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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ladies; Get Your Birth Control NOW While You Still Can

page: 26
134
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Well now, I bet you don't think my Proposed Legislation to Abortion Laws is not so extreme now was it?? I was simply trying to get a jump off point to bridge the two extreme opinions and beliefs in an effort to get ahead into a compromise. Frankly, given the option between the two, I would think what I have laid out thus far is much more respectful and closer to existing expectations than what our lawmakers are working on now based on the OP source.




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Where in Trumps policies does he say he is overturning RvW and taking away the right for women to have birth control? Where is it? Kind of like asking for the 'racist' statement people use to call him a racist....it never appears.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Dude! The citations have been posted within the 26 pages of this thread. Posting them again isn't going to help if you refuse to acknowledge them.

There's is no denying that a Donald Trump/Mike Pence administration poses threats to women's reproductive rights and their access to birth control. Trying to play a Jedi Mind Trick on me, into going to work.




edit on 15-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No Jedi mind trick. Sorry and I am not doing this to be a jackass. FACT is there is nothing in his policies that discusses changes or restrictions for women and reproductive rights.

He pays women more than men in his company.
He wants more time off for women after pregnancy.

Two simple examples of non-misogyny and helping those who can reproduce.



edit on 11pm30pmf0000002016-11-15T15:56:08-06:000308 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs



He pays women more than men in his company. He wants more time off for women after pregnancy. Two simple examples of non-misogyny and helping those who can reproduce.


Moving the goal posts? Deflection? Don't even get me started on misogynist Don, his "If they don't like it they can find another career" sons and his enabler daughter Ivanka!
(Leave Tiffany alone!)

He's vowed to defund Planned Parenthood. That's a huge attack on access to reproductive services. He promised to appoint judges that will over turn Roe V Wade, "automatically". He has taken an oath to uphold and support the Republican Party Platform that is actively moving towards various legislation that will attack women's reproductive rights.

Mike Pence is his Vice President and he vows to do a lot more against women's right than Trump.

Republicans have presented hundreds of bill authored for the purpose of attacking and chipping away at Roe V Wade in the past few years. Now, they have a president and vice president that have vowed to champion their cause.


edit on 15-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No goal posts...a two point conversion to show not only is he not going to change women's rights but that he is a champion.

Where has he stated in policy that he will overturn RvW and that he is going to erode the rights of women?

You need to


I am asking a question that is very simple. Where in his policy is this stated?

You punted when you brought Pence into it. I would think if Pence was so anti LGBT Thiel would not have introduced Trump. You know, the CEO who was outed by the left media when pissed at thim.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




Where has he stated in policy that he will overturn RvW and that he is going to erode the rights of women?


Again, moving the goal posts.

A policy is a basic principle behind an action. Trump's "policy" is pro-life and to appoint Pro life judges to rule pro-life rulings and overturn Roe V Wade. His "policy" is to do everything he can to stop abortions by defunding Planned (because of the abortion thing) Parenthood.

Although Trump has signed and agreed to champion the Republican" National Party Platform, that bigly threatens women's rights, is the very foundation of Trump's "policy", this thread isn't about "policy". It's about the actions that the candidate promised to take as President and him making good on those promises.

Evidence of Trumps campaign promises and his intent to keep them, in terms of seeing to the overturning Roe V Wade, and giving authority back to the states, where it was BEFORE Roe v Wade, has already been documented in this thread. I can't help you if you refuse acknowledge the existence of evidence already posted.

The overturning of Roe V Wade is a very clear threat under the influence of a Trump/Pence administration. Defunding Planned Parenthood is an attack on women's health and reproductive rights.

ETA: Trumps' Health Care Agenda.


The Administration recognizes that the problems with the U.S. health care system did not begin with – and will not end with the repeal of – the ACA. With the assistance of Congress and working with the States, as appropriate, the Administration will act to:
Protect individual conscience in healthcare
Protect innocent human life from conception to natural death, including the most defenseless and those Americans with disabilities
www.greatagain.gov...


edit on 15-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Protect innocent human life from conception to natural death,

How can anyone be against this, I don't understand?? But we can get all worked up over puppy mills and cats getting punted, but innocent life "oh funk innocent life, just step on it," ???

Frankly, I think we should legally change the terminology from abortion, to "termination of innocent life" . Law says, everyone is allotted one "termination of life per annum" , with exemptions. That would be a start.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

The "from conception" part prohibits consideration of all abortion, most hormonal birth control; The Pill, The Patch, Injections, the IUD, Plan B, and takes the consideration of a woman's right to choose off the table. It's a direct attack on women's reproductive rights. It's a declaration of war on women.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think the focus should be on the fact that abortions are institutionalized racism. Blacks have abortion rates 5 times higher than Whites, and 80% of Planned Parenthood facilities are in predominately Black neighborhoods. It's almost like PP is targeting Blacks, due to racism.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Ms Sanger and Eugenics is why PP was created. That is for another thread and I am SURE that the current posters will flip out...



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You see, I read that as quality healthcare to bring a child to term and take care of them till death. Abortion should not be a discussion. It is private. Again, NO WHERE in his policies does he mention abortion, does he?

All you can see if the negative and the fear. Things that are not there. I feel bad for you that you feel that way and not in a pity sense. I really wish you did not feel that way.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

No, from conception it means we take care of the fetus. A person who is pro life or pro choice or simply human should want that. Abortion is not an option at conception. Conception happens. It is a way to end a pregnancy. A choice. A personal choice but one any way you look at it.

If a woman has a miscarriage due to drug use or not taking care of ones self they should be charged. They endangered a 'life'. If a man punches a woman and she miscarries he is charged. So, in affect, why should they be if abortion is legal?


edit on 11pm30pmf0000002016-11-15T19:24:58-06:000758 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor




Blacks have abortion rates 5 times higher than Whites....
It's almost like PP is targeting Blacks, due to racism.



Odd. Since the black population in America is growing at an average rate of around 4 million per year, since 2000. They are not doing a very good job at eliminating blacks by offering abortions.
www.esri.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




No, from conception it means we take care of the fetus


There is no fetus at conception, and according the American Medical Association and the College of American Gynecologists, pregnancy occurs at implantation, not conception. That means that this verbiage of protection of "life" from conception, this administration wants to deny women the right to most birth control, in order to protect the "life" of the fertilized egg before implantation, as well as all abortion.

This administration has now published its intent to turn its back on women's reproductive health needs and rights. That;s what that means.


edit on 15-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




If a woman has a miscarriage due to drug use or not taking care of ones self they should be charged. They endangered a 'life'. If a man punches a woman and she miscarries he is charged. So, in affect, why should they be if abortion is legal?



you should really be careful about what you wish for, since science if finding that things that people do as kids and early adults can affect their offspring even when that offspring is concieved a decade or more past the action.... and that one goes for men as well as women!! so one could claim that in order to protect the future unborn, we need to monitor people's behavior starting in the childhood years... BOTH MALE AND FEMALE!!!

but here's a story for ya...




In New York, for example, Jennifer Jorgensen is currently appealing her conviction of manslaughter in the death of the fetus she was carrying when she caused a car wreck that killed two other passengers in another vehicle. Jorgensen was acquitted of driving under the influence and manslaughter related to those deaths, but the manslaughter charge for the fetus inside her belly at the time of the crash (which died after an emergency C-section later) stuck.

Because New York homicide law defines a victim as a person born alive, Jorgensen's attorney says her conviction is unfounded and sets a standard allowing for prosecutions of mothers on charges dangerously outside the law. "This case, in the State of New York, is unprecedented," her attorney argued in court. "It is impossible to commit this crime. At the time of the reckless acts, the victim did not legally exist."

Jorgensen echoed reproductive rights advocates concerned about how the criminalization of mothers for crimes against a fetus could become a slippery slope and urged the court to think of how her case might impact other women.

"Any time a pregnant woman slips on the ice, she is going to be subject to criminal prosecution," Jorgensen testified. "I did nothing wrong. This [case] isn't about me. It's about every single pregnant woman in the State of New York. It means if my conviction stands, they need to get pregnancy police."

www.vice.com...


so tell me, should we have pregnancy police going around and checking on pregnant women every day to ensure that they aren't taking needless risks (heck, riding in a car might be a needless risk!!!) and taking care of themselves... (personally, my smallest baby was 8 lbs, 14 ozs, with the other two being over 9 lbs... but for all of them I couldn't for the life of me I couldn't eat all the food that I was being told I should be eating or take in the amount of calories they claimed I needed.)....
and well, how else are you gonna be able to prove that the women didn't take care of herself properly if you aren't monitoring them on a daily basis?? and reckon, just how long will it take them to turn their eyes to the future daddies and scrutinizing their behavior also?



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

In terms of percentage, 1950 was 10% of population, and today is now at 14%. Also, prior to 2000, the category did not include mixed heritage. You will notice, that after Roe v Wade, and before 2000 when more people were included, the percentage rate of increase dropped considerably. Also, the Civil Rights movement, and the Civil Rights Act helped to increase this rate of growth, which was supported by Republicans and opposed by racist Democrats. Racist democrats had to change their tactics, using 'humanitarian' social and economic policy, and twisting statistics to fit their narrative.
It should also be noted, a massive drop in the total population growth between RoevWade decision and the statistical wizardry of 2000.

blackdemographics.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Whatever, I'm not interested in your Planned Parenthood racism shtick.

This thread is about Donald Trump's campaign promises and their implication for women's health and reproductive rights, now that he's been elected.


Women for Trump, your new President hasn't forgotten you. While #CrookedHillary won the women's vote, Donald Trump doesn't want you to worry your pretty little head about all this complicated health care stuff. (Having dinner ready on time is another matter.) That's why you will soon win the complete loss of your reproductive rights.

Any of Donald's promised picks to the Supreme Court will not only ensure the reversal of Roe v. Wade, but sweep away the "undue burden" standard and the "health of the mother" exception Paul Ryan once described as "so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it."

Vice President-elect Mike Pence will be there not just to help you eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, but to stop "Big Abortion" by also ending the 46-year-old Title X program that provides contraception, cancer screening, STD testing and other services that millions of American women depend on each year.

And when it comes to bans on telemedicine and medicine-based abortions (now half of all procedures), prohibitions on offering or even informing women about pre-natal genetic testing and mandatory invasive ultrasounds, Donald Trump stands ready to grab America's women by their p**sies.
Source



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

I have only met one girl that had an abortion forced on her, and it wasn't planned parenthood doing the forcing, it was the ny state court system and medical community. she was a mentally ill girl who was taking some heavy duty medication to control her illness and that medication had really messed up the baby.

except for extreme circumstances like that and maybe the daddy is overly pressuring, threatening the mother to abort, I highly doubt if anyone is being forced to abort their baby, which if we were practicing eugenics, would be happening. when planned parenthood was started, and onto into the 50's, there were state sponsored programs that I would consider to be eugenic based.... forced sterilization of minority groups and native tribes for example... but I don't believe that planned parenthood had anything to with that. planned parenthood only teaches people who to control their own birth rate and provides them with the means to do it, which was sanger's goal. she gave the power and the choice to the women involved!

and, I would like to see proof that most of planned parenthood's clinics in are black neighborhoods because I don't believe it. Ours is way out on one of the major highways and seems to be surrounded by businesses. the one closest to my hometown seems to be close to a state university. the one in the city that I lived in in tx was close to the hospital, but I guess that one no longer exists.

and to be honest... the idea that there are black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods isn't quite true for much of the country.... it's poor neighborhoods (usually with a mixture of races), middle income neighborhoods, and wealthy neighborhoods. and yes, I imagine that planned parenthood would be trying to get close to the poor neighborhoods... I mean where would you like them to go, next door to those nice gated communities full of the super wealthy?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Daedalus

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And you link back to your OP, and the garbage sources therein..

phenomenal.



new topics

top topics



 
134
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join