Trump Will Withhold $200 Million in Tax Dollars From California for Forcing Christians to Fund Abortions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually if you want to put it THAT way – there is. Women in America have that right.
Actually, the is no right in law. What there is is an absence of law. RvW struck down a law that limited access to abortion. No law has ever been passed that says, “women have a right to access to abortion.” If there were, it could be challenged in court, and possibly abolished. Abortion, like SSM, only exists in a legal vacuum.
 
48.png
qui_est_ce:
Actually if you want to put it THAT way – there is. Women in America have that right.
Actually, the is no right in law. What there is is an absence of law. RvW struck down a law that limited access to abortion. No law has ever been passed that says, “women have a right to access to abortion.” If there were, it could be challenged in court, and possibly abolished. Abortion, like SSM, only exists in a legal vacuum.
Quotes didn’t work. I fixed them.
 
It would be easy for CA to fix this: allow conscience exceptions.
This reminds me of a “solution” for rape… tell the victim to stop resisting and start to enjoy it. Medicaid provides a very large variety of services for the poor, who cannot afford them without government help. To prevent that on ANY pretext is unconscionable.
 
The maybe write a letter to the governor of CA.
The governor is innocent of this charade. The possible recipients of Medicaid help have no power. Trump is the one who deprives them of any and all services.
 
The governor is innocent of this charade. The possible recipients of Medicaid help have no power. Trump is the one who deprives them of any and all services.
How so? The federal government was in talks with CA and CA refused to budge. Is abortion so important to CA that they’re willing to let the poor go without medical care? All CA has to do is allow for conscience rights and Trump will give them the money. Instead CA is using the poor as pawns to force people to provide abortions.
 
The president has stated that the money cannot be used to pay for abortions. He has the authority to determine how the funds can be spent. The governor of CA has the option to split abortion services from medical services and fully use the federal money. He, the governor of CA, refuses to accept the money. That is on him, not on Trump.
 
By punishing those who have no control over the abortion laws.
This is akin to saying God sends people to hell. Or that God is intentionally causing the suffering of people.

No, the HHS department is not punishing CA or CA’s poor. Rather, CA is choosing a path detrimental to them. HHS isn’t punishing them, they are choosing hell for themselves.
 
Last edited:
How so? The federal government was in talks with CA and CA refused to budge. Is abortion so important to CA that they’re willing to let the poor go without medical care?
Sure… Let the blackmailed one submit to the blackmailer, and all the problems are solved. You mean, are the poor of no account, so punishing them is the “proper way” to go? By the way… it is not abortion which is important, it is the freedom to choose.
That is on him, not on Trump.
As I said… let’s exonerate the blackmailer, and blame the victims, who have NO POWER over the outcome.
 
False dichotomy.
No. The options are:
Women does not have an abortion. She may be inconvenienced, but the child lives.
Woman has an abortion. She is not inconvenienced but the child is killed.

I’ll agree that there are other options if the woman carries the child to term, e.g. she can keep the child, have it raised by the grandparents, or put the child up for adoption. The death of a child is the only possible outcome from an abortion.
 
By the way… it is not abortion which is important, it is the freedom to choose.
Which is being taken away from medical workers. They are not allowed to opt out of killing.
 
No. The options are:
Women does not have an abortion. She may be inconvenienced, but the child lives.
Woman has an abortion. She is not inconvenienced but the child is killed.

I’ll agree that there are other options if the woman carries the child to term, e.g. she can keep the child, have it raised by the grandparents, or put the child up for adoption. The death of a child is the only possible outcome from an abortion
Is the cut to California’s Medicaid funding the only disciplinary option that the Trump administration can take to address California’s abortion laws?
 
Is the cut to California’s Medicaid funding the only disciplinary option that the Trump administration can take to address California’s abortion laws?
I’m not sure. But sometimes a more server action is necessary to elicit a response. There are other ways to keep a kid from touching a hot stove other than slapping their hand away and sharply rebuking them. Perhaps this is what is needed to get CA to give up their relentless support for abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top