Calls For U.S. Rep. Akin To Drop Out Of Senate Race Over Rape Comments

[chuckd]

Emphasis mine. I may be pro-life, but not to the point of killing aborted babies who survive the procedure (has anyone seen the video of the woman who survived one? Powerful). Or to the point of taking a living baby in the 8th-9th month, partially out of the woman, puncturing a hole in the back of the head and sucking out the brains. Abortion is not an issue they want to debate this election because they can't win if both parties put their cards on the table for all to see.

Yes, what Akin said about rape and pregnancy was stupid. He tried to explain it away saying he misspoke but it's too far out there to be just that and a hard explanation to defend. Just like the Dems position on abortion is hard - impossible - to defend.

Your statement is inaccurate and misleading, just as the Republican party position is predicated on spreading disinformation.

A living baby as you term it, is not taken in the 8th-9th month partially out of a woman punctured and has its brain sucked out. (Note to you, a human has one brain not multiple brains.)

Why do you post incorrect information? I find it offensive.

The emphasis on a medically necessitated procedure in the 3rd trimester is intended to provide an excuse to ban abortion and has nothing to do with the subject matter itself for the simple reason that 3rd trimester procedures are a rarity and account for less than 0.25% of "abortion" procedures. More specifically, it is extremely difficult to obtain access to an abortion after 20 weeks and next to impossible to obtain a third trimester procedure. Do you know why? Or would you just prefer to spout off on the usual lies the Republican party has spread?

- Most later term abortions occur in weeks 21-24 and represent about 0.75% of all US abortion procedures. Although considered late term, hese technically are not late term procedures. Only the 0.25% that occur after week 24 are true late term procedures.

- The principal reason why there are few late term abortions is due to the fact that they are legally prohibited in a majority of US states. 37 states have a cutoff at approximately 24 weeks. You cannot undertake the procedure after the fetus has been in position for 24 weeks.

- A late term abortion must be performed in a health facility and is typically associated with a fetus that has a severe birth defect, such as no brain, or heart, or spinal cord. Indications of other lethal conditions including a threat to a mother's health are typically the basis for the procedure. Most hospitals will not perform the procedure unless the mother is in a critical state. This is not a procedure available at even most hospitals.

- I am particularly offended by your use of the 8-9 month period as it is not reflective of the actual facts. It is next to impossible to kill a fetus that has reached 32+ weeks +, even when the mother's life is at risk.

- Do you know why the cut off point is 24 weeks? It is the viability threshold for a fetus. There is a chance a fetus can survive after 6 months. However, typically fetuses that are removed from the womb in the 6-7 month stage die or have serious physical impairments including mental deficiencies.

Akin's position and those of his allies and defenders such as Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich rely on exagerations and falsehoods.

The reality is that most abortion procedures occur before there is even a fetus involved. They occur when all that there are is a clump of cells or an embryo, Lost in the discussion is that the most common form of abortion is what is called a miscarriage. Approximately 10-20% of pregnancies are spontaneouslyaborted (aka a miscarriage) and about 80% occur in the first 20 weeks. What's next? A ban on miscarriages too?

Link? Pleas back up your statistics with a source. Thank you

[geriatrickid]

Emphasis mine. I may be pro-life, but not to the point of killing aborted babies who survive the procedure (has anyone seen the video of the woman who survived one? Powerful). Or to the point of taking a living baby in the 8th-9th month, partially out of the woman, puncturing a hole in the back of the head and sucking out the brains. Abortion is not an issue they want to debate this election because they can't win if both parties put their cards on the table for all to see.

Yes, what Akin said about rape and pregnancy was stupid. He tried to explain it away saying he misspoke but it's too far out there to be just that and a hard explanation to defend. Just like the Dems position on abortion is hard - impossible - to defend.

Your statement is inaccurate and misleading, just as the Republican party position is predicated on spreading disinformation.

A living baby as you term it, is not taken in the 8th-9th month partially out of a woman punctured and has its brain sucked out. (Note to you, a human has one brain not multiple brains.)

Why do you post incorrect information? I find it offensive.

The emphasis on a medically necessitated procedure in the 3rd trimester is intended to provide an excuse to ban abortion and has nothing to do with the subject matter itself for the simple reason that 3rd trimester procedures are a rarity and account for less than 0.25% of "abortion" procedures. More specifically, it is extremely difficult to obtain access to an abortion after 20 weeks and next to impossible to obtain a third trimester procedure. Do you know why? Or would you just prefer to spout off on the usual lies the Republican party has spread?

- Most later term abortions occur in weeks 21-24 and represent about 0.75% of all US abortion procedures. Although considered late term, hese technically are not late term procedures. Only the 0.25% that occur after week 24 are true late term procedures.

- The principal reason why there are few late term abortions is due to the fact that they are legally prohibited in a majority of US states. 37 states have a cutoff at approximately 24 weeks. You cannot undertake the procedure after the fetus has been in position for 24 weeks.

- A late term abortion must be performed in a health facility and is typically associated with a fetus that has a severe birth defect, such as no brain, or heart, or spinal cord. Indications of other lethal conditions including a threat to a mother's health are typically the basis for the procedure. Most hospitals will not perform the procedure unless the mother is in a critical state. This is not a procedure available at even most hospitals.

- I am particularly offended by your use of the 8-9 month period as it is not reflective of the actual facts. It is next to impossible to kill a fetus that has reached 32+ weeks +, even when the mother's life is at risk.

- Do you know why the cut off point is 24 weeks? It is the viability threshold for a fetus. There is a chance a fetus can survive after 6 months. However, typically fetuses that are removed from the womb in the 6-7 month stage die or have serious physical impairments including mental deficiencies.

Akin's position and those of his allies and defenders such as Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich rely on exagerations and falsehoods.

The reality is that most abortion procedures occur before there is even a fetus involved. They occur when all that there are is a clump of cells or an embryo, Lost in the discussion is that the most common form of abortion is what is called a miscarriage. Approximately 10-20% of pregnancies are spontaneouslyaborted (aka a miscarriage) and about 80% occur in the first 20 weeks. What's next? A ban on miscarriages too?

Link? Pleas back up your statistics with a source. Thank you

What would you like a source to? Accepted facts of physiology? Are you really questioning me on the rate of miscarriage?

Wel,l one good thing about your demanding a source is that I can provide a source that has more restrictive numbers than me. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the number of late term abortions in the U.S. to be 0.8% of all abortions or approximately 1,032 per year. We can use the more austere numbers if you want. Feel free to visit its website.

Anti freedom of choice/anti abortionists have a similar position on the stats as well;

United States: In 2003, a total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. From data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. http://abortionabout...statistics.html Keep in mind that it is this group's interests to emphasise the term"late term" even though, the correct physiological cutoff is 24 weeks.

I hope this satisfies your lust for sources. BTW, if you get out all your fingers and toes and fancy yourself some figgerin, you'll see that the vast majority of abortions occur at less than 12 weeks. Even the anti freedom of choice folks acknowledge that.

By the way Chuck, I am surprised that a stalwart of freedom of choice and the concept of individual fredom would support the Republican Party and particularly Mr. Akin on their collective quest to control the bodies of women. Something very wrong about a government tring to manage a woman's uterus.

They also have a nice summary of the 41 states that have restrictions on abortions. (I had used 37, but 41 makes my point better, so let's use that.)

http://www.guttmache...s/spib_PLTA.pdf

Here's an article representative of the type of person that needs a late term abortion; http://www.washingto...CjEX_story.html

In respect to the termination procedure in the third trimester, you can read about it here;

http://www.lateterma...ted_States.html

Edited September 4, 2012 by geriatrickid

[chuckd]

Thank you. That would seem to be the proper way to support your post.

I'll look through them and see if they are reliable and if they will change my mind.

Edit in: By the way, the two children from my first marriage are adopted. Perhaps at times my opinion on abortion is colored by the fact that if their natural mothers had decided to abort her pregnancy, two very productive citizens would never have lived and my life would have not been so blessed.

What makes my blood boil somewhat is when I read, according to your own words..."In 2003, a total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas...", it makes me realize nearly one million potential lives were snuffed out simply because nobody wanted them.

Edited September 4, 2012 by chuckd

[koheesti]

By the way Chuck, I am surprised that a stalwart of freedom of choice and the concept of individual fredom would support the Republican Party and particularly Mr. Akin on their collective quest to control the bodies of women. Something very wrong about a government tring to manage a woman's uterus.

I've always wondered if it is the woman's body, and only the woman has the right to choose what to do,...why must the man pay for it for 18 years if she decides to have the baby? Besides it being the "right thing to do"?

[geriatrickid]

I've always wondered if it is the woman's body, and only the woman has the right to choose what to do,...why must the man pay for it for 18 years if she decides to have the baby? Besides it being the "right thing to do"?

Because your life is not at risk during the gestation period. Nor does the pregnancy affect your physical health in the same way it does the woman. You have as much right to dictate to a woman how to manage her uterus as she does to dictate to you how you should manage your prostate or testicles.

[Ulysses G.]

By the way Chuck, I am surprised that a stalwart of freedom of choice and the concept of individual fredom would support the Republican Party and particularly Mr. Akin on their collective quest to control the bodies of women. Something very wrong about a government tring to manage a woman's uterus.

I get the feeling that his main concern is about murdering a human being. I tend to be more on the allowing abortion side, but not by a lot. Abortion is killing unborn babies, no matter how righteous the reasons.

[Ulysses G.]

What's next? A ban on miscarriages too?

Weren't you just complaining about "disinformation" and being "misleading"? An abortion is the intentional destruction of a fetus. A miscarriage is not intentional.

Again, most Americans are pro-life. That is not the issue . It is Akin's stupid comments that women do not get pregnant when raped because they can "shut" their system down somehow.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

I've always wondered if it is the woman's body, and only the woman has the right to choose what to do,...why must the man pay for it for 18 years if she decides to have the baby? Besides it being the "right thing to do"?

Because your life is not at risk during the gestation period. Nor does the pregnancy affect your physical health in the same way it does the woman. You have as much right to dictate to a woman how to manage her uterus as she does to dictate to you how you should manage your prostate or testicles.

I didn't know most women get abortions because the baby puts them at any physical risk. I thought they just didn't want the baby.

[chuckd]

I've always wondered if it is the woman's body, and only the woman has the right to choose what to do,...why must the man pay for it for 18 years if she decides to have the baby? Besides it being the "right thing to do"?

Because your life is not at risk during the gestation period. Nor does the pregnancy affect your physical health in the same way it does the woman. You have as much right to dictate to a woman how to manage her uterus as she does to dictate to you how you should manage your prostate or testicles.

I didn't know most women get abortions because the baby puts them at any physical risk. I thought they just didn't want the baby.

Here is the answer why women have abortions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responses listed as primary reason %

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)

- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%

- Feels she can't afford baby 23%

- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%

- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%

- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%

- Interference with education/career plans 4%

- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%

- Other reasons <6.5%

TOTAL: 93% (Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)

- Mother's Health 4%

- Baby may have health problem 3%

- Rape or Incest <0.5%

TOTAL:

7% (Approx.)

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

*Source: Lawrence Finer, et. al, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) p. 110.

Edited September 4, 2012 by chuckd

[geriatrickid]

By the way Chuck, I am surprised that a stalwart of freedom of choice and the concept of individual fredom would support the Republican Party and particularly Mr. Akin on their collective quest to control the bodies of women. Something very wrong about a government tring to manage a woman's uterus.

I get the feeling that his main concern is about murdering a human being. I tend to be more on the allowing abortion side, but not by a lot. Abortion is killing unborn babies, no matter how righteous the reasons.

The majority of procedures relate to the removal of the cluster of cells before they even reach the embryo stage. If you wish to consider a clump of undifferentiated cells as an "unborn baby" that is your personal decision. However, neither the science nor the reality of the procedure support your assertion. The SCOTUS has created a very liberal interpretation of the viability of a fetus of being the period after 24 weeks of development After that periid the number of abortions is minimal and typically involves a fetus that is already dead or is characterized by a degree of defects and deficiencies such as a lack of a brain, or other vital organs that it is not exacly accurate to refer to the tissue as an "unborn baby". The groups opposed to a woman's right to control her body focus on the small number of cases where the fetus has human features because it provides a nasty heart gripping visual. The dishonesty occurs when these groups refuse to acknowledge that the over whelming majority of procedures involve the period of less than 6 weeks. There would be even fewer abortions after 6 weeks if women did not have to contend with the obstacles and barriers set up to discourage the procedure. Therein lies the sad reality of those opposed to abortion: They do everything to drag out the process so that the procedure which could have been carried out in the 1st 4 weeks gets dragged out for several more weeks.

No one that supports a woman's right to control her uterus is "pro-abortion". The dwindling number of health care providers that will perform the procedure do not get up in the morning and say, oh goodie, I get to kill babies today. The procedure is all about a person's intrinsic right to make a decision with her health care provider as to what is best for her own physical and mental well being.

where there

[Ulysses G.]

Here is the answer why women have abortions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responses listed as primary reason %

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)

- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%

- Feels she can't afford baby 23%

- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%

- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%

- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%

- Interference with education/career plans 4%

- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%

- Other reasons <6.5%

TOTAL: 93% (Approx.)

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)

- Mother's Health 4%

- Baby may have health problem 3%

- Rape or Incest <0.5%

TOTAL:

7% (Approx.)

http://www.nrlc.org/...sabortions.html

*Source: Lawrence Finer, et. al, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) p. 110.

That pretty much says it all about why most women get abortions. For someone whose moral and religious beliefs state that a life starts at conception, that must be a really disappointing list.

[chuckd]

What I fail to understand is why the Democrats have their knickers in such a twist over what Romney and Ryan think about abortion.

Currently abortion is legal without constraints, which is what the Democrats want. The only way it can be changed would be for the SCOTUS to overrule Roe V.Wade or a Constutional Amendment.

Both events are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes so the only explanation I can find for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Romney and Ryan's collective opinions on the subject is to deflect talk away from the Obama administration's miserable failure on jobs, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, federal spending and the abuse of Executive privileges, among other things.

Edited September 4, 2012 by chuckd

[GentlemanJim]

What I fail to understand is why the Democrats have their knickers in such a twist over what Romney and Ryan think about abortion.

Currently abortion is legal without constraints, which is what the Democrats want. The only way it can be changed would be for the SCOTUS to overrule Roe V.Wade or a Constutional Amendment.

Both events are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes so the only explanation I can find for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Romney and Ryan's collective opinions on the subject is to deflect talk away from the Obama administration's miserable failure on jobs, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, federal spending and the abuse of Executive privileges, among other things.

That's politics (and politicians) for you!

[Ulysses G.]

What I fail to understand is why the Democrats have their knickers in such a twist over what Romney and Ryan think about abortion.

Currently abortion is legal without constraints, which is what the Democrats want. The only way it can be changed would be for the SCOTUS to overrule Roe V.Wade or a Constutional Amendment.

Both events are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes so the only explanation I can find for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Romney and Ryan's collective opinions on the subject is to deflect talk away from the Obama administration's miserable failure on jobs, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, federal spending and the abuse of Executive privileges, among other things.

That is exactly it. I keep meeting liberals who are all freaked out that Romney is going to ban abortions when that has been on the Republlican's platform for years and they have never made a seriuos attempt to do anything about it. They want to put a stop to taxpayer funded abortions, but that would not stop someone fron paying for one privately.

[geriatrickid]

What I fail to understand is why the Democrats have their knickers in such a twist over what Romney and Ryan think about abortion.

Currently abortion is legal without constraints, which is what the Democrats want. The only way it can be changed would be for the SCOTUS to overrule Roe V.Wade or a Constutional Amendment.

Both events are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes so the only explanation I can find for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Romney and Ryan's collective opinions on the subject is to deflect talk away from the Obama administration's miserable failure on jobs, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, federal spending and the abuse of Executive privileges, among other things.

That is exactly it. I keep meeting liberals who are all freaked out that Romney is going to ban abortions when that has been on the Republlican's platform for years and they have never made a seriuos attempt to do anything about it. They want to put a stop to taxpayer funded abortions, but that would not stop someone fron paying for one privately.

The Republican party has a position that would institute an outright ban on abortion;

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Ok, so you agree with the with holding of medical care for the poor and destitute. Nice. The Republican party would see the continuation of invasive medical procedures on the brain dead and would waste hundreds of millions of dollars on clinically dead or others that are vegetables. It would also forbid people the right to die with dignity. Nice.

[chuckd]

What I fail to understand is why the Democrats have their knickers in such a twist over what Romney and Ryan think about abortion.

Currently abortion is legal without constraints, which is what the Democrats want. The only way it can be changed would be for the SCOTUS to overrule Roe V.Wade or a Constutional Amendment.

Both events are extremely unlikely in our lifetimes so the only explanation I can find for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Romney and Ryan's collective opinions on the subject is to deflect talk away from the Obama administration's miserable failure on jobs, the economy, foreign affairs, health care, federal spending and the abuse of Executive privileges, among other things.

That is exactly it. I keep meeting liberals who are all freaked out that Romney is going to ban abortions when that has been on the Republlican's platform for years and they have never made a seriuos attempt to do anything about it. They want to put a stop to taxpayer funded abortions, but that would not stop someone fron paying for one privately.

The Republican party has a position that would institute an outright ban on abortion;

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Ok, so you agree with the with holding of medical care for the poor and destitute. Nice. The Republican party would see the continuation of invasive medical procedures on the brain dead and would waste hundreds of millions of dollars on clinically dead or others that are vegetables. It would also forbid people the right to die with dignity. Nice.

What part of a SCOTUS overturn of Roe V. Wade or a Constitutional Amendment do you not understand? It will be virtually impossible to get either accomplished regardless of what a party platform states.

Here is what the Democratic Party platform says. It is on page 52 of a 70 page platform.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports

Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal

abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy;

there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and

education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for

abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing

affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during

pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

http://assets.dstati...al-Platform.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats advocate any and all abortions with no restrictions or limitations whatsoever and, more tellingly, guarantee the abortions will be paid for with government funds.

In a 2009 poll taken by Quinnipiac, 72% oppose using public funds to pay for abortions while only 23% thought it was a good idea. Romney and Ryan oppose government funding but authorizing abortions in cases of rape, incest or dangers to the health of the mother.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1408

Danger to the health of an unborn infant doesn't seem to trouble Obama or his Democratic platform.

Edited September 5, 2012 by chuckd

[geriatrickid]

Chuck, you keep referring to unborn infants. A cluster of cells is not an unborn infant. The majority of abortions occur in the first month after there is an interchange between the sperm and ovum. The vast majority of abortions do not involve anything that resembles an unborn infant. In late term abortions, where one might argue there is an unborn infant, do you propose that a woman be forced to carry a dead or dying fetus until such time as the woman suffers irrevversible physiological damage? How is the removal of a fetus without a brain or that is significantly damaged (missing vital organs, spinal cord etc.) and not viable any different than removing other diseased or damaged tissue? How can one ethically deny an impoverished woman medical care that would remove something that could harm her or that is not viable simply because the tissue looks human?

[StevieH]

Ok, so you agree with the with holding of medical care for the poor and destitute. Nice. The Republican party would see the continuation of invasive medical procedures on the brain dead and would waste hundreds of millions of dollars on clinically dead or others that are vegetables. It would also forbid people the right to die with dignity. Nice.

would that be the same republican party that parrots the 'no big government' line and keeps on saying that government shouldn't tell people what to do and how to live?

the one that then tells women what they should do with their bodies? ah yes, it would. cracking bunch of people the republicans. not backwards or hypocritical in any way whatsoever, no sirree.

[chuckd]

Chuck, you keep referring to unborn infants. A cluster of cells is not an unborn infant. The majority of abortions occur in the first month after there is an interchange between the sperm and ovum. The vast majority of abortions do not involve anything that resembles an unborn infant. In late term abortions, where one might argue there is an unborn infant, do you propose that a woman be forced to carry a dead or dying fetus until such time as the woman suffers irrevversible physiological damage? How is the removal of a fetus without a brain or that is significantly damaged (missing vital organs, spinal cord etc.) and not viable any different than removing other diseased or damaged tissue? How can one ethically deny an impoverished woman medical care that would remove something that could harm her or that is not viable simply because the tissue looks human?

Your position that I oppose late term abortions is without basis on fact. I have said I agree with the Rape, incest and DANGER TO THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER as exceptions to abortion.

It would therefore follow if a fetus has no spinal cord, brain or is missing other internal organs, that alone would constitute a danger to the health of the mother, subsequently qualifying for abortion. As a previous post of mine shows, only 7% of all abortions were for the reasons I mentioned.

It is the other 93% of abortions that I don't approve of.

And I object to government paying for the abortions, as did 72% of Americans in the Quinnipiac poll noted earlier.

But as I also said earlier, full and unlimited abortion is the present law of the land and the likelihood of it being changed in either one of our lifetimes is extremely remote, so why is it such a big deal?

[chuckd]

Ok, so you agree with the with holding of medical care for the poor and destitute. Nice. The Republican party would see the continuation of invasive medical procedures on the brain dead and would waste hundreds of millions of dollars on clinically dead or others that are vegetables. It would also forbid people the right to die with dignity. Nice.

would that be the same republican party that parrots the 'no big government' line and keeps on saying that government shouldn't tell people what to do and how to live?

the one that then tells women what they should do with their bodies? ah yes, it would. cracking bunch of people the republicans. not backwards or hypocritical in any way whatsoever, no sirree.

Nothing is being withheld as a result of the Republican platform. The poor and destitute will continue being covered under medicaid and medicare, as will the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.

Do you support your tax money going to support illegal immigrants when there are over 23 million unemployed and under employed Americans at risk?

[Ulysses G.]

But as I also said earlier, full and unlimited abortion is the present law of the land and the likelihood of it being changed in either one of our lifetimes is extremely remote, so why is it such a big deal?

More smoke, mirrors, lies and scare tactics by the Obama team. They are trying to demonize Romney and Ryan to retain power even with their dismal record. The Republican platform is nothing new.

Bob McDonnell says GOP platform has included an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution without exceptions for “30 years”

Gov. Bob McDonnell, the leading architect of this year’s Republican national platform said the GOP’s platform that supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion and is silent on whether there should be exceptions for rape or other circumstances "has been there for more than 30 years."

"The details, certainly, are left to Congress, and ultimately, to the states and the people on how they ratify such an amendment and, more importantly, what they do at the state level," the governor said. http://www.politifac...included-ban-a/

Edited September 5, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[StevieH]

Nothing is being withheld as a result of the Republican platform. The poor and destitute will continue being covered under medicaid and medicare, as will the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.

Do you support your tax money going to support illegal immigrants when there are over 23 million unemployed and under employed Americans at risk?

i support universal healthcare and think that for a society to be progressive you don't exclude anyone, whatever their status. immigration in the US is an immigration problem - not a medical one. the sheer notion alone of not treating someone who is sick because of their political status is to me just absurd - as it would be to any doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath.

and as for abortion, i'm just tired of hearing middle-aged christian men tell women what to do with their bodies based on an interpretation of a book written a couple of thousand years ago which doesn't even mention abortion. it's none of their damned business.

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing is being withheld as a result of the Republican platform. The poor and destitute will continue being covered under medicaid and medicare, as will the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.

Do you support your tax money going to support illegal immigrants when there are over 23 million unemployed and under employed Americans at risk?

i support universal healthcare and think that for a society to be progressive you don't exclude anyone, whatever their status. immigration in the US is an immigration problem - not a medical one. the sheer notion alone of not treating someone who is sick because of their political status is to me just absurd - as it would be to any doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath.

I might agree with you if we were not 16 Trillion in debt, but we ARE.

[chuckd]

Nothing is being withheld as a result of the Republican platform. The poor and destitute will continue being covered under medicaid and medicare, as will the 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the US.

Do you support your tax money going to support illegal immigrants when there are over 23 million unemployed and under employed Americans at risk?

i support universal healthcare and think that for a society to be progressive you don't exclude anyone, whatever their status. immigration in the US is an immigration problem - not a medical one. the sheer notion alone of not treating someone who is sick because of their political status is to me just absurd - as it would be to any doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath.

and as for abortion, i'm just tired of hearing middle-aged christian men tell women what to do with their bodies based on an interpretation of a book written a couple of thousand years ago which doesn't even mention abortion. it's none of their damned business.

As I said, nothing is being withheld as a result of the Republican platform. You go on to say...

"i support universal healthcare and think that for a society to be progressive you don't exclude anyone, whatever their status. immigration in the US is an immigration problem - not a medical one. the sheer notion alone of not treating someone who is sick because of their political status is to me just absurd - as it would be to any doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath."

What you apparently don't realize is that Obamacare is what addresses the illegal immigrant problem, which is an Immigration, health care and fiscal problem all rolled into one. Unfortunately if Obama is reelected he can issue an HHS Department directive or Executive Order to override this portion of Obamacare and things will continue as before

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hospitals Fear Cuts in Aid for Care to Illegal Immigrants

By NINA BERNSTEIN

Published: July 26, 2012

President Obama’s health care law is putting new strains on some of the nation’s most hard-pressed hospitals, by cutting aid they use to pay for emergency care for illegal immigrants, which they have long been required to provide.

The federal government has been spending $20 billion annually to reimburse these hospitals — most in poor urban and rural areas — for treating more than their share of the uninsured, including illegal immigrants. The health care law will eventually cut that money in half, based on the premise that fewer people will lack insurance after the law takes effect.

But the estimated 11 million people now living illegally in the United States are not covered by the health care law. Its sponsors, seeking to sidestep the contentious debate over immigration, excluded them from the law’s benefits.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

[koheesti]

...and as for abortion, i'm just tired of hearing middle-aged christian men tell women what to do with their bodies based on an interpretation of a book written a couple of thousand years ago which doesn't even mention abortion. it's none of their damned business.

It sure as hell is their business if they have to pay child support for 18 years.

[koheesti]

Here is what the Democratic Party platform says. It is on page 52 of a 70 page platform.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports

Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal

abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy;

there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

I thought in some states if an underage girl got pregnant then the school could help her get an abortion without her parents needing to know about it? Or is my info way out of date?

Edited September 5, 2012 by koheesti

[chuckd]

Here is what the Democratic Party platform says. It is on page 52 of a 70 page platform.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports

Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal

abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy;

there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

I thought in some states if an underage girl got pregnant then the school could help her get an abortion without her parents needing to know about it? Or is my info way out of date?

That is on a state-by-state basis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.HIGHLIGHTS:

 37 states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion.

 21 states require parental consent only, 3 of which require both parents to consent.

 11 states require parental notification only, 1 of which requires that both parents be notified.

 5 states require both parental consent and notification.

State by state laws here: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf

[Scott]

I have a number of relatives in the teaching field, in a number of different states (and foreign countries as well).

In the US, I don't know of any school that helps a girl get an abortion. They might have pamphlets from different organizations, but I don't know of any that would actually help them arrange an abortion.

[geriatrickid]

Here is what the Democratic Party platform says. It is on page 52 of a 70 page platform.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports

Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal

abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy;

there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

I thought in some states if an underage girl got pregnant then the school could help her get an abortion without her parents needing to know about it? Or is my info way out of date?

Very out of date. There are so many rules and laws no in place that what you are refering to is a constructed myth. There are ancilliary deivery of medical care rules that cover the requirement to advise parents or guardians in the case of unemancipated minors.

Edited September 6, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

The GOP platform isn't restricted to abortion, it is about the repeal of Title 10 funding. This provides access to contraception for poor people. Included in the funding was funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood, a non profit that assists families plan and prepare for having children. Abortion services are a very small portion of the menu of services that Planned arenthood provides, but the GOP would have everyone believe that this is all about abortion and that Planned Parenthood is an abortion franchise operation.

This is a fight that was settled long ago, yet, the GOP's evangelicals want to fight it all over again. The sad aspect about the Title 10 fight is that it is indication of how the GOP has turned its back on its enlightened legacy. Did you know that President Bush the elder when he was a Congressman was one of the co-sponsors and authors of the original Bill? Yup. It's true. There was a time when the Republican party was the party of compassion and of concern for the poor. Think about it.

Would Nixon and his creation of the EPA be allowed? Would Gerry Ford and his old fashioned secular values that made him an opponent of segregation have a chance in today's GOP because he wouldn't kowtow to the reactionary bible thumpers? I have an enormous amount of respect for the old school Republicans who had the foresight to consider the big picture and to support family planning including abortion when necessary. The Akins, Ryans, Boehner's and their gang are nothing like the old school Republicans many of whom were decent, caring. folks of integrity.

Edited September 6, 2012 by geriatrickid