Louisiana House panel votes to ban abortion

www.rawstory.com...

The measure would also forbid Louisiana Medicaid funds from being used for abortions even in cases of rape or incest, a move that could endanger the state's eligibility for Medicaid funding from Washington, AP reported.

Even in the case of Rape or incest!

It's almost as if the GOP wants to lose practically every female vote in the country with this approach.

Republican stance.....less government unless it concerns a woman body, then we decide.

In the coming election the GOP will not have a chance to campaign; they will be to busy explaining and apologizing for some of their dumbass members.

Wait so they could still pay for abortions themselves, right? They just wouldn't get any financial assistance from 'Medicaid', I think that's what it's saying.

signature: Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies...RP

As my answer to this, I want to quote your sig.
The truth that abortion is the killing of an unborn child. It is murder of a defenseless child made all the more horrid by being carried out by the child's mother. That is the truth. Like it or not Abortion is murder. I have to agree that our tax money should not be used to MURDER INNOCENT CHILDREN.

reply to post by whaaa


If that's what the people want, then by golly! Give it to 'em!

Yeah America!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

signature: Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies...RP

As my answer to this, I want to quote your sig.
The truth that abortion is the killing of an unborn child. It is murder of a defenseless child made all the more horrid by being carried out by the child's mother. That is the truth. Like it or not Abortion is murder. I have to agree that our tax money should not be used to MURDER INNOCENT CHILDREN.

While I personally agree with you, I do not agree with laws against this. How far does it go?

Soon, the morning after pill will be abortion and so on and so forth.

I don't think it is our job to make these choices for others.

What I don't get is most people who are anti abortion are also anti-welfare.

Who do you think that "needs" these abortions the most? We are going to end up a welfare country if they were all banned.

And yes, technically, the morning after pill is abortion.

I am a father. I am anti-abortion, but I am pro choice when it comes to laws.

Soon women will be punching themselves in the stomach and drinking tons of alcohol to remove the said fetus.

It's not right to tell people what to do.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Hey Pac.

Looking at the article itself, it appears they actually effectively outlawed abortion altogether by adding it to their laws on feticide, and also added the stipulation on medicaid payments probably as a direct results - so part & parcel in this case.

reply to post by Praetorius


Oh alright I didn't read it that way. I'm sure pregnant ladies who don't want to have a kid will still find their ways, back alley abortions, rusty coat-hangers, 'accidentally' falling down a flight of stairs, going out of state for an abortion, etc.

It's a touchy subject though, probably a 50/50 split on pro-life/pro-choice. I don't even know where I sit on that, because if you think about it masturbating is like killing millions of potential children, when an abortion is just one. However with abortion, that's the one out of the millions of sperm cells that made it to the egg, and I've even heard that one person got an abortion, and when they took out the baby it was crying and fully alive. Sounds like some pro-choice propaganda to me though.

reply to post by mudbeed

Who do you think that "needs" these abortions the most? We are going to end up a welfare country if they were all banned.

LOL - sorry, I know this is a serious subject, but this line just strikes me as very late and understated quite thoroughly.

As far as the legality issue goes, I'm of mixed feelings. I definitely don't think any taxpayer money should be directed into such things, except on a voluntary, individual "opt-in" basis, and am pro-life myself.

Do I think the federal government should be involved one way or the other? Absolutely not. The states? Under the constitution, I think they can rule one way or the other - but I'm personally of the opinion it's a bad idea. I don't want anyone having abortions personally, but I've got a firm and long-standing belief that prohibition of anything does not work and causes more problems.

As far as how that applies in case of abortions, I'd have to research much further before deciding.

Originally posted by mudbeed

I don't think it is our job to make these choices for others.

So, why have laws against murder at all? Why have laws against theft? The government tells us that we must wear seat belts in our cars, but we should not stop child murder?

What I don't get is most people who are anti abortion are also anti-welfare.

How about "pro-personal responsibility"? If you do something stupid, you pay the consequences. Have unprotected sex, hey guess what? You might get pregnant. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't ask others to take responsibility for your bad choices.

Who do you think that "needs" these abortions the most? We are going to end up a welfare country if they were all banned.

That sounds like the argument of a eugenicist.

And yes, technically, the morning after pill is abortion.

I am a father. I am anti-abortion, but I am pro choice when it comes to laws.

Ok, let me understand this. You are anti-child murder, but don't think murdering children should be illegal? Can you see the dichotomy here?

Soon women will be punching themselves in the stomach and drinking tons of alcohol to remove the said fetus.

Or maybe, just maybe, people might stop and think before having sex? Don't say humans cannot control themselves, they can. Animals cannot control themselves, but humans can stop, think, and realize that actions have consequences.

It's not right to tell people what to do.

I agree with that in many cases. I am not even arguing to outlaw abortion/child murder(though I absolutely believe it should be illegal), but tax dollars should not be paying for it under any circumstances. While I do not condone abortion/child murder in the case of rape or incest, I can at least understand and sympathize with the reasons behind it. What I do not understand is why the innocent child is the one being punished with the death penalty as a result of the rape. The rapist himself is not eligible for the death penalty, so why is the child murdered for it?

reply to post by TupacShakur
Hmmm. Might as well stir the pot and see what floats up here. I'll just post my response to another thread here to explain my current views:

There is a slight difference between being pro-life and being anti-choice. We are not against a person's right to choose whether or not to have sex - to choose whether or not to have unprotected sex - to choose whether or not to use some other form of contraception - to choose whether or not to use a morning-after pill (speaking for myself personally) or to use a spermicide after the fact - to choose whether or not to put an infant up for adoption or to utilize state 'safe haven' laws to obviate their responsibility for said child.

We ARE opposed to the very slippery slope of acting irresponsibly or not weighing other alternatives to instead opt for an invasive medical procedure that former rape victims have on occasion likened to being raped yet again, can cause PTSD-like symptoms, and kills an embryo that can be viable for self-sustaining life at shockingly early times and can be handled otherwise.

Sorry we push for such a lack of options, but until all die-hard abortion supporters buck up and actively defend everyone else's right to choose on a variety of issues including drug use and various other liberties (such as federal funding for planned parenthood, 'universal' health care, social security, medicare - things that MY money is taken to fund, money that I earned through the work of MY body - where's MY right to choose what to do with MY body, or the fruit thereof?), I could really care less as there are a PROFUSION of choices for them to make.

Wire coat hanger sales are gonna skyrocket in Louisiana now.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I don't think it is our job to make these choices for others.

So, why have laws against murder at all? Why have laws against theft? The government tells us that we must wear seat belts in our cars, but we should not stop child murder?.

Because roads are built and maintained by the government, and the driver's license you sign is a contract between you and the state. Driving is a privelage, not a right. The state can tell you to wear a seatbelt.

Seatbelts significantly reduce physical harm during an accident. Any accident that requires emergency services costs the local municipalities on average: 50,000k.
So yea, seatbelts save taxpayers a lot of money.

That is why.

What I don't get is most people who are anti abortion are also anti-welfare.

How about "pro-personal responsibility"? If you do something stupid, you pay the consequences. Have unprotected sex, hey guess what? You might get pregnant.

Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't ask others to take responsibility for your bad choices. .

I love these everyone is responsible statements as if society was created equal. When there is no discrimination against women, ageism, sexism, and racism, and all schools and resources are created equal for every member of this country, then you may have an arguement. There is no abuse.
while people are disadvantaged, and they ARE disadvantaged, protective services are needed.

Soon women will be punching themselves in the stomach and drinking tons of alcohol to remove the said fetus.

Or maybe, just maybe, people might stop and think before having sex? Don't say humans cannot control themselves, they can. Animals cannot control themselves, but humans can stop, think, and realize that actions have consequences. .

.

You are only as good as your surrounding circumstances and the knowledge that you have.

The majority of rape and sexual assault goes unaccounted for. As does domestic violence. If a teen is raped by an uncle who is the only bread winner for the family, you think she will turn him in? I love statements of the elite who have no idea how the actual poor populations live. Absolutely clueless.
Planned Parenthood centers are few and far between and many don't have access.

It's not right to tell people what to do.

I agree with that in many cases. I am not even arguing to outlaw abortion/child murder(though I absolutely believe it should be illegal), but tax dollars should not be paying for it under any circumstances. While I do not condone abortion/child murder in the case of rape or incest, I can at least understand and sympathize with the reasons behind it. What I do not understand is why the innocent child is the one being punished with the death penalty as a result of the rape. The rapist himself is not eligible for the death penalty, so why is the child murdered for it?

.

Or worry about the need for abortion in the first place. You don't want welfare, but would you be willing to pay for more planning centers so the poorest and least educated of us have access to those resources? Would you be willing to pay for more subsidized housing so women can get out of troubled situations?

But that is right, in your mountain spring smelling downey world, everything is perfect and everyone has access to all the gumdrops they could want.

Again, willing to outlaw abortion but not willing to take care of the child or the mother when she is pregnant or the child is born.
The hypocrisy never stops.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Whilst I agree with you (to an extent) laws forbidding people to decide what to do with their body (the foetus isn't an independent sentient being, it is part of the mother) are not something I favour. Limitations on abortion are what are needed, not the outright prohibition of them as this law implies.

Banning abortion will have the same effect as banning drugs.

A female killing her baby in her stomach is fine with me, I respect life, but the baby is in her stomach so IMO it's an intruder and not as innocent as people want you to think. Kill it while it is intruding not after it is born.

This is great news, i think i'll be heading down to Louisiana now to rape some retardeds, so I can spread my seed.

On a more somber note i new a couple in AR, no joke. That were a father and daughter couple, they had 3 kids all 3 were severly retarded. 2 of them had physical deformities as well. Eventually the state came and took the kids, they werent being well taken care of. Those kids will never have normal lives, and they'll always be wards of the state. Sometimes you have to wonder if having children isnt more cruel than aborting them, just my thoughts.

What a lot of you aren't noticing here, is that this isn't a ban on abortion, it's a ban on using tax dollars (in this case, medicade funds) to fund an abortion. On one hand, I can sympathize with the mother, she doesn't want the baby, she wants it out of her, and she wants it out THEN.

My first question, why didn't she just get the day-after pill that is sold in most if not all drugstores now... over the counter?

Then we need to consider two things, one, above posters have thoroughly covered, at some point, BEFORE the baby leaves it's mother, it is sentient, it can feel pain, can understand, recognize the mother's voice, grasp a doctor's hand during pre-natal surgery. What that point is, have fun arguing people, cause I'm not getting into it. For those that believe that it's "just a fetus" up to the moment of birth... don't make me break out the pictures and video. AFTER the baby gets to that point (in the second trimester is my PERSONAL belief) it is murder to kill it, un-debatably, unequivocally, murder. Thus, if the mother has not by that point terminated the pregnancy, tough nuggets, I say. Put it up for adoption when it's born. Goodness knows there are families out there BEGGING for newborns.

The other thing to consider is this, people who pay taxes, particularly in a Southern State, DO NOT want their tax dollars going to what many consider, murder. Some would even refuse to PAY taxes in that case. If the pro-choicers would like to set up a separate fund in this case, feel free. But I know my people. Some of us make even Jersey look like a bunch of push-overs.

Should abortion be banned in the case of rape and incest? Have fun arguing about it. Should TAX DOLLARS be used for abortions? No they should not. Period.

I am not going to make it a republican vs democratic thing, because in the end they are all on the same side for their causes. The purpose of the parties is to split America up, so they will not unite. They love to people bash on one another because the party they follow. Stupid.

Anyways back to the real topic. I find this very saddening as no one should determine what another person should do with their body. Especially in cases of rape or incest. We have choices in this world which is why it is a beautiful world. Noone should take that away.

I am sure though a lot of women if it is banned will just go across state borders to the next state that allows it.

Originally posted by theUNKNOWNawaits


I find this very saddening as no one should determine what another person should do with their body. Especially in cases of rape or incest. We have choices in this world which is why it is a beautiful world. Noone should take that away.

I am sure though a lot of women if it is banned will just go across state borders to the next state that allows it.

See my above post. They did not vote to ban abortion!!! They voted against using public tax dollars FOR abortions!!!

Originally posted by sisgood


See my above post. They did not vote to ban abortion!!! They voted against using public tax dollars FOR abortions!!![

How long do you think it will take for all abortions to be made a criminal offense, regardless of funding, public or private?

Small steps...........

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by sisgood


See my above post. They did not vote to ban abortion!!! They voted against using public tax dollars FOR abortions!!![

How long do you think it will take for all abortions to be made a criminal offense, regardless of funding, public or private?

Small steps...........

You're kidding right? People have been yo-yoing back and forth on this for ages. The most the lifers are gonna get are restrictions... like I want. There is really no reason not to allow first trimester abortions and I don't WANT my tax dollars going to abortions, how about oh, I don't know, FIXING THE GIANT HOLE WE ARE IN instead.

Just a thought.