L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Typical GOP answer, evade the question. Evade, evade, evade when it doesn’t suit your agenda.
If you want to know, try Google. Besides, “what difference does it make anyway”!
Typical GOP answer, evade the question. Evade, evade, evade when it doesn’t suit your agenda.
If you want to know, try Google. Besides, “what difference does it make anyway”!
And what party appointed the justices who upheld Roe v Wade, making such a gruesome procedure legal?I think the recent veto from the Democratic Governor of West Virginia on dismemberment abortions which was overrode by the W. Va. legislature; shows such terms of being pro-choice or pro-abortion is merely semantics.
Do you predict that Hillary would appoint Justices who would be more inclined to overturn Roe v Wade? Or would a Republican nominee be more likely to appoint such Justices?And what party appointed the justices who upheld Roe v Wade, making such a gruesome procedure legal?
Right! Republicans! Even if we remove the two Democrats who voted to uphold from the equation and put them on the other side, Roe v Wade still would have passed 5-4, with all five upholding justices Republican.
Excluding the reproductive health care issues, many people are trying to change other people’s religious beliefs including the other candidates.But Hillary says that religious beliefs have to be changed. She said that after declaring that too many women are denied access to “reproductive health care”.
What does she mean when she says that too many women are denied access to “reproductive health care”. What do you think “reproductive health care” refers to?She’s talking about patriarchal societies in which women have no say, no rights. She isn’t referring to abortion. Links to the audio of her speech have been posted as well as a transcript.
To quote Hillary, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”And what party appointed the justices who upheld Roe v Wade, making such a gruesome procedure legal?
Right! Republicans! Even if we remove the two Democrats who voted to uphold from the equation and put them on the other side, Roe v Wade still would have passed 5-4, with all five upholding justices Republican.
While Hillary has always been pro Israel, her party has definitely shifted away. I wonder if support her on this.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-trump-151315028.html
“I know that all of you understand what’s at stake in this election,” Clinton said. “We need steady hands, not a president who says he is neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday because everything’s negotiable. Well, my friends, Israel’s security is nonnegotiable.”
Hmm… if she’s serious, well said Hillary Clinton.
I think it’s code for ‘abortions are not free’What does she mean when she says that too many women are denied access to “reproductive health care”. What do you think “reproductive health care” refers to?
In other words, she is for free abortions. Wouldn’t that mean that she is pro-abortion? Hillary is for abortion rights.I think it’s code for ‘abortions are not free’
This:What does she mean when she says that too many women are denied access to “reproductive health care”. What do you think “reproductive health care” refers to?
It’s not “code” for anything. Hillary doesn’t speak in “code.” She speaks in plain English.While Hillary has always been pro Israel, her party has definitely shifted away. I wonder if support her on this.
I think it’s code for ‘abortions are not free’
which means she would want tax payers paying for the destruction human life. I wonder if Germans paid for the construction of the Gas Chambers?While Hillary has always been pro Israel, her party has definitely shifted away. I wonder if support her on this.
I think it’s code for ‘abortions are not free’
It says: "Impoverished women suffer disproportionately from unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortion, "
Except “reproductive health” has nothing to do with abortion.which means she would want tax payers paying for the destruction human life. I wonder if Germans paid for the construction of the Gas Chambers?
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t say the impoverished women have abortions. I think she’s talking about contraception and family planning. I think even the Republican candidates would agree that the impoverished suffer disproportionately from a lack of reproductive health care. They often can’t afford it.It says: "Impoverished women suffer disproportionately from unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortion, "
So abortion is part of the program. Your own link proves it to be so.
That is quite a comparison.which means she would want tax payers paying for the destruction human life. I wonder if Germans paid for the construction of the Gas Chambers?
I’ve been a pacifist myself, which surprises even me because I’m not idealistic, but after the terror attacks in Paris and now in Brussels, I’m beginning to change. I’m not sure the United States, as the leader of the free world, can afford to be pacifist, even if it were so inclined. Switzerland can afford its neutrality because its tiny. It’s not the leader in anything except maybe watch-making. The US is huge and quite different.That is quite a comparison.
Taxpayers pay for many things they do not always believe in, including war.
Your relative, Fr. Frank Pavone, says this on his website:No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t say the impoverished women have abortions.** I think she’s talking about contraception and family planning. **I think even the Republican candidates would agree that the impoverished suffer disproportionately from a lack of reproductive health care. They often can’t afford it.
priestsforlife.org/legislation/talkingpoints.pdfHillary Clinton said “reproductive health includes abortion.”
It’s worth noting that abortion hasn’t been spoken of much in the primaries. And gay marriage even less! I welcome an election cycle when such social issues take a back seat.You’ve said several times that the only thing the Democratic Party cares about is abortion. Do you really think that is the ONLY issue they care about or are you just using that issue as a main reason not to vote for candidates in the Party?
I’d welcome a break from the abortion issue here! LOL It seems like people are forgetting there are other issues.It’s worth noting that abortion hasn’t been spoken of much in the primaries. And gay marriage even less! I welcome an election cycle when such social issues take a back seat.
So Catholics will have to change their religious beliefs to allow for contraception?No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t say the impoverished women have abortions. I think she’s talking about contraception and family planning. I think even the Republican candidates would agree that the impoverished suffer disproportionately from a lack of reproductive health care. They often can’t afford it.