(01-27-2017, 11:36 PM)sally Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I could swear you said you didn't care about inconvenience to women when it comes to abortion. But, but I didn't see that comment when I just read the thread again. If I imagined that or if you changed your mind and edited it out, I'm sorry for stating it here.

I did say that. I think even if PP is de-funded their will still be abortion providers as long as it is legal. Why wouldn't there be? You don't think the abortion doctors would start their own GYN practice without PP? Most GYN doctors don't even accept government funding or Medicaid anyway because it takes so long to get paid from them. As long as there is private insurance to cover women's health care there will also be a provider for self pay abortions. So it won't hurt my feelings if you have to go out of your way to find one. I'm talking about here in America, however. Not in poor countries where kids are eating mud for breakfast.

I missed this post before, sal. I don't expect you to feel for women who want/need abortions and are restricted from that option. But, I'll answer your questions based on what I know to be fact. There's plenty of information easily-available if you want to check it out more yourself.

I know that that there are very few GYNs in many parts of the country who provide abortions in private practice. Some don't because they're religiously or morally opposed to abortion. Some don't because of the violence against abortion providers. Some don't because a lot of the women seeking abortions can't afford to pay out-of-pocket what it would cost to keep the practice profitable. Some don't due to a combination of factors.

Many private insurance companies don't cover abortion, sal. They're banned from doing so in over 10 states, even though abortion is legal. And, a lot of low-income women (in and outside of the ghetto) can't afford comprehensive private insurance anyway.

So....fortunately, some pro-choice doctors who can't/won't perform abortions in private practice lend their services to non-profits like PP, which offers income-based services to its patients.

What's an inconvenience to you is a financial impossibility for thousands of women. That's the point of the political efforts to close the PP clinics; policy makers who object to abortion on moral and religious grounds want to force as many women as possible to birth unwanted children. Those politicians shut down the clinics that also provide birth control and family planning services to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

They believe that such restrictive actions are religiously and/or morally justified. They've been very effective in Texas and other states. The goal of the majority of the Republican Congress is to restrict all women across the country from having abortions by stripping women of the Roe v Wade constitutional right.

Under Trump and Pence, their chances of accomplishing that goal with a new Supreme Court pick are higher than they've ever been. The pro-life/anti-choice movement is justifiably energized. Trump and Pence have pledged to their pro-life supporters to fight for defunding and overturning Roe v Wade.

(01-27-2017, 11:32 PM)BigMark Wrote: She says she prays but isn't religious? Holy fuck!

That's me too. I'm not religious but I talk to God everyday. I don't go to church. Do you think God is ONLY found in church?

So you think praying & being religious are mutually exclusive?

(01-28-2017, 12:31 AM)sally Wrote: Regarding moral issues I think the government has the right to be involved since we have a nation of people who see it differently.

Da fuck

The new poll by non-partisan Pew Research reflects the views on abortion nationwide. Pew has good demographic breakdowns.





I'm an Independent and Unaffiliated religiously.

More data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-abortion/

(01-28-2017, 06:31 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 12:31 AM)sally Wrote: Regarding moral issues I think the government has the right to be involved since we have a nation of people who see it differently.

Da fuck

I'm so tired and can't call it a night (morning) yet. Client emergency.

Sally's new role as captain of the morality police is puzzling, but it's kept my eyes open and it's been pretty entertaining. ")

(01-28-2017, 06:50 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Client emergency.

I thought there must be something wrong for you to be here at the same time I am so early in the morning. I hope you can sleep soon!

trump's refugee ban is un-American.

There are Iraqis who risked their lives to help Americans who were told they would be protected. Lies! That's just one example.

Weird that Saudi Arabia didn't make the list given it was Saudis who flew the planes.

I don't support any of this bullshit.

(01-28-2017, 06:53 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 06:50 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Client emergency.

I thought there must be something wrong for you to be here at the same time I am so early in the morning. I hope you can sleep soon!

Thanks. I'm getting an update at 3:00 a.m. and then I'm done -- I'll be crashing soon.

I did come across the new Pew abortion poll while trying to keep my eyes from slamming shut. This piece of data was interesting in light of today's March for Life and Pence's statement to the crowd about pushing for an overturn of Roe v Wade.

When it comes to the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 ruling, about seven-in-ten Americans (69%) say Roe v. Wade should not be completely overturned. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to hold this view, and there are also significant differences by education level and religious affiliation.

Nearly nine-in-ten of those with postgraduate degrees (88%) say the court should not overturn the decision, versus about seven-in-ten of those with a college degree (74%) or some college experience (70%) and 62% of those with a high school diploma or less education. There are no significant differences on this question by gender.

It should be called Right To Birth rather than Right To Life. Those friggin' do-gooders only care about the birth. They don't care about what comes before nor about what comes after. They don't appear to give any thought to what becomes of an unwanted child.

(01-28-2017, 07:07 AM)Duchess Wrote:

It should be called Right To Birth rather than Right To Life.

I swear, I had that same thought as I was reading and posting here earlier tonight.

(01-28-2017, 07:00 AM)Duchess Wrote:

trump's refugee ban is un-American.

There are Iraqis who risked their lives to help Americans who were told they would be protected. Lies! That's just one example.

Weird that Saudi Arabia didn't make the list given it was Saudis who flew the planes.

I don't support any of this bullshit.

It's great for the terrorists who are hailing it as proof that America considers Muslims enemies.

(01-28-2017, 07:00 AM)Duchess Wrote:
Weird that Saudi Arabia didn't make the list given it was Saudis who flew the planes.

I don't support any of this bullshit.

I don't support it either, nor do most Americans.

But, it's what Trump promised his supporters and I think he's basically of the mindset that he's doing what he promised, sending a message to the world, and doesn't care about the negative effects or feedback.

Trump cited 9 / 11 as one of his justifications, but leaves Saudi Arabia off the list and includes Iraq. Same old money-driven bullshit.

I hope that our military personnel and citizens overseas aren't targeted because of this action.

The fact that legal permanent residents of the U.S. who've earned green cards are included in the ban is not surprising to me, but I see some of the media is surprised.

Trump went back and forth when it came to banning U.S. residents from Muslim countries during the campaign. He meant what he said the first time. Green card holders attempting to return home to the U.S. will have to request a waiver and go through a review.

I did see that the Iraqi national (interpreter for the US govt) who was detained at JFK was finally allowed to go home. He said he likes Trump, but he was confused. I hope other detainees are reviewed relatively quickly, even if there isn't as much media coverage.

(01-28-2017, 03:22 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 07:00 AM)Duchess Wrote:
Weird that Saudi Arabia didn't make the list given it was Saudis who flew the planes.

I don't support any of this bullshit.

I don't support it either, nor do most Americans.

But, it's what Trump promised his supporters and I think he's basically of the mindset that he's doing what he promised, sending a message to the world, and doesn't care about the negative effects or feedback.

Trump cited 9 / 11 as one of his justifications, but leaves Saudi Arabia off the list and includes Iraq. Same old money-driven bullshit.

I hope that our military personnel and citizens overseas aren't targeted because of this action.

The fact that legal permanent residents of the U.S. who've earned green cards are included in the ban is not surprising to me, but I see some of the media is surprised.

Trump went back and forth when it came to banning U.S. residents from Muslim countries during the campaign. He meant what he said the first time. Green card holders attempting to return home to the U.S. will have to request a waiver and go through a review.

I did see that the Iraqi national (interpreter for the US govt) who was detained at JFK was finally allowed to go home. He said he likes Trump, but he was confused. I hope other detainees are reviewed relatively quickly, even if there isn't as much media coverage.

Just read a blurb (not sure of source), but there was advisory of some kind (maybe on CNN) about US citizens being advised not to travel internationally...Trump just keeps digging the hole deeper....He is causing so much chaos around the World and his supporters still won't admit that this man suffers from mental illness...He is dangerous ...I know that the Trump supporters on Mock are pleased with some of his actions. I have also said I would love to get rid of Gov't waste and duplication...Gov't has outgrown its britches...but the consequences of Trump's actions will have dire consequences and place us all in harms way. I think we should crack down on visas, etc., but refusing entry of all Muslims is too extreme...the hijackers entered this country easily even though they had been on watch lists....this entire visa system needs to be overhauled and these visa and other temporary visitors need to be tracked.....and these hijackers and ⁹⁄₁₁ killers were from Saudi Arabia.....so why were they not included on the ban....oh, wait, doesn't Trump have some business interests there? I am sincerely scared for the future of this country with Trump at the helm.....
I know this is selfish, but if Trump puts 20% tax on imports from Mexico, I won't be able to afford avocados...If he and his supporters want a wall, and I am quoting a post on FB, he should start a GoFundMe account so he and his supporters can pay for their stupid wall....a wall is not going to keep anyone out or anyone in and thus, is not worth the cost to taxpayers. It will give a false sense of security...drugs usually come through the underground tunnels.

(01-28-2017, 03:42 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: I know this is selfish, but if Trump puts 20% tax on imports from Mexico, I won't be able to afford avocados...If he and his supporters want a wall, and I am quoting a post on FB, he should start a GoFundMe account so he and his supporters can pay for their stupid wall....a wall is not going to keep anyone out or anyone in and thus, is not worth the cost to taxpayers. It will give a false sense of security...drugs usually come through the underground tunnels.

I don't think you sound selfish at all; I think Trump will run into some strong opposition, including from thinking Trump supporters, if he tries to sell a tariff on imports as "Mexico paying for the wall".

A tariff on imports would mean that US citizens are paying for the wall, plain and simple. Mexico will simply raise their prices by 20% to cover the tariff costs and U.S. consumers will pay 20% more. That's why such tariff plans went out of favor in the first place.

I guess it's possible that Trump could attempt to impose an import tariff AND price setting, but I don't know if that's legal.

Trump is trying to strong-arm Pina Nieto into doing what Trump said he would do publicly before having any private negotiations with the Mexican President and despite Pina Nieto's insistence that Mexico isn't gonna pay for that wall. It's Trump attempting to apply his real-estate 'art of the deal' strategy to international trade negotiations.

Personally, I think Trump has two things working in his favor: 1) Pina Nieto is one corrupt (albeit damned good-looking) motherfucker with a national approval rating even lower than Trump's, 2) Pina Nieto is out of office in 2018 anyway, Mexico has constitutional 6 year limits for its presidents. So, it's possible the Mexican President is more pliable than most if he personally gets something out of it.

For now, Pina Nieto is responding to the strong-arming in accordance with the wishes of the Mexican population -- Mexico is not going to pay for the wall. However, he is open to discussion and meeting privately with Trump soon.

I don't support any of Trump's Mexico-related agenda because I think he fails to see the benefit in our current relationship with our nearest ally and our third-largest trading partner, the U.S. benefits from the current NAFTA agreement and Mexican immigration, the wall will be more symbolic than effective, and I think the U.S. will lose as many or more jobs as it saves if Trump weakens Mexico's position.

But, we'll see what the two Presidents come up with.

I think they should pay for half just like any other good neighbor.

(01-28-2017, 05:36 PM)BigMark Wrote: I think they should pay for half just like any other good neighbor.

I think that could be a reasonable option for consideration.

But, it would mean Trump lost the negotiation since he promised Mexico would fully pay for the wall for months on end. He had thousands of devotees screaming, "Build That Wall!!" at his rallies. To which Trump would holler, "Who's gonna pay for it?!" and the devotees would scream, "MEXICO!!"

So, even if it was a fair solution which Mexico would agree to, I do not believe that President Trump would consider it -- his history proves that he's very ego-driven and must create the image that he's THE Winner and those with whom he's in negotiation or competition are Losers.

(01-28-2017, 06:31 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 12:31 AM)sally Wrote: Regarding moral issues I think the government has the right to be involved since we have a nation of people who see it differently.

Da fuck

There are two sides, pro-choice and pro-life. If Pro-choice wants the government to fund PP which makes abortion easily accessible, it's only fair that the pro-lifers who consider abortion murder ask that the government have no hand in it, which means not funding organizations that provide abortions.

Why not just fund PP without abortions? Only because they do other things.

(01-28-2017, 11:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Why not just fund PP without abortions? Only because they do other things.

That's what is already being done. The government provides some funding to PP's public health branch, but there is no government funding to it's separate private abortion branch (paid for by patients and donations).

What the anti-abortion politicians want to do is force PP to dissolve its private abortion business which receives no government funding or lose its public health services funding (in order to vastly reduce abortion options).

If any other public health agency (or any health agency receiving government funding of any kind) attempted to offer abortion services to fill the void, they'd lose their non-abortion government health funding too.