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.

 

House Passes "Let Women Die" Act of 2011

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
This is what the Republicans called the "Protect Life Act." And no, I am not kidding.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it what it is... "a savage assault on women's health."
...
wait that remember me... of some thing that happend 78 years ago? its eugenics by law...
happy new world folks all sane and fertil women in the near future... does anybody know who came up with this law ?
I am really really scared.

www.rhrealitycheck.org...

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Why should we expect anything more from the Republicans?

Women are 2nd class citizens (at best) in most of their eyes.


+20 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
talk about hypocrites what a load of garbage "let women die" as opposed to the left and them "letting over 50 million babies die" with their support of abortion.

the holier than thou attitude doesn't fly the left is no better will never be any better and when the topic is death

the left has millions of deaths on their hands all in the name of human rights,women's rights, a just war, killing american citizens abroad.killing killing killing.

the democrats angels in this country nothing but a bunch of murderers and not a one will ever admit to it.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Why should we expect anything more from the Republicans?

Women are 2nd class citizens (at best) in most of their eyes.


how does this "kill women"? it stops federal funding of abortions and birth control.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

House Passes "Let Women Die" Act of 2011


As opposed to the current, "Lets contnue to use federal funds to kill prenates Act".



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


you didn't thought about that : with this act you'll kill two humanbeeings at the same time...
chapeau !



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


From the article:


H.R. 358 contains other provisions revealing complete disregard for women's health and lives. It permits states to enact sweeping refusal laws that would allow health plans to refuse to cover women’s preventive services, including birth control, without cost-sharing — undoing a new protection under health reform supported by 66 percent of Americans. It also codifies and significantly expands an already expansive refusal clause (also known as the Weldon amendment) without any regard for patient rights or protections. Under current law (through the 2004 Weldon amendment), hospitals, health care facilities, and insurance plans can refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. The Weldon amendment has no protections for patients to ensure they have access to care and information in a timely manner. H.R. 358 codifies this unfair and discriminatory provision. H.R. 358 further allows health care entities--hospitals, clinics--to refuse to "participate in" abortion care. This could mean that a hospital employee with no medical training or role in a patient’s treatment decisions could refuse to process bills, handle medical records, or even set up an examination room for a patient seeking abortion care.

And finally, it overrides protections for pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay, including women in active labor. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her--including an emergency abortion--or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her.

H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by vatel
This is what the Republicans called the "Protect Life Act." And no, I am not kidding.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it what it is... "a savage assault on women's health."
...
wait that remember me... of some thing that happend 78 years ago? its eugenics by law...
happy new world folks all sane and fertil women in the near future... does anybody know who came up with this law ?
I am really really scared.

www.rhrealitycheck.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


I think you miss the point of this act. It is not up to government to pay for abortions. Women will not "die" because government will not pick up the tab, it just means Women will have to pay for the abortion themselves. Get a grip.


edit on 14-10-2011 by Mr. D because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by negativenihil
Why should we expect anything more from the Republicans?

Women are 2nd class citizens (at best) in most of their eyes.


how does this "kill women"? it stops federal funding of abortions and birth control.


The Hyde Amendment

Federal funding for abortion has not been an issue since 1976, thanks to the Hyde Ammendment.

Why is birth control funding for low income families a problem? Wouldn't it be wise to let woman who recieve public assistance have access to birth control? What do you propose for these women?

How does this bill "kill women?"



it overrides protections for pregnant women under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay, including women in active labor. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her--including an emergency abortion--or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her.

H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 

H.R. 358 overturns decades of precedent guaranteeing people access to lifesaving emergency care, including abortion care and says its ok that a pregnant woman fighting for her life be left to die.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Heres a thought Men keep your pants zipped up and Women keep yours zipped up and then it won't be anyone's problem simple solution that doesn't cost a damn thing if your going to be irresponsibile then that's on them not someone trying to raise their own family in other words it's called personal responsibilty.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Would it help to see the portion of the bill that the OP is objecting to?

‘(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 is the result of an act of rape or 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.


This says that taxpayers will not have to pay the premiums for abortion coverage unless the pregnancy is from rape, incest, or threatens the life of the mother.

May I add, the entire bill is about insurance policies except for the portion that says the government can not discriminate against health care providers if they don't want to be involved in abortions. Please explain how a woman will die under this bill. If she needs an abortion to save her life, she'll get one wherever she goes and it can be paid for with a taxpayer subsidised policy. Where's the problem?

Why is this a big deal? Why should taxpayers have to cover someone's elective abortion?

edit on 14-10-2011 by charles1952 because: Add material



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Firstly, Obama has promised to veto this bill.

Secondly, aren't these representatives elected by the people for the people? I would have thought the voters would question the candidates on thier policies before they elect them.

Thirdly, Doctors are required by oath to "apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required"



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


what do you think in case of a rape ?
the women can not afford the money if there are serios problems...
result both dead...?!
ignore this part above charles gave me the info... thanks to the 33goddesses

btw ia m not scared by your avatar, in can look behind your googles...
edit on 14/10/11 by vatel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/10/11 by vatel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Heres a thought Men keep your pants zipped up and Women keep yours zipped up and then it won't be anyone's problem simple solution that doesn't cost a damn thing if your going to be irresponsibile then that's on them not someone trying to raise their own family in other words it's called personal responsibilty.


Oh yeah, abstinance! HAHA, that 's a good one!


Wait a minute, you were serious?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by vatel
reply to post by neo96
 


what do you think in case of a rape ?
the women can not afford the money if there are serios problems...
result both dead...?!
ignore this part above charles gave me the info... thanks to the 33goddesses

btw ia m not scared by your avatar, in can look behind your googles...
edit on 14/10/11 by vatel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/10/11 by vatel because: (no reason given)


Really.... you really think a doctor will let a woman die on the floor???? now i know libs are nuts



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
www.govtrack.us...

Here's a link to the actual bill.

Posting someones rant as an authority to the bills veracity is a wee bit poor.
edit on 14-10-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
talk about hypocrites what a load of garbage "let women die" as opposed to the left and them "letting over 50 million babies die" with their support of abortion.

the holier than thou attitude doesn't fly the left is no better will never be any better and when the topic is death

the left has millions of deaths on their hands all in the name of human rights,women's rights, a just war, killing american citizens abroad.killing killing killing.

the democrats angels in this country nothing but a bunch of murderers and not a one will ever admit to it.


here, here!!!! well said



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
www.govtrack.us...

Here's a link to the actual bill.

Posting someones rant as an authority to the bills veracity is a wee bit poor.
edit on 14-10-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)


the key to upsetting a demecrat is telling the truth. The definition to insanity is continuing to vote democrat after being provided the truth over and over.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by vatel
 


Just the latest example of liberal demagoguery. "let women die"... "let old people die"... blah, blah, blah... It never changes. You would think that Progressives would make progress in their juvenile and illogical means of opposing something. The only reason they demagogue everything is because they can't argue facts with articulate points, because they have no articulate points, and so they resort to name calling and demagoguery. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat..... yawn.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join