Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march

a reply to: Kali74

The Planned Parenthood debacle is not quite as people have made it. It is an Executive Order to prevent funds being used in International Countries where they provide services, for abortion and to use the funds for contraception as it was intended which was first ushered in by Ronald Regan. Family Planning should come first, abortion is not contraception nor should it be used as one. I think that's fairly sensible. Education and contraception first. As far as the USA is concerned, from what I read he says that he is pro life and he would probably send the issue of abortion back to the states, which doesn't mean women can't get free abortions but will depend on the State they live in and it may mean getting an abortion in a different State. He has also stated numerous times that any decision on this issue is a long long way off if ever

Back in November Trump said he was fine with gay marriage and he supported marriage equality as made law in 2015 in the Obergefell v Hodges matter. In fact it seems he has reiterated his stance as accepting the decision of the Supreme Court numerous times

Again regarding Medicaid/ACA etc...all I can find are rumours and innuendo from early 2016. In fact from many articles I've read on this issue, it seems the medical professionals are fine with the proposed reforms and with the timeline of 3yrs or so to enact these reforms.

If people want to march fine go for it I just feel the majority of these "millions of women" don't actually have the truth or facts regarding what they're supposedly marching for

Medicaid Reforms

Trump on Marriage Equality

a reply to: dawnstar

how many states have passed laws that require a women get permission from the father of the baby that she is carrying before she obtains an abortion since trump has been elected?

None
According to my research only Oklahoma put forward a Bill suggesting this which as you say was voted unconstitutional

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Well unfortunately for you, this is not the state millions of women want to be left in. So they will demonstrate in various ways.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

according to this link, arkansas, kansas and oklahoma have passed laws requiring spousal consent, with the arkansas law not giving an exemption for rape.

www.krdo.com...

but my favorite one is south carolina's law, which has been on the books for quite awhile really, which first bans third trimester abortions unless there's two doctors willing to acknowledge that the pregnancy is a danger to the life or health of the mother (a psychiatrist also has to acknowledge if it's a mental health issue involved with the danger). But, it then goes on to add an additional requirement that spousal consent is also necessary. which, I am sorry but if the women's life or health is in danger, I think that eliminates any right that that the spouse might have. at the moment, this part of their law is unenforcable because of the previous supreme court decision. but now we are going to have possibly three new laws coming into the court hoping for a reversal on that decision, which if it happened would mean that gravely ill women in south carolina might have to screw around till their husbands provides official consent..

a reply to: dawnstar

No I'm sorry but alas you are mistaken. The South Carolina law does not require husbands consent and hasn't done since 1976
as it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

In my own opinion, there is little or no excuse for a woman wanting an abortion in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, particularly as the only form of abortion at that late stage is dismemberment abortion, unless it is a severe risk to health.

None of the other States laws have been passed, Kansas does not require spousal consent neither does Oklahoma. These three States have passed laws preventing dismemberment abortion of viable foetuses
Kansas Abortion Law

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I'm sorry, but it does appear as though the way it's written, the law requires spousal consent..

SECTION 44-41-20. Legal Abortions.

Abortion shall be a criminal act except when performed under the following circumstances:

(a) During the first trimester of pregnancy the abortion is performed with the pregnant woman's consent by her attending physician pursuant to his professional medical judgment.

(b) During the second trimester of pregnancy the abortion is performed with the pregnant woman's consent by her attending physician in a hospital or clinic certified by the Department.

(c) During the third trimester of pregnancy, the abortion is performed with the pregnant woman's consent, and if married and living with her husband the consent of her husband, in a certified hospital, and only if the attending physician and one additional consulting physician, who shall not be related to or engaged in private practice with the attending physician, certify in writing to the hospital in which the abortion is to be performed that the abortion is necessary based upon their best medical judgment to preserve the life or health of the woman. In the event that the preservation of the woman's mental health is certified as the reason for the abortion, an additional certification shall be required from a consulting psychiatrist who shall not be related to or engaged in private practice with the attending physician. All facts and reasons supporting such certification shall be set forth by the attending physician in writing and attached to such certificate.

www.scstatehouse.gov...

the fact that a supreme court ruling makes it unconstitutional to enforce that part of their law does not change the fact that it seems that the law is still written so that it's required. if the supreme court were to rule differently in the future, south carolina could chose to start enforcing it without going through the hassle of ammending current legislation.

In my own opinion, there is little or no excuse for a woman wanting an abortion in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, particularly as the only form of abortion at that late stage is dismemberment abortion, unless it is a severe risk to health.

it seems that this is already a requirement in the law, there is no third trimester abortion unless two physicians determine it is necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother. but then, for some odd reason, they also throw in the necessity of the husbands consent... which if you notice, is not required for first or second term abortions, only those "necessary to preserve health or life" third trimester abortions.

considering just how many laws have been passed and shot down that fails to take into consideration the mother's health on the past few years alone should be enough to alarm every women of child bearing age!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well would you look at that. She literally looks evil and maybe she knows that, hence she lives up to it. Madness.

It is great you posted this as I would have not heard about it otherwise. So much news flies by these days thats important meanwhile the nonsense of whos in the news next gets put front page.

This is crazy though, just shows you what really goes on while people sit and think everything is ok.

Funny how the bullsh#t association of terrorists to women's march really comes down to an argument about abortion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
You had said Militarized Feminist struggle earlier.

"Militant" is in there. Still means "confrontive" not violent.

Now, you've done so well there ...show us the acts of violence being called for.

Show us the violence in the marches.

What?... You are out of your freaking mind. I never wrote militarized... I always wrote militant feminist struggle... Since the first page... and a militant struggle is NEVER peaceful... You truly can never admit when you are wrong...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Right right ... you're ahead of your time. You're just totally mistaken about Marxism.

Read Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine if you want to educate yourself on the topic.

And beyond that, the cores of so-called Marxist ideas have been around for thousands of years.

The early Christians were Marxist in many ways, for example.

Ahh, so you are a Marxist.... That explains it all.... Your willingness to claim that these women are no threat even though they hold the same ideas they held in their younger days and call for a feminist militant uprising...

Christians were never Marxists... This is something you don't seem to understand. Jesus Christ told people they should decide themselves whether to follow him or not... Heck, God gave mankind free will, as in individual freedom, and your ideology wants to oppress individualism in favor for a "collective mind hive".

BTW, Thomas Paine also believed in individualism... He believed that "government was a necessary evil", and one that aims at restricting people's vices, but he believed in individualism. Marxism is all about restricting every aspect of people's lives. In fact Paine argued even for the individualism of the colonies from England. He wasn't a globalist, and he certainly wasn't a Marxist...

Marxism destroys individualism in favor for what Marxists call "the good of the collective"... But such "good of the collective" has been sooo good for people huh Gryphon?... Cuba... the U.S.S.R., Heck, you claim such form of Marxism doesn't exist anymore and you forget Venezuela which also adopted Marxism just like Cuba did... But in your little world Marxism is "good for people", meanwhile in the real world it becomes alongside other far left-wing ideologies the worst dictatorships on Earth.

The militant terrorists in the pink knitted hats are coming to get us !

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Surprising nobody, conservatives yet again associate protests with terrorism.

Surprising another leftist who either didn't read, can't read or refuses to read her terrorist history and CONVICTION,, get real, you people are pulling for VERY BAD people and are trying to blow smoke up my leg... Bombing kids on a bus no less. HOW UTTERLY DISGUSTING it is of you all who are supporting these who cause death on innocents..

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Gryphon66

He's just one of the uneducated members of hysteria. Someone says women's march and he dives behind the sofa. Lol

YEA after all she didn't kill anybody yet.. oh wait,, some children died .

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
When these lovely ladies start protesting and marching for the rights of actual oppressed women without any rights, instead of dipsticks who already have all the rights they can hold in their handbags, I'll start listening

Me too. One thousand stars if i could for you on that point. The ignorance is WILLFUL with so many of these leftist. They revel in communism and pushing their agenda of hate.

Here she is !!!

a reply to: Kali74

BTW, about Odeh's claim that she suffered from PTSD... She lied after her release from prison in Israel. She lied twice, once in her entry to the U.S., she even claimed to have been only living in Jordan, and claimed she was never arrested, or put in prison for any crimes, and then lied in 2004 when she became a U.S. citizen... Her claim on having PTSD was only an excuse to get away with her lies. Someone who is willing to lie and does no repent for her past, and is in the present still calling for a militant movement shows that she hasn't changed one bit. Not to mention the testimony of her friend who also said Odeh participated willingly on the bombing that murdered 2 young African nationals, and injured 8 more.

If women who truly want to protest for the rights of women who don't have rights in other countries don't distance themselves from these organizers, their cause will find deaf ears, because they are responding to the calls from women with violent pasts who still believe the same things they believed when they were younger, and were terrorists.

A call for a "women's militant struggle" is not a call for "peace and love".

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Kali74

Given her history I would use extreme caution to have her hand in any demonstration especially when she uses inflammatory phrases in her manifesto.

Maybe she should spend some time in other countries that actually have very repressive laws and rules for women. She is wasting her time.

This whole thread is based upon a false generalization. So, you're saying that I can hand pick one person whom I don't like, and then classify an entire group as possessing and supporting the individual's beliefs because they support shared cause. When Trump was endorsed by that white supremacist leader, did you adopt the same logic? I highly doubt it. Is there a reason that you're so obsessed with attacking a women's march that you need to go to this level? What's your real agenda here? It's quite obvious to anyone with basic critical thinking skills.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Globalists, Communists, and Terrorist all have something in common. They all want to take over the world. That is why they are aligned. Globalists obviously want a World Government. Communists want International Socialism by turning all countries into fail socialists because they can't compete against capitalists. The Terrorists wants a global caliphate. Three loser groups working together. Who would have thought.

originally posted by: andrewh7

This whole thread is based upon a false generalization.

It certainly is not... These three women, organizers of this march, who called for a start for a "women's militant struggle", who have a violent past, and to this day call for the same thing, a militant struggle, that they called in their younger days, are the ones calling for more women to join them in the "militant struggle". Those who respond to this call are willing to ignore the violence that such a movement is calling for.

originally posted by: andrewh7
So, you're saying that I can hand pick one person whom I don't like, and then classify an entire group as possessing and supporting the individual's beliefs because they support shared cause. When Trump was endorsed by that white supremacist leader, did you adopt the same logic? I highly doubt it. Is there a reason that you're so obsessed with attacking a women's march that you need to go to this level? What's your real agenda here? It's quite obvious to anyone with basic critical thinking skills.

It is completely different for leaders to call for what is in essence the emergence of a women's violent movement, and for women to respond to those calls...

BTW, you got it backwards, President Trump never endorsed and backed white supremacists, but ex-President Obama did support and endorse BLM meanwhile BLM has been calling for the death of police officers, white people, and anyone who dares not bow to far left-wing ideology.

BTW, this is yet another attempt to make a red herring. It is completely different for a few crazies to decide to endorse someone, to having "social warrior leaders", as these three women are seen, call for violence and for people to attend and support such calls for a violent movement. The call for a militant movement is not a call for a peaceful movement.

a reply to: dawnstar

Again, can you show me which rights Trump has removed? What has he to do with what the state legislatures do? Has he been going around to state capitols and twisting arms to get states to take away women's rights? That guy surely has been busy. As I said, this is no different than when the hyper-paranoid gun owners began yelling that Obama was going to collect the guns because he made fun of them "clinging to their guns..."

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned? Certainly. It is within some realm of possibility. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned. But to get your panties in a wad and start marching in the streets? This is just silly.

The country was set up with the majority of governing to come from the state level. It's time to get back to a more Constitutional form of government, including having the states take back the powers they've ceded to the feds.

Sit down, take a breath. Think hard on which rights women have lost and try to give a coherent answer.

Or go out into the street and screech like a banshee about rights women generations older than you fought for and won. It's a free country.