It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:46 PM
dad's home, snuggling his wife, hoping and praying she will get the abortion, so he won't have to explain to wifey why his check is having child support taken out??

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:11 AM
it's to make sure that $$ will not be indirectly channeled to funding abortions.

why are dems so butt hurt over this? cant you see that this is redundant.Doctors are not forced to perform abortions, they have the choice to refer the patient.

Do you really think a woman who arrives at the ER, where they determine they need to abort the baby or she might die, would be left on the hospital floor?

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:22 AM
What a stupid law. Do you want a free abortion? just say you were raped.Everybody go home now.

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:14 AM
reply to post by Praetorius

Obviously that's the oath I was refering to...I wasn't aware that there was another oath with the same wording

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by knightsofcydonia

in short.....yes!!!

and got to ask this....
there isn't any law on the books now that requires any doctor to do the routine, more common, no one's life is on the line, abortions now, and I doubt if obama care changes that one. as it stands now, I believe, the only time when the law would force such a thing if it it was an emergency, and the preceedure would be considered "life-saving"....

so, well, if it's not that some doctors want to have the laws changed so that they can adhere to their "beliefs" and let the women face whatever fate has in store for them....
well, this wording wouldn't be in the bill!!!!

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:29 AM
To those that are for this ask yourselves this here question :

"What if it was your wife, sister or daughter on that table and they had to abort the fetus to save her life?" You'd abort the kid to save her life, now you no longer have that choice.
This is what this law undoes. Congrats, you've just now set civil rights back 75 years!

Regardless of what The House thinks this must still go through the Senate for which it'll be DOA and won't even see Committee effectively killing it so no worries there. No veto override to worry about!

Women's rights in America is still safe (for now)! Ladies you are still good!
edit on 15-10-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

it's christmas time, and you've just finished that delicious ham dinner, you're getting ready for bed, and you pass by the stairway as the cat darts in front of you.....tripping you, down the stairs. where you lay motionless, while the ambulance is called in and you are rushed to the hospital. well, the attending physician comes in and talks to ya but you can barely understand him, he's not from this country.... he takes a couple of sniffs, and welll, says something, you're not sure, but you think he said that you smell like a pig, so he ain't gonna treat you for the broken neck you just inflicted on yourself....
and he walks out...
leaving you to wait around for them to find a doctor, hopefully one that you can at least understand to come in and do more than sniff you!!!!

abortions aren't the only thing that some people may have a "belief" about, what about blood transfusions?? surgeries?? are people gonna be exempted from having to do those life-saving proceedures also???

if not, why not???

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:54 AM

Originally posted by negativenihil
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.

So, no more covered birth control is your argument base?


Or a hospital having *Gasp* the right to state they will not perform abortions?

Sounds like Pelosi doing what she does best, emotional hysteria.

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:02 AM
they should at least be required to clearly, and loudly (like newspaper and tv ads and interenet) state their position then, so those women will know where NOT TO GO when they go into labor, just in case things go wrong, wouldn't want to find out at the last minute that the hospital you are in or the doctor who is attending you would be more willing to let you die than to go against his "beliefs"!!!

why is no one answering my question??

why just abortions, there are other areas that some have "beliefs" about...they have to grin and bear it...
why shouldn't they not be required to go against their beliefs also???

why should the muslim doctor have to treat the unveiled women???

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

Oh, my friend you will not get answer because when it comes to ideologies they are only push in this boards to prove you wrong, on your post two already is not way to prove you wrong.

So enjoy the silence.

Control the health care system with laws and you control the peoples life, right to live, right to chose or right die, (specially women, because that is what is been targeted here) but the blind will never understand until crap happens to them or loves ones.

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:11 AM
It's appalling, isn't it? A gang of busybodies who think they know what's best for everybody. That's really what this bunch is. Gangsta's in suits.

There is something inherently missing in people who believe they have the power to dictate what others should do, and believe. Out of touch with humanity? It's a character flaw, which prevents them from seeing it. Some of them actually believe they are justified in these acts of control.

Some of these folks are just stupid, and some are plainly evil, but all are consumed by Greed and Power. There is something innately wrong with a group who is this obsessed with controlling others. It's tragic on many levels.

Politics without humanity is at the very core of governments that are doomed to fail.

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

actually, I think it's tied to economic trends.....

they have diminished the wages to the point that it's just about dang near impossible to raise a family without being in proverty, so well, there's less children being born, so, they find less perspective low wage earners available to work for minimum wage. so they then decide to import them, open the southern border and let them flow in, only, well, that's proven to be a national security risk....
so, rather put business in the spot where there is more jobs than workers (which just might be what would happen soon if things were left as they were and there was no recession, they would rather go back to the way it was....

force the women to marry, have lots of kids, to grow up and work for peanuts in their businesses!!! you can only have slave labor if there's plenty of slaves to labor!!! women have to have babies for that to happen!!!

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

I was listening to one of "them" on the news the other night, Romney perhaps and he was saying the government should "back off", and let capitalism "run it's course".

I burst into laughter of the sad kind.

Yep. Let it run it's's course leads to China, Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, Mexico, and anywhere but here. They take the work out of the country, leaving unemployed laborers here, and expect them to somehow pull themselves up by their bootstraps and shut up.

Problem is, there are no bootstraps for this demographic.
They've taken all the bootstraps to China, Vietnam, India...............

Then the clincher is, once they get very, very rich, they find a way to exempt themselves from paying their fair share of taxes. Perplexing-- what they are able to do, isn't it? Almost sounds a little....evil.

edit on 10/15/2011 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

I've played on these boards for a long time, and well, got to tell ya, by the way some people talk, I think they would love to have all those unborn babies out in the workforce by the time they turned 6 or 7!!!
they adore the unborn baby, but well, once it's born, they don't need medical care, they don't need education, they don't need food or shelter, at least not if it means a little is taken out of their pocket to help get them these things....

they just want the kids so they can exploit the kids!!!

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

That's what these companies want. The destruction of child labour laws so that a kid is forced to entre the workforce at age 6 and no edcucation, no food, no nothing but table scraps for meals with no healthcare for $1 a day! They want the labour conditions of China to come here.

The writing's been on the wall on that for decades!

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in