Democrats promise Biden-era abortion showdown over Hyde Amendment

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  one month ago  •  114 comments

By:   Sahil Kapur (MSN)

Democrats promise Biden-era abortion showdown over Hyde Amendment
The decades-old measure, named after an Illinois GOP lawmaker, limits the use of federal funds.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Democrats promise Biden-era abortion showdown over Hyde Amendment

WASHINGTON — House Democrats have spent two years passing government funding legislation without picking a fight over abortion, but with President Donald Trump leaving office, party leaders say 2021 will be different.

© Provided by NBC News

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who is set to chair the powerful House Appropriations Committee, said next year the House will eliminate the so-called Hyde Amendment, a decades-old policy that prohibits federal programs like Medicaid from paying for abortions.

"This is the last year," DeLauro said at a Dec. 8 hearing about the adverse effects of the Hyde Amendment. "The time has come in this current moment to reckon with the norm, with the status quo."

"The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory policy," she said, arguing that it puts politicians between a woman and her doctor and is particularly harmful to rural and low-income women.

But that is guaranteed to face Republican opposition, Senate Appropriations Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said.

"The Republican caucus would resist it," Shelby told NBC News. "We've had the Hyde Amendment a long time. And I think it's pretty clearly embedded in the fabric of our legislation. I support the Hyde Amendment."

The conflicting positions preview a clash over the polarizing issue of abortion next year when the government will have to be funded again.

The Hyde Amendment is named after its original sponsor, former Republican congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. It is not a permanent statute and doesn't require repeal. It exists by being added every year since 1976 to essential legislation passed by Congress to fund the federal government.

President-elect Joe Biden endorsed the calls to scrap the policy during the Democratic primary, abandoning his past support for the measure when he was a senator.

"If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's ZIP code," then-candidate Biden said in June 2019.

But most Republican lawmakers oppose abortion rights and favor the Hyde restrictions. Even if they lose control of the Senate in the Georgia runoffs Jan. 5, they'll retain filibuster power and be able to force a 60-vote threshold to pass a bill in the chamber.

If Biden uses his veto power to demand removal of the Hyde Amendment, it could enhance the Democrats' leverage. But the president-elect's recent focus has been on other matters and it's not clear how much political capital he will spend on that goal.

Conservatives who support Hyde limitations argue that taxpayers who consider abortion to be immoral shouldn't be asked to fund it. Progressives say abortion rights are linked to economic security for women, and contend that it's a double standard to exclude abortion when tax dollars are frequently used to fund programs that some taxpayers object to.

Shelby said that progressives have "tried to remove it over the years and haven't been successful," signaling that the outcome would be the same if they tried in 2021.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., endorsed DeLauro's push to do away with the Hyde Amendment next year.

"I myself have been an opponent of the Hyde Amendment long before I came to Congress, so I would be receptive to that happening," she told reporters Dec. 10, calling the policy unfair to women. "It's long overdue, getting rid of it, in my view."

Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago

Now, who couldn't predict that the Democrats would try this?

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
1.1  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago

They are going to try do this with the narrowest possible of margins in both houses assuming they sweep Georgia in the face of all those pro life women just elected to the house.  They didn’t even try this when Clinton or Obama were first elected and they had big majorities in both houses.  They would have to do away with the filibuster on a 51-50 vote first.  So much for unity.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
2  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago

Is this political payback to Planned Parenthood for their generous donations to Democratic candidates?

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
2.1  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago

That’s exactly what it is.  They will likely try to pass federal legislation trying to ban all pro life bills and laws in all of the 50 states as well. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Masters Guide
2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago

In 2016, the NRA spent more than $30 million on behalf of the Trump campaign.  So what is the political payback for them?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3  Vic Eldred    one month ago

It took about 11 paragraphs for there being mention of what the Hyde Amendment actually does :

"Conservatives who support Hyde limitations argue that taxpayers who consider abortion to be immoral shouldn't be asked to fund it."

That's what it's about. Those who find abortion immoral shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Will Biden sign on to dropping it?   It's a lose-lose proposition for him. His limited cognitive state may even comprehend that much.


 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

I believe the far left will push Biden into signing it if it actually passes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago

The "if" will depend on a very close House vote among other things.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    one month ago

Well, unfortunately, it only has to pass the House in an appropriations bill.

They just leave it out and it becomes what they wish for---no federal ban on funding abortions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    one month ago

They won't be able to get off so easily. There are a few honest news organizations that will remind us all of what democrats are capable of. I'm guessing they have two years to run the House.

Will they really do it?

"The Hyde Amendment  remains  popular with voters decades after its creation in 1976, as 49 percent of voters support it while only 33 percent oppose it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    one month ago

This past election certainly points to a GOP-majority House after the 2022 elections. 

Exactly how did Democrats manage to lose so many House seats while Biden was winning?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    one month ago
The Hyde Amendment  remains  popular with voters decades after its creation in 1976, as 49 percent of voters support it while only 33 percent oppose it.

Not sure Democrats will take note of that or care if they do.

[ deleted ]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    one month ago
Exactly how did Democrats manage to lose so many House seats while Biden was winning?

They also managed to (as far as we know) hang on to the Senate.

The answer is I simply don't know. Many strange things happened with the mail-in-voting.

Use Georgia as a snapshot:

. "In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened."


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    one month ago
Not sure Democrats will take note of that or care if they do.

Pelosi will...Her butt is still sore after losing all those seats.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.7    one month ago

I look for Pelosi to retire after she loses the House--again.

Then the real fun starts with mainstream Democrats and the Squad!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    one month ago
I look for Pelosi to retire after she loses the House--again.

IMO this is her last term. She did a lot of injury to the nation and she is a disgrace to her heritage.


Then the real fun starts with mainstream Democrats and the Squad!

You may have touched on something there. They drove a nice wedge into the democratic party.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    one month ago
Use Georgia as a snapshot:

Oh let's DO.

They counted the ballots 3 TIMES and Biden won 3 TIMES. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.1.10    one month ago

 The time to stop voting problems is before an election - not after. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    one month ago
The time to stop voting problems is before an election - not after. 

Well then your comment about Georgia's ballot counting as a snapshot is irrelevant, isn't it Vic.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.1.13  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    one month ago

It will be great seeing the faces of all the new pro life women elected to congress last month leading the opposition to this proposed repeal.  It will forever prove that it was and is a lie that abortion is a women’s issue.  Concerned Women for America vs. National Organization of Women toe to toe in combat over this issue.  Freedom Force vs The Squad.  Let the debate begin.   Pro life is pro woman.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.1.14  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    one month ago

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.1.15  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    one month ago

......House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) may have a more difficult time quieting the voices of pro-lifers than in the past because of unexpected Democratic losses in the House last month, resulting in a slimmer majority status than in the previous session.

A total of 29 pro-life women will be in the House come January. Prudence Robertson of the Susan B. Anthony List is hopeful regarding the addition of more pro-life legislators.

"We have 18 new pro-life women now elected to the U.S. House; 10 of these women elected to the House have flipped seats that were formerly held by pro-abortion Democrats," Robertson states. ( See earlier related article )

Pelosi was known to tune out requests for bills to be heard in the chamber by pro-life members of the House, but now the speaker won't be able to drown out the noise, says the pro-life spokeswoman.

"When people understand the extremism of the Democrats on abortion, especially Nancy Pelosi and radical Democrats in Congress, they reject that extremism," Robertson continues. "So, I think that these women will be able to really be a pro-life stronghold in the House and present pro-life legislation and the pro-life argument to really challenge the extremism that we currently see from the Democrats.".....

Read more:

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
3.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    one month ago
The time to stop voting problems is before an election - not after. 

And what if the only "voting problem" is that your guy lost?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.16    4 weeks ago

That doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.13    4 weeks ago

If abortion is not a woman's issue, then whose issue is it? Last I checked, only women were capable of pregnancy and having abortions. Has that changed? 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

Why are those apposed to abortion the only ones that get to pick and choose what to fund with their tax dollars Vic? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago

Nobody should pick what to fund with tax dollars especially when there is so much division. In that case I prefer we don't fund such things, but we do have elected officials who are supposed to represent all of us and debate the merits of issues. It's too bad that things have become so ideological.

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
3.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago

no doubt. I'm sick of my tax dollars being used to subsidize the shortfall of business taxes not collected from right wing money laundries that operate as tax exempt religious organizations and bogus charities.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.2.2    one month ago

Oh, please do explain these shortfalls and who is not paying what they owe.

Which entities are you actually claiming are money launderers or bogus?

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
3.2.4  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @3.2.2    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    one month ago
Nobody should pick what to fund with tax dollars especially when there is so much division.

Then you should oppose the Hyde Amendment. 

In that case I prefer we don't fund such things, but we do have elected officials who are supposed to represent all of us and debate the merits of issues.

The Hyde Amendment let's them avoid debating it's inclusion on the merits. 

It's too bad that things have become so ideological.

Well gee Vic, since the Hyde Amendment has been around since the 70's, it sure as hell looks like it became ideological long ago. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
3.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.2    one month ago
Why are those apposed to abortion the only ones that get to pick and choose what to fund with their tax dollars Vic?

Imagine thinking that's true. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.5    one month ago
Then you should oppose the Hyde Amendment. 

I thought the Hyde Amendment was denying funding. No?


The Hyde Amendment let's them avoid debating it's inclusion on the merits. 

It seems they did debate it's merits - in 1976 and the original Hyde Amendment was passed by the House with a 312–93 vote. That seems fairly non-ideological.

it sure as hell looks like it became ideological long ago. 

The 70's weren't ideological. There were progressives, but they had yet to take over our institutions. They were still high back then.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.6    one month ago
Imagine thinking that's true. 

That's a question Sean. Got an answer? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.9  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.6    one month ago

Rather pitiful, isn't it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.8    one month ago
That's a question Sean.

Please point out the question mark in this sentence:

"Imagine thinking that's true. "

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.7    one month ago
I thought the Hyde Amendment was denying funding. No?

Yes and since you don't think anyone should pick what to fund with tax dollars you should oppose it. 

It seems they did debate it's merits - in 1976 and the original Hyde Amendment was passed by the House with a 312–93 vote. That seems fairly conclusive.

Seems ridiculous to compare the votes on the 1976 House with what could happen in 2021 Vic. We were talking about debates in TODAYS Congress, weren't we? 

The 70's weren't ideological.

The topic is the Hyde Amendment and THAT is unequivocally ideological. 

There were progressives, but they had yet to take over our institutions. They were still high back then.

That's funny since I see a lot of whining going on around here about progressive influence of the media, education and the military. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    one month ago
Please point out the question mark in this sentence:

Please stop being obtuse. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.13  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.12    one month ago

Please stop calling statements questions.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.13    one month ago

Why should I grant your request when you failed to grant mine? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.14    one month ago

Had you not erroneously called a statement a question, we wouldn't be discussing anything, now would we, Dulay?

See, there are consequences to your actions, and you can accept them or move on.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.15    one month ago
[removed]
 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.17  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.16    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
3.2.18  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.17    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.2.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.11    one month ago
Yes and since you don't think anyone should pick what to fund with tax dollars you should oppose it. 

Why should I opposed something that does not fund abortion?


Seems ridiculous to compare the votes on the 1976 House with what could happen in 2021 Vic. 

Why? Wasn't it debated on the merits in 1976?  Have the merits changed?


The topic is the Hyde Amendment and THAT is unequivocally ideological. 

An amendment that keeps taxpayers out of abortions is ideological?


That's funny since I see a lot of whining going on around here about progressive influence of the media, education and the military. 

Ya, they've come a long way. We didn't even notice!

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.19    one month ago
Why should I opposed something that does not fund abortion?

I have already told you TWICE.

Wasn't it debated on the merits in 1976? 

I haven't read the debate so I have no idea. 

Have the merits changed?

Undoubtedly. 

An amendment that keeps taxpayers out of abortions is ideological?

Undoubtedly. 

Ya, they've come a long way. We didn't even notice!

If it was too insignificant to notice, why all of the whining? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.2.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.16    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.21    one month ago
you know. no one is forcing you to read my posts.

Ditto.

if you want to do nothing but argue over every little fucking thing, please exit my seed.

You picked the little fucking thing to argue about Tex, not I. 

thanks

No worries. 

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.2.23  MAGA  replied to  Dulay @3.2.22    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
3.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago
That's what it's about. Those who find abortion immoral shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

I find separating small children from their mothers immoral and yet, I am forced to pay for it.  I find wars immoral and am forced to pay for them.  I find mass incarceration of people with mental and substance use issues immoral and, once again, I am forced to pay for it.  c'est la vie.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Masters Principal
3.3.1  Kathleen  replied to  SteevieGee @3.3    one month ago

To bad..... keep that checkbook out.  We all have to pay for things we don’t agree with.....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @3.3    one month ago

Write to your representative.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.3.3  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.2    one month ago

That would be a good thing to do.  Apply public pressure on those who would strip us of our civil protection. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
3.3.4  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.2    one month ago

That's exactly what I used to tell my kids when they didn't want to wear their bike helmets..

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.3.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @3.3.4    one month ago

Fortunately, I didn't have that problem, mine wanted to wear them.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.4  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

It would be just as evil as forcing a bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding or coercing a photographer to take pictures at one.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
3.5  MAGA  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

It took about 11 paragraphs for there being mention of what the Hyde Amendment actually does :

"Conservatives who support Hyde limitations argue that taxpayers who consider abortion to be immoral shouldn't be asked to fund it."

That's what it's about. Those who find abortion immoral shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Will Biden sign on to dropping it?   It's a lose-lose proposition for him. His limited cognitive state may even comprehend that much.

Biden has already gone further in opposition to his religious beliefs in promising to support the repeal of this amendment he voted for in 1976.  The secular progressive left now is all about coercion.  Coercing Bible believing Christians to act or financially support heinous crimes against our deeply held religious beliefs.  For them it’s all about revenge and control and they will use all the tools at their disposal to abort our dissent.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

It shows how extremist the Democrats have become on this issue. Using taxpayer funds to directly pay for abortions has never been popular, which is why Democrats passed a version of the Hyde Amendment even when they maintained overwhelming control of the Federal government under Obama.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

Oh please DO explain how a fetus can be aborted AFTER birth Sean. Please be specific. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1    one month ago

se DO explain how a fetus can be aborted AFTER birth Sean

My [ [Deleted ] [ bad.   "The ] [ ] ] authors argue what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ [deleted]

Let's call a spade a spade. Deleted Happy? 

[ Inflammatory Content ]

[ Content that arguably and unnecessarily seeks to anger others is prohibited. This does not preclude inherently hot topics for debate (e.g. the abortion debate). A topic designed to engage others in thoughtful discussion or debate (e.g. ‘At what point in a pregnancy do we have a human being?’) is welcome. One that seeks to inflame (e.g. ‘Pro-choice means killing babies’) is not. ]

 
 
 
bugsy
Masters Guide
4.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago
Let's call a spade a spade. The loons support killing babies after birth. Happy? 

Actually, NO. 

Abortion is NOT killing babies after birth. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
4.1.4  MAGA  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    one month ago

If a human baby survives [Deleted

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago

Linking to and quoting from medical journals is now a COC violation...

No surprise. When you can't deal with the truth, censor it. 

[No, Sean, the words deleted were yours, not the link.]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    one month ago

deleted

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
5  MAGA    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
6  MAGA    one month ago

Well if this somehow passes then we can take it to court and challenge it under the RFRA on the grounds that there is no compelling state interest in the compelling of people morally opposed to an act to pay for it.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
6.1  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @6    one month ago

Do you mean, that by not taxing religious organizations, every taxpayer is therefore subsidizing such places & organizations?

.

If so, then I am all aboard to strip them of such tax exemptions

without prejudice as to whom they worship.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @6.1    one month ago

good luck taxing churches, you will need lots of it!

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
6.1.2  MAGA  replied to  Split Personality @6.1    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
6.1.3  MAGA  replied to  Split Personality @6.1    one month ago

Blue city mayors and blue state governors have been ignoring separation of church and state since the pandemic began assuming so called emergency powers to try to rule over us.  Finally the Supreme Court told them to stop.  One can’t have separation of church and state of the government is given taxing power over the church.  That would be just as wrong as a state church using government to tax the people to support it as happens in Europe 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
6.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @6.1.3    one month ago
Blue city mayors and blue state governors have been ignoring separation of church and state since the pandemic began assuming so called emergency powers to try to rule over us.

Blue city mayors and blue state governors have been ignoring separation of church and state since the pandemic began assuming so called emergency powers to try to KEEP AS MANY OF YOU ALIVE AS POSSIBLE

Finally the Supreme Court told them to stop.

Good. I make it the equivalent of smokers rights.  Smoke and take your chances.  You die anyway, we all do.

Lock yourselves in a church and sing your hearts out, taking your chances the virus will find you.

One can’t have separation of church and state of the government is given taxing power over the church.

Perhaps it's time to change and study other democracies that do tax church property.

That would be just as wrong as a state church using government to tax the people to support it as happens in Europe 

Not wrong at all if it eliminated Osteen and his ilk from our national fabric.

.

Can you believe a single scientist in Antarctica tested positive for COVID and had to be evacuated?

Some mystery, eh?

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
6.1.5  MAGA  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.4    one month ago

If blue state governors and blue city mayors were trying to keep us alive they would not be trying to keep us all at home when over 50% of all China virus cases originate there.  

we will attend church one way or the other over the objections of the secularist elite.  

we do not need to tax churches or put the power of the government over churches in this country.  

you don’t get to decide which denominations or churches don’t get to exist anymore just because you....

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
6.1.7  Split Personality  replied to    one month ago
Most people pay very little to no income taxes who are you talking about?

Most people would be the 56% who DO pay income taxes according to the progressive rates established by Congress.

56% is more than 44% who are excused by law...

But you knew that already...

Who pays U.S. income tax, and how much? | Pew Research Center

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
6.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  MAGA @6.1.5    one month ago
If blue state governors and blue city mayors were trying to keep us alive they would not be trying to keep us all at home when over 50% of all China virus cases originate there.

You mean that COVID is prevalent in the locations that most of the people are?  What a coincidence!!!!  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
6.2  MrFrost  replied to  MAGA @6    one month ago
challenge it under the RFRA

Wrong. 1st Amendment. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7  Gordy327    one month ago

The Hyde Amendment has existed for nearly 45 years, through multiple administrations on both sides of the political spectrum. Somehow, like abortion, I doubt there will be any significant changes made to it, much less a revocation. Complaints and arguments about the Hyde Amendment ultimately amounts to little more than blowing hot air.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
7.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Gordy327 @7    one month ago
Complaints and arguments about the Hyde Amendment ultimately amounts to little more than blowing hot air.

On the nose.  Religion is too firmly entrenched in the government for it to be otherwise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1    one month ago

Most, if not all arguments I've heard against abortion or funding of abortion have been based on religion or religious beliefs. Maintaining a separation of church and state should invalidate any religious based arguments. Not that they're something to take seriously to begin with. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
7.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.1    one month ago
Most, if not all arguments I've heard against abortion or funding of abortion have been based on religion or religious beliefs.

All arguments I've heard are religion based.  Strangely enough, the bible indicates that god is pro choice, but his followers like to cherry pick...

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.2    one month ago

If all arguments are religious based, and I tend to agree they are (or at least emotionally based), then perhaps that's why abortion rights have never been successfully challenged. There's no rational argument to be made against abortion.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.1.4  MAGA  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.2    one month ago

Actually there are science based reasons to avoid the killing of those of us who have yet to be born.  Whether one is killed pre birth or post birth in their life the act is still called the same.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
7.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  MAGA @7.1.4    one month ago
Actually there are science based reasons to avoid the killing of those of us who have yet to be born.

Please list them, scientifically accurate arguments that is.

Whether one is killed pre birth or post birth in their life the act is still called the same.  

Pre-birth = abortion

Post-birth = murder.

So your 1st claim is already proven wrong, they are NOT called the same.  I hope you have other arguments that are more rational.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
7.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.3    one month ago

Abortion rights HAVE been successfully challenged on an incremental basis all over the country and upheld in some cases by the SCOTUS. There are far too many states where abortion is de facto outlawed because their are so over-regulated it's almost impossible to get one. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @7.1.4    one month ago

What "science?" I mean real science. Not your idea of "science."

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    one month ago

The right to abortion itself hasn't been successfully challenged. But many states, as you point out, try to circumvent abortion through over regulation and protocol. Of vourse, thus places an unnecessary and undue burden on the woman, which has also been successfully argued in the courts too.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
7.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.8    one month ago

Yes, they insist that the 'right' hasn't been repealed while making it as unavailable as possible. Threatening and attacking doctors and clinics, one clinic in a state, multiple appointments days apart requiring overnight stays, invasive ultrasounds and much more. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @7.1.9    one month ago

All slimy tactics employed when they do not get their way. And it's the women who suffer for it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.5    one month ago
I hope you have other arguments that are more rational.

I highly doubt it.

Please list them, scientifically accurate arguments that is.

Notice how our inquiries go unanswered?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
7.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @7    one month ago

nice to see Democrats calling for federal funding of abortions are simply full of hot Air!

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2    one month ago

As are Republicans calling to end any funding and/or abortions. It's all political hot air BS. Nothing will significantly change, regardless of political party.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.2  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.1    one month ago

All abortion except to save the left of the mother or such severe defect that would cause life to end within moments of birth anyway should be forever ended.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
7.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  MAGA @7.2.2    one month ago
All abortion except to save the left of the mother or such severe defect that would cause life to end within moments of birth anyway should be forever ended.  

Why?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @7.2.2    one month ago

Merely your own opinion. But you do not get to decide that for anyone else!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
7.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  MAGA @7.2.2    4 weeks ago

All abortion except to save the left of the mother or such severe defect that would cause life to end within moments of birth anyway should be forever ended.  

So rape and incest....???? Totally ok? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.5    4 weeks ago

It is in the bible, right?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
PhD Quiet
7.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.6    4 weeks ago

It is in the bible, right?

Rape, incest, and abortions are all okay according to the bible.  Along with many other atrocities.  But as soon as you point that out, MAGA runs away.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.7    4 weeks ago

Or cherry picks to suit a narrative. Either way, it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.9  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.3    4 weeks ago

I'll bet you'll get something, assuming you get a reply at all, that appeals to emotion or attempts to tug heart strings or something like that. I wouldn't expect anything logical or rational, nor even honest.

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.10  MAGA  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.3    4 weeks ago

To protect human life from being immorally and illegitimately terminated for selfish reasons or the convenience of other human beings.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.11  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.4    4 weeks ago

Human life begins at conception.  I’m simply speaking out advocating for the part of humanity, male or female that has no voice, no say if they even get to survive, to continue in their human life development.  Abortion is a human being and their accomplices playing god over the life and existence of another human being.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.12  MAGA  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.5    4 weeks ago

No they are not.  I wouldn’t condemn one in those cases or support it.  It still visits capital punishment upon the child for the sins of the father.  So if keeping a child that’s from that origin is too emotionally harmful then an adopt out and forget option is available 

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.13  MAGA  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.7    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
7.2.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  MAGA @7.2.13    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.15  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.8    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.16  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @7.2.9    4 weeks ago

See 7.2.15. That is the way of the secular progressive left isn’t it.  Simply attacking the personal honesty and character of all who presume to dare to disagree with you.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
PhD Principal
7.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @7.2.16    4 weeks ago
Simply attacking the personal honesty and character ...

  jrSmiley_104_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
MAGA
Junior Guide
7.2.18  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.17    4 weeks ago

That seems to be all your posts here do as well.  

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
7.2.19  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @7.2.11    4 weeks ago
Human life begins at conception.

Well if that's true Xx, there are millions more 'deaths' between conception and implantation than abortions. 

Abortion is a human being

Abortion is a medical procedure Xx. 

and their accomplices playing god over the life and existence of another human being.  

Then so are the fornicators who create those zygotes. That's a lot of Gods Xx. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.20  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @7.2.11    4 weeks ago

A human cell begins at conception. But a cell is not an autonomous individual or person. And no, you don't get to speak for anyone except yourself, much less require anyone to confirm to your views or surrender their rights! That's just sanctimonious arrogance and an infringement on an actual individual's autonomy. Abortion is a medical procedure and a woman's right to choose, period! Anything else is just emotionally driven rhetoric! 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
7.2.21  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @7.2.12    4 weeks ago
 So if keeping a child that’s from that origin is too emotionally harmful then an adopt out and forget option is available 

So you whine and bitch about 'the state' controlling your body by requiring you to wear a mask for minutes at a time but you have no issue with a woman having to endure the emotionally harmful effects of carrying a fetus to term. 

WOW! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.22  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @7.2.16    4 weeks ago

No, it's calling it like it is. And your posts only proves me right! You had an opportunity to make a rational, logical argument to support your position and prove me wrong in the process. But as I predicted, you went straight to the emotional appeals, thetoric, and sanctimony. Not to mention Making a borderline sweeping generalization.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
7.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @7.2.10    4 weeks ago

Who are you to determine what is moral or selfish, much less determine what are "legitimate" reasons for someone else. A woman has the right to an abortion if she chooses. That is a legitimate reason enough! You have no say in someone main that choice or their reasons for doing so!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Ozzwald
GregTx
gooseisgone
Bob Nelson


48 visitors