Printable View
How in the world could any intelligent woman be a republican after they attempted to do this? We know they do nothing for you unless you're white and christian and oh yeah, male. But this is flat out disgusting, pisses me off too, wow.
The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape | Mother Jones
thats absolutely revolting. Shakes me to the core. Thats quite possibly the most disgusting thing ive ever read.
give me a fucking break. and these same people tell ME im going to hell??
In my research, it needed to be a more defined term. Different states seem to have a different interpretation of forcible rape, but only a few actually use that term. In about all cases, minors no matter what the situation, fell under that term. It generally included females who were drugged and such also. Had it been defined more clearly, maybe it would have been a applied, maybe not. Either way, now its not happening.
They aren't attempting to change anything because it's some loosely based term, it's for one purpose, to prevent any kind of funds to go to an abortion in any way. Various fed/state programs will pay for it in cases of rape, they can't change that, so they try to change the fucking definition of rape for that very reason. They've been on this crusade for awhile, even though there's this little thing called the Hyde Amendment, but this goes way too far. One of the most disgusting legislative attempts I've ever seen, a new low for them, I hope every dem in 2012 house races makes this a point so no one forgets.
Well, I am fine with them limiting the reasons abortions are paid for by federal funding. Basic birth control abortions by those who want live their life loosely with no accountability should not be funded by federal money IMO.
Uh dude we're talking in cases of rape, you don't support funding for that? Or other reasons, and no, we're not talking about anything close to using it as BC. Are you saying you support changing the definition of rape to just prevent those cases?
I know you're pretty far right, but I've always seen you are rational, but lately with issues like this I'm starting to think otherwise. Just my opinion and I know you don't care, but really.
Your reading comprehension skills seem to be deminishing also. I am not trying to change the definition of rape, but instead make sure there isn't a broad reaching flexibility to allow federal money to be used for abortions. What is going to define whether or not a rape took place that allows them to get a federally funded abortion? Just going to a hosptial or police? An investigation? A conviction (which we all know would take too long to be feasible). I just dont want it to be something that can easily be abused that is my point.
But in this situation, is erring on the side of caution not the right path?
I could not possibly advocate allowing even one rape victim to not get an abortion if thats her wishes because some government official has a different definition of rape.
Caution is one thing. Loophole that funnels massive amounts of unnecessary federal money toward abortions due to people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions is another though.
The Hyde Amendment does close down that for the most part, but it has been modified many times over the years by both sides. Also, it could be repealed at anytime, and I would prefer that specific legislation be attached to this, in case the Hyde Amendment was repealed.
Do you have any proof of that happening? I have not seen anything to suggest that massive amounts of federal money was going to abortions in non-rape scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Nothing in the research or anything suggest that massive amounts of money are funding birth control abortions.
That's because it doesn't happen. As a matter of fact you'd be hard pressed to find any significant amount being used for the rape cases. Most rapes are not reported, they would have to do that, then be receiving some kind of gov. assistance, then want to have an abortion...that's a very, very small amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
It works like any coverage in the world, there would have to be proof as in positive rape kit or clear evidence. People have a hard enough time getting prescriptions that they need, let alone something like this, does anyone seriously think that the gov. is going to shelve out a massive amount of money for a procedure that they don't have to? Or that there is even a massive amount of cases that fall into the criteria? This is a non-existent problem, the GOP can't do jackshit as long as Roe V. Wade is the law of the land...so they pull stunts like this to keep it relevant in the political world, it's not an issue, they're trying to make it seem like it but it's backfired right in their face.
Reading what I put below what you quoted me on, shows the potential. There are just as many pushing for the elimination of the Hyde Amendment as there are for the elimination of Roe v. Wade. Basically all Pro-Choice groups want Hyde gone, and Pro-Life want Roe v. Wade gone. As of this time, a ton of federal money isn't put toward abortions because of the Hyde Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
Who? I've never heard of any legislative movement to get it abolished, may have been small ones, but really haven't heard of any. Actually I do remember Stupaks amendment to put a provision just like it in the new HC bill, even though it didn't allocate any funds for it and that passed the House, the Senate didn't have it in there I think, but Obama put in an executive order to extend the Hyde to the bill. So I really don't know where you're getting that 1) the amendment is in any kind of danger and 2) this is even an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Its called preventive measures in case Hyde is repealed. I am not saying it is about to be repealed with this session of Congress or anything, but it could be. Who knows, if in 2012 the Dems take a commanding majority in both the House and Senate, it could happen.
There's no movement to do it though? They just had control, did nothing and have no interest in doing so, why would they suddenly again? It's been the law for what 35 years? Not happening, definitely not a reason for this stunt they tried to pull.
To quote one of the great philosophers of our time, Wayne Campbell: "Sh-yeah! And monkeys might fly out of my butt!"Quote:
Its called preventive measures in case Hyde is repealed. I am not saying it is about to be repealed with this session of Congress or anything, but it could be.
So, there's no imminent threat for it to happen...but it could happen...so we'll plan like it's imminent. What kind of logic is that, brother? C'mon, man!
That right there is the epitome of the "fear" culture in American politics. If a group can drum up enough fear/paranoia for a particular thing, they can mobilize folks to do what they want by saying, "if we don't do X, then your worst fears will be realized".
So you say theres no chance of the Hyde Amendment being repealed? I disagree.
Obama would have been for getting rid of it, had he still had the votes for his HC bill, but could not get them without it staying in place. Clinton was trying to help push it through, but then with the GOP taking control of Congress, that kept it from happening.
Thats okay though, we can continue looking at the one tree right in front of you, instead of looking at the landscape as a whole.
I'm not saying there's NO chance, I'm just saying it's chances of happening are about as remote as you and I becoming Florida Gator fans. And we know exactly what those chances are--slim and none.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Show me where he wanted to get rid of it with a source. I don't ever recall Obama stating that he intended to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and to boot--he had a Democratic Congress last session, if he were so intent on making it happen like you believe--how come he couldn't get it pushed thru and tell the GOP tough shit?Quote:
Obama would have been for getting rid of it, had he still had the votes for his HC bill, but could not get them without it staying in place.
Honestly, again, show me some kind of source where Obama/Clinton were making repealing this amendment a goal. I'm not doubting you b/c when you say something you normally have read it elsewhere. I'd just like to know your source.Quote:
Clinton was trying to help push it through, but then with the GOP taking control of Congress, that kept it from happening.
No need to get condescending here...just discussing this w/ya.Quote:
Thats okay though, we can continue looking at the one tree right in front of you, instead of looking at the landscape as a whole.
My reference to Clinton is referencing when Bill was Prez. With Obama, as referenced above by R13, the Hyde wouldn't be repealed, but it would have had no place within this HC bill had it not been for Stupak. He cut a deal with Stupak for the HC bill to honor the Hyde Amendment. Without that, he did not have enough votes. Also remember the wording allows that Hyde must be renewed each year. If it is not renewed then it no longer is in affect for the HC bill.
Why did Bart Stupak hold out for a meaningless executive order? - ByTimothy Noah - Slate Magazine
As for Clinton's desires to repeal Hyde:
Report: Clinton Wants To End Ban On Abortion Funds - Orlando Sentinel
My statement wasn't just toward you, its a general statement to all when looking at law, but since you brought up Wayne Campbell...
So again could you show us the threat? Did anything come out of Clintons request? Did he even request it, the links I've read is that he was going to. But where was the real legislative attempt to repeal it?.....
And Obama never attempted to get rid of it, it wasn't in the Senate bill and he never showed any objection to it for Stupak...so again, where's the threat? You really just proved my point, it has to be renewed every year, that means it's been renewed every year for over 30 years by both congresses without problem.
There's no threat to it, never has been and never will be, we both know that. And certainly not a reason to defend anything that has to do with this stunt they pulled with trying to change the definition of rape.
This, to me, is like the whole "they're gonna take our guns away" argument. Three of the biggest draws to people that call themselves Republicans are:
1) They want to keep their money (minimal or no taxes)
2) They want to keep their guns
3) They want to keep their religion
4) They want to make abortion illegal
Most of the GOP that get elected are all about the first one, and ONLY about the first one. They use the fear of 2/3/4 that people have to get elected and make sure that 1 happens...when there's really no threat to their guns, their religion, and abortion isn't exactly a drive-thru service like they'd have you believe. Nor, is the threat immenent for any of that stuff to happen.
It's all fear-driven on their part. The big govt's gonna screw you, their gonna take your guns then raid your houses and make it a military state, their gonna take your right to religion away and make you a Muslim, they're gonna fully legalize abortion then enforce abortion to control the population ala China...
Do people forget that we live in America? That crap won't ever happen here. There's too much access to information that shows us that there's no imminent threat for this stuff to happen. But some people believe it will happen b/c they believe the GOP threats that it will.
And what happens then? People will vote for anything as long as they're assured voting for X keeps their worst fears at bay, even if it doesn't serve their best interests.
Kind of like your favorites utilizing the fear of entitlement spending cuts as a campaign tool?:laffingassoff:Quote:
Originally Posted by CoeburnCane
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoeburnCane
Bingo. Don't forget they vow to close the borders and keep the brown people out. Both sides have people that vote for dumb reasons, the right takes the cake, issues that either aren't really issues or ones that the gop has never done anything about. There's no threat to the 2nd amendment, fabricated fear from the NRA loons to stay relevant. Roe V. Wade has never been touch and how many GOPers have been president and what attempt was made in congress by the gop house/senate to change it? None. The biggest voting block they have are older citizens, which by far are some of the most misinformed/uneducated bunch out there. The young will come out and say I don't care, but the older care yet are ignorant to the facts but are dead set on their own facts they've come up with in their mind.
Breaking down those reasons it just makes clear how misinformed they are...
1) Unless you're wealthy, the gop doesn't give two shits about your taxes being lowered.
2) No threat to guns really at all, the only thing they can do is extend already existing 'rights' like the dumbass gun in bars one...but there's no stopping any movement in congress, because one doesn't exist.
3) They just want everyone to be of their religion, showing the least bit of tolerance or anything short of ramming christianity down everyone's throat is "turning our back on god".
4) And as said, what attempts have been made?
That's the best response you could muster, especially when your faves don't want the pork cut out (though they say publicly they do)? Ignore the reality of the situation that I posted with weakness like that--you're nuts man!Quote:
Originally Posted by NotSoSilentBob
How about Rand Paul getting elected on the sole basis of cutting unnecessary govt spending, and then backtracking and saying it might be OK if his state still got their earmarks? It's do as I say for a GOP guy, then they go right in and do things that contradict themselves and what their "values" are--and that means both personally and fiscally.