Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
EXERCISING YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT
#41
[Image: 58863f342900002800dd1374.jpeg?cache=rkrpwlrz7v]
^ Trump and a bunch of other men restricting women's rights, from Day 2 of his presidency. '(

Trump used to claim that he was 'very pro-choice'. Then, he said he'd changed his stance and that he was pro-life, though he also praised the excellent health care provided by Planned Parenthood.

Next.......... he solicited/negotiated the campaign support of evangelical Christians (which was essential to his election victory) and he named extreme evangelical Mike Pence as his VP. After which........... Trump swung all the way to the other end of the spectrum and said anti-abortion mindset would be a criteria for the next Supreme Court Justice. Very disappointing.

And so, as one of his first actions as President, Trump just signed an executive order designed to limit women's access to legal professional abortion procedures. The order prevents the government from funding any organizations which include abortion as one the options for women and couples to consider during family planning consultations. The order also prohibits funding to any health organizations that offer abortion services (even though the abortion procedures are legal, private-pay and not funded by the government anyway).
Reply
#42
This sucks for those of us who believe that women's rights to control their own reproduction choices should be respected. It's religious and moral majority driven bullshit; very disappointing for those of us who believe strongly that women's rights to control their own reproduction choices should be respected.

But, it's encouraging to see millions of people around the world standing together to protest those rights being threatened and restricted. I went to the women's march at the Civic Center for a bit on Saturday. Duchess is right -- people were there for a lot more than protecting abortion rights, but that was definitely a key issue for many of us. And, there were a lot of men and young people among the demonstrators, which was cool.

I'm supportive of Trump's executive efforts to cut regulatory fat, expand business, and ensure trade agreements are more fair and beneficial to the U.S. But, I totally oppose what he did just did to restrict women's rights. Republicans really need to keep their minds and hands off women's pussies and out of people's bedrooms, but they just can't help themselves. Sad!
Reply
#43
(01-23-2017, 04:27 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Republicans really need to keep their minds and hands off women's pussies and out of people's bedrooms, but they just can't help themselves. Sad!


They are busybodies. It's a trait among them. I see it all over the place not just inside the Beltway.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#44
Morning after pill, it's 50 bucks a pop so you won't make the mistake too often. Otherwise you'll still be able to find an abortion provider. There are legitimate providers here that aren't affiliated with pp or government funded.
Reply
#45
Just because you can find some providers in your area of Florida, does not by a long shot mean the same is true across the country and globe. That assumption that you insist is true is, in fact, false. It sounds like you're just trying to rationalize your minimization of the impact on women, sal.

Also, any public health providers or clinics that would get funding for women's health and family planning if PP is forced out of business would be prohibited by executive order from even bringing up abortion as an option for consideration, much less offering referrals to reputable abortion doctors. Those providers are now only allowed to advise women/couples on adoption or finding a way to keep/raise the baby in cases of unwanted pregnancies.

And, some women (like you, in fact) have every reason to believe that they can no longer have children or their partners consistently use protection, but they still get pregnant unexpectedly and don't know until it's too late for a next-day over-the-counter abortion pill.

Later abortion pills require medical intervention. So women who still had the option to use one of them could be restricted from that option if their health provider is a non-profit or a county/government health provider receiving federal funding (just because you're not in that category, doesn't mean that millions of other women and families are not dependent on such providers).

It's a significant, far-reaching, deal and a big victory for the people who want to control women's/couple's reproductive choices in accordance with their own moral and religious beliefs, and a big step back for women's right. I'm a woman who cares a lot about that and don't care if you're not.

But, to act like you know the impacts to women across the country than people with personal experience, that you know more than the policy makers who readily admit that their goal is to make it difficult/impossible for women to access legal abortion services, and that you know more than the experts in the field in order to rationalize your statements........makes no sense to me.
Reply
#46
In addition, Trump just issued an order for all medical providers to do whatever they can to deny preventative care covered by insurance via Obamacare if they feel it's not fiscally beneficial to them. That may well include birth control, which is something the Republicans don't want covered by insurance on religious and moral grounds.

So, the ability to abort unwanted pregnancies, and quite possibly, the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies, are in the process of being restricted across the country.
Reply
#47
I don't think you understood me. I said there are abortion providers here, not across the country. I don't know how many there are across the country. With the exception of fetal abnormality, documented rape or the mother's life is at stake, I do not care how inconvenient it is to get an abortion as long is it is still available.
Reply
#48
I understand your current position, sal. You don't care about other women's ability to access abortion services when they decide that's their best option, which is their right in this country.

And, you don't care that some policy makers are doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible for women to exercise that right on political, religious, or moral grounds.

I do care. Different strokes.
Reply
#49


Senator Shaheen is going to introduce legislation tomorrow that would permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule. I'm glad someone tries even while facing adversity. Smiley_emoticons_slash
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#50
(01-23-2017, 06:40 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Senator Shaheen is going to introduce legislation tomorrow that would permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule. I'm glad someone tries even while facing adversity. Smiley_emoticons_slash

Thanks for that info. It's encouraging to see a rational legislator trying to get the government's political and religious hands off our bodies.

Good on Senator Shaheen.

Snip:
New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen plans to introduce a bill to repeal President Donald Trump's reinstatement of a ban on providing federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option.

Shaheen, a Democrat, said Monday she plans to introduce bipartisan legislation Tuesday that would permanently repeal the ban. She said the ban reinstatement "ignores decades of research, instead favoring ideological politics over women and families."
http://www.nh1.com/news/shaheen-bill-wou...egulation/
Reply
#51
That's nice, but with a republican majority I cannot see it happening. Shaheen is a typical Democrat that votes with the party. Good or bad she will always vote partisan. And people don't just forget that.

On a side note NH1 is a great feed. They are 10x better than channel 9 in that they report on both sides of the issue much like the free paper "the Hippo" I've never understood why papers cost money. Advertisement should cover all costs and just get the word out there. The Hippo has Trump in diapers on one page and on the next an editorial about Russian hacks and the liberal mentality. Russia has been hacking us since the 50's and now when The truth gets out they go nuts.


Anyways Shaheens days are numbered. Fuck backing abortions in other countries. Anyone know what the cost is? And is there anyplace in the U.S.A. that could benefit more? I'm waiting for the "Oh, they do much more than that" argument.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#52
Why would anyone engage in a pointless exchange or argument with you when it's clear that you already think you know the extent of the issue and aren't open to hearing facts? I'm not interested in that, so don't wait on me, Mags.

If you wait a bit longer, someone might come along and agree with your insinuation though. Good luck.
Reply
#53
When I post there's not a question and answer option?
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#54
Do you have questions?
Reply
#55
I was talking about here that I don't care if PP is de-funded as women will still have affordable access to health care and as long as abortion is legal there will be abortion providers. I don't care if you have to take time of from work and travel to find a physician who provides it, it's an elective procedure.

But to ban foreign aid to developing countries if they offer or refer abortions is different to me. Those people can't even feed the kids they have and there is no other access to medical care for the poor.
Reply
#56
I need to clarify my last posts.

The Executive Order that Trump signed today (banning funds to organizations which include abortion in their family planning consultations and services) applies to U.S. government aide to health organizations overseas. That includes Planned Parenthood International and all other health providers.

President Trump's administration has vowed to defund Planned Parenthood in the U.S. as well and invoke similar restrictions on health providers and women here. But, that's pending, not done -- it requires congressional approval (can't be done by Executive Order).
Reply
#57
(01-23-2017, 08:47 PM)sally Wrote: I was talking about here that I don't care if PP is de-funded as women will still have affordable access to health care and as long as abortion is legal there will be abortion providers. I don't care if you have to take time of from work and travel to find a physician who provides it, it's an elective procedure.

But to ban foreign aid to developing countries if they offer or refer abortions is different to me. Those people can't even feed the kids they have and there is no other access to medical care for the poor.

Yeah, I re-read my posts and realized I needed to clarify that it's an overseas restriction, for now. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree with you that restricting abortion options in impoverished nations is a bad idea.

But, I think it's an equally important problem domestically for some of the same reasons (and the other reasons I noted upthread).
Reply
#58
PBS funding is next. Just sayin. They play commercials now anyways. But this is a 1st amendment thread.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#59
(01-23-2017, 09:06 PM)Maggot Wrote: PBS funding is next. Just sayin. They play commercials now anyways. But this is a 1st amendment thread.

Well, there's no doubt that Paul Ryan will try to cut federal funding for public television and public radio; he and Romney proposed doing it when they ran in 2012 and he still supports defunding it.

Personally, I doubt Trump gives a shit one way or the other about educational and cultural programming for children, the elderly and others. And, it's a relatively small amount of money in the overall federal budget (10 times less than the U.S. hands Israel for defense every year).

Whether Trump himself gets behind a likely congressional proposal to cut it will depend on whether he feels like currying favor with Ryan and company or instead feels like defying them, in my opinion.

I like PBS and NPR. And, in some rural areas, the public broadcasts are still all that's available to residents, or one of very few options. Those areas would also have more trouble switching to advertiser and donor funding only. So, I hope PBS and NPR remain untouched.

But, that's not nearly as important to me as executive and congressional proposals/actions to restrict people's constitutional and human rights.
Reply
#60
Isn't PBS the one that was advertising fetal tissue for sale?
Reply