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.

 

Obama Admin Renews Attempt to Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Obey HHS Mandate

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: ladyinwaiting
You realize, of course, that the Constitution does not actually provide for separation of Church and State. It merely provides for the inability of congress to create a state approved church.

Yes, I know all the arguments. Arguments that seemingly assume incorrectly that Jefferson was the sole framer and signer of the Constitution. Arguments that seem to ignore that each and ever congressional session since day one began with a prayer. I can go on and on...

The problem is this: they didn't do it right. They "interpreted" the constitution to mean that. No amendment has been passed... nothing. In other words, a SCOTUS in the future could very well reverse the interpretation.

These are the words: "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." Period.

What if, in the future, SCOTUS decided, at the urging of the Executive and Legislative branches that the following:


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


Means that it is necessary to eliminate the bottom 10% of the country. I can interpret the above to mean that just as easily as I can interpret the constitution to mean absolute separation of church and state.

BTW: I support separation. Absolutely. I just think it was done wrong. There is a process, established by the constitution, to make changes. The Judicial branch legislating from the bench is not how it is supposed to happen. Just another example of our constitution being twisted and applied as desired instead of to the letter.

The biggest slippery slope evah!


The ruling about religious exemption re health insurance is the Supreme Court making a rule about the establishment of religion as the very reason for the exemption.




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I disagree...it's all about corporate personhood. If one accepts corporate personhood as legit, then it follows logically that corporations have the same religious freedoms as an individual.

Personally.........corporate personhood heaped on top of legalized lobbying/lobbyists is outrageous. The average Joe voter does not stand a chance.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Tangerine

I disagree...it's all about corporate personhood. If one accepts corporate personhood as legit, then it follows logically that corporations have the same religious freedoms as an individual.

Personally.........corporate personhood heaped on top of legalized lobbying/lobbyists is outrageous. The average Joe voter does not stand a chance.


But individuals don't have the rights of corporations. I agree that corporate personhood and legalized lobbying are horrible precedents. We're living under thinly disguised corporate rule.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FlyersFan

But... But... Mother Teresa renounced her faith shortly after she arrived in Calcutta. So is she in heaven or not?


Not only that, and her self declared atheism, in a letter to the Pope, Mother Teresa would likely be the Saint that would protect legal and safe abortion, after all the death and misery she saw in the orphanages in Calcutta!

To the topic, it's my understanding, that based on the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling and subsequent cases opposing the methods in which third parties are involved, the policies were changed so that the offended party merely has to alert the Department of Health of their religious objections, and all is good. It seems the Nuns are offended by that too!



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FlyersFan

But... But... Mother Teresa renounced her faith shortly after she arrived in Calcutta. So is she in heaven or not?


Not only that, and her self declared atheism, in a letter to the Pope, Mother Teresa would likely be the Saint that would protect legal and safe abortion, after all the death and misery she saw in the orphanages in Calcutta!



Mother Teresa was 100% opposed to abortion and birth control and said that poverty was beautiful. Why some people admire her is beyond me. Why the Catholic Church intends to make her a saint is obvious: it brings in the bucks.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Wow! How cynical. Could it be that she embodies the virtues that are central to the religion?

But hey! It's ok that football players make millions a year, or that a baseball player signs a contract for 215 million buckaroons. No problem. It's ok to advocate the slaughtering of children by the thousands...no sweat.

Our society is sick.



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

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Tangerine

Wow! How cynical. Could it be that she embodies the virtues that are central to the religion?

But hey! It's ok that football players make millions a year, or that a baseball player signs a contract for 215 million buckaroons. No problem. It's ok to advocate the slaughtering of children by the thousands...no sweat.

Our society is sick.



Why some people admire the religion is beyond me.

I didn't say anything about sports figures nor slaughtering children but now that you mentioned them, I don't see why sports figures shouldn't get a reasonable cut of the huge amount of money they make for the corporations that "own" them. Look up the ladder! I'm opposed to the slaughter of children. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where sports figure salaries and the slaughter of children fit into a post about Mother Teresa.

I think saying poverty is beautiful and denying people a foundational means to avoid it is sick, hence my lack of admiration for Mother Teresa and her ilk.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine
LOL

okie dokie!

So, we do not live in a sick society?

It's ok that someone can make millions of dollars a year playing a game, while a janitor is paid a pittance?

It's ok that someone can make millions of dollars a year playing a game, but a CEO is evil for making the same? hmm And a religion is evil because it takes in donations and does some good with that money.

I don't believe that "poverty is beautiful" was meant quite the way you illustrate it.

While I do not admire religion, I do have respect for those whose faith is real and they do not behave like self-righteous a-holes, like many religious and non-religious do. ilk

Funny how so many people need (NEED) to find a way to feel superior to others. There is something vaguely self-destructive about that. Perhaps it is a self-image problem. Who knows....


edit on 10-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Tangerine
LOL

okie dokie!

So, we do not live in a sick society?

It's ok that someone can make millions of dollars a year playing a game, while a janitor is paid a pittance?

It's ok that someone can make millions of dollars a year playing a game, but a CEO is evil for making the same? hmm And a religion is evil because it takes in donations and does some good with that money.

I don't believe that "poverty is beautiful" was meant quite the way you illustrate it.

While I do not admire religion, I do have respect for those whose faith is real and they do not behave like self-righteous a-holes, like many religious and non-religious do. ilk

Funny how so many people need (NEED) to find a way to feel superior to others. There is something vaguely self-destructive about that. Perhaps it is a self-image problem. Who knows....



I'll have to assume that you intentionally misread my post because no one could have rationally concluded after reading it that I said we did not live in a sick society.

I'll have to assume that you intentionally misread my comment about sports figures incomes because no one could have rationally concluded after reading it that I said that CEOS should make millions and janitors should live in poverty. I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Perhaps you could tell us exactly how Mother Teresa meant "Poverty is beautiful" when she said it.

Perhaps you could explain why she opposed any available, reasonable means of preventing more people from being born into poverty so crushing we can not even comprehend it? I refer to those born into the slums of Calcutta from which, despite the fantasy of "Slum Dog Millionaire", escape is virtually impossible.

Perhaps you would like to take a whack at justifying her policy of denying pain meds to people dying in excruciating pain so that, against their will, they could "experience the suffering of Christ".

Perhaps you could explain, comparing it to her policy for the poor, her personal decision for herself to be treated at and die in a world class hospital. Your comment about finding a way to feel superior to others would fit right in here.

Perhaps you could answer a question I already asked: where does your comment about the slaughter of children fit into a discussion about Mother Teresa?
edit on 10-9-2014 by Tangerine because: Added to sports figures income response



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

ya it would be okay for someone was making millions of dollars playing a game as long as:
1. the gov't wasn't giving the team tax cuts and other perks as bribes to get stadiums
2. all their employees were being paid enough that they were above the income limits for the gov't financial assistance.
and
3. any other dependence that the teams have on the federal gov't and our tax money save the basic services that we the people all enjoy also is also cut.

but if they are self sufficient and paying their employees enough that they are self sufficient then they can pay them however much they want. Of course, the amount that they have available might be reduced considerably because they will have to hold their own and well if they raise the cost of the seats at those stadiums much more they will be left empty but that is for them to figure out.

as far as the slaughtering of children?? well are our wars started with the honest goal of protecting our country or are they started in an attempt to put a few more million dollars into the pockets of the politician's buddies pockets who happen to be in the defense industry??

if you are talking about birth control and abortion with this well tell ya what you give me an honest attempt at answering this question and we might make headway..
I ran across a women in NY who had some mental issues.. This lady could do rather well without being institutionalized as long as she was on her meds. When she went off them though there was no way she could function. The NY State gov't forced an abortion when she became pregnant. They actually went to court, got a court order and took custody of her and forced the abortion onto her. Ya see the meds she was taking would have caused severe deformities in the baby. That's if they didn't cause a miscarriage!
We now have in some states a law that is being used to put women in jail for taking any drug (illegal, over the counter, or prescription).
We have companies who don't want to include birth control (ANY BIRTH CONTROL) in their health insurance, we have people working hard to make abortion as inaccessable as possible, and we have religions teaching that women should be "obedient" to their husbands!
Now add all those things together- imprisionment for taking drugs that are harmful to the developing baby, no abortions, limited birth control, male superiority...
What would you suggest such a women if she was around in those circumstances do? Because it darned well seems like people would prefer she just stop taking the drugs (for the child's sake of course) and go off the deep end!



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

All Catholic nuns are supposed to be against birth control and abortion. It's part of their brainwashing, I mean, doctrine.


However, Mother Teresa, in her letters and diaries, did renounce her faith, told the Pope that she no longer believed in Jesus, and if there is no Jesus, in her words, there is no God.

Me, being a non Christian who believes in the afterlife and reincarnation, made an observational comment, that Mother Teresa, looking down from her perch of Catholic Sainthood, from her perspective, having lived the hell of Calcutta orphanages, would probably be a good source to pray to, if you believe in those kind of "Catholic" things, to keep abortion safe and accessible.

Every Catholic girl seeking an abortion should pray to Mother Teresa to help her procure and get through it unscathed.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Ah..yes, because that is such a common situation.

No...I just have a problem with the recreational use of abortions. I have a problem with some stupid, ignorant woman (woman) who, apparently doesn't give a crap to take prior precautions, getting pregnant and then deciding that she doesn't want the kid and has it put to death.

Please describe the difference between a fetus at 8 months, and a newly born baby? Both are capable of surviving with help. Both are human. If it is ok to kill the 8 month fetus, then it is equally ok to kill a 3 month old baby. An 8 month old baby.

Nothing particularly magical happens during birth in which a fetus becomes a baby other than it is not directly hooked up to the mom. Now mom still has to feed and take care of the baby, just in a different way.

If being pregnant presents a dilemma for the mom's health, then I do believe it is up to the mom to make a terrible choice. One which no one should ever have to make, but unfortunately they do.

If the mom is not capable of making such a decision, then someone else will have to, either family or govt.

Funny how when abortion is mentioned, someone always has to pull a scenario from way out in left field as though that represents the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions are irresponsible women making irresponsible choices and enabled by the govt to commit murder to make their lives less complicated.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




Please describe the difference between a fetus at 8 months, and a newly born baby? Both are capable of surviving with help. Both are human. If it is ok to kill the 8 month fetus, then it is equally ok to kill a 3 month old baby. An 8 month old baby.



Who has recreational abortions?
Who is going around killing 8 month old fetuses?
Where and why, in the US, is it legal to get an abortion at 8 months pregnant?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
What do you call it when someone get's pregnant, does not want the child and has an abortion that is not health related?



Currently, this late-term abortion process is in use in pregnancies as late as 35 weeks by Shelley Sella and Susan Robinson at Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque, New Mexico, LeRoy Carhart at Germantown Reproductive Health Services in Germantown, Maryland, Warren Hern at the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder, Colorado, and Josepha Seletz at Pro-Choice Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. Other abortionists also use this process in the second and third trimesters but are less open about it.


As late as 35 weeks. That's damn near 9 months. You can see the wheres in the above quote.

source



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




What do you call it when someone get's pregnant, does not want the child and has an abortion that is not health related?


I call it an accident or a mistake. An abortion is never recreational, although almost all sex is.



As late as 35 weeks. That's damn near 9 months. You can see the wheres in the above quote.


I'm going to ask you the question again. Who has an abortion at 8 months and why? Who administers an abortion at 8 months and why?



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: dawnstar

Ah..yes, because that is such a common situation.

No...I just have a problem with the recreational use of abortions. I have a problem with some stupid, ignorant woman (woman) who, apparently doesn't give a crap to take prior precautions, getting pregnant and then deciding that she doesn't want the kid and has it put to death.

Please describe the difference between a fetus at 8 months, and a newly born baby? Both are capable of surviving with help. Both are human. If it is ok to kill the 8 month fetus, then it is equally ok to kill a 3 month old baby. An 8 month old baby.

Nothing particularly magical happens during birth in which a fetus becomes a baby other than it is not directly hooked up to the mom. Now mom still has to feed and take care of the baby, just in a different way.

If being pregnant presents a dilemma for the mom's health, then I do believe it is up to the mom to make a terrible choice. One which no one should ever have to make, but unfortunately they do.

If the mom is not capable of making such a decision, then someone else will have to, either family or govt.

Funny how when abortion is mentioned, someone always has to pull a scenario from way out in left field as though that represents the majority of abortions. The majority of abortions are irresponsible women making irresponsible choices and enabled by the govt to commit murder to make their lives less complicated.


When you get pregnant, the decision should be yours. Until then, woman's body, woman's choice. Period.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

If you're a woman, don't get sucked into the abortion debate with men. It gives them the impression that it's their decision to make. Woman's body, woman's choice. Period.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bbracken677




What do you call it when someone get's pregnant, does not want the child and has an abortion that is not health related?


I call it an accident or a mistake. An abortion is never recreational, although almost all sex is.



As late as 35 weeks. That's damn near 9 months. You can see the wheres in the above quote.


I'm going to ask you the question again. Who has an abortion at 8 months and why? Who administers an abortion at 8 months and why?



The results of recreational sex that results in abortion is not a mistake. It is irresponsible behavior at best.

I answered your question. Did you not bother to follow the link? If you want other sources, there is this thing on the interwebs called google.

Another source

oh look, another source!

This is a quote:


it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not one was for medical reasons.

And this is yet, another quote:


In 2003, Katha Pollitt, who is pro-choice, wrote an article for The Nation discussing late-term abortion. She gave the three most common reasons why women had these abortions (1): 71% didn’t realize they were pregnant 48% had difficulty making arrangements 33% were afraid of telling parents or partner The study she cites allowed for more than one answer, and these were the most common reasons given.


I, unfortunately, am not in a position where I can read the above to you, or to click on a google link and type something like, oh, say: "why do women have late term abortions" and then follow the provided links to discover a whole new world of information.

You will have to do that yourself.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Oh Look, More Men Making Laws About What Women Can and Can't Do With Their Bodies!


Governor John Kasich of Ohio just signed a budget bill that included a number of extreme restrictions on women’s health.

New restrictions imposed by the budget include:

Requiring a woman to undergo a physically invasive and medically unnecessary ultrasound before receiving an abortion.

Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood clinics.

Withholding public funding if rape crisis centers counsel women on abortions.

Creating new administrative barriers that are intended to force abortion clinics to close.

Forcing abortion providers to provide “counseling” intended to dissuade women from having abortions.


We must remain vigilant!



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

First of all, your sources are biased pro-life sites that promote lies and bogus science.

For example:


Some time ago, Abby Johnson, former clinic director in the largest Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas, addressed this issue by saying:
it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons. We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks…not one was for medical reasons.


That is an blatant exaggeration, that's obviously covering a lie. "...not one was for medical reasons" C'mon! [eye roll]

There's no sense trying to communicate with someone whose only interest is spouting biased lies in order to to promote a bigoted agenda that generalized and slanders all women who seek abortions.

Late Abortions: Facts, Stories, and Ways to Help



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join