It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Democrats Propose Law to Force Christians to Pay for Abortion Drugs

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: rupertg

And thus achieve DEPOPULATION! We know, we saw it start with the "Great Chemical Experiment" at the dawn of the 60s when they started dumping chems into the food as a system and the move to the Soviet model of education. to pass tests.
Which is a thread unto itself by the way.




posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
The democrats on Capitol Hill that are proposing this, and ANYONE who support this are even much worse than a community of pedophiles, since this causes the death of babies.

DC democrats in the senate: "We are proposing this bill to require that Christian organizations, Churches, etc, be legally forced to pay money to enable baby killing, (in violation of their religious beliefs ( but made to be legal by democrats and isn't even called murder anymore), because we don't believe that killing babies is murder or immoral because we do not have any morals.), that will financially enable people to commit acts of murder against human beings before they are born, but they will be voting for us because we gave them more handouts so it is Okay.."

This is the same or actually much worse than Catholic Priests giving a free pass to many other priests for acts of pedophilia. When they weren't condemning it, but were claiming it never happened, and even claimed that kids were just trying to win easy money with lawsuits against priests in the Catholic church.

I have just worded this to actually reflect a much more realistic version of what this bill would require, and what these so called democrats are pushing.

Funny how people blindly supporting the democrat party will rubber stamp anything, no matter what members of this party support. They already continue supporting a murderer president who has killed a thousand or more children and babies, and pregnant women in Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya, and who knows where else, or the actual true numbers murdered by countless drone weapons that our president has utilized against them. As long as we can reinforce our continued existence in politics by getting more votes, we don't care.

Democrats or anyone supporting this are really saying: "Lets just pretend they (kids and babies and women) aren't real because they live over seas, and lets just pretend that babies that aren't born yet have no soul, because we don't believe in souls. We don't really care even if souls are real anyways. We like and support totally irresponsible reproductive practices because it feels great, but if we become pregnant, lets just kill that worthless lump of flesh with a lethal dose of drugs because it is a real inconvenience, and we will just label everything to sound mundane so the shock of what we do isn't so shocking.

Then we can get more votes from poor people that will have free supplies of abortion drugs, because we will take credit for them having access to these drugs, plus we are pushing the whole thing with the gimmick of making those that use these abortion drugs to believe they aren't doing anything bad by using medical and non threatening sounding terms.

Promoting free drugs that cause the death of babies just for VOTES, because those who can't afford them in the first place have already been coerced with lots of other free handouts by the current president, so we are home free !

This is what has become of a political party who has tasted the good life because of their exploitation of their official positions, and they do not want the gravy train to end, so there are absolutely no limits to doing anything to get votes, to stay in power.
I can't think of any other reason a party would be demanding certain groups like religious ones should pay for abortion drugs than to appeal to those voters that have no concepts of morality to begin with, and hope to garner or strengthen numbers in a niche voter group to hedge their bets, and in desperation, have done many other fringe things just to get votes, like the little immigration ugliness happening right now. It is not a coincidence.

This bill, if it passes, also gives a societal confirmation to women and men to feel less beholden to their traditional belief that abortion is the killing of a baby. Just go ask a young woman that has had an abortion, and ask her what she felt like on her way home from the abortion clinic or planned parenthood.
Then you will really know that it is not something to be praised or accepted as Okay to do.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge

originally posted by: xuenchen
Senate Democrats Propose Law to Force Christians to Pay for Abortion Drugs


In an obvious "sour grapes" knee-jerk hyper response to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision last week, Democrats in the U.S. Senate are proposing yet another crusade against the 1st Amendment.

They display their true colors by demanding that abortion drugs be "forcibly paid for" by everybody if I read this correctly.

HHS has already discriminated by "allowing" non profit organizations to be exempt while forcing all others to be included but separated by religion.

The Supreme Court partly disagreed by "allowing" closely held companies to be exempted from at least the "contraceptives" listed by the FDA.

Very dangerous when we see the absolute mania displayed since last week.

Big can of worms.

I wonder how religious Democrats feel and how many will be "alienated" by this wild action ?




On Wednesday, Senate Democrats introduced a bill that would force Christians and other conscientious objectors to pay for drugs and devices, including the "week-after" pill, that may kill human embryos.

The new bill was drafted in response to Supreme Court's ruling last week that Obamacare's so-called contraceptive mandate as applied to family-owned religious businesses was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Democrats' legislation would strip away the religious freedom law's protections for Americans who provide health benefits to their employees.



The text of the bill states that an employer-sponsored health insurance plan shall not exclude coverage of any item or service "where the coverage of such item or service is required under any provision of Federal law or the regulations promulgated thereunder" and that the new law would "apply notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including Public Law 103–141 [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act]."




Senate Democrats Propose Law to Force Christians to Pay for Abortion Drugs





I am glad for this, I was forced to pay for the two trillion dollar wars that the Christian Right supported as they locked stepped with Bush. I guess they only care about killing when the person does not have a name.


We are making headway only 6 post this time instead of the usual 3 before the "Bush Defense" was used.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Businesses may not be paying for abortions....but each an every person who pays an unACA premium is.
And, those premiums discriminate against age.....EVERY year you premium goes up.....why should a healthy 59 year old have to pay far more than an unhealthy 28 year old?

Why should a 30 year old woman who has had a tubal ligation have to pay for maternity care that a 40 year old man needs?
There should be a tiered plan available to people....and lets quit the age discrimination.

Basic coverage for actual health/illness issues.
Then, riders for contraceptive care, maternity care, birthing care.....issues not related to illness....pregnancy is not an illness, after all.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I know considering WWI, WWII, Vietnam ...



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

False argument. The SCOTUS decision only applies to a very specific class of corporation where all the owners share the same belief and only applies to four methods that are seen to cause a fertilized egg to abort.




Hi Blaine91555,

A quick fact correct - the SCOTUS decision DOES apply to all birth control. There are currently companies owned by devout Roman Catholics that are eliminating ALL birth control coverage (at least for women, not sure about men) in their health care insurance policies.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

peace,
AB



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Blaine91555

I find it very bizarre that this debate is even in the political realm. Anything involving this should be a personal choice and the key word here is "choice". No person or business owner should be forced to go against their beliefs in a rational world.

Anytime one group of one mindset forces their views on people who do not agree, it is wrong IMO.



So what about the woman's choice????

It's hard to imagine there was a day when a person was responsible for their actions. But there was, if you decided to sleep with someone and became pregnant, it was your decision that put you there, no one elses and in that regard it was your problem to deal with. For some reason in todays world we have lost all personal responsibility, and now have a government that wants to force peoples indiscretions on everyone else.

One group is forcing their views on people who do not agree still. Only it's businesses forcing their views on their female employees now.

The only entity doing any forcing here is the government based on garnering your vote for contraceptives or abortions paid for by someone else.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Blaine91555
What exactly is wrong with finding an accommodation that satisfies both sides? You see any politicians even suggesting that?


I wish we had the single payer system.


Me too then I would finally get something for free. Does this mean I would get better coverage and service than the VA gives?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


A quick fact correct - the SCOTUS decision DOES apply to all birth control. There are currently companies owned by devout Roman Catholics that are eliminating ALL birth control coverage (at least for women, not sure about men) in their health care insurance policies.


Good Point.

Often overlooked.

Hobby Lobby cited the 4 abortion drugs and not the 16 contraceptives.

The SCOTUS included all 20 because they had no basis for just the "4" (I think)

It's confusing.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: xuenchen

How can you say this may apply to Hobby Lobby? Did you miss these four words from your link?


non-profit religious organization

This may come as a shock to you but HL is NOT a non profit religious organization. Seeing how the owner has become a billionaire from his business they seem to be profiting very well.


The Supreme Court ruling eludes to that....

read the "Held:" parts. It's fairly clear.

Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby Hobby Lobby


Closely held and non profit is two totally different things.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Having followed this from the start, I think that the bill that should be put into effect makes people take responsibility for their actions. That means if a person goes out and has unprotected sex, then part of the responsibility for the consequences should be brought on by that person. If they did that, I wonder how many of the baby mamma's would ultimately be forced to stop and think before going out and having sex with any one and start demanding, oh I don't know, say marriage or a firm comittment?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe




And while at the same time, you would starve them out once they were born, based on reading 1000's of your previous post. From what I remember, the elderly should starve and be denied healthcare as well, unless they can afford it. You uncompromising attitude is getting old, and driving people like me from the center to the left, hope you saved that last round in the clip, cause it could get worse.


Have anything other than hyperbole ?

Guess its better to just kill them out right with abortion drugs.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
All the same people I see whining about separation of church and state because of the Hobby Lobby decision are now cheering the state on when it refuses to separate itself from the idea of the church ...



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
All the same people I see whining about separation of church and state because of the Hobby Lobby decision are now cheering the state on when it refuses to separate itself from the idea of the church ...


Unless you are really a fan of what is going on in Iraq right now, religion has no place in politics. Slavery was a Christian practice in the USA as recently as 1865.


(post by BubbaJoe removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Nice to see someone has read this playbook WORD FOR WORD.

The truth about the false choice



As a rhetorical device, particularly as a political rhetorical device, the false choice has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any. The phrase has become a trite substitute for serious thinking. It serves too often to obscure rather than to explain.




Set up two unacceptable extremes that no one is seriously advocating and position yourself as the champion of the reasonable middle ground between these unidentified straw men.



Examples of the FALSE CHOICE :




And while at the same time, you would starve them out once they were born, based on reading 1000's of your previous post. From what I remember, the elderly should starve and be denied healthcare as well, unless they can afford it. You uncompromising attitude is getting old, and driving people like me from the center to the left, hope you saved that last round in the clip, cause it could get worse.


Second example:




Nice to see that you have no problem with the poor and elderly starving. It is your usual one or two line short post, getting real old, maybe you should try outlining you positions for us, not that they ever change, but having to read 1000's of posts across 100 threads is not really committing to communication. Go write a check to Palin, or the Christian Dominionists, you are all on the same page.


What is getting old are those who push the false choice.


(post by BubbaJoe removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join