Senate Dems stop "conscience exemption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter garn9173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
The question is will they have it in 2014.
Click to expand...
Which is why I support single payer universal healthcare for all and disagreed with Republicans and with Obama and those Democrats who did not fight for it, or for at the very least a public option.
 
CMatt25 said:
Which is why I support single payer universal healthcare for all and disagreed with Republicans and with Obama and those Democrats who did not fight for it, or for at the very least a public option.
Click to expand...
Well, at least if they had single payer, presuming it means removing private insurance, the Hyde Amendment would have kicked in against all abortion funding.
 
ishii said:
(my bold italics).

John 9:5-11

Cmatt, I pray that one day, you will see.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Ishii, thank you but I long ago had seen where Jesus performed some healing miracles. And in faith I too believe He did. God bless and peace.
 
CMatt25 said:
Ishii, thank you but I long ago had seen where Jesus performed some healing miracles. And in faith I too believe He did. God bless and peace.
Click to expand...
I was refering to your being blind to what the Obama administration is trying to do. I pray that you will be cured.

Ishii
 
bellasbane said:
Regarding the Blunt amendment - it was written to fail so that the GOP would be able to claim to support conscience rights without having to risk it might actually happen.
Click to expand...
Wow. How uncharitable of you. Assuming the worst motives of people to assuage your own guilt.
 
bellasbane said:
I see what is happening in states like Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, where the GOP is attacking union rights, women’s rights, and voter’s rights. That is not some “hypothetical doomsday scenario” but real policies that are having a real impact on real people. No way am I going to vote for that on a federal level.
Click to expand...
What “women’s rights” are being attacked?

You SURELY can’t be referring to the bill which would require that women be given the opportunity to see the ultrasound of their baby before he/she is killed. That CAN’T be the “attack” you are mentioning.

This thread makes me sad, because it reinforces that liberals are liberal first, Catholic second.
 
CMatt25 said:
Correct. From my familial experiences as well Social Security and Medicare have been God-sends to people.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should ALL be thankful for a negative 1% return on 15% of our income. We should ALL be thankful that 15% of our income becomes the govt’s property, and if we should die early, not ONE cent of that money will go to our heirs.

I mean, who wouldn’t prefer the benevolence of govt, when we could have 3-5x the amount of retirement income if our wealth wasn’t stolen.
 
ishii said:
Don’t you know, JimG? Catholic hospitals and charities now don’t have to pay for contraception/abortificient coverage to their employees. Instead the provider gives it to the employees for “free” and charges more for other services. In the mind of the Obama apologist catholics, that is considered a compromise.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yeah, just like federal tax money to PP doesn’t ‘pay’ for abortion.:rolleyes:
 
Sad to see so many catholics in support of an intristic evil like abortion.😦
 
seekerz said:
The government forces motorists to purchase vehicle insurance and car seats. Heck, parents can be jailed for not buying food for their kids and letting them starve! What’s the difference in saying you must pay for your health care coverage/your family’s coverage?
Click to expand...
These are state requirements. Not federal ones. I still think it bothersome that the states have mandates, but far less egregious than federal mandates. The reason for these mandates is not to force individuals to purchase certain coverage, but to force group coverage of certain benefits. For what reason would a single man need to purchase a plan that includes maternity coverage? Yet coverage mandates require insurance companies to provide such coverage.

I admit, I wasn’t clear in my reply to Jim, but it was within this context that I posted.
seekerz said:
Then why not just say the latter? We make such criticisms of people all the time. The question is phrased in the former manner only for Obama, in my mind, for a deliberate purpose. If I’m wrong then I would be happy for an alternate explanation of his unique treatment.
Click to expand...
It is not unique to Obama. Look at a whole host of posts by CMatt making the same argument as you with regard to Catholics. How often have you seen the slogan “You can’t be Catholic and pro-choice”? Also, it is difficult to convey emphasis in a written forum. I think people mean “He isn’t a Christian”, where Christian is said with some emphasis.
 
Suudy said:
When do the ends ever justify the means? This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The ends justify the means if the means are also moral and licit. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. If the means are evil, the ends are also therefore evil, regardless of how one tries to spin it. 🙂
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The ends justify the means if the means are also moral and licit. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. If the means are evil, the ends are also therefore evil, regardless of how one tries to spin it. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, that’s how they spin it. But saying “the ends justify the means” is putting the cart before the horse. The ends are only justified by the means, not the other way around.
 
bellasbane said:
Regarding the Blunt amendment - it was written to fail so that the GOP would be able to claim to support conscience rights without having to risk it might actually happen.
Click to expand...
I voted for Roy Blunt because he ran on the pro-life ticket. The reason the bill failed is because Democrats claimed the Republicans were trying to control women and to deny them their “reproductive rights.” There is no way you can get around this characterization of the bill by Democrats. First it was, "where are the women?’’ That has been debunked, so another gyration was invented.

Not surprising as you make the same gyrations defending Obama’s pro-abortion agenda. :rolleyes:
 
qui_est_ce said:
I voted for Roy Blunt because he ran on the pro-life ticket. The reason the bill failed is because Democrats claimed the Republicans were trying to control women and to deny them their “reproductive rights.” There is no way you can get around this characterization of the bill by Democrats. First it was, "where are the women?’’ That has been debunked, so another gyration was invented.

Not surprising as you make the same gyrations defending Obama’s pro-abortion agenda. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It really scares me what we are moving twoards as a country when it comes to the things that can be put under the umbrella of “reproductive rights”. Peter Singer’s ideas about infanticide come to mind for example.
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
It really scares me what we are moving twoards as a country when it comes to the things that can be put under the umbrella of “reproductive rights”. Peter Singer’s ideas about infanticide come to mind for example.
Click to expand...
Reproductive rights is a euphemism for pro-abortion.

Like all unsavory subjects, we have Newspeak to hide the reality of what is being discussed.
**But “partial-birth” is not a medical term. It’s a political one, and a highly confusing **one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.
Click to expand...
So to better understand the facts behind the controversy, we asked NPR health correspondent Julie Rovner to explain the origins of both the name and the procedure.
Click to expand...
Where does the term “partial-birth” abortion come from?
Click to expand...
The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced** medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as “dilation and extraction,” or D&X, and “intact D&E,” it involves removing the fetus intact** by dilating a pregnant woman’s cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.
Click to expand...
(bolded mine)

NPR

:confused:
 
qui_est_ce said:
Reproductive rights is a euphemism for pro-abortion.

Like all unsavory subjects, we have Newspeak to hide the reality of what is being discussed.

(bolded mine)

NPR

:confused:
Click to expand...
I am all for reproductive rights. I will fight to the death to ensure that women have the right to have as many babies as they want.

What they are fighting for is the right to kill the subject of their reproductive rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top