Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Actually it DOESN'T pre-exist. This isn't an actual bill yet. It's only a proposal.

The government currently subsidizes them, that's interventionism.

What is "them"? Abortions? Because you'd be wrong there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh yeah a law passed by congress is a 'red herring'.

Compared to something that was PROPOSED that is not a 'law'.

You made it about the ACA when you kept saying this:

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

How come you don't care when the state forces people to disregard their religious beliefs to do business? Are some rights more important than others? Who gets to judge?

Because of separation of church and state.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

How come you don't care when the state forces people to disregard their religious beliefs to do business? Are some rights more important than others? Who gets to judge?

This is too funny. The statists have all become libertarians and vice versa, and no one's ego, on either side, will allow themselves to admit their hypocrisy.

This is about a specific law in a specific State that is forcing individuals to discard their own privacy in order to practice their trade.

Do you stand in agreement with the State of Alabama doing that ... or not?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh yeah a law passed by congress is a 'red herring'.

Compared to something that was PROPOSED that is not a 'law'.

You made it about the ACA when you kept saying this:

Actually you brought up the ACA first in the thread so the blame rests solely on you for taking the thread off topic, not Gryphon. Nice try though.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Please stop trying to make this discussion about your misconceptions about me and my positions.

You have made statements here in support of this legislation, and I am simply asking for clarification:

Earlier, you said things like this:

originally posted by: greencmp

Bingo, that's what I want. Full disclosure across the board.

Now you say, when pressed, you are not in favor of this interventionist legislation in AL ... you know ... the topic of the thread.

SO you stand against this legislation? Good.

You misunderstand, I stand against legislation.

It's really simple; if you don't want to be a privately funded organization and solicit public funds, you invite governmental interference.

Are you OK with cutting all legislation related to this intervention or not?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh yeah a law passed by congress is a 'red herring'.

Compared to something that was PROPOSED that is not a 'law'.

You made it about the ACA when you kept saying this:

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

Why can't you answer the question: are you in favor of the Alabama law or not?

You can twist and turn as you wish ... and I don't care a whit, nor am I going to play that game with you.

Are you in favor of the Alabama law that invades the privacy of healthcare providers and limits their right to ply their trade ... or not?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

Toss those red herrings Neo! Talk about a bad smell!

This is not about the ACA.

This is not about your personal squeamishness about other's sexual behavior.

This is not about aborition.

This is about the right-winger legislation in Alabama to restrict free trade by requiring individuals to provide private information.

Do you stand in support of this legislation?

Restrict free trade?



It's Christmas in February, thank you.

a reply to: greencmp

You answered my question; you are against the legislation.

Your previous comments made in support of it earlier made that unclear.

We're good.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Because of separation of church and state.

So the right to personal financial privacy supersedes the right to personal religious freedom because of the Establishment Clause?

Is that what you're saying?

Another funny thing I've noticed--the statist's selective invocation of the Constitution in the rare instances it can be found to support their argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Actually it DOESN'T pre-exist. This isn't an actual bill yet. It's only a proposal.

The government currently subsidizes them, that's interventionism.

What is "them"? Abortions? Because you'd be wrong there.

Whenever the government subsidizes an industry or individual company, it is intervening.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

Toss those red herrings Neo! Talk about a bad smell!

This is not about the ACA.

This is not about your personal squeamishness about other's sexual behavior.

This is not about aborition.

This is about the right-winger legislation in Alabama to restrict free trade by requiring individuals to provide private information.

Do you stand in support of this legislation?

Restrict free trade?

It's Christmas in February, thank you.

Since you insist on making it personal, I'll address this briefly.

You have never exhibited any real interest in understanding my positions on political, economic or philosophical issues. Because I often find myself standing up for the simple facts, logic and reason in the face of the blunt absurdity and ignorance so often on blatant display here, you think you understand something about me.

I am a leftist. I believe that the government should only do what it is meant to do and no more. I do not trust the government, I do not trust the people who want to be in government (elected or bureaucratic), and I sure as heck to not trust the people who pretend to be "libertarian" or "liberty-loving" who merely have a different set of chains that they want to clap around my wrists.

So please ... kindly stop with the "you've finally seen the light" directed at me ... you have no idea what I believe.

And, as usual, I am not the topic here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't have to answer anything.

For the record.

That 10th amendment says Alabama can propose anything they want to.

And it doesn't make one bit of difference what you or I say.

State RIGHTS, and all that jazz.

a reply to: NthOther

Oh now that 'right' to privacy doesn't extend to gun owners.

It is funny how they try to have it both ways.

Why did we fight so hard to get those states back again?

a reply to: neo96

I'm starting to think the Fourth Amendment only applies to pregnant women.

a reply to: neo96

Of course you don't "have to" answer anything.

You did choose, however, to participate in the discussion of the law at hand, which is gross statist intervention in commerce and personal liberty.

May I tell you that it seems mighty hypocritical (not to mention cowardly) that you choose not to state whether you do or do not support that authoritarian claptrap, particularly in light of what you've said here while attempting to divert the focus away from the topic.

But that is as it is.

No, the Tenth Amendment does not say Alabama "can do anything she chooses": here's the Tenth again for your reference ...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nothing at all there which gives Alabama autocratic or dictatorial force to be wielded against THE PEOPLE of Alabama.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, the Tenth Amendment does not say Alabama "can do anything she chooses":

Yeah it does.

A elected representative of a STATE can propose ANY bill they want to.

Since the op is about a PROPOSAL people need to stop with the 'autocratic' , and 'dictatorial' BS.

a reply to: neo96

No it doesn't.

You're merely shuffling the authoritarian deck to empower the tyrants that you seem to prefer (the "States")

Further, you don't tell us how to discuss the topics at hand, so we will continue to speak here as we will within the ATS T&C.

Got that? Good.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So how is a BILL that IS NOT LAW. That was proposed 'dictatorial' ?

Since it hasn't been voted on yet. Nor signed in to LAW by the governor.

Further, you don't tell us how to discuss the topics at hand, so we will continue to speak here as we will within the ATS T&C.

Why how DICTATORIAL and AUTOCRATIC of you.