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.

 

California Democrat Jackie Speier had an Abortion?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) tells Congress, “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix.”
www.huffingtonpost.com...
This emotional outburst occurred during a contentious debate over blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving taxpayer money. The declaration happened during a House debate regarding the statute called the Hyde Amendment, which has banned the use of federal dollars for abortion services.
What California Democrat Jackie Speier does not elaborate if this was a natural spontaneous abortion, or the questionable unnecessary surgical abortion.
A natural spontaneous abortion, meaning the baby was either dead or dying and her body was rejecting it, is Totally different than a surgical procedure involving the removal of a healthy child. If it was the former, then the Congresswoman from Killafornia, is sadly exaggerating her sorrowful circumstances in order to sway this horrific vote.


Ah yes Mr Dithers, I had an abortion too (wrings hands in anticipation of success in the Pro-Abortion agenda)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I feel for this woman. To have been pregnant and then lost the child due to complications... What else could she have done? Let the child grow in her vagina and eventually kill her? The baby would have most likely been stillborn if it didn't kill her first. I am not sure why you chose to share this, OP... But it might help the "pro-lifers" understand that sometimes there are situations where abortion is necessary. Once again, I admire and feel for this politician, it must have been hard to hear the gentleman before her ripping her to shreds (inadvertently, of course, he didn't know about her choices.)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
What does her experience have to do with the government paying for abortions?

The answer is... NOTHING.

The issue is a funding issue, a government role issue etc. etc. her experience is irrelevent.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 



Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) tells Congress, “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix.”


What was the baby doing in the vagina



I really don't know what her argument is here...if she is trying to say that her baby moved into the birthing canal pre-maturely...than that isn't an "abortion" issue...that is a medical emergency issue.


I don't support abortion...but I do see it as a valid choice when the mothers life is in danger.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Is there any point you are trying to make with this thread?
Are you just trying to get a debate going about the rights/wrongs of abortion?
Has this lady done something wrong in your opinion?
I fail to see what you are trying to point out.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
My grandmother had an abortion, made her sterile

She adopted my mother who also had an abortion; she only wanted one child but at the time felt she could not take care of a child financially.

Eventually she got pregnant with me

Would I be here without those TWO abortions???

God works in mysterious ways



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The real question is what do abortions have to do with the economy or jobs, which Republicans ran on. I wish they would stop trying to push their crazy social agenda and push a sensible economic agenda. That won't happen though.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
I feel for this woman. To have been pregnant and then lost the child due to complications... What else could she have done? Let the child grow in her vagina and eventually kill her? The baby would have most likely been stillborn if it didn't kill her first. I am not sure why you chose to share this, OP... But it might help the "pro-lifers" understand that sometimes there are situations where abortion is necessary. Once again, I admire and feel for this politician, it must have been hard to hear the gentleman before her ripping her to shreds (inadvertently, of course, he didn't know about her choices.)


Was, one of the procedures, that Rep. Chris Smith was describing, partial birth abortion? This involves shoving a needle sharp, garden hose size aspirator into the brain of a baby, while presenting in the cervix. This of coarse sucks out the brain like the torture device seen in the horror film Phantasm. How do you think the Pro-lifers feel about that?
And by the way, you use the word Pro-lifer like it's a bad thing. Are you then an Anti-lifer?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

What does her experience have to do with the government paying for abortions?

The answer is... NOTHING.

The issue is a funding issue, a government role issue etc. etc. her experience is irrelevant.


Yes, I agree. Her personal experience does have no relevance to the government funding of abortion within the USA. Maybe she thought that shedding light on the situation might help others gain a better understanding as to why funding might be beneficial/necessary. Then again, how many other people during this meeting spoke up about the reasons why they SHOULD fund? Just a thought, maybe she was the only one...

But another poster above stated that this should have been considered a medical emergency. That would have been covered by the government, I assume (I am not sure how the American medical system works in regards to emergencies.) Is there ANYTHING medical funded by the USG? Maybe an American can help me understand that. (I do not want to derail the post though, so if anyone wants to answer please msg me.)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

And by the way, you use the word Pro-lifer like it's a bad thing. Are you then an Anti-lifer?


I am a supporter of choice. I didn't mean to make the term pro-life sounds negative. To each his own.




Was, one of the procedures, that Rep. Chris Smith was describing, partial birth abortion? This involves shoving a needle sharp, garden hose size aspirator into the brain of a baby, while presenting in the cervix. This of coarse sucks out the brain like the torture device seen in the horror film Phantasm. How do you think the Pro-lifers feel about that?


Its a medical procedure, of course its invasive. It is obvious that pro-life people would find this disgusting, but of course they do not support abortion in any form so even if they shoved a daisy up a ladies cervix to abort the child they wouldn't approve. The means to how they do an abortion should make no difference, its still the same result in the end.

Without getting into a full blown argument... I would not support an abortion after the fetus is aged past the first trimester (As a matter of fact, doctors will not perform and abortion unless it is a medical emergency after 3 months) but before that, it is up to the people involved in making that baby to decide what they want to do. Should the government help fund this? Well I guess it depends on their reasoning. What is stopping the government from funding abortion? Is it public outcry? Is it lack of money? Or is it because of religious purposes. Only one of these seems likely and IMO it is not a good enough reason to take away the freedom of choice on this matter.
edit on 18/2/2011 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
The real question is what do abortions have to do with the economy or jobs, which Republicans ran on. I wish they would stop trying to push their crazy social agenda and push a sensible economic agenda. That won't happen though.


The government should not be paying for abortions... DUH!

Trillions in debt and paying for abortions... DUH!

What does the government paying for a million things that they shouldn't be paying for have to do with jobs and the economy or jobs... DUH!



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nolabel
Is there any point you are trying to make with this thread?
Are you just trying to get a debate going about the rights/wrongs of abortion?
Has this lady done something wrong in your opinion?
I fail to see what you are trying to point out.


My point is that she was being disingenuous and deceptive, in her attempts to sway the pro-abortion agenda.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Violater1
 



Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) tells Congress, “I had a procedure at 17 weeks pregnant with a child who moved from the vagina into the cervix.”


What was the baby doing in the vagina

I really don't know what her argument is here...if she is trying to say that her baby moved into the birthing canal pre-maturely...than that isn't an "abortion" issue...that is a medical emergency issue.
I don't support abortion...but I do see it as a valid choice when the mothers life is in danger.



This retro-grade travel, from the vagina back into the cervix is possibly caused by the mother crossing her legs in order to Prevent the spontaneous abortion. Perhaps surgical intervention was then necessary to remove the dead child. She has purposely chosen Not to elaborate on this, while choosing to tell only the emotionally charged circumstances that will garner the necessary votes needed to to favor the abortion agenda.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


This has nothing to do with spending. Defunding abortion will take how much off the debt exactly? Judging from recent actions from republican representatives, it is nothing more than an attack on women. You want less government but you're fine with it dictating what you can do with your body? Hypocrites.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
This has nothing to do with spending. Defunding abortion will take how much off the debt exactly? Judging from recent actions from republican representatives, it is nothing more than an attack on women.


Riiiight, it's an "attack" on women not to force other people to pay for their abortions... (if this isn't a sure indication that we now have a full-blown entitlement society, I don't know what would be).



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


This has nothing to do with spending. Defunding(sic) abortion will take how much off the debt exactly? Judging from recent actions from republican representatives, it is nothing more than an attack on women. You want less government but you're fine with it dictating what you can do with your body? Hypocrites.



Throwback, since you question the millions of dollars that would be saved by de-funding this Bill, perhaps you wouldn't mind contributing a little research here, and provide a link to the amount that the US spends on abortion.
Thank you in advance.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Receiving an abortion is not an entitlement. Just admit that Republicans are using the economy as an excuse to push their social agenda. This isn't creating jobs. This isn't putting a dent in the deficit. To demonstrate how this is a Republican attack on women, I'll list a couple of bills they're tossing around.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - This bill changes the language in the Hyde Amendment so that the only federally funded abortions would be in situations of "forcible rape". Incest and presumably "unforcible" rape wouldn't be covered. Rape is rape. This bill is suggesting that some forms of rape are acceptable. The forms of rape accepted by Republicans are: date rape or rape committed with a drug, underage pregnancy due to sex with a minor, and rape when the victim doesn't physically stop her attacker. Apparently saying no isn't enough for them.

Change to H.R. 358 - Introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), this new change will deny emergency care to a pregnant women if it will kill the fetus. This will effectively leave them to just die. I know they think that it's better for the women to die rather than to perform an emergency abortion. This makes no sense whatsoever because once the mother dies, the fetus does too!

House Bill 1171 - Another Republican bill, introduced by Rep. Phil Jensen (R-SD), that would seek to change the meaning of "justifiable homicide". This bill would change the state law so that any killing meant to prevent the harm of a fetus is "justifiable homicide". This would open the door to legal killings of doctors who perform abortions and maybe even the women who want them. In a country where abortion providers are commonly killed, this is a dangerous bill.

So you can believe your fantasy that defunding abortion saves a significant amount of money. I can see what's really going on.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


Planned Parenthood receives government grants and performs abortions. The total amount of money received from the government in 2008? A paltry $349.6 million, which also includes the other services they provide since they cannot directly allocate funds for abortion. So I'm guessing considerably less than $349.6 million since abortions aren't that common. Now stopping these funds does what to the deficit?

Planned Parenthood Wiki

edit on 18-2-2011 by Throwback because: Forgot to put source



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by Violater1
 


Planned Parenthood receives government grants and performs abortions. The total amount of money received from the government in 2008? A paltry $349.6 million... Now stopping these funds does what to the deficit?



Paltry?

How many babies could you feed, cloth and educate with $349.6 million dollars!
And as always, please provide a link for your source.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I did. Not all of that is used for abortions. Probably not even half. Planned Parent doesn't release statistics so we don't know. More babies could have been fed with the tax cuts Obama just gave to Republicans. Hell, babies could have been SAVED and fed if he would get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join