Pro-Life Groups Must End Abortion Health Care Propaganda
Washington, DC - The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice calls on the Family Research Council and other leaders of the pro-life movement to shut down the inflammatory "stoptheabortionmandate" website and end their massive misinformation campaign alleging that health care reform would cover abortion. The prominent politicians and activists who have put their names and reputations behind this campaign are misleading their constituents.The Family Research Council and its allies in this campaign have consistently and repeatedly twisted the truth to promote their agenda and bring down health care reform. Because abortion is a critical component of women's reproductive health care, it should be included in a health care package. But the fact is that there is no "mandate." The current House version of the health care bill would create a panel that would weigh what procedures might be covered - an approach that the Obama administration has said is the best way to determine what procedures to cover.
Using the abortion issue to provoke opposition to health care changes is manipulative and wrong. We applaud the organization Catholics United for condemning this ploy in its statement yesterday (July 30).
Honest people can and do have profound disagreements about when and whether abortion should be permissible. But this issue should not be used to manipulate public opinion on health care reform. Leaders of public opinion have a responsibility to engage in honest discourse and to respect diverse views. In this case, that can best be achieved by shutting down this website and pulling the Family Research Council television ads set to run in five states and any other public media that distorts the facts.
Pro-Life Groups Must End Abortion Health Care Propaganda
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Come on now
Who do you think your kidding.Why would any one want Obama care?
And who do you think Obama will pick to be on the panel that would weigh what procedures might be covered?
- countryboy
August 4, 2009 5:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exactly.
We all know that it is a Liberal goal to provide gov't healthcare and abortion to all.**
Why don't opponents of abortion just make it impossible for the gov't healthcare business to cover elective abortions?
They did. But it was removed from the Act. The Capp's Amendment did exactly that: It prohibited elective abortions from being allowed by the commitee that is going to be formed to decide which procedures will be paid for by taxpayers. Rep. L. Capps, a female Democrat, (According to Reproductive Health reality Check) introduces the amendment. It passed, narrowly. Then, in an odd procedure, the commitee voted on it again, and it failed. One Rep. from Tenn. changed their vote.
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
— Robert A. Heinlein
**Provide actually means that they will tax others to pay for your abortion even of the others, in this case, strongly oppose the act of abortion except in the rare cases of rape, incest or serious medical need.
- SolarSanitizer
August 4, 2009 6:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah, what?
And how do you suppose we only tax people for everyone wants to pay?
Why don't you just think of it like this: the military is paid for with your half of the taxes and the healthcare will be covered with our half. Coal subsidies, your half, green energy , our half. Locking up druggies, your half, locking up terrorists in max security prisons on American soil, our half.
You see, you can oppose abortion all you want but the courts recognize access to abortion as a woman's right and those who need cheap insurance are the same ones that can't afford to pay for abortions out-of-pocket.
Further, why complain when you are one of the ones that thinks it's acceptable in some circumstances? How can you accept that it may be necessary in dire circumstances, but the insurance plan that will likely cover those with the least to spare must not cover it. Seriously, you are advocating that only those with deep enough pockets should have access to an insurance covered abortion.
Or is this like some libertarian slant that forces you to think that anything controversial shouldn't be paid for, or even remotely endorsed, by any government agency... Even though you admit that it is necessary in some cases. Are you forced to think that because taxing for things that some taxpayers object to is somehow equivalant to tyranny, which is worse than a few forced bastard child births and dead expectant mothers?
Do you also realize that most pro-lifers in DC have no intention of accepting anything less than the outright ban of any abortions, regardless of the circumstances. They rebuke situational ethics on all accounts. Such is the poison of religion though.
- Rice klowN
August 5, 2009 1:22PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply, pt1
"And how do you suppose we only tax people for everyone wants to pay?"
Could you clarify this question?
"Why don't you just think of it like this: the military is paid for with your half of the taxes and the healthcare will be covered with our half. Coal subsidies, your half, green energy , our half. Locking up druggies, your half, locking up terrorists in max security prisons on American soil, our half."
Reason 1: Because I am not a childlike simpleton.
Reason 2: Because America is not split 50%-50%, halves do not really apply. (Until the partisan bickering finally cleaves this nation into two warring factions... In which case, I'll gladly take the military and leave you with your healthcare. eheheh ).
Reason 3: Because I Don't like the idea of paying for Coal subsidies, or locking up druggies.
Reason 4: I can't think of a reason 4.
"You see, you can oppose abortion all you want but..."
You get it. I can oppose it because it is my opinion. This doesn't mean I can run out and change it. I can vote for the Representatives whom most closely match my views, though. And argue with MrBook.
"...the courts recognize access to abortion as a woman's right..."
They also recognized the white plantation owner's "right" to own black men. Even had property laws concerning black slaves. The court recognizing something does not make it any less awful.
"...and those who need cheap insurance are the same ones that can't afford to pay for abortions out-of-pocket."
I am sure you are correct, from your point of view. However, if this is about Obama's health insurance plan, what makes you think it will be cheaper when 44 million people are added, increasing demand while lowering supply (not to mention the fact that it will be a gov't entity in the Dept. of HHS)? The last time the Gov't was able to do ANYTHING on time/under budget was the construction of the Hoover Dam in 1936. Precedent is against the entire idea. Even if MSNBC says we need it.
"Further, why complain when you are one of the ones that thinks it's acceptable in some circumstances?"
Because I am not a cookie-cutter Wingnut (R) in the Bible-belt who thinks that a human egg cell, three minutes fertilized, is viable life. Therefore I oppose late-term abortion. Furthermore, I wholly disagree with the entire premise that abortion as a form of birth control is nothing less than whimsically taking of an obviously human life. It is a form of personal irresponsibility which very well may be a tough choice for the mother, but is a calamitous betrayal to the child who is killed in the process.
- SolarSanitizer
August 6, 2009 3:56AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
United we stand reply has reason for delay, sorry
"Could you clarify this question?"
Sorry, should've read: And how do you suppose we only tax people for programs that everyone wants to pay for?
Reasons: While that paragraph was sarcastic, as with all good political comedy, it makes a point and your reason 2 was the point. You should've kept thinking, I'm sure you could have thought of something ;)
"The court recognizing something does not make it any less awful."
No, but fortunately the court can make the outcome of what can't be stopped into something much safer and more ethically bound, like it did with abortion . Abortion prohibition, or restricted access, causes far more awful outcomes than legally sanctioned abortion. Dirty Dancing did influence me as I was growing up, I never cared for the movie itself but the story's ethical subtext was powerful and I haven't forgotten the foundation of my pro-choice views: if it must be done, it should be handled by ethically bound, and board certified doctors , not back alley hacks with no accountability to his patient or the law .
"if this is about Obama's health insurance plan, what makes you think it will be cheaper when 44 million people are added"
Simple: communism ;)
You see, insurance works by getting everyone to pay into one coffer so that everyone's overall costs are cheaper, and larger patient pools can bargain for cheaper prices. Since a large portion (larger percent than insured, but still less than half) of the uninsured are healthy folks under 30, who tend to opt out of buying expensive insurance due to expected good health , getting them all onboard makes the premiums cheaper for everyone and lowers the chances of catastrophic illnesses since a lot of people are now able to get checkups and fix problems earlier. Like I said, insurance is communism, so it works better when everyone is onboard, regardless of if it's a private for-profit company or a single payer government insurance plan.
"increasing demand while lowering supply"
I'm not aware of anything that would decrease supply. Can you elaborate?
"not to mention the fact that it will be a gov't entity in the Dept. of HHS"
HHS seems to do an alright job of running the current systems under their control. I don't see your point.
"The last time the Gov't was able to do ANYTHING on time/under budget was the construction of the Hoover Dam in 1936. Precedent is against the entire idea. Even if MSNBC says we need it."
That is entirely irrelevant to health care and this conversation. Getting construction projects done on time and under budget is not comparable to how one runs an insurance regime or national policy. Medicare is still running 44 years later, is it late for something? Has it ran over budget? The health care industry is like education , it's a service, not a project and therefore will typically soak up every penny and ask for more. It's bang for the buck you must look at, not keeping within budgets. With health care you have to budget annually what the health care costs will likely be for the next year, and it's all an educated guess by economists and industry analysts.
"Therefore I oppose late-term abortion"
Opposing late term abortions is an uneducated, emotional response. Simply because the pregnancy has lasted over 26 weeks, does not mean that all reasons for abortion are out the window. Late term abortions are restricted under state laws and are only legal in situations that are dire or otherwise ethically permissable. Out of 1.2 million abortions, only a couple hundred at most are "late-term" abortions, and all are allowed only in order to reduce suffering, like serious deformations (i.e missing part of the brain, not kidding), complications that result in still-borns, or illnesses that will likely result in a painful few weeks of life before an agonizing death. None of it is pretty or desireable, but that's life and we can't just ignore reality and/or stick our head in the sand about it, which is exactly what you have to do to oppose late term but not first trimester abortion.
Believe it or not, doctors don't like the idea of murder anymore than we do. They recognize the difference between murdering a viable baby, and putting a late term, failed fetus out of it's misery.
"It is a form of personal irresponsibility which very well may be a tough choice for the mother, but is a calamitous betrayal to the child who is killed in the process"
Your reasoning is debatable, but valid. However, even if you like your arm, if you get gangrene, you should cut it off. This is secondary in this context because you and I may have very similar thoughts on prevention of unwanted pregancy, but after the fact is not the time to harp about personal resonsibility.
- Rice klowN
August 9, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply, pt2
And because if I were aborted as if I were an inconvenience, I would not be here, sharing ideas back and forth with reasonable people like you.
"Seriously, you are advocating that only those with deep enough pockets should have access to an insurance covered abortion ."
This assumes that I like or agree that insurance, and the healthcare it insures, should be so expensive. I do not. I think that if capitalism were allowed to regulate the market without government subsidy, the prices would come down to a price the market would bear, just like every other industry that is not propped up by the government. It is 100% the fault of gov't subsidy that the prices can increase and balloon as they do. But our deal leader wants to fight this fire with kerosene, and those who think they'll save-a-buck are all for it.
"Or is this like some libertarian slant that forces you to think that anything controversial shouldn't be paid for..."
No.
"...Even though you admit that it is necessary in some cases..."
I think that it is a necessary evil, but the physical, mental, emotional health of a mother outweighs the life of one child. She, if allowed to not become a frigid man-hating basketcase due to being forced to bring to term her father's or brother's or rapist's child (which, naturally, might not be loved wholeheartedly) or die or lose her reproductive organs could very well be a far better and more loving mother to future children . Please read that sentence twice, I think I borked it.
"Are you forced to think that because taxing for things that some taxpayers object to is somehow equivalent to tyranny, which is worse than a few forced bastard child births and dead expectant mothers?"
No.
"Do you also realize that most pro-lifers in DC have no intention of accepting anything less than the outright ban of any abortions, regardless of the circumstances. They rebuke situational ethics on all accounts. Such is the poison of religion though."
Sure. I realize this and I think that the opposite side of that wingnut is the person who thinks abortion is like an expensive condom that the gov't should pay for. From what I understand, some highly religious opponents to abortion don't believe in any form of birth control. Each side of the debate has their own extremists. I am not one, and I don't think you are either.
However, it should be noted that not all 'pro-lifers' are religious and not all religious people are somehow poisoned by faith in a loving God. Some people just don't see aborting an otherwise perfect pregnancy as a responsible form of birth-control.
- SolarSanitizer
August 6, 2009 3:58AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Untied we stand reply has explaination for delay, sorry
"aborted as if I were an inconvenience"
Then you wouldn't have formed the opinion that you cared about life either.
"In nature, their are no rewards or punishments, there is only consequence." - Robert Ingersoll (not an exactly accurate quote, but close enough for me not to look it up.
"It is 100% the fault of gov't subsidy that the prices can increase and balloon as they do"
100%? That's debatable. I think the American people would be much more concerned about health care costs if they could see how much it costs. However, while that may be reason to say that it would be cheaper if everyone paid out of pocket and could see the costs, that does not solve the problem of getting everyone cared for. It would be good for the per-person price, but it would also require, or lead to, eliminating things that keep otherwise disadvantaged people alive like the emergency room mandate/subsidy and Medicare.
But more importantly, government involvement as a concept is not what drives up costs and thats proven empircally by almost all of Europe. What I believe to be the problem is trying to allow a private capitalist based industry to operate while trying to get the most people cared for by using subsidies and mandates, while simultaneously not properly regulating the industry. Where we differ is in solving the problem. Your approach is flawed, from my perspective, in that it's devotion to capitalism and free markets leads it to leave millions uncared for. I look at non-American systems that are not ideologically married to making a profit and see that if you eliminate the private primary-insurance industry, you can get universal coverage to everyone, improve the health of the people and lower costs overall, all while still letting people choose their doctors at will. For right now though, the option we are getting will compete against private companies and make sure they aren't artificially raising costs or screwing people over in other ways.
"those who think they'll save-a-buck are all for it."
Save a buck huh? You mean cause it will be cheaper? Or were you referring to the 6 out 10 bankrupted families that would have been able to "save-a-buck"?
How about a little reality: we who don't think a life should be valued based on it's current income , are all for it!
Universal health care has been apart of the democratic agenda since FDR... That was before the employer mandate and way before medical costs were bankrupting people. It's patently absurd to keep claiming different motives for your opponent based on where you are in the conversation.
"[borked paragraph]" (had to read it more than twice! Lol)
If I understand this correctly, the logical outcome of this train of thought (which I agree with) is to support abortion coverage for the public option .
"[last two paragraphs]"
Yes, we are of the more sensible minds on our sides if the isle but I have not met anyone who thinks abortion is expensive birth control. However, the public option is an insurance option, and therefore shouldn't refuse to cover what private companies can and do cover, simply because the politics of the moment have half of the country opposing something perfectly legal that the other half wants.
I think what the problem here is that you're simply opposed to the government option and can't bring yourself to apply your own ethcal opinions to apply to something that will happen anyways.
How about this: Suppose for a minute that Congress passed single payer for all. If the government option was the only option and supplied insurance to all 315 million Americans, should it cover abortion services?
If not, you are deciding to force unwanted pregnancies on teenagers and the poor. Which will also force people underground, again, and cause more unwanted deaths . If yes, then you have no reason to oppose coverage for the public option.
"Some people just don't see aborting an otherwise perfect pregnancy as a responsible form of birth-control."
I repeat for the end: after the fact moralizing is not a solution and does not stand as an arguement against covering abortion.
- Rice klowN
August 9, 2009 12:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I almost forgot
So far, this is actually the best way to make sure tax revenue doesn't pay for abortions but you don't completely screw over those that need this coverage.
The reason this is still opposed is because the FRC and other like them have no intention of negotiation.
When your minority political enemy won't budge, you work with those who will, and those who will seem to support or accept that a women has the right. Those who don't deal, deal themselves out.
Furthermore, if paying for abortion out of premiums is still considered government subsidy because we help fund it in some way, then join me in calling for the defunding of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives because all the religious charities are being funded by tax dollars, so we are indirectly paying for churches and services which is a clear violation. Basically we should stop funding, or otherwise "subsidizing", ALL social organizations like charities, Boy Scouts of America, Planned Parenthood, etc etc because I can find someone that doesn't want taxpayer dollars to be associated with those organizations.
- Rice klowN
August 5, 2009 1:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
United we stand.
"So far, this is actually the best way to make sure tax revenue doesn't pay for abortions but you don't completely screw over those that need this coverage."
The reason this is still opposed is because the FRC and other like them have no intention of negotiation.
What is the best way? Who is FRC?
"When your minority political enemy won't budge, you work with those who will, and those who will seem to support or accept that a women has the right. Those who don't deal, deal themselves out."
Well, those people are trying to get elected again. That is all they do: Try to get re-elected. There is a systematic dismantlement of our nation's core values in progress. It has many guises, but the effect is the same. Do you think, do you really think that this nation, by turning its face away from tradition and culture, is becoming stronger? I can cite any of a thousand, a hundred-thousand reports of our society dissolving and devolving. Our food is not wholesome, our air and water are not wholesome, our young men and women are not wholesome. Very lately, even our public/political discourse is becoming unwholesome. We blame, we shout down, we guilt, we stifle opposition and ridicule opposing viewpoints. We have elected our leaders with such slim majorities that they would be tied were it for a 2.5% margin of error. This means we are a nation divided.
Nothing good can come from these evident truths.
"Furthermore, if paying for abortion out of premiums is still considered government subsidy because we help fund it in some way, then join me in calling for the defunding of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives because all the religious charities are being funded by tax dollars, so we are indirectly paying for churches and services which is a clear violation."
Do the churches receiving the funds promote elective abortions or are you seeing a church /state separation angle to exploit here?
"Basically we should stop funding, or otherwise "subsidizing", ALL social organizations like charities, Boy Scouts of America, Planned Parenthood, etc etc because I can find someone that doesn't want taxpayer dollars to be associated with those organizations."
Absolutely!
If I were a gay man, I would be furious that so much as a nickle I earned goes to the BSA. As a heterosexual man, and a father, I am furious that so much as a nickle goes to Planned Parenthood. It is not just the benign idea "taxpayer dollars". It is the line of our tax forms which show us, down to the cent, how much we are paying. It is personal, not some ethereal concept.
As an aside, these are not exactly equal examples. While both claim to be 501 (c)(3)s, Planned Parenthood refuses to comply with Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability. There is no way for regular citizens to know where they get their money , and as a consequence, they seem to be a rather shady "charity". The opposite is true with regards to the BSA. They are an open book. You can verify this yourself in about a minute by looking at both of their headquarters' listings at the Better Business Bureau (BBB.com).
- SolarSanitizer
August 6, 2009 4:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I hope I got this right
I typed this out on Friday and forgot to post it, I hope I covered everything, sorry Solar. Same goes for the two above also.
United response
"What is the best way? Who is FRC?"
The best way is for the public option to cover abortion , but use the funds generated off of premiums instead of taxes . This satisfies Hyde and ensures that millions of women are not denied this last resort option.
FRC: Family Research Council (see first paragraph in the article)
"That is all they do: Try to get re-elected."
Sad isn't it.
"Do you think, do you really think that this nation, by turning its face away from tradition and culture, is becoming stronger?"
Depends on the change. Yes, single payer would make America stronger.
Tradition is a lousy excuse to oppose new ideas. Progress is built on new ideas and rethinking "tradition", so yes, I think that turning away from old ideas and ideology (tradition and culture) can make the nation stronger if the new ideas are better. I would gladly take a European aproach to something if it improves the lives of Americans and works better than what we got.
Its pure nonsense to think that because America is great, everything we do is the best way.
"There is a systematic dismantlement of our nation's core values in progress."
Profit motive is not a value, it's just greed.
"Do the churches receiving the funds promote elective abortions or are you seeing a church /state separation angle to exploit here?"
The term "wall of separation" was coined by Jefferson, in a letter to a church group, explaining why the government should not use the church as it's charity arm. Yes, church/state angle here.
"Nothing good can come from these evident truths."
You sound like just a moralizing preacher warning of the collapse of civilization. Funny, but I have nothing to say other than: I'm sorry that people are allowed to do things you don't want them to, but that doesn't equal the dissolving of our society , and considering we are getting more liberal as the decades move on, I'd sy that society is evolving. As for the bad food , stuff to work on but still not going to destroy society.
My complaint with BSA is that they are a Christian organization that discriminates against non-believers and gays and is subsidized by the government.
"As a heterosexual man, and a father, I am furious that so much as a nickle goes to Planned Parenthood."
Only 3% of their resources go to abortion services. As a father you should be happy that we are funding an organization that works to reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies and that is their primary goal... But you can't see past that 3% of their business that offers those "necessary evil[s]", can you?
As for the disclosure issues, I'm sorry but their funding sources would be under mortal threat if they revealed them. Think of the secrecy as a "necessary evil". I don't know if this is technically according to the rules, but definitely ethically justifyable in this climate. Dr. Tiller anyone?
I'm totally confused, you state openly that you understand the need for abortion and yet you sound like one of those typical pro-lifers that hates everything and everyone that is involved with abortion. It's not intellectually consistent.
- Rice klowN
August 9, 2009 12:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Welcome back; no wonder you're confused.
"I typed this out on Friday and forgot to post it, I hope I covered everything, sorry Solar. Same goes for the two above also.
United response
"What is the best way? Who is FRC?"
The best way is for the public option to cover abortion , but use the funds generated off of premiums instead of taxes . This satisfies Hyde and ensures that millions of women are not denied this last resort option.
FRC: Family Research Council (see first paragraph in the article)"
Thanks.
"Depends on the change. Yes, single payer would make America stronger.
Tradition is a lousy excuse to oppose new ideas. Progress is built on new ideas and rethinking "tradition", so yes, I think that turning away from old ideas and ideology (tradition and culture) can make the nation stronger if the new ideas are better. I would gladly take a European approach to something if it improves the lives of Americans and works better than what we got."
Tradition, by itself, would be a lousy argument against change, but the benefits of the tradition are more tangible than the tradition itself.
Take marriage , for example. If a progressive proposed doing away with marriage, the benefits of this tradition, when described, would end the argument.
"Its pure nonsense to think that because America is great, everything we do is the best way."
It is also pure nonsense to think that just because you feel Planned Parenthood is great, theat everything they do is great.
(I know you didn't say this, but I also did not say that about America.)
"Profit motive is not a value, it's just greed."
When I say "systematic", I am not talking about only one value. When I say "value" I am not talking about what others would call a "capital sin" or something like that. Come on, you are smarter than this.
Does wanting profit this make Obama greedy for selling his books? Or planned Parenthood greedy for profiting from Abortion services? Or is it only greed when 'evil big business does it' or other such populist drivel?
"You sound like just a moralizing preacher warning of the collapse of civilization."
That does not make me one, but I noticed that once you so labeled me, you started treating me as if I were a breathless preacher. I resent that prejudice.
"My complaint with BSA is that they are a Christian organization that discriminates against non-believers and gays and is subsidized by the government."
Wouldn't it make more sense to take issue with the fact that it is subsidized instead what the private group does? Where your tax dollars go, since you are the government, should be your choice. What BSA does or does not do, isn't.
Just like what Planned Parenthood does isn't my choice, but if I disagree with paying them, I should have the right to voice (or vote ) my disagreement.
Only 3% of their resources go to abortion services. As a father you should be happy that we are funding an organization that works to reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies and that is their primary goal... But you can't see past that 3% of their business that offers those "necessary evil[s]", can you?"
How do I know that it is only 3%?
"As for the disclosure issues, I'm sorry but their funding sources would be under mortal threat if they revealed them. Think of the secrecy as a "necessary evil". I don't know if this is technically according to the rules, but definitely ethically justifiable in this climate."
If you followed my links, you'd see that this whole "must be a secret, for safety" argument is a canard.
The report I mentioned, the one P.P. refused to provide, is not specific enough to endanger anyone.
"Dr. Tiller anyone?"
Dr. Tiller was killed by a psychopath. Violence will never solve the abortion debate . Ever. Sadly, that death was, and still is, being capitalized on by your side of the argument. You are too smart to need to rely of such drama.
"I'm totally confused, you state openly that you understand the need for abortion and yet you sound like one of those typical pro-lifers that hates everything and everyone that is involved with abortion. It's not intellectually consistent."
I do not hate anything. I disagree with abortion as birth control. I speak out against businesses profiting from abortion as a form of birth control. You judged me as a moralizing preacher. Now you see everything I say through that lens.
Have I once said that abortion is a sin? Or did I, instead, say abortion is sometimes warranted.
No wonder you are confused.
- SolarSanitizer
August 10, 2009 1:00AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Obama care"?
What do you mean who would want it? According to the CBO, 20 million people that's who. But on what grounds do you even say that? The final legislation has not been written yet and we have no idea what it will entail exactly so why do you think everyone will hate it already... As if that's a given.
As for the panel, what makes you think he is going to be choosing them? And even if he handpicks them, I doubt our centrist democrat president is going to create some far left panel and also, such is the price of elections . We suffered under Bush for a while, get over it.
- Rice klowN
August 5, 2009 2:04PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
your words are patently un-American
That you would prescribe a move to communism is un-American.
That you would attempt to validate your move to more socialism using the argument that a certain degree of socialism already exists could be likened to saying we should expand the death penalty to cover non-violent crime because hey we already use it for violent criminals.
And finally back to the point of this whole thread, that RCPC would cry out to strip another groups 1st Amendment rights because they don't share their opinions is blatently un-American.
- jaker277
August 13, 2009 7:17AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Un-American? That's rich!
I never called for communism. I never said that we should have more socialism because we have some already. My comments and what I support are progressive liberal ideas, and are very American... Just not the conservative American ideas you have.
You sound like Glenn Beck. You use my support for government run healthcare and claim it's like supporting the expansion of the death penalty ?! How ridiculous. You know, sometimes it's better to make valid comparisons as people tend to keep listening.
The RCPC is asking the opposition to stop lying, not trying to strip them of rights. If that's "un-American" to you, I'm afraid of learning more about what you demand Americans to think.
But thanks for wasting my time. And by the way, I'm all for socialism that works better than capitalism... Like single payer health care . Your problem is that you have been indictrinated by the rich to think that capitalism is the only way Americans should ever do anything. You just hear that socialism was practiced by "those commies" and that means it evil. Stupid tribalist.
- Rice klowN
August 13, 2009 9:02AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you even did it with a wink
To call your ideas progressive is absurd. And that you would deny being a socialist at the outset and affirm it at the end makes you absurd. That you are unable to understand a parallel argument, well maybe I need to speak in simpler terms for the lower intellects around.
This nation is capitalist. That is how we got where we are. If you would like to live in a socialist country then leave. Fortunately the majority of Americans side with me. But your liberal goons in DC would like to cram these anti-American ideals down our throats and then attempt to squash debate by calling us radical or extremist.
Sorry, but the cure fore too much government is not more government. My problem is only that I have been studying the problem for 20 years and know quite a bit about the real forces at work here. - think your the one with problems here in America because you would force your agenda on people who don't want or need it.
Anyways, back to the real issue the RCPC. Is calling for them to shut down their site but their views and statements have not been discredited. Sounds like a call to squash opposition, not for open debate.
- jaker277
August 13, 2009 10:07AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am very PRO-American and I believe in our social democracy
"To call your ideas progressive is absurd."
My ideas are relatively in line with most progressives in this country, so I don't know what your problem with that is.
"And that you would deny being a socialist at the outset and affirm it at the end makes you absurd."
Outset: "I never said that we should have more socialism >because
"This nation is capitalist. That is how we got where we are."
Oh! There's that lemming! Tradition or past successes is not a good reason to change things or keep them the same. Slavery was how this nation was built... Wanna bring that back? Social Security is the reason the elderly can afford to keep their own places, wanna get rid of that nasty ol' socialist program?
"If you would like to live in a socialist country then leave."
Um if you're looking for a capitalist utopia, I don't know where to tell you to search, but I already live in the social democracy that I want to live in. Maybe you wish America was something that it's not... If you don't want anything that could possibly be called a "socialist" policy in your country, I suggest *you* leave. Otherwise, accept reality and realize that liberals make up half of the population of these United States!
I'm believe in Social Democracy, thats what we have (much of it atleast), thats what every "western industrialized" nation has, look it up.
"Fortunately the majority of Americans side with me."
Not according to the polls or last November's election results.
"But your liberal goons in DC"
It's about time someone gave me credit for sending them there! Thank you!
"would like to cram these anti-American ideals down our throats"
Ths reason you are so offended by this is that you are indoctrinated into believing that liberal ideals are equal to "anti-American" ideals. There will always be liberals buddy and I suggest that if you want reasoned dialogue you need to stop calling our ideals "anti-American"!
"then attempt to squash debate by calling us radical or extremist."
Liar! Liberals are trying to debate, "conservative goons" won't stop yelling and screaming long enough to talk about it. Conservatives are not called radical or extremist, it's the radicals and extremists that are labeled that way. You guys flip out every time a conservative is rightly labeled as radical or extremist: you see it as a personal attack on conservativism and get all puffy about it. Hint: it's not always about you!
"Sorry, but the cure fore too much government is not more government."
I don't think "too much government" is the problem, I see a problem with unfettered capitalism running the health care system, and so do most other Progressives!
"My problem is only that I have been studying the problem for 20 years and know quite a bit about the real forces at work here"
Pretty sad to spend 20 years and not once study a modern European health care system. I call bluff and say you are puffing up... Or you just don't give a crap about other people's health .
"you would force your agenda on people who don't want or need it."
No, but I would force everyone who can afford it to contribute to the medical health of the entire citizenry and provide it to any legal resident or citizen of the country! Just like every other modern industrialized country on the planet!
"Anyways, back to the real issue the RCPC. Is calling for them to shut down their site but their views and statements have not been discredited. Sounds like a call to squash opposition, not for open debate."
Yes they have been discredited! They are lies that claim that no matter what happens, and no matter what any legislation that passes actually says, if it doesn't explicity ban abortion coverage it is actually a mandate that will force everyone to perform abortions or find another job. That is a lie, they now it, and now Catholics United and RCPC have now called them out on it. What RCPC is asking for is for them to stop lying about this because it's obvious they are just trying to scare people into opposing reform!
Have you read the site? It literally debunks it's own claims and then tries to explain why that doesn't really debunk their claims. It's totally playing to the ignorant who have no idea how legislation or the law works, and if you have half a brain, you'd see it too!
- Rice klowN
August 13, 2009 3:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Strange.
My full reply to the second quote was this:
"And that you would deny being a socialist at the outset and affirm it at the end makes you absurd."
Outset: "I never said that we should have more socialism **because** we have some already."
The end: "And by the way, I'm all for socialism that works better than capitalism... Like single payer health care ."
Either you misunderstood me, or you were too eager to catch me contradicting myself that you don't understand what I said. As you can see, I was rebuffing the accusation that I was using the simple fact that we have existing "socialism" to make the case for more "socialism." Lemming arguments are not sound reasoning, as the only argument for bringing in more of something is the merits themselves of the new law or social action, not the lemming argument. But I don't know if you know that because I'll be getting to your Lemming argument in a moment.
-
-
I don't know why that isn't in the original. Failure of copy and paste I guess bur I changed the characters around "because" just to make sure
- Rice klowN
August 13, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RCRC distorts and manipulates truths
The pro-life community wants an explicit declaration in health care reform or any government insurance policy that taxpayer dollars would not be used to pay for abortions. The Hyde Amendment already says as much but radical abortion supporters want to undo that. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions. Unless there is a specific mandate against abortion, we will be forced to pay for or participate in it against our will.
Abortion is NOT a critical component of reproductive health care . 99% of the time it is an elective procedure. 97% of the time it is because of contraceptive failure and a baby is deemed inconvenient (a lifestyle choice). 64% of the time mothers feel coerced to abort (Elliott Institute). Surgery to save the mother's life as in removal of a ruptured fallopian tube is not primarily abortive.
I never had or will ever have an abortion, but I still have excellent reproductive health care - prenatal care, pap smears, breast and pelvic exams, etc. Women get along just fine without abortion, so stop dressing up baby killing as health care and shoving it down our throats.
Catholics United is just a front organization for some abortion supporters. It is not Catholic whatsoever because the Catholic Church affirms the sanctity and dignity of all human life from conception to natural death. Innocent preborn babies deserve protection not death by dismemberment or toxic chemicals . Catholics are for health care coverage for all people born and preborn alike but not the type that kills.
- Mojoanne
August 5, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
100 Million Dollar Catholic Bishops
Give us a break. How many don't know by now that A. "Come on Now" has interpreted the bill properly and B. the Catholics United took the 100 million "after" agreeing with Obama-ites.
- djkins
August 18, 2009 5:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.