Suudy
Active member
So, why do you find the numbering so laughable?And study the good ol’ “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
So, why do you find the numbering so laughable?And study the good ol’ “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
This is not an apt analogy. It is the hands of of the poor being slappedBut 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.
Analogies are never exact. But they demonstrate a point. The only ones putting the poor at risk here are the CA leadership choosing the forcing abortion coverage on those who don’t want it over the care for the poor. If this at all seems like a reasonable choice, I don’t know what to tell you.This is not an apt analogy.
What point are you demonstrating here other then sacrificing the poor?Analogies are never exact. But they demonstrate a point. The only ones putting the poor at risk here are the CA leadership choosing the forcing abortion coverage on those who don’t want it over the care for the poor. If this at all seems like a reasonable choice, I don’t know what to tell you.
Did you read the complaint? Did you read the other posts where CA was on notice that the lack of conscience protections was a problem? Did you note that this investigation has been ongoing from prior to the election?Think about it, Trump is approaching the final month of his administration and he is going to sign some memorandum to halt funding? If you remember your civic class; that is the job of the Legislative branch. Besides, if possible - It would get turned over so quickly.
Who’s doing the sacrificing here? CA has a $4+ billion budget. If it wants to force abortion so badly it can pay for this itself.What point are you demonstrating here other then sacrificing the poor?
I don’t know. I didn’t even know about the Weldon amendment. Perhaps you have some options?Do you honestly don’t believe that there are no other strong measures the Trump administration to take other than targeting the poor?
Your view is plain cynical, he stopped funding for abortions on his first day in office taking action on the issue.This is just a political stunt…
Think about it, Trump is approaching the final month of his administration and he is going to sign some memorandum to halt funding? If you remember your civic class; that is the job of the Legislative branch. Besides, if possible - It would get turned over so quickly.
That is like saying that he is going to divert military funds in order to build a wall…we all know how well that worked. Even better, get Steve Bannon to organize a fund raiser.
Sadly, abortion should not be inclusive in any insurance plan and it should not be a directive onto those that have moral issues with its inclusion. I just hate to see polarization of the issue in the final days of the administration only for the apparent purpose to engage the minions.
Trump is sacrificing the poors federal funding for MedicaidWho’s doing the sacrificing here
I agree with you.If it wants to force abortion so badly it can pay for this itself
No, CA is sacrificing the poor at the altar of abortion. CA cares more about forcing Guadalupanas Sisters and Skyline Wesleyan Church to have abortion coverage than they care about the poor.Trump is sacrificing the poors federal funding for Medicaid
Ok. CA wants abortion coverage. Then pay for it out of its pocket if it doesn’t want to follow the rules set by Congress in the Weldon amendment.I agree with you.
No. Trump is sacrificing the poors access to medicaid in the middle of a pandemic.No, CA is sacrificing the poor at the altar of abortion.
That would be true if Trump did not re-instate the Mexico City Policy which will not allow money for overseas abortions. If he had done way with Title X funding for abortion clinics in US and if he had not taken away the UNFPA Funding for abortions but he has taken all this abortion funding away since 2016This is just a political stunt…
Think about it, Trump is approaching the final month of his administration and he is going to sign some memorandum to halt funding? If you remember your civic class; that is the job of the Legislative branch. Besides, if possible - It would get turned over so quickly.
That is like saying that he is going to divert military funds in order to build a wall…we all know how well that worked. Even better, get Steve Bannon to organize a fund raiser.
Sadly, abortion should not be inclusive in any insurance plan and it should not be a directive onto those that have moral issues with its inclusion. I just hate to see polarization of the issue in the final days of the administration only for the apparent purpose to engage the minions.
Since 2017, Trump has defunded the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) of tens of millions of U.S. tax dollars because it pushes abortions on other countries and has worked with China for decades to implement its oppressive population control policies. Under the pro-abortion Obama administration, U.S. taxpayers gave more than $300 million to UNFPA.
Under previous Republican administrations, the restrictions in the Mexico City Policy applied specifically to US family planning funds, approximately US$575 million .
Trump’s policy extends restrictions to an estimated $8.8 billion in US global health assistance
Under this rule, that group must now choose between losing its US funding—slashing its operating budget in half—or restricting or cutting its reproductive health programs
Indeed. It seems to me you either a) value access to medical care for the poor over access to medical care for the poor or b) you value access to abortion over access to medical care for the poor. Either one is unacceptable to me.We are going around in circles here
I don’t understand what you are saying herea) value access to medical care for the poor over access to medical care for the poor or
I do not value abortion, I find it abhorrent.you value access to abortion over access to medical care for the poor
Typo. What I meant was:I don’t understand what you are saying here
The fact that you view this as an attack by Trump on the poor rather than an attack on the abortion regime in CA shows a difference in perspective.I find Trump’s attack on the poor to be abhorrent.
In this case you can have only one of the choices. Which to do you find more abhorrent?My faith compels me to do both. Abhor abortion, defend the poor
The point is that there is no agreement about the Decalogue. Not just the numbering.
False dichotomy. I find Trump’s attack on the poor to be abhorrent(Especially since I do not believe that this is the only strong arm measure Trump can come up with).In this case you can have only one of the choices. Which to do you find more abhorrent?
How so? You haven’t offered any alternative to getting CA to dump the abortion mandate. HHS reviewed the legal means at its disposal used use the Weldon amendment. CA has a choice: fund Medicaid with its own budget and keep the abortion mandate, or drop the abortion mandate and continue to receive federal funds.False dichotomy.
He’ll do better than . . . Trump. . . . That’s for sure.(Let’s hope he can let go of sniffing peoples’ hair long enough to get his agenda on the road, though.)