╌>

Trump Just Scored Two Big Wins for Unborn Babies

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  mbfc-censorship  •  8 years ago  •  140 comments

Trump Just Scored Two Big Wins for Unborn Babies
If, however, you believe in a child’s right to life, this good news is actually a mixed bag. You’ll be thrilled with Trump, but you also might be learning some disturbing truths for the first time. Abortion truths are never easy to face, but it is always better to know.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



No matter where you stand on abortion, what follows is going to upset you. If you believe in the unalienable right of a mother to kill her children, you won’t like what Trump has done. Furthermore, if you believe that the state or society should fund this right and provide unlimited access to abortions, you’re going to be angry. You are also the living embodiment of evil.

If, however, you believe in a child’s right to life, this good news is actually a mixed bag. You’ll be thrilled with Trump, but you also might be learning some disturbing truths for the first time. Abortion truths are never easy to face, but it is always better to know.

Obama’s HHS Mandate

If you’re a sensible person, you already have a long list of complaints about Obamacare. Basically, it achieved none of its goals and made health care three times as expensive as it used to be. Yay! That’s actually the least of problems with the legislation. Very few people know this, but Obamacare included insidious, evil provisions that forced many Americans to pay for abortions without their knowledge and against their will.

In this case, we’re talking about the HHS Mandate. It worked like this. Everyone had to have health insurance. That was the law. Additionally, there were requirements placed on insurers as to the minimum amount of coverage they could offer someone. Those plans didn’t necessarily cover much, but they still had provisions to pay for abortions. Even if you were a religious or moral objector, you still may have had to pay into one of these plans.

Now, removing the federal mandate was a great start. People could at least elect out of any coverage, but that still isn’t right. Trump just finalized a new rule that allows people to morally object to surcharges that are used for abortion. Now, you can have essentially the same plan, but you won’t be billed to help fund abortions. If might feel like a small win in the big picture, but reducing more of Obama’s insidious efforts to kill babies is always a good and important thing.

Deceptive Abortion Payments

The HHS Mandate is not the only way Obamacare worked to deviously fund abortions. Another issue came into billing. You see, a lot of insurers were required by the regulation to fund more abortions. Whether the insurers wanted to be a part of that or not, the government forced their hands. According to the law, insurers were required to itemize any payments or charges that could or would go towards abortions. Obama unilaterally decided not to enforce that law. Since about 2010, insurers have had the freedom to charge you for other people’s abortions and not tell you.

This is Trump’s second big win. New regulations are ensuring that the law is followed. Insurers will now have to itemize any funding that goes towards abortion. You will no longer unwittingly pay into abortion coverage or collections. When you combine that with the first change, Americans now have honest freedom in how much they financially contribute to abortions. For many of us, that number will be a big fat zero, and that change is likely to help cut the number of baby murders in our country by a big number.

The Fight Continues

These wins are huge. In large part, they help because a lot of Americans were completely unaware of how the government was compelling them to participate in abortion. It’s illegal for the government to directly pay for an abortion, so Obama and his cronies found a disturbing pair of loopholes. Just require the people to fund it by law. It’s disgusting and evil, and we have all been living with it for years. Thank you President Trump!

Despite the good news, there is still a long road ahead. We still live in a society that celebrates the freedom to commit infanticide. Roughly half the population still openly supports this freedom and condemns anyone who believes in the right to life over the right to convenience. It is easily the saddest and most damning facet of our society, but there is still hope.

Abortion and support for it have both been in a 20-year decline. If we keep up the good fight, we can continue to save innocent lives. In time, the abortion era can be another dark blot on our history instead of the greatest evil of our present.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2  MrFrost    8 years ago

What is it with the fascist's on the right wanting to control what a woman does with her own body? What happened to their, "we want more personal freedoms!!!!!"? Apparently those freedoms don't apply to women or anyone that isn't a straight, white, Christian, conservative republican. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @2    8 years ago

Take away an individual freedom from the largest voting block in the USA will only abort the elected offices of those that pander to the unamerican theocratic scum that have no right to live in a Constitutionally secular USA. Abortions will always be available to religious leaders that impregnate teenage girls, wingnuts that impregnate their mistresses, and teapublican office holders that impregnate their interns and staff. Without access to abortion, Trump would be broke from paying off paternity suits and child support. The financial wizards on the right would rather risk supporting another mouth to feed on the taxpayer dime than terminate an unwanted pregnancy, even if it's the result of rape, incest, or endangers the life of the mother. If Trump is so interested in saving the taxpayers some money, he should have congress tax the fucking money laundering scam teavangelical churches as the businesses that they really are..

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  pat wilson  replied to  devangelical @2.1    8 years ago

Thank you !!! jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
4  Dismayed Patriot    8 years ago

"If you believe in the unalienable right of a mother to kill her children, you won’t like what Trump has done."

There are no "children" killed so this author can go fornicate themselves.

"Furthermore, if you believe that the state or society should fund this right and provide unlimited access to abortions, you’re going to be angry."

Society isn't paying for abortions you intolerable moron.

"You are also the living embodiment of evil."

Those who believe they should have rights over women's bodies are evil pieces of garbage not worthy of the protections my tax dollars afford them.

"Trump just finalized a new rule that allows people to morally object to surcharges that are used for abortion"

The only things that are now being proven "fungible" are conservative Christians fungi ridden Abby Normal brains that think they should be the spiritual guardians of all women's Fallopian tubes.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Expert
5  Ender    8 years ago

What a disgusting bullshit piece.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Silent
6  bbl-1    8 years ago

Amazes me that 'the guy' that is now 'the president' who cheated on every one of his wives, including the current one, and tried to nail everything that would let him is pursuing a judicial path that limits or eliminates those inhabiting that orbit to ( rectify ) an unplanned/unwanted situation.  Why is the Trump doing this?  As with all things Trump, this too makes little sense.

Deciding not have a child is the same as deciding to have that wart removed from your chin.  Besides, how many ( children ) can the taxpayers afford?

 
 
 
Fireryone
Freshman Silent
6.1  Fireryone  replied to  bbl-1 @6    8 years ago
Why is the Trump doing this? 

To appease the evangelicals who only care about this issue and nothing else. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Fireryone @6.1    8 years ago
To appease the evangelicals who only care about this issue and nothing else

In April of 1989 Trump co-sponsored a dinner at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan (which he then owned) honoring Robin Chandler Duke, a former president of NARAL.

On October 24th, 1999 he made his position clear in an interview with Tim Russert, "I’m very pro-choice,” Trump says. “I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”

Come June 2015 as he eyes running for President, to Jake Tapper:

Trump: "I’m pro-choice."

TAPPER: "You’re pro-choice or pro-life?"

TRUMP: "I’m pro-life. I’m sorry."

Still not convinced at his sincerity?

Don't worry evangelicals, he'll further clarify so that you're allowed to vote for him...

March 30, 2016 the Trump campaign puts out a statement:

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law,” the statement says, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”

Yes, he went from "pro-choice hosting a dinner for the head of NARAL" to "jail abortion doctors".

Ah, there you have it, way to pander to poorly educated religious conservatives who are just too stupid to see you manipulate them and use them for your own gain. Well played Mr. Trump, well played...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Participates
6.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.2    8 years ago

Who's pro abortion exactly? That is a disingenuous term at best, and a lie at worst.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Silent
6.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.2    8 years ago

If your definition of 'pro life' consists of dirty water, dirty air, less education funding, less child health care funding, more tax breaks for the corporate, more tax cuts for the rich and a multitude of etc's----------------------then I guess the assertion of the Trump sliding into the alleged 'pro life' swamp is apt and accurate.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.2    8 years ago
pro abortion

No one is pro-abortion. Jesus, spin a little more... 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @6.1.5    8 years ago

hell I noticed that years ago, its either pro life or pro choice , both side do not want to be portrayed or labeled a negative  in this issue , BUT each side definitely asserts the other in that way negatively. really how much of a following would either have if they called themselves anti abortion , or worse , anti life? that's a can of worms not needed to be opened ..

 I had something cross my news feed this week I am watching and I will share it here , seems a guy killed a woman and she was pregnant , so he is being charged with 2 counts of murder but he is arguing he should only be charged with one case of not 2 because abortions are legal.and its argued abortions are not murder.

yeah im not sure how to take that one . 

and the reasons he is fighting the second charge or count is , one count conviction gets him life in prison, 2 counts conviction gets him the death penalty under state law.

I have already stated it and I will repeat it here , I am both pro choice , yes I think the woman has the right to choose , but I am also pro life , and personally consider abortion as a form of legalized murder , I simply, or not so simply, have to reconcile what the law is to cover both.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.4    8 years ago

If your definition of 'pro life' consists of dirty water, dirty air, less education funding, less child health care funding, more tax breaks for the corporate, more tax cuts for the rich and a multitude of etc's

Into the Kool Aid again huh? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
6.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.4    8 years ago

Oh you forgot about killing grandma and starving kids. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.6    8 years ago
seems a guy killed a woman and she was pregnant , so he is being charged with 2 counts of murder but he is arguing he should only be charged with one case of not 2 because abortions are legal.and its argued abortions are not murder.

The courts will rule that it wasn't his choice to make, he'll get convicted on both counts as he should. A woman has rights over her own body, that was the ruling in Roe V Wade. A woman can choose to rub herself all over, touching all her erogenous zones if she chooses, but if you do that to her without her permission it's a crime. Just because she has the choice to terminate a pregnancy doesn't give someone else the right to take that choice away from her or make it for her. It's all about intent. This murderer would only have a chance if they could prove she intended to terminate the pregnancy and had set up an appointment to do so. Then maybe he'd have a case.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
6.1.11  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.10    8 years ago
If one is not pro life,

they are actually for no choice.

Chose sex, get pregnant, No choice. 

No thanks ! Overpopulation is already a problem and that's reality.  

We support too many illegitimate children in this country as it is and people are not going to stop fucking. No matter how asked or what the consequences are. Give em birth control and the choice we dont need the consequences or not doing so. . We can hardly pay what we own now.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.10    8 years ago
If one is not pro life, by definition they are pro abortion/ anti life. 

I am pro-life and I believe a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy. Just like a person can be pro-life while simultaneously believing that a horrid convicted mass murderer and child rapist should be executed.

I have yet to meet anyone who was pro-abortion, so I guess we're all pro-life by your definition, now you can spend more time worrying about the rafter in thine own eye than the splinters in others.

Please do bring any examples of actual people encouraging women to get abortions just because they like abortions so much. Maybe you can get the conservative fraudster James O'keefe to doctor some videos of doctors at planned parenthood, I'm sure you can cut & paste a great video of doctors saying "Well I know you really want to keep the baby, but have you thought about an abortion? It's only $299.95!"...

Joking aside, please, if you have even a shred of decency, think about the women, try to put yourself in their shoes, every one of them, from "raped by sibling" to "not the right time in my life while I focus on my career". Then remember that the vast majority occur in the first 4 to 6 weeks, 92% by 12 weeks. Maybe that will help you have a little more compassion for actual born, thinking, feeling human beings who may not have life as easy as yourself and don't have the same options or opportunities.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Participates
6.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.10    8 years ago

You don't get to make up your own definitions!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Guide
6.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.9    8 years ago
It's all about intent.

And consent.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Freefaller  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.6    8 years ago
yeah im not sure how to take that one . 

This site should help . But I believe in states that have laws covering this sort of thing it comes down to a matter of choice, ie if the mother chooses that is her legal right, if the father kills her he removes the choice and can be charged

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
6.1.16  Freefaller  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.10    8 years ago
If one is not pro life, by definition they are pro abortion/ anti life.

Nope

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Participates
6.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.17    8 years ago
One is either pro life or pro abortion. 

Not only wrong, but also disingenuous! Or just plain ignorant!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
6.2  Jasper2529  replied to  bbl-1 @6    8 years ago
Amazes me that 'the guy' that is now 'the president' who cheated on every one of his wives

As did Jefferson, FDR, DDE, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, and others. Nothing amazing.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Silent
6.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.2    8 years ago

The 'cheating' was not the issue.  When one needs straw for the bricks get out of the soybean field.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Guide
6.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.3    8 years ago
Can we imagine the silence if Hillary had won regarding all the women and men not named WJC she has bedded?  

Seriously?

Name one.

 
 
 
Fireryone
Freshman Silent
8  Fireryone    8 years ago
Abortion and support for it have both been in a 20-year decline

No it hasn't.   

As of 2018, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The only reasonable resolution is to keep abortion rights safe and legal. 

 
 

Who is online

evilone
Sean Treacy


101 visitors