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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by vatel
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.


No it does not mean women will be left to die, it just means government won't pick up the tab. How did women survive all these years before abortion funding ? Some people act as if there will be no more women because of this. They won't be left to die, they will just have to pay for it themselves. All you pro abortion people forget it isn't the children's fault, they didn't ask to be born they are a gift of life and should be treated that way. If the pregnant mother is in trouble during the pregnancy or during delivery, the doctors will save either the mother or child as it has been done for thousands of years. The only ones who profit from government abortion funding are those who provide the abortions. If it is necessary then it is necessary however government should not be involved, they are already involved in way to much of the peoples business already.

All it means is that they will have to pay for it themselves, that is all it means! Stop being a shill for those who profit from and facilitate abortions.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. D
 


thanks for braking that down Mr. D. its hard for sheeple to understand logic.

Doctors wont let woman die on the floor. thats stupid who ever is stating this
edit on 14-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Mr. D
 


thanks for braking that down Mr. D. its hard for sheeple to understand logic.

Doctors wont let woman die on the floor. thats stupid who ever is stating this
edit on 14-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


You are very welcome.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



What is that old saying? Oh right "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Men and women should remember that when they want to have irresponsible sex. I do not expect most people to save it for marriage but telling people to use contraception which is readily available practically everywhere now is telling them to act their age or don't have sex at all. Society should not have to suffer, nor should an innocent life, just because you wanted a few minutes of fun.

Personal responsibility, you know that extremely radical idea, is the point neo96 and I are trying to make. When you screw up do not expect anyone else to help you, if someone chooses too, fine, but if you walk around believing that any mistake you make is someone else's problem, well that shows:

1. You were not ready for sex in the first place
2. You are entirely immature




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MissConstrood
 

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

Oh...you mean that oath that originally required doctors also swear not to assist with measures to cause an abortion?




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
first off, it's very possible for a married couple to really want to have a child, and well, the child is concieved, but the problems are discovered that would put the mother at risk.....

in such a case, I don't care, if my tax money is going to treat someone else's ailments, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be used to treat the mother!!! if that treatment is an abortion, then so be it!!!
I don't see any reason why should should have to wait around for an ambulance to transfer her to another hospital, I don't see any reason why she should have to get zapped with the bill, I don't see any reason why she should have to go through any more hassle than you would if you went in to get treatment for anything that might be bothering YOU!!!
this bill, as portrayed by the op, which might not be an honest and truthful review of the bill, well, it would come darned close to exalted the life of the unborn above that of the women's.....
so, at what age exactly do you expect to remove that right to life to all those little girls that will be born under the protection of "right to life"???



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by vatel
 


reply to post by vatel
 


Oh boy, Republicans want to regulate morality again. So whats going to happen? We're going to force women to go through these pregnancies again? Or are we going to jail every single woman who carries out an abortion? I'd also really like to know what kind a conscious the doctor would have letting a pregnant woman, somebody's wife, somebody's daughter, somebody's mother as well, die, with all her calls for help, because that doctor believes some cycle of life. Yep, real liberty right there. It's going to take more than small government to do that I can tell ya.

Things really changed when the Pill came out, and fortunately abortion is still and accessable option in most parts of this country. It's going to take an unrealistically overreaching government to even try to change that fact, but tea partiers and their sympathizers don't care. They'll support any measure to satisfy their depends for moral authority over this country.
edit on 14-10-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Perhaps I've just read it wrong.

Can you review the actual bill being discussed itself and let me know which parts concern you? As far as I can tell, it only prohibits funds addressed by the full legislation from being directed towards abortion-related services (aside from cases of rape/incest and other physical issues), but does not bar individuals from seeking and paying for their own healthcare coverage to address these issues.

Did I miss something here?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
Perhaps I've just read it wrong.

Can you review the actual bill being discussed itself and let me know which parts concern you? As far as I can tell, it only prohibits funds addressed by the full legislation from being directed towards abortion-related services (aside from cases of rape/incest and other physical issues), but does not bar individuals from seeking and paying for their own healthcare coverage to address these issues.

Did I miss something here?



What parts concern me? I've made it clear about what parts concern me. The parts where doctors can leave a women to die from pregnancy complications, against her requests, against her family's request. It's not hard to understand,:


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.



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.


Just to clarify, you don't have any issue for doctors refusing to treat patients in life threatening situations, doctors, many of whom, will have support from public funds? My tax payer money?

This is a horrible situation for anybody to be in. I do recognize as well that when we are talking about pregnant woman, we may also be talking about the unborn child whom unknowly is causing these life threatening complications. It is a horrible situation and a horrible position that anybody should be put into to decide. That being said, if the woman and the family in question make the decision, and seeks medical attention, I don't believe in any excuse that doctors can just refuse their calls for help. Possibly I could understand private practices and their rights and business codes, but then again this bill crosses over to doctors who work in public and are supported by public funds. This idea that doctors can just leave them to suffer like this, despite what calls for help they may have, it is unbearable to think of.

edit on 14-10-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Bunch of worthless newspeak. "Let Women Die Act" I'm sure it was named that right? Couldn't possibly be what the disingenuous liberals are calling it due to their own bias. And as we all know, you aren't a patriot unless you support the Patriot Act.

Is this a partial repeal of the "Murder Of Innocent Babies Act" supported by the liberals? I'd like to see abortion rights activists sign their names saying that they support the murder of babies. At least that would be honest.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Here's the law we should have passed. Let women pay for their own abortions. Nobody's buying my condoms for me.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:24 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...


General rule:

If Pelosi is for something it is bad, if she opposes it must be good.

This never fails.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:24 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.


Wow!
Abstinence now works too when I want to have a child?
Ok:
If I want to have a child: don't have sex.
If I don't want to have a child: don't have sex.
Hmmm... don't get it.
Which one is it: Will my partner not get pregnant if I don't have sex with her, or if I do have sex with her?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

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...


General rule:

If Pelosi is for something it is bad, if she opposes it must be good.

This never fails.


You do not like Pelosi?
Why do you hate women?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by narwahl
 


What works is not having children when you know you can't afford them how hard is it to understand that?

I told myself long ago many years ago hey Neo don't knock up a chic until you can support yourself worked out fine for me as per that other people are not paying for my existence or those childrens existence.

It's a simple concept that falls on too many deaf ears because of the "I want it all I want it now and I don't give a F how the instant gratification crowd".

No one is stopping anyone from having children but act like adults and don't knock boots if you can't afford the consequences.

Don't make your problems mine or Liberalism making other peoples problems mine since 1935.

meh



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by narwahl
 


What works is not having children when you know you can't afford them how hard is it to understand that?

I told myself long ago many years ago hey Neo don't knock up a chic until you can support yourself worked out fine for me as per that other people are not paying for my existence or those childrens existence.

It's a simple concept that falls on too many deaf ears because of the "I want it all I want it now and I don't give a F how the instant gratification crowd".

No one is stopping anyone from having children but act like adults and don't knock boots if you can't afford the consequences.

Don't make your problems mine or Liberalism making other peoples problems mine since 1935.

meh


the only problem with your argument is your to logical. lol



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Yeah sorry that liberal education didn't take with me they should have thrown a few more billion at the endeavor

i'm sorry



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
The problem I've got is that the actual bill doesn't seem to say quite the same thing as interpreted in the article - which is why I asked you to review the bill itself.

The part they seem to be talking about is:

‘(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-
‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

‘(B) require or provide such training;

‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.


That doesn't seem to be quite the open door for this sweeping disregard of endangered life as discussed in the article, honestly.

It allows federal funding of abortions in the usual 'necessary' cases:

‘(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.


To me, it just looks like they're saying Obamacare can't require certain things related to abortion (at risk of losing Obamacare funds otherwise), and although we probably need a legal expert to clarify the definition of "discrimination", the discriminatory limits only apply to entities receiving Obamacare funds. It might just be the legalese tricking me, but the choice of term 'discrimination' doesn't seem to prohibit various legislation or other actions to deal with preventing unnecessary loss of life in cases of refusal to aid in actual life-threatening situations.

Additionally, this only pertains directly to Obamacare itself (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), and not any legislation not otherwise specified. If we can get a lawyer to verify (eh?), I think the assumptions made in OP article interpret this a tad too wildly.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by narwahl

Originally posted by Carseller4

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...


General rule:

If Pelosi is for something it is bad, if she opposes it must be good.

This never fails.


You do not like Pelosi?
Why do you hate women?


I don't hate Pelosi. I find her quite amusing.

I prefer my women good looking, sharp minded, and conservative....like Palin and Bachman!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I think what some other posters are saying is personal responsibility is usually involved in PLANNING a child, most couples still decide to have children when the time is right, with this comes perosnal responsibility, when your prepared you have your ducks in order, if complications arise during a pregnancy, most responsible future parents plan for this in their hospital insurance.

Not a big believer in abortion, not religious, just I live in Canada and currently because the issue is such a hot potato whenever it comes during an election no party will touch it . I believe there should be laws regarding abortion if publicly funded, it is not illegal anywhere in Canada, currently we have no law whatsoever, you can even have an abortion at eight months, paid for by the taxpayers. ( Don't know of any cases of this, doubt any moral doctor would even perform it,) Abortion should not be an alternative to birth control.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join