PolitiFact Blasts Kamala Harris Over ‘False’ Kavanaugh Video

a reply to: xuenchen

Camilla wants to be president? Haha! Her camel is cooked.

a reply to: Lab4Us

Aww, thanks for that, now I understand.

Being a slightly darker skinned version of HRC, she did that because she wanted to lose the confirmation hearing so she could point to the confirmation hearing as a big reason why she should be POTUS because when she's POTUS she won't nominate people who's confirmation hearing anyone would want to lose!

These politicians are very deep thinkers. I'd never have worked that out on my own.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

"They said." In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view. We rate this statement False.

They are full of crap! That is not the way Priests for Life define contraception. In their statement they explicitly make it clear that they are opposed to both, birth control and abortion, not that they are one in the same.

With Pope John Paul II we affirm that contraception and abortion are "specifically different evils," because only "the latter destroys the life of a human being," but that they are also related (The Gospel of Life, no. 13). It is important to remember that means that are referred to as "contraceptive" are, in reality, sometimes also abortifacient. An end to abortion will not come from contraceptive campaigns but from a deeper understanding of our human sexuality, and of human life, as sacred gifts deserving our careful stewardship.

Priests for Life is committed to assisting the clergy to proclaim these realities. We will provide an increasing amount of educational material on this page, as well as links to other web sites.

www.priestsforlife.org...

Only Brett Kavanaugh defines contraception as "abortion inducing". Those are his words, not Priests for Life, and not The Little Sisters of the Poor's words.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

This is a glaring in your face example of how they mislead people.

"They" as in ALL politicians?

Do you think Trump would be where he is today if he campaigned on political knowledge and facts?

Probably not. Like I've said more than a few times I'm not a Trump fan. That does not change the fact Kamila lied though.

My only intent was to point out why they do it. They know that their rabid partisan followers don't actually care if they lie and politics has become like a sporting event where both sides lie when they cheat and their fans take their side even when they know they cheated.

Truth be told, Hillary being President would be just as bad, if not worse, than Trump. Lose, lose.

Trump was right about the "Swamp" and it needed drained. The swamp includes both sides IMO. What caught my eye is Politifact pointing it out. Perhaps there is hope, but only after both sides clean up their parts of the swamp.

I think being in the tank for either party at the moment is being blind to it all.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Probably not. Like I've said more than a few times I'm not a Trump fan. That does not change the fact Kamila lied though.

There is no lie in Harris's video. The only lie is saying that Priests for Life and the Little Sisters of the Poor think abortion and contraception are one in the same. They don't and never said any such thing. That's all Kavanaugh.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So you remove those words so it matches your perception? If you read it in English and in context it's not hard to see that Kamila is not honest. You have to twist it to make her honest.

Tell the truth here, you want only Supreme Court Justices who agree with you and lie when they take the oath, as long as they are willing to only vote the way you approve of confirmed?

Doesn't it bother you that how the Supreme Court votes can be predicted on party lines? The only way that can happen is if the Justices don't honor their oath. All of them Right or Left. It's all a game and a dishonest one.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, you already said that. You think it's OK to remove words and quote out of context. I don't. It's not honest and I'd like honest people in charge. We will have to agree to disagree.

a reply to: Blaine91555


I don't think the cut of "They said" was deliberate. Lazy? Perhaps. But it doesn't matter because "they" didn't say that. Brett Kavanaugh was incorrect, or lying, not Kamala Harris. And, Kavanaugh is the one who will "be in charge", not Kamala Harris.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Deleting that from what was actually said completely changes context.

If not please expose Politifact for being wrong by linking to where the group states they never said that? I looked and you won't like what you find.

We are not having a conversation about abortion right or wrong, only about Kamila being caught it a lie, which she obviously was. Don't worry, I'm not a Trump fan as I've said, just a voter sick of being lied to and taking statements out of context is a knowing, purposeful lie. Always has been, always will be.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen


But, more importantly, Kamala Harris has documentation from Trump's personal lawyer's law firm that cites Kavanaugh''s assertion of presidential powers to ignore subpoenas the wrongness of putting a sitting president through investigations. At the same time, Kavanaugh insists that, if seated he will not recuse himself if Trump's case comes before SCOTUS. That is also a valid concern.

No, it's not a valid concern. There is zero reason to recuse himself.
He's getting confirmed and Kamala Harris's lies are not going to change that.
Time to move on and just chalk up another loss.

a reply to: xuenchen

Members of the Democratic Party are Presented to the Public By the MSM in a Certain Light that Implies they are IMPORTANT PEOPLE Who Should be Listened To , but in REALITY , they are Nothing More than Clueless Sycophants Pretending to be Something that they are Definitely Not . Case in Point , the Shallow Kamala Harris..........

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

"They said." In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view. We rate this statement False.

They are full of crap! That is not the way Priests for Life define contraception. In their statement they explicitly make it clear that they are opposed to both, birth control and abortion, not that they are one in the same.

With Pope John Paul II we affirm that contraception and abortion are "specifically different evils," because only "the latter destroys the life of a human being," but that they are also related (The Gospel of Life, no. 13). It is important to remember that means that are referred to as "contraceptive" are, in reality, sometimes also abortifacient. An end to abortion will not come from contraceptive campaigns but from a deeper understanding of our human sexuality, and of human life, as sacred gifts deserving our careful stewardship.

Priests for Life is committed to assisting the clergy to proclaim these realities. We will provide an increasing amount of educational material on this page, as well as links to other web sites.

www.priestsforlife.org...

Only Brett Kavanaugh defines contraception as "abortion inducing". Those are his words, not Priests for Life, and not The Little Sisters of the Poor's words.

How dense are you?

From your quote above: With Pope John Paul II we affirm that contraception and abortion are "specifically different evils," because only "the latter destroys the life of a human being," but that they are also related (The Gospel of Life, no. 13). It is important to remember that means that are referred to as "contraceptive" are, in reality, sometimes also abortifacient. An end to abortion will not come from contraceptive campaigns but from a deeper understanding of our human sexuality, and of human life, as sacred gifts deserving our careful stewardship.

It is important to remember that means that are referred to as "contraceptive" are, in reality, sometimes also abortifacient.[b/]

a·bor·ti·fa·cient
əˌbôrdəˈfāSHənt/
Medicine
adjective
adjective: abortifacient

1.
(chiefly of a drug) causing abortion.

noun
noun: abortifacient; plural noun: abortifacients

1.
an abortifacient drug.


So He was telling the truth. "They said".

a reply to: Wardaddy454


Still, Kavanaugh is wrong. Priests for Life nor the Little Sisters ever claimed that the ACA required them to facilitate "abortifacients", because it didn't. Kavanaugh was wrong in his assertion that the Priests for Life or the Little Sisters argued that the contraception requirement forced them to condone abortifacients, in their religious freedom SCOTUS case against ACA. That just was not their argument. It's Kavanaugh that is conflating the ACA contraception mandate with forcing employers to provide abortifacients. It's Kavanaugh that thinks contraception, which prevents fertilization, induces abortion.

For Priests for Life and the Little Sisters, having to provide a paper saying they were against contraception was a bridge too far, let along abortion.

This kind of accommodation is also available to religious non-profit organizations, which includes the seven plaintiffs in these cases: the Little Sisters of the Poor; a pro-life organization called Priests for Life; representatives of several Roman Catholic organizations; and Geneva College, Southern Nazarene University, and East Texas Baptist University. But these organizations say this is insufficient for a number of technical reasons, the most important being that they believe filling out the form still amounts to complicity in providing people with contraception.

www.theatlantic.com...

Which contraceptives are covered under the ACA?
The ACA covers 20 contraceptives—the full range of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives—that all prevent fertilization2, including birth control pills, patches, rings, shots, cervical caps, contraceptive implants, diaphragms, intrauterine devices (IUDs), emergency contraception, and permanent contraceptive methods.

2. Contraceptives are not synonymous with abortifacients, though many right-wing and faith-based organizations conflate the two. The speculation that the birth control pill and similar methods are “chemical abortions” has not been observed in clinical settings; contraceptive scientists have been able to clinically substantiate that birth control drugs and devices prevent fertilization

3. Food and Drug Administration, “FDA approves Plan B One-Step emergency contraceptive for use without a prescription for all women of child-bearing potential.” (June 20, 2013).

www.fda.gov... now.org...

So, not only does the ACA not require employers to provide abortificients insurance coverage, the product in question was available over the counter, without a prescription well before the case went before SCOTUS.


So again, in summary, Brett Kavanaugh was wrong to say that the ACA contraception mandate included abortificients, it didn't, or that religious organizations claimed that it did, they didn't. The myth of abortion concealed inside the contraception mandate is all Kavanaugh, not Priests for Life nor the Little Sisters of the Poor.

a reply to: Blaine91555


I have shown you what the argument before SCOTUS was. Show me where Priests for Life, the Little Sisters or any of the other plaintiffs cited abortifacients as a moral/religious objection.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

This is a glaring in your face example of how they mislead people.

"They" as in ALL politicians?

Do you think Trump would be where he is today if he campaigned on political knowledge and facts?

Only issue with that analogy is that while POTUS 45 is many things...a politician is NOT one of them...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen


If a Supreme Court Justice believes that contraception is the same as an abortion, and that justice was appointed to fulfil a presidential promise to overturn Roe V Wade, then the legality of contraception is also at risk. That's a valid concern.

But, more importantly, Kamala Harris has documentation from Trump's personal lawyer's law firm that cites Kavanaugh''s assertion of presidential powers to ignore subpoenas the wrongness of putting a sitting president through investigations. At the same time, Kavanaugh insists that, if seated he will not recuse himself if Trump's case comes before SCOTUS. That is also a valid concern.

Just so you know..... The Pill is an abortifacient. And Pro Choice people know it.

Abortifacients work after fertilization (conception) by killing the newly conceived human. These include oral contraceptives (the "Pill"), IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, Emergency Contraception (the "Morning-After Pill"), and anti-fertility vaccines. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare defined abortion as follows: "All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote at any time between the instant of fertilization and the completing of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for indudng abortion."1
(emphasis added)

www.pregnantpause.org...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dragonridr

There is no case where Trump would end up at the supreme court.

A clash between Trump and Mueller over an interview could set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown

Rejecting the interview request could pave the way for Mueller to issue a subpoena — which, in turn, could end up in a lengthy legal battle that could reach the top court.

www.businessinsider.com...

Just like i said years of battling in federal court . He would no longer be president before the supreme court would even look at the possiblity. And that is only if they get two different rulings. The whole the supreme court would somehow decide Trumps fate is fantasy. This fantasy was created in order to stall his nominations.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

This is a glaring in your face example of how they mislead people.

"They" as in ALL politicians?

Do you think Trump would be where he is today if he campaigned on political knowledge and facts?

Only issue with that analogy is that while POTUS 45 is many things...a politician is NOT one of them...

No kidding

When you reduce all this down to a simple fact you see a HUGE COMMUNIST insurgence. This is just the beginning. They will say and do anything to bring down this country. My greatest fear is this will eventually lead to civil war.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

These include oral contraceptives (the "Pill"), IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, Emergency Contraception (the "Morning-After Pill"), and anti-fertility vaccines.

OH NOES! So women are having abortions everywhere you can imagine all the time! At the bank, at the park, even the kindergarten teacher is having abortions while teaching the little ones! Watch out! The lady in front of you in line at the supermarket is probably having an abortion right there while you watch! Oh, the humanity!

We better get the Supreme Court working on that ASAP!