|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 31, 2016 22:47:38 GMT
And not just that, but we are literally one Supreme Court vote away from an anti-abortion-rights majority (or at least we were before Justice Scalia's passing ... for now, I guess, it's two). I want to know in depth every candidate's stance on the subject. Supreme Court appointments are my number one priority in choosing a president, and that is why I will probably always vote for the Democrat, even if I like the Republican otherwise. Because there hasn't been a pro-choice Republican since, what, Gerald Ford? Back in the day, Republicans used to support abortion rights. I grieve for those days. I'm going to take it step further. My governor just signed a new law here in Florida that is equal to (or worse) than the restrictive laws in Texas. For one, it not only disallows funding in Medicare clinics FOR abortion services, it disallows ANY Medicare funding to a clinic that offers the service. In other words, you have a hangnail and need to go to the Medicare clinic in your town? If they offer any type of abortion services, they will receive NO funding for ANY service. NONE. Irrespective of what the other medical services provided, they can be banned from receiving funding. There is a lot more than that of course, but my governor is absolutely hell bent on doing an end run around Roe v. Wade. Kasich did the same in Ohio but sneaky like. He couldn't stop (or get the voters) to support him on anti-abortion bills, so he slid the cuts into his budget to defund planned parenthood. Reason why I wouldn't vote for him as president--he cannot successfully pull the votes to get things done (because the voters don't want it) so he opens the back door and does it another way.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 31, 2016 23:05:29 GMT
If you think abortion issues aren't current and real, you live in a bubble somewhere. I live in the state that started the proposed mandated transvaginal ultrasound legislation. Currently there are a variety of states that are doing all the can to circumvent Roe v Wade by placing absurd regulations on clinics, pulling funding, trying to wipe Planned Parenthood off the face of the earth, etc. DH was just telling me of new proposed legislation last night requiring women to get anesthesia for abortion procedures, which would eliminate the possibility of doing it in many clinics, because you would need an anesthesiologist. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pro-life dominated Supreme Court would overturn Roe v Wade. The right to choose may not be important to you, but that doesn't make it unreal, irrelevant, or change the FACT that it IS an issue that millions of Americans fight for, one way or the other. And that people who follow the news KNOW is being impinged upon all around the country. It's not just proposed legislation. The governor of Utah has signed it into law.
It makes me sick to my stomach. But I can't imagine it will stand up in court. And to Lefty, in my view, Chris Matthews did a fantastic job interviewing Trump yesterday. That was no ambush, it was a legitimate question that Trump should have had a ready answer for. He usually stomps all over the media but Matthews didn't back down. He forced Trump into a corner where he had to answer instead of changing the subject. Personally, I thought it was incredibly offensive that Trump kept asking Matthews about HIS religious beliefs. As if that has anything to do with anything. leftturnonly
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 0:02:17 GMT
And to Lefty, in my view, Chris Matthews did a fantastic job interviewing Trump yesterday. That was no ambush, it was a legitimate question that Trump should have had a ready answer for. He usually stomps all over the media but Matthews didn't back down. He forced Trump into a corner where he had to answer instead of changing the subject. Personally, I thought it was incredibly offensive that Trump kept asking Matthews about HIS religious beliefs. As if that has anything to do with anything. At this point, I don't really care if it was a "gotcha" or not. Trump, as well as all the other candidates, should be better prepared to deal with gotcha questions. I am concerned about others who perceive this as a gotcha question and will react badly to that and thereby increase their support of Trump. BUT.... I'm really hoping that Trump has peaked in support and these newer interviews begin to really dissuade people from voting for him. I find Trump pretty obnoxious. I really dislike the way he handles himself in these positions. It's all too easy to back him into a corner and have him resort to the same old same old bob and weave deflection. He's dog meat now for the reporters.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Apr 1, 2016 0:11:21 GMT
Oh – by the way – the Bible is his favorite book. Oh--OK. Yet, he can't quote it correctly; 2 Corinthians Sorry, but when Trump issues a completely different statement in response to criticism to the first, it wasn't a witch hunt, it was Trump showing his true colors. Or he asks himself What would the tea party do? lucyg, it was a bill started by a *realtor*. Forget the testimony of doctors who said there is no science behind this. The governor also cut funding to Planned Parenthood because of those videos by the anti-abortion group. You know the ones they found to be deceiving in Texas. A grand jury that indicted two people. There is now some kind of federal lawsuit to get it reinstated.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Apr 1, 2016 1:20:16 GMT
I'm going to take it step further. My governor just signed a new law here in Florida that is equal to (or worse) than the restrictive laws in Texas. For one, it not only disallows funding in Medicare clinics FOR abortion services, it disallows ANY Medicare funding to a clinic that offers the service. In other words, you have a hangnail and need to go to the Medicare clinic in your town? If they offer any type of abortion services, they will receive NO funding for ANY service. NONE. Irrespective of what the other medical services provided, they can be banned from receiving funding. There is a lot more than that of course, but my governor is absolutely hell bent on doing an end run around Roe v. Wade. This kind of policy is so offensive to me. It's also nothing new. Back in the Reagan administration, the global gag rule caused immeasurable harm to women and children's health services in developing countries. It was shown, for example, that in countries where basic sanitation was lacking, if you could provide a pregnant woman with a clean sheet or tarp, a clean pair of scissors to cut the cord with (instead of the lid of a can you found in the trash heap), clean towels, and some other basic supplies, you could reduce maternal and newborn mortality by a significant measure. This was actually one of my dad's projects with the State Department in the 1980s. But under the global gag rule, even groups that did not provide abortion but counseled women regarding abortion or referred to legal abortion services lost their funding, even for programs that were intended to save the lives of women and babies. Never mind that a $3 kit can save two lives - abortion kills babies so you can't have your birth kit because some white politician in Washington who probably has never set foot in your country thinks he knows better for you. Infuriating to me in any country. It's all the same short-sighted manipulative political nonsense. And it's one reason why the viewpoint of our elected leaders matters to me, because all this was accomplished subsequent to Roe v. Wade - even though abortion is likely to remain legal in this country and no candidate is likely to reverse that decision, that doesn't mean that there aren't other issues relating to abortion that still matter. Since the institution of the global gag rule, each Republican President has reinstated it while each Democrat has rescinded it. This is one reason I have always voted Democrat and can't picture myself changing that anytime soon. Sorry, I ranted. This is very enlightening, thank you for sharing. And Bless your Dad for his work to save women and children.
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Apr 1, 2016 13:14:55 GMT
I don't think you can argue the fact that Trump's voting public loves him. I think they love him because (my opinion only) he speaks his mind and because they feel disenfranchised by the status quo. I, personally, have my doubts as to his sincerity and his intentions for running for office in the first place. The media hates him and, typical of the media, will try/do anything to turn his adoring public away from him. I guess my point is that I would prefer that the media stick to the relevant issues. Abortion is legal in this country and I honestly can't see any president (at this point in time) reversing that decision. The whole political circus out there of focusing on the "what ifs", personal matters, etc. of our candidates drives me up a wall. Rather, the media should address the real issues that we are struggling with not only as a nation, but in the world: terrorism for one, illegal immigration, the economy. He needs to have some plans, some ideas of how he will handle these situations if he becomes president. Personally, I don't think he has the foggiest idea of what he'd do and his adoring public needs to realize that. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the current candidates have what it would take to effectively handle these issues, least of all Trump. At this point, I still have NO IDEA who to vote for. I can't ever remember feeling this way about a presidential election. If you think abortion issues aren't current and real, you live in a bubble somewhere. I live in the state that started the proposed mandated transvaginal ultrasound legislation. Currently there are a variety of states that are doing all the can to circumvent Roe v Wade by placing absurd regulations on clinics, pulling funding, trying to wipe Planned Parenthood off the face of the earth, etc. DH was just telling me of new proposed legislation last night requiring women to get anesthesia for abortion procedures, which would eliminate the possibility of doing it in many clinics, because you would need an anesthesiologist. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pro-life dominated Supreme Court would overturn Roe v Wade. The right to choose may not be important to you, but that doesn't make it unreal, irrelevant, or change the FACT that it IS an issue that millions of Americans fight for, one way or the other. And that people who follow the news KNOW is being impinged upon all around the country. Sorry I got into this fray since my views on abortion are vastly different from yours and everyone else who thinks that abortion is OK. I don't care what a woman does with her body - it's up to her - but when another living being is involved, that's a whole other issue. And I won't argue the point. I will never understand how people who have such compassion for the downtrodden and animals can even consider the murder of our most innocent is a "right." And another thing...it's not the federal government's job to regulate personal matters to begin with. The quicker the federal government gets out of our personal lives the better off we'll all be. It's there to protect us from the criminals from without and from within - and I'd like to keep it at that. IMHO, I don't think it matters who is elected president this time. We're so divided as a nation that either one side or the other will be so up in arms about it anyway. Mark my words - as a nation, abortion issues are the least of our worries.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Apr 1, 2016 13:20:50 GMT
If you think abortion issues aren't current and real, you live in a bubble somewhere. I live in the state that started the proposed mandated transvaginal ultrasound legislation. Currently there are a variety of states that are doing all the can to circumvent Roe v Wade by placing absurd regulations on clinics, pulling funding, trying to wipe Planned Parenthood off the face of the earth, etc. DH was just telling me of new proposed legislation last night requiring women to get anesthesia for abortion procedures, which would eliminate the possibility of doing it in many clinics, because you would need an anesthesiologist. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pro-life dominated Supreme Court would overturn Roe v Wade. The right to choose may not be important to you, but that doesn't make it unreal, irrelevant, or change the FACT that it IS an issue that millions of Americans fight for, one way or the other. And that people who follow the news KNOW is being impinged upon all around the country. Sorry I got into this fray since my views on abortion are vastly different from yours and everyone else who thinks that abortion is OK. I don't care what a woman does with her body - it's up to her - but when another living being is involved, that's a whole other issue. And I won't argue the point. I will never understand how people who have such compassion for the downtrodden and animals can even consider the murder of our most innocent is a "right." And another thing...it's not the federal government's job to regulate personal matters to begin with. The quicker the federal government gets out of our personal lives the better off we'll all be. It's there to protect us from the criminals from without and from within - and I'd like to keep it at that. IMHO, I don't think it matters who is elected president this time. We're so divided as a nation that either one side or the other will be so up in arms about it anyway. Mark my words - as a nation, abortion issues are the least of our worries. But you are OK with the state mandating personal matters?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 1, 2016 13:25:03 GMT
If you think abortion issues aren't current and real, you live in a bubble somewhere. I live in the state that started the proposed mandated transvaginal ultrasound legislation. Currently there are a variety of states that are doing all the can to circumvent Roe v Wade by placing absurd regulations on clinics, pulling funding, trying to wipe Planned Parenthood off the face of the earth, etc. DH was just telling me of new proposed legislation last night requiring women to get anesthesia for abortion procedures, which would eliminate the possibility of doing it in many clinics, because you would need an anesthesiologist. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pro-life dominated Supreme Court would overturn Roe v Wade. The right to choose may not be important to you, but that doesn't make it unreal, irrelevant, or change the FACT that it IS an issue that millions of Americans fight for, one way or the other. And that people who follow the news KNOW is being impinged upon all around the country. Sorry I got into this fray since my views on abortion are vastly different from yours and everyone else who thinks that abortion is OK. I don't care what a woman does with her body - it's up to her - but when another living being is involved, that's a whole other issue. And I won't argue the point. I will never understand how people who have such compassion for the downtrodden and animals can even consider the murder of our most innocent is a "right." And another thing...it's not the federal government's job to regulate personal matters to begin with. The quicker the federal government gets out of our personal lives the better off we'll all be. It's there to protect us from the criminals from without and from within - and I'd like to keep it at that. IMHO, I don't think it matters who is elected president this time. We're so divided as a nation that either one side or the other will be so up in arms about it anyway. Mark my words - as a nation, abortion issues are the least of our worries. For you abortion issues may be the least of your worries, but evidently it IS of concern to many people - ON BOTH SIDES - pro-choice AND pro-life. Just because you hold a view, doesn't make it the truth for the rest of the nation, as the responses on this thread indicate. And that reason alone is justification enough for questioning candidates about their views on the issue - Trump included - without people yelling "witch hunt!"
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Apr 1, 2016 15:51:58 GMT
As a nation, the federal government should not concern itself with personal issues. I have very strong views on abortion and I'm sure I feel as passionate about my views as everyone else on this thread. My point is that as a nation that is trillions of dollars in debt, is plagued with criminals - from without, within, and cyber - seriously, our national security is at risk and I believe THAT is the issue that our federal politicians should be the most concerned with. Abortion is a whole other ball game, or should be, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 1, 2024 22:32:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 17:31:02 GMT
As a nation, the federal government should not concern itself with personal issues. I have very strong views on abortion and I'm sure I feel as passionate about my views as everyone else on this thread. My point is that as a nation that is trillions of dollars in debt, is plagued with criminals - from without, within, and cyber - seriously, our national security is at risk and I believe THAT is the issue that our federal politicians should be the most concerned with. Abortion is a whole other ball game, or should be, anyway. I agree. And as soon as the Republicans in Federal, State, & local government quit chipping away at Roe v Wade we can, as a country, focus entirely on the other items you mention above. But until then us folks who are pro choice will keep making it an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 1, 2024 22:32:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 17:47:47 GMT
IF abortion was illegal (and I am very pro-choice BTW), then I can sort of see his point. What is the point of making something illegal if there are no consequences for it? I get that the doctor would be the one breaking the law, but since the woman sought out the abortion, I guess maybe... If you break the law then there are consequences whether we agree with the law or not....
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 1, 2016 19:57:11 GMT
As a nation, the federal government should not concern itself with personal issues. I have very strong views on abortion and I'm sure I feel as passionate about my views as everyone else on this thread. My point is that as a nation that is trillions of dollars in debt, is plagued with criminals - from without, within, and cyber - seriously, our national security is at risk and I believe THAT is the issue that our federal politicians should be the most concerned with. Abortion is a whole other ball game, or should be, anyway. Several thoughts: 1. The government focuses on more than one issue at a time. And most people with the capability of complex thought worry about more than one thing at a time. It isn't national security OR abortion issues, it is national security AND abortion issues. See how that works? Simply switch the conjunction you are using. 2. For the millions of women and girls who are sexually active and for whom an unwanted pregnancy could seriously negatively impact their lives, abortion rights ARE probably more important and will have a bigger impact on their immediate daily lives than Congress and the President battling over the budget. 3. Simply because YOU think the federal government shouldn't be involved doesn't mean that is what a large meaningful segment of the public thinks. And since millions of others are interested in abortion/pro-life issues, it is fair to question candidates about their views. 4. Until you rule the world, you don't get to choose what topics people find relevant to question in a presidential election, especially when those topics have far-reaching impacts on people's daily lives. ETA: I just listened to a discussion on NPR in which several pundits predict that if Trump becomes the GOP nominee that a record number of women will vote in November, simply to vote against him. Clearly, the Federal Government's involvement women's issues is important enough to a multitude of women that it will impact their votes.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Apr 1, 2016 19:57:44 GMT
If there should be punishment for women then there should be punishment for the partner who had an equal hand in creating that fetus. And who may or may not have also had a hand in that woman getting that abortion.
This is all such bullshit. This should be a decision between the mother and her doctor. Not a decision between me and everyone else in the world, nor a decision made by a bunch of politicians who don't really give a damn anyway, nor should any of the religions get a day in it. It's none of anyone's business. Abortion was legalized in this country and it needs to stay that way.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Apr 1, 2016 22:57:52 GMT
If there should be punishment for women then there should be punishment for the partner who had an equal hand in creating that fetus. And who may or may not have also had a hand in that woman getting that abortion. This is all such bullshit. This should be a decision between the mother and her doctor. Not a decision between me and everyone else in the world, nor a decision made by a bunch of politicians who don't really give a damn anyway, nor should any of the religions get a day in it. It's none of anyone's business. Abortion was legalized in this country and it needs to stay that way. I don't know, the partner was not the one who sought the abortion. How would he be legally liable?
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 23:32:03 GMT
As a nation, the federal government should not concern itself with personal issues. I have very strong views on abortion and I'm sure I feel as passionate about my views as everyone else on this thread. My point is that as a nation that is trillions of dollars in debt, is plagued with criminals - from without, within, and cyber - seriously, our national security is at risk and I believe THAT is the issue that our federal politicians should be the most concerned with. Abortion is a whole other ball game, or should be, anyway. I hear you. But the problem here is that politicians at the state level are changing the abortion laws in such a way that they have made it extremely difficult to have one. That does present a real-life personal challenge for young women. The states aren't changing these laws through popular vote of the people of the state. A few politicians are changing these laws through the introduction of more and more regulations. THAT is practice that is against the values of limited government interference that conservatives believe in. These new laws are not representative of my conservative values at all.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 2, 2016 2:54:49 GMT
IF abortion was illegal (and I am very pro-choice BTW), then I can sort of see his point. What is the point of making something illegal if there are no consequences for it? I get that the doctor would be the one breaking the law, but since the woman sought out the abortion, I guess maybe... If you break the law then there are consequences whether we agree with the law or not.... I have just come to realize in the past couple of days what a huge issue this question of punishing the women or not is to the anti-abortion-rights side. Thank you, Donald Trump, for bringing this matter to my actual attention. First, I would have to say, if abortions were illegal, then women who seek them should be prosecuted. Not that I want to prosecute them, but that's a natural consequence of breaking the law. The partners should also be prosecuted if they arranged, encouraged, or otherwise were involved in obtaining the abortion. But the anti-abortion people have figured out that this is not a popular stance. So now they consider the women to be "victims," and they only want to prosecute (perhaps execute) the abortion providers. Sorry, but this is just BS. It's pulling your punches. If abortion is murder and the provider is going to prison or to his death, then be honest and prosecute the women who seek an abortion, too. And then let's just see how long this abortion-is-illegal business would last.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 2, 2016 5:26:42 GMT
If you break the law then there are consequences whether we agree with the law or not.... I have just come to realize in the past couple of days what a huge issue this question of punishing the women or not is to the anti-abortion-rights side. Thank you, Donald Trump, for bringing this matter to my actual attention. First, I would have to say, if abortions were illegal, then women who seek them should be prosecuted. Not that I want to prosecute them, but that's a natural consequence of breaking the law. The partners should also be prosecuted if they arranged, encouraged, or otherwise were involved in obtaining the abortion. But the anti-abortion people have figured out that this is not a popular stance. So now they consider the women to be "victims," and they only want to prosecute (perhaps execute) the abortion providers. Sorry, but this is just BS. It's pulling your punches. If abortion is murder and the provider is going to prison or to his death, then be honest and prosecute the women who seek an abortion, too. And then let's just see how long this abortion-is-illegal business would last. I can only speak for myself here. Nope. I just can't get on board with prosecuting a woman for wanting to have an abortion. Nor do I consider her a victim. Yes. There are times when a person who does an abortion - an illegal abortion - can be prosecuted for murder. It happened within my own family. All abortions were illegal at the time and she died from the procedure. The man who did it was found guilty of murder. All reasons that I don't want the Republicans playing around with the abortion laws we have without at the minimum having the public actively voting for the changes. I don't consider myself pro-choice. I consider myself pretty middle of the road let sleeping dogs lie and focus on other issues that concern the country choice. I do consider an unborn baby a living, not-yet-breathing child. I consider abortion a form of murder. It is the premature ending of another human life. FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 2, 2016 5:46:11 GMT
That is fair. My objection would be to the right doing contortions to explain why the women would be victims, not criminals. I think this would be the only crime that the perpetrator of wouldn't be charged. And I'm sorry about your relative who died. It's such a different world today. leftturnonly
|
|
|
Post by katieanna on Apr 2, 2016 12:02:40 GMT
2. For the millions of women and girls who are sexually active and for whom an unwanted pregnancy could seriously negatively impact their lives, I had a response typed yesterday but when I lost it on my Kindle, I said to heck with it. But I will say one thing in reply: If you think that I'm not passionate about abortion then you're wrong. I am also VERY pro-choice but I feel that the woman's choice is where you stated above and I bolded. She has NO right to determine whether another human being should live or die, and let's face it, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. And FTR, I'm not talking about rape...I'm referring strictly to the situation quoted above. It seems the only thing we agree on here is that Trump should not be president.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 2, 2016 16:18:39 GMT
2. For the millions of women and girls who are sexually active and for whom an unwanted pregnancy could seriously negatively impact their lives, I had a response typed yesterday but when I lost it on my Kindle, I said to heck with it. But I will say one thing in reply: If you think that I'm not passionate about abortion then you're wrong. I am also VERY pro-choice but I feel that the woman's choice is where you stated above and I bolded. She has NO right to determine whether another human being should live or die, and let's face it, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. And FTR, I'm not talking about rape...I'm referring strictly to the situation quoted above. It seems the only thing we agree on here is that Trump should not be president. For the love of reading comprehension, do you not understand this conversation hasn't been about what you personally think about abortion yourself, but that because it is an issue that is considered important and relevant in a presidential election to a multitude of people - both who are pro-life and who are pro-choice - that it was certainly a valid and justifiable topic to question Trump on and not a media witch hunt? I've tried to say that every way that I know how, but you still seem to miss the point. I'll stop beating the dead horse now. I am glad that we both agree that Trump shouldn't be President.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Apr 2, 2016 16:27:02 GMT
2. For the millions of women and girls who are sexually active and for whom an unwanted pregnancy could seriously negatively impact their lives, I had a response typed yesterday but when I lost it on my Kindle, I said to heck with it. But I will say one thing in reply: If you think that I'm not passionate about abortion then you're wrong. I am also VERY pro-choice but I feel that the woman's choice is where you stated above and I bolded. She has NO right to determine whether another human being should live or die, and let's face it, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. And FTR, I'm not talking about rape...I'm referring strictly to the situation quoted above. It seems the only thing we agree on here is that Trump should not be president. Unfortunately, however, as I outlined earlier in this thread, decisions made by politicians under the guise of being pro-life policies can and do determine whether other human beings live or die and those decisions have nothing to do with abortion at all. This is why it is not as simple as being opposed to abortion, whether for yourself or for others. When politicians use their pro-life stance to deny other forms of health care to women and children, they cause harm to women and children. This is not rhetoric, it is a real demonstrable effect of so-called pro-life global policy.
|
|
|
Post by Kelpea on Apr 2, 2016 20:40:40 GMT
If, and only IF, Roe v. Wade was overturned, you are looking at back alley abortions to commence once again and a subsequent rise in deaths of women obtaining those illegal abortions. Of course if you are wealthy, you will be taken care of.
I was a little surprised to hear the recorded transcript just yesterday of a clip of Drumpf on the Howard Stern show, dated when Marla Maples was Drumpf's mistress. The girst of the recorded convo was something to the effect of asshat recapping his conversation with Maples when she advised him of her pregnancy (by him). His response was "what are we gonna do about it?" Sounded pro-abortion talk to me...
|
|