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.

 

New GOP bill would deny abortions to women in life-threatening situations: group

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

New GOP bill would deny abortions to women in life-threatening situations: group


www.rawstory.com

WASHINGTON – Engulfed by criticisms from women's advocates, House Republicans have reportedly given up on legislative language that would deny some rape victims the ability to seek federally-assisted abortion coverage.

But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)

A spokesperson for NARAL told Raw Story that Republicans have added a provision to H.R 358, the "Protect Life Act," sponsored by Rep. Joseph P
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
While abortion is a very divisive issue to begin with, I think that MOST people agree it is NESSASARY in life threatening situations. This is basically a death sentence for women who end up in this situation, should the bill pass. God forbid it does.

IMO, abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life and death situations should be allowed.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 3-2-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Have not read the proposal, however, allowing providers not to perform abortions is not "denying abortions to women."

Getting really sick of the dishonesty on these threads...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
In the opinion of the Right, there is no such thing as rape within marriage, there is no such thing as nonviolent rape, there is no such thing as a woman that is innocent. To the American right, women have as many rights as they do in Saudi Arabia. They are to be neither seen nor heard, they are to be property of their husbands, they are to serve his appetites, in particular his sexual appetite, and they are to do so with a big smile on their face.

This is unsurprising to say the least.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Leave it up to old conservative white men to decide how women need to take care of their own bodies.

If the libs needed an issue to use against the GOP in the coming elections....the Republicans just gave them a nice one. This pandering to the right wing fundamentalist Christians is stupid strategy imo.



edit on 3-2-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


your post is full of insane generalizations
Ya all conservatives hate women

sure



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
unwanted children who then become uncared for will stand more chance of growing into adults who do not care for other peoples feelings etc.... these people will more likely turn to violent intimidating crimes and the usa will suffer the consequences.

anyone realise that a generation after abortions were legalised the crime rate dropped?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
What really boggles my mind is that the same people that want the government to issue legislation about abortions, make them "illegal", ect. are some of the same shills that are screaming about the interference of "Obamacare" with their slogans like "stay out of my doctor's office", and "keep your hands off my healthcare". Do they not see the irony of demanding that the government interfere in health decisions of a woman, yet demanding that they be exempt from the same level of interference?


Ahhh, the powerful aroma of mendacity.. it's enough to make ya puke.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arista
What really boggles my mind is that the same people that want the government to issue legislation about abortions, make them "illegal", ect. are some of the same shills that are screaming about the interference of "Obamacare" with their slogans like "stay out of my doctor's office"


What really boggles my mind is that so many people apparently can't read, or think... doesn't appear that this would "deny abortions to women" at all, it simply gives providers the freedom to offer the service or not.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Arista
What really boggles my mind is that the same people that want the government to issue legislation about abortions, make them "illegal", ect. are some of the same shills that are screaming about the interference of "Obamacare" with their slogans like "stay out of my doctor's office"


What really boggles my mind is that so many people apparently can't read, or think... doesn't appear that this would "deny abortions to women" at all, it simply gives providers the freedom to offer the service or not.


The way the 'script drug "overhaul" granted pharmacists the right to deny BC to women based on their personal religious views? Denial of ACCESS is defacto denial of procedure - nice way to get around what is ultimately a LEGAL medical procedure.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arista
The way the 'script drug "overhaul" granted pharmacists the right to deny BC to women based on their personal religious views? Denial of ACCESS is defacto denial of procedure - nice way to get around what is ultimately a LEGAL medical procedure.


You have no right to tell a business owner what product or service they have to provide.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


191 woman last year received federal money to obtain an abortion to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The amount of money to any given taxpayer is less than a tiny fraction of one penny. The sick zealots on the Right wanted first to literally redefine rape so as to not include those not marked by violence. You see, in their minds: no violence, no rape. Do you agree?

Well, what about "non-violent" coercive insemination of mentally ill woman (and girls, yes girls)? Is that rape? That's not rape to the Right.
How about non-consensual insemination of drugged dates or even hook-ups? That's not rape to the Right.
How about women too terrified to fight their stronger rapists who might have a knife to their throats? Is that rape? Not to the Right.

The evangelical zealots on the Right DO NOT CARE ABOUT FREEDOM or COMMON DECENCY. They are hard-hearted extreme radicals who are slowly working towards towards a Christian Caliphate, to shove their violent version of Christianity down your throats. Don't let them.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I'm agnostic and don't want to pay for anyone's abortion, regardless of why they are getting one.

If you want to pay for them you are free to, start a non-profit etc. etc.

(and your post is full of lies)
edit on 3-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0

While abortion is a very divisive issue to begin with, I think that MOST people agree it is NESSASARY in life threatening situations. This is basically a death sentence for women who end up in this situation, should the bill pass. God forbid it does.

IMO, abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life and death situations should be allowed.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 3-2-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)


Looks like it's spelled out clearly in the bill


‘(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding- ‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--

‘(A) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.


I don't see anywhere in the bill where it says a woman will not be able to get an abortion if she chooses to have one. Maybe I missed it, can someone point it out to me?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMar
I don't see anywhere in the bill where it says a woman will not be able to get an abortion if she chooses to have one. Maybe I missed it, can someone point it out to me?



Didn't you know that not making other people pay for it is equivalent to denying her the right to have one...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Edit: Checking something...
edit on 3-2-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMar
 



But according to the leading abortion rights group NARAL, a new version of a related bill would allow hospitals to deny abortion care to a woman even if her life is in danger. (NARAL obtained an advance copy of the new markup.)

A spokesperson for NARAL told Raw Story that Republicans have added a provision to H.R 358, the "Protect Life Act," sponsored by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), to amend the Affordable Care Act in a way that could preclude women in life-threatening situations from receiving an abortion.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
As I read it, she is more than welcome to get an abortion, she simple cannot make me pay for it. I am all for that.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


And it gets even more disturbing, read this:

www.alternet.org...

Really? The GOP is willing and ready to go to this extreme? Really?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join