take her to the hospital, because she did not want treatment. She wanted to die at home. After several days, we realized that was not possible because we can’t physically take care of her needs. She is comfortable and well treated there. We are praying the Lord brings her home soon.

I buried my dad at the age of 20. He was a homicide victim.

My point is, we all die. We don’t don’t know how or when we will go. It’s all in God’s hands. No matter how much medical treatment we get, like Lazarus, we will end up dying.

From your posts in other threads, you sound like you had a pretty good marriage and you must miss him terribly.

God bless you and your family.
 
TheLittleLady said:
This, like other policies, is one that looks great until you look into it.

On the rest of these, will you provide the information?
Click to expand...
So you are saying RTT doesn’t work because it didn’t work for your family? That President Trump somehow was not pro-life when he enacted this?

I know you really dislike the President, but to claim his policies are failures based on your own experience is rather uncharitable. This policy may help a lot of people. I have a chronic condition that is not easy to treat. There are certain types of drugs I can’t take due to liver disease and previous bouts of cancer. If my medical team were to find a drug that could possibly work and for some reason were not allowed to give it to me, then this could help me. My insurance may or may not pay for it, but I could figure out a way to get it done.

This is not only for the rich, it is for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Me too Horton.

You as well @TheLittleLady.

God bless

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
I know you really dislike the President
Click to expand...
As I’ve said before, I have never met the man, I have nothing reliable on which to know if I like him or not.
Horton said:
This is not only for the rich, it is for everyone.
Click to expand...
Those who can come up with a way to cover experimental treatment without their medical coverage paying for it are not poor.

My response is based on a very well researched knowledge of the medical system in the USA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top