Abortion Rights in Former Slave States

[badbabysitter]

Abby witnessed a PERFECTLY LEGAL ABORTION - but was understandably HORRIFIED when she discovered firsthand what a legal abortion actually was! She watched as the abortion doctor ripped apart a tiny baby in its mother's womb! She saw the tiny infant actually trying to escape from the metal pincers that tore its body apart, to no avail. She felt as if she were watching Nazi doctors at Auschwitz calmly destroying human beings as part of the so-called "Final Solution" - which is what Hitler's genocidal regime called the Holocaust, as that phrase just sounds so-much-more pleasing! "Pro-choice" is another phrase that sounds a whole lot less monstrous than "pro-abortion," doesn't it?

Yet, there is zero evidence it ever occurred. You see, legally this shit has to be recorded and there is no record of it.. so either she's lying ( which makes her a fraud), or she didnt report something illegal ( which makes her an accomplice)

So, is she a liar or a crook?

 

[dan_c00000]

You're on!

Great, we're all waiting.

 

[Dumpington]

badbabysitter writes: "Yet, there is zero evidence it ever occurred. You see, legally this shit has to be recorded and there is no record of it.. so either she's lying ( which makes her a fraud), or she didnt report something illegal ( which makes her an accomplice)"

Planned Parenthood named Abby Johnson as its employee of the year in 2008.

"So, is she a liar or a crook?"

Anybody that our nation's chief abortion provider would name as its employee of the year is very likely going to be a little of both. But in Abby's case, she did a full 180-degree turn, and her story about witnessing an actual abortion is HORRIFIC in the extreme!

dan_c00000 writes: "Great, we're all waiting."

What exactly are you waiting for, Dan? And who is "we?"

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yet, there is zero evidence it ever occurred. You see, legally this shit has to be recorded and there is no record of it.. so either she's lying ( which makes her a fraud), or she didnt report something illegal ( which makes her an accomplice)

So, is she a liar or a crook?

I don't know whether or not this medical procedure would have to be reported. If the abortion was legal, reporting it anywhere would be a violation of the woman's privacy, which was what Roe v. Wade was about.

 

[badbabysitter]

Planned Parenthood named Abby Johnson as its employee of the year in 2008.

SO? There were still no recorded abortions on the day Abby claimed, the day before Abby claimed, or the day after Abby claimed

Anybody that our nation's chief abortion provider would name as its employee of the year is very likely going to be a little of both. But in Abby's case, she did a full 180-degree turn, and her story about witnessing an actual abortion is HORRIFIC in the extreme!

SO? There were still no recorded abortions on the day Abby claimed, the day before Abby claimed, or the day after Abby claimed


So either she refused to report this illegal operation... which makes her an accomplice

Or she made it up... which makes her a liar

 

[badbabysitter]

I don't know whether or not this medical procedure would have to be reported. If the abortion was legal, reporting it anywhere would be a violation of the woman's privacy, which was what Roe v. Wade was about.

You would have to record it for legal reasons

this should not be a difficult thing to grasp

Or do you think Hospital record rooms are where they keep their vinyl?

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "And you know this all...how?"

It's a very simple concept: JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY - the Democrats see to it that taxpayer dollars go to Planned Parenthood, with that major abortion-provider then contributing heavily to Democratic Party coffers, with the understanding that ALL Democrat legislators will support abortion (or else!) As long as the Democratic Party is pro-abortion, the Dems will receive hefty Planned Parenthood political donations; and so long as Planned Parenthood performs a multitude of abortions, the Dems will see to it that they continue to receive regular taxpayer funding!

Right. It couldn't possibly be that we simply believe women should be allowed to make their own decisions. Anything but that!

(Seriously, Dump, if you really believe that nonsense, doesn't it only make sense that the Dems would kowtow to a more well-heeled lobby like, say, oil and gas?)

"Actually, Dumpington, Lipinksi's primary challenger is running into some roadblocks..."

Dan Lipinski represents a pro-life congressional district, YDB95.

He represents a Democratic district, ergo it's highly unlikely that a pro-choice candidate would have a hard time winning there. As I told you before, Lipinski got there in the first place on the back of the local party machine and his father's name.

Yes, the voters there may lean Democrat, but they clearly DON'T respect Planned Parenthood, or want the abortion industry calling the shots in their neighborhood! The Democratic Party is learning a sharp lesson that their pro-abortion agenda is NOT as popular as they seemingly believe it to be!

And...that's why Lipinski barely won renomination last time. (If you're wondering why he won easily in November, it's because his opponent was literally a Nazi. Welcome to Trump's America.)

"No, that is not what she said."

WHY are we talking about Sandra Fluke?

Because you brought her up, and also put words in her mouth.

WHAT did she do that put her on the map, and caused the Democratic Party to invite her to speak at their 2012 national convention? The ANSWER: she was a college girl getting a LOT of sex, and found herself unable to afford her sizeable contraceptives bill, and so she asked the Democrats in congress for help!

For the umpteenth time, that's not what happened. I would ask at this point if you understand how the Pill works - or that many women take it for medicinal purposes and going without is a genuine hardship - but it's already clear to me that you don't know anything about any of that. You also don't know what Sandra Fluke actually said in her testimony.

"In other words, the Dems often effectively needed 60 votes, but there was nothing official about it."

Harry Reid ended that, and his party lived to regret it - "Precedent," as they say, was broken! Merrick Garland never got a confirmation vote (the G.O.P.-controlled Senate was NEVER going to confirm him anyway)

Which was no excuse to refuse to even bring the nomination to the floor. I certainly hope the Democrats don't forget that next time they have the majority under a Republican president. (Go ahead and say it'll never happen, Dump - nobody here saw THAT coming!)

"Nothing but the political reality that it could be fatal to some senators' re-election hopes."

Opposing President Trump's appointment of Judge Kavanaugh last summer certainly proved fatal to the re-election hopes of Democratic Party U.S. Senators in Florida, Missouri, & North Dakota, didn't they? Meanwhile, not a SINGLE G.O.P. senator voting FOR Kavanaugh's confirmation lost his (or her) seat!

Are you saying Dean Heller is a fictional character?

"...pro-choice Republicans are just as rare as anti-choice Democrats."

True, but Republicans don't deny funding over that one issue as do the Democrats.

Not in states where it's the only way they can win, anyway. Which is not the case in Lipinski's district. (But, again, the local party machine IS supporting him.)

Also, being pro-abortion isn't the women-voters-magnet that the pro-choice Democrats seemingly believe it to be.

Regrettably, that's partially right. But the bigger problem for us has been that a lot of pro-choicers voted Republican on other issues. I doubt you'll be seeing so much of that from now on, given what they pulled in Alabama and elsewhere.

"Given the amount of counseling, waiting periods, surgery, and sheer emotional and physical difficulty that goes with transitioning, no. I'm pretty sure it couldn't."

What you're saying is that it PROBABLY won't happen, as WAY too many guys have their self-respect to consider. But hear me out... let's suppose that the U.S. women's soccer team WINS it's struggle to get equal pay with the men's team, okay? A soccer-playing guy (we'll call him "Craig") is a fairly talented male soccer play, but he gets CUT by the guy's team because he's not quite good enough! And so the very next year Craig becomes a woman and changes his name (to something like "Cece") and tries out for the WOMEN'S team, where he immediately earns a starting spot (thanks to his excessive size & speed) and ends-up leading the U.S. women's team to a World Cup Championship! Will YOU be cheering for Cece, YDB95? Yes or no?

That's not how transsexuality works, Dumpington. It just isn't. Even in that one case you keep bringing up, it took me a five minute google search to learn it wasn't as simple as you were suggesting. I could provide citations, but everyone here knows you're just going to go on believing what you want to believe. But you're wrong.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You would have to record it for legal reasons

this should not be a difficult thing to grasp

Or do you think Hospital record rooms are where they keep their vinyl?

The hospital or clinic would have a record of the procedure, but they would not report it to anybody. One exception would be in the case of a young girl, but if the patient was an adult, the operation would be confidential.

 

[dan_c00000]

It's interesting that this thread has gone on for six pages with dump just getting destroyed. It's almost like he doesn't know that abortions represent only about 3% of what Planned Parenthood does.

The vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does is make up for all the gasp misogynists like dump want. Things like contraception, family planning, and general women's health. Again dump doesn't like this because he hates women.

 

[Dumpington]

badbabysitter writes: "SO? There were still no recorded abortions on the day Abby claimed, the day before Abby claimed, or the day after Abby claimed"

If you watch the movie: "Unplanned" - you will find the answer to all of your above questions & concerns! It's an excellent film!

YDB95 writes: "Right. It couldn't possibly be that we simply believe women should be allowed to make their own decisions. Anything but that!"

Okay, let's go there... you state: "Women should be allowed to make their own decisions." What about legalized prostitution, YDB95? Your argument seems to be that if a woman decides to sell her own body for sex, then it's none of the government's business to tell her that she can't! Are you now advocating for legalized prostitution?

It really doesn't matter, because you've already made it pretty clear that you have no defined set of principles. Right now you may respond that legalized prostitution would demean & exploit women, but if the Democratic Party does a 180-degree turn next year and supports it, you will obediently go along.

"He represents a Democratic district, ergo it's highly unlikely that a pro-choice candidate would have a hard time winning there."

Dan Lipinski represents a PRO-LIFE Democratic Party district, and if Planned Parenthood tries to force that party to put a pro-abortion candidate on the ballot, it's very likely the people living there will vote for the pro-life Republican candidate instead (assuming, of course, that a pro-life candidate wins the G.O.P. primary!)

"...that's why Lipinski barely won renomination last time."

TRANSLATION: Planned Parenthood unsuccessfully tried to remove Lipinski from the ballot in 2018, but the pro-life Democrats in his district re-nominated (and re-elected) him despite their best efforts!

"You also don't know what Sandra Fluke actually said in her testimony."

You keep IGNORING the central issue here - WHY was a college student testifying before House Democrats in the first place? Sandra Fluke was unhappy that the American taxpayers weren't helping to pay her sizeable contraceptives bill! WHY are you unable to fathom that simply fact?

"I certainly hope the Democrats don't forget that next time they have the majority under a Republican president."

Been there, done that. You've seriously never heard of Robert Bork?

"Are you saying Dean Heller is a fictional character?

Okay, you are correct - I overlooked that entirely! Dean Heller was an anti-Trump Republicans who lost his re-election bid in Nevada. The guy should have retired like other anti-Trump Republican senators Jeff Flake & Bob Corker. But that still means that some OTHER Democratic Party seat must have gone Republican, as the G.O.P. picked-up TWO SEATS overall, am I right? So let's re-cap...

The Democrats won Heller's seat in Nevada, and Kyrsten Sinema's win in Arizona gave them Flake's vacated seat. And since the Republicans picked-up TWO SEATS overall, that must mean that they won FOUR senate-seats previously held by Democrats, correct? So why do I keep thinking it was only THREE?

In North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp lost to Republican Kevin Cramer... in Missouri, Claire McCaskill lost to Republican Josh Hawley... in Florida, Bill Nelson was defeated by Republican Rick Scott... which means that there're got to be one MORE G.O.P. senate victory that I'm overlooking! Ah, there it is! In INDIANA, Republican Mike Braun defeated Democratic Party incumbent senator Joe Donnelly!

Thank you, YDB95, for correcting me - and helping me to remember that Indiana race that I somehow kept overlooking!

"That's not how transsexuality works, Dumpington."

I only know what I SEE happening in college & high school athletics! Once professional sports become involved, there's now a FINANCIAL gain to be had in a man competing (and winning) against women athletes! Again, I have to question YOUR PRINCIPLES on this issue. Right now, you say that what I've described above will never happen, acting all shocked that I'd even bring it up. But how exactly will you respond when it DOES happen, and the progressive left demands that you applaud & accept it lest they label you "transphobic?"

 

[dan_c00000]

I only know what I SEE happening in college & high school athletics! Once professional sports become involved, there's now a FINANCIAL gain

Ohio State University's football program generated $90 million on revenue, ESPN paid over $5 billion for the rights to college football plays...in 2012, and the revenue from the UNC men's basketball team was over $12 million this year.

You lie even about the most basic facts dump. It's getting rather embarrassing for you to be owned so hard all the time.

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "You lie even about the most basic facts dump. It's getting rather embarrassing for you to be owned so hard all the time."

Yes, Dan, college sports make ENORMOUS PROFITS.

The Ohio State football program generated over $90-million in revenues while North Carolina's men's basketball team earned a whopping $12-million-plus! But how much of that money went into PAYING THE PLAYERS, Dan? You don't seem to have grasped the fact that signing college football or basketball players to million-dollar deals seriously violates NCAA rules! Even slipping a thousand-dollars under the table to a star football player can result in NCAA sanctions, including no television or bowl game appearances for his team!

But the pros are different. Let's say that a guy (we'll call him Craig Telfer) is a pretty good basketball player - he's big, strong, & fast - but NOT good enough to earn a spot on the Chicago Bulls basketball roster. And so, what does he do? Well, let's say he changes his first name to "Cece," claiming to now be a woman - and then goes across town to try-out for the Chicago Sky WNBA team! Suddenly, his size, speed, & strength are more-than-good-enough to make him the best player in the entire league!

Now, WNBA salaries are so pitiful as to make that scenario unlikely. But the current U.S. Women's World Cup SOCCER team is currently lobbying to earn the same amount of money as their male counterparts, ignoring the fact that women's soccer has only a fraction of the audience enjoyed by the guys. But let's say that they get their wish, and now receive equal pay with the guys? If this Craig Telfer guy gets cut by the MEN'S team, what's to prevent him from using his excessive size, speed, & strength to become a star on the WOMEN'S World Cup team (under the name Cece Telfer), and earn just as much as if he was competing on the MEN'S team?

 

[badbabysitter]

If you watch the movie: "Unplanned" - you will find the answer to all of your above questions & concerns! It's an excellent film!

Lets recap

You claimed Sanger was a Nazi supporter who went to KKK rallies ( complete with burning crosses) to talk about keeping the black population in check

and now you're closing with encouraging me to see the dramatization of a completely uncorroborated story

 

[badbabysitter]

The hospital or clinic would have a record of the procedure, but they would not report it to anybody. One exception would be in the case of a young girl, but if the patient was an adult, the operation would be confidential.

They dont have to report who got the operation, but they do have to report the nature of it.. especially PP clinics which have to constantly submit records to ensure their taxpayer funds are not being used for abortions

So, yeah... there would have had to be an abortion recorded as occuring

But there wasnt

so either she's a crook or a liar

 

[YDB95]

badbabysitter writes: "SO? There were still no recorded abortions on the day Abby claimed, the day before Abby claimed, or the day after Abby claimed"

If you watch the movie: "Unplanned" - you will find the answer to all of your above questions & concerns! It's an excellent film!

Certainly for people like yourself who live on right-wing propaganda it is.

YDB95 writes: "Right. It couldn't possibly be that we simply believe women should be allowed to make their own decisions. Anything but that!"

Okay, let's go there... you state: "Women should be allowed to make their own decisions." What about legalized prostitution, YDB95? Your argument seems to be that if a woman decides to sell her own body for sex, then it's none of the government's business to tell her that she can't! Are you now advocating for legalized prostitution?

It really doesn't matter, because you've already made it pretty clear that you have no defined set of principles.

First of all, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have no principles. One principle I do have is that pregnancy is difficult, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, and if a woman doesn't want to go through with one, it's nobody's business but hers.

Secondly, if you really and truly believe leaving that decision up to her is analogous to prostitution, all I can say is you hate women even more than I thought you did. And that's saying a lot.

Right now you may respond that legalized prostitution would demean & exploit women, but if the Democratic Party does a 180-degree turn next year and supports it, you will obediently go along.

Project much? Donald Trump invents a crisis on the border and suddenly you're convinced there are millions of illegal voters out there, yet you can't point to a single documented case of as much...and you think I'm blinded by party loyalty? Wow. In any event, there probably are some Democratic politicians out there who support legalized prostitution (though I don't know of any for a fact), and I don't agree with them.

"He represents a Democratic district, ergo it's highly unlikely that a pro-choice candidate would have a hard time winning there."

Dan Lipinski represents a PRO-LIFE Democratic Party district

Just because Lipinski is anti-choice doesn't necessarily mean his district at large agrees with him. You've already established that you know nothing about his career; I see no reason to believe you know anything about his district either.

and if Planned Parenthood tries to force that party to put a pro-abortion candidate on the ballot, it's very likely the people living there will vote for the pro-life Republican candidate instead (assuming, of course, that a pro-life candidate wins the G.O.P. primary!)

If it were that simple, Lipinski would have been defeated long ago.

"...that's why Lipinski barely won renomination last time."

TRANSLATION: Planned Parenthood unsuccessfully tried to remove Lipinski from the ballot in 2018, but the pro-life Democrats in his district re-nominated (and re-elected) him despite their best efforts!

"Tried to remove Lipinski from the ballot"? That's not what having a primary challenger means. Besides, incumbents hardly ever lose primaries unless they're scandal-tainted.

"You also don't know what Sandra Fluke actually said in her testimony."

You keep IGNORING the central issue here - WHY was a college student testifying before House Democrats in the first place?

I'm not ignoring it; I'm pointing out that you have misrepresented her testimony again and again and again. Besides, I already knew the answer to your question (which, as usual, you clearly don't even want to know).

Sandra Fluke was unhappy that the American taxpayers weren't helping to pay her sizeable contraceptives bill! WHY are you unable to fathom that simply fact?

I'm not. But while that's not quite entirely wrong, it implies something very different than what she actually said. As you would know if you had actually seen it or read the transcripts. But everyone here knows you have no interest in the truth about such things.

"I certainly hope the Democrats don't forget that next time they have the majority under a Republican president."

Been there, done that. You've seriously never heard of Robert Bork?

Robert Bork who supported poll taxes and opposed Griswold v. Connecticut? Yes, I've heard of him. Have you seriously never heard that he had his chance to face the Senate and they voted on him, neither of which is true of Merrick Garland?

"Are you saying Dean Heller is a fictional character?

Okay, you are correct - I overlooked that entirely! Dean Heller was an anti-Trump Republicans who lost his re-election bid in Nevada. The guy should have retired like other anti-Trump Republican senators Jeff Flake & Bob Corker.

He wasn't anti-Trump. Which probably is one reason why he lost.

"That's not how transsexuality works, Dumpington."

I only know what I SEE happening in college & high school athletics!

Given your track record here, I believe that. I believe you really and truly are seeing men just waking up one morning and deciding to transition so they can compete on women's teams. The thing is, Dumpington, you see a lot of stuff that really isn't happening at all. This is just another of those.

 

[dan_c00000]

earn just as much as if he was competing on the MEN'S team?

You know I don't answer questions from racists. Also, since I've been owning you so damn hard, you're way off the supposed topic of this thread.

You also have yet to answer my questions about you supporting Trump's continued murder of children.

 

[Dumpington]

badbabysitter writes: "You claimed Sanger was a Nazi supporter who went to KKK rallies ( complete with burning crosses) to talk about keeping the black population in check"

No, I never called Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger a Nazi, although the Nazis would have no doubt admired her methods of killing-off an entire race of "undesireables" while still in the womb! She was simply a racist with fans in the Ku Kux Klan (which many people still view as a racist organization!)

"They dont have to report who got the operation, but they do have to report the nature of it.. especially PP clinics which have to constantly submit records to ensure their taxpayer funds are not being used for abortions"

Here it is in a nutshell... Democratic Party legislators vote to give taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood, which in turn generously contributes campaign donations to Democratic Party candidates. ALL that Planned Parenthood wants from the Democrats is to tell them how to vote, while ALL the Democratic Party asks from Planned Parenthood is to continue performing abortions!

dan_c00000 writes: "You also have yet to answer my questions about you supporting Trump's continued murder of children."

No, Dan - President Trump is NOT a supporter of Planned Parenthood, and he does NOT support their murder of children! I can't believe that you don't know this, but President Trump is NOT A DEMOCRAT!

 

[dan_c00000]

No, Dan - President Trump is NOT a supporter of Planned Parenthood, and he does NOT support their murder of children! I can't believe that you don't know this, but President Trump is NOT A DEMOCRAT!

More evading the question. So why do you like it when Trump murders children? Are we ever going to see your bank account? I seem to remember your alt bot making claims about his wealth, military service, and a whole host of other things and never backing them up either.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Certainly for people like yourself who live on right-wing propaganda it is."

I would NOT call "Unplanned" a right-wing-propaganda film. You want biased proaganda? Try watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" - a propaganda film that they even forced schoolkids to watch, warning us all that New York City would be underwater by 2015.

"One principle I do have is that pregnancy is difficult, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, and if a woman doesn't want to go through with one, it's nobody's business but hers."

Either that pregnant woman is carrying a living baby or she isn't. Are you aware that if a criminal shoots & kills a pregnant woman he (or she) will be charged with TWO COUNTS of murder? Does that bother you? Are murderous killers being treated unfairly in your opinion?

"...if you really and truly believe leaving that decision up to her is analogous to prostitution, all I can say is you hate women even more than I thought you did. And that's saying a lot."

It's a simple YES or NO question, YDB95 - should a woman be allowed to do WHATEVER she wants to do with her own body, without the government telling her otherwise? You are either FOR legalized abortion/prostitution or AGAINST it - I am AGAINST it!

"Donald Trump invents a crisis on the border..."

He "invented a crisis?" Tens of thousands of people are known to hike through Mexico on their way to the U.S. border, with every intention of illegally swarming into our country, and you say that's NOT a crisis? In what fantasy world are you living?

"Just because Lipinski is anti-choice doesn't necessarily mean his district at large agrees with him."

Yes, and using that same logic I can argue that just because Nancy Pelosi is pro-abortion doesn't necessarily mean that her district-at-large agrees with her! If Dan Lipinski's pro-abortion constituents disagree with him then they should have challenged him in the primaries during one of the eight times he successfully won his party's primary to represent Illinois's 3rd U.S. Congressional District.

"'Tried to remove Lipinski from the ballot?' That's not what having a primary challenger means."

That's EXACTLY what having a primary challenger means! No, removing a person's name from the ballot doesn't automatically remove them from office - for example, in 2006, liberal anti-war Democrats successfully replaced Connecticut U.S. Senator Joe Liebermann as their state's official Democratic Party candidate with that of a much-more-liberal guy named Ned Lamont. But, instead of stepping down after losing the primary, Liebermann ran as an Independent - and (with Republican support) defeated Lamont, getting re-elected that November!

That same thing could happen to Lipinski - if Planned Parenthood successfully funds a pro-abortion primary challenger to replace him as the official Democratic Party candidate in 2020, Lipinski could then run for re-election as an Independent, and (with pro-life Republican support) get re-elected!

"I'm pointing out that you have misrepresented her testimony again and again and again."

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Sandra Fluke was a college girl unhappy that her sex life was getting too expensive for her, and so she asked sympathetic congressional Democrats for government assistance, and they were so impressed with her that they asked her to speak at their party's 2012 national convention!

"Have you seriously never heard that he had his chance to face the Senate and they voted on him, neither of which is true of Merrick Garland?"

Yes, Robert Bork & Merrick Garland were BOTH brought down by partisan opposition in the U.S. Senate! NEITHER man ever got to serve on our nation's highest court. Is that FAIR? Probably not, but that's how our U.S. Constitution works. It's like President Obama said back in 2009: "Elections matter!"

"He wasn't anti-Trump. Which probably is one reason why he lost."

Since we were just now talking about primary challengers... incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Dean Heller faced a challenge in his Nevada Republican senate renomination from Las Vegas businessman Danny Tarkanian, a strong supporter of President Donald Trump! In challenging Heller, Tarkanian stated that: "we are never going to make America great again unless we have Senators in office that fully support President Trump and his America-First agenda." But Tarkanian ended-up dropping out of the race, leaving Heller as the G.O.P. candidate, with him ending-up as the ONLY incumbent Republican U.S. senator to lose his seat in 2018!

"The thing is, Dumpington, you see a lot of stuff that really isn't happening at all."

Again, your lack of any kind of firm principles is shining through, YDB95 - if I had told you a year ago that a male track & field athlete who never won any medals would announce that he's now a woman before then winning an NCAA WOMEN'S Track & Field championship title in 2019, you'd have told me that such a thing was preposterous. But now that it's actually happened you pretend that it's all perfectly normal & acceptable!

 

[Dumpington]

dan_c00000 writes: "More evading the question. So why do you like it when Trump murders children?"

Abortion = murdering unborn children

President Trump is pro-life.

Pro-Life = anti-abortion

"Are we ever going to see your bank account?"

??????????

Sure, Dan. You come to my house and I'll give you my account number.

I like you, Dan - you are an excellent representative of the Trump-hating politically-progressive far left! Keep up the good work!

 

[Boxlicker101]

They dont have to report who got the operation, but they do have to report the nature of it.. especially PP clinics which have to constantly submit records to ensure their taxpayer funds are not being used for abortions

So, yeah... there would have had to be an abortion recorded as occuring

But there wasnt

so either she's a crook or a liar

Medicaid (Not Medicare) pays for abortions in some states https://abortionfunds.org/medicaid/ but state funds are used for it. When I worked for MediCAL 20 years ago, we paid for many abortions, even though the Hyde Amendment was in effect. Most were done on an outpatient basis, but for long-term pregnancies, there was a short period of hospitalization.

The outpatient procedure would have been recorded in the woman's medical record, but I'm not sure it would have been reported to anybody. If the bill was paid by some other insurance or by the patient herself, I doubt that it would have been reported to anybody.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I really don't like hearing or reading that somebody is "pro-abortion." Probably nobody is actually pro-abortion, but there are many people who think an abortion is the least bad of several options.

 

[YDB95]

More evading the question. So why do you like it when Trump murders children? Are we ever going to see your bank account? I seem to remember your alt bot making claims about his wealth, military service, and a whole host of other things and never backing them up either.

It wasn't just his alt-bots. I've seen him claim under his own handle that Trump is a successful businessman with a track record of building businesses and creating jobs (which, as anyone who knows the truth about his record can tell us, is the exact opposite of reality).

YDB95 writes: "Certainly for people like yourself who live on right-wing propaganda it is."

I would NOT call "Unplanned" a right-wing-propaganda film.

Of course you wouldn't. No one here would expect anything else of you.

You want biased proaganda? Try watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" - a propaganda film that they even forced schoolkids to watch, warning us all that New York City would be underwater by 2015.

Have you ever watched it? If so, you know he doesn't say New York would be underwater by 2015.

"One principle I do have is that pregnancy is difficult, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, and if a woman doesn't want to go through with one, it's nobody's business but hers."

Either that pregnant woman is carrying a living baby or she isn't.

Exactly. A clump of tissue is not a living baby.

Are you aware that if a criminal shoots & kills a pregnant woman he (or she) will be charged with TWO COUNTS of murder? Does that bother you? Are murderous killers being treated unfairly in your opinion?

Cute, but no, I don't think murderers are being treated unfairly if they're charged with murder. I DO question the motives behind the law that they can be charged with the murder of two, which is essentially to kiss up to people like you. But that's a different question.

"...if you really and truly believe leaving that decision up to her is analogous to prostitution, all I can say is you hate women even more than I thought you did. And that's saying a lot."

It's a simple YES or NO question, YDB95 - should a woman be allowed to do WHATEVER she wants to do with her own body, without the government telling her otherwise? You are either FOR legalized abortion/prostitution or AGAINST it - I am AGAINST it!

Apples and oranges, Dump. Everyone here can see that except maybe you. (I say "maybe" because I suspect you're just trying to derail the debate.) I support abortion rights, and I oppose legalized prostitution. They're two different things, and if you can't see that, I reiterate that you just don't like women very much.

By the way, have you ever heard of a woman becoming a prostitute by choice? I haven't. They're almost always forced into it by desperation.

"Donald Trump invents a crisis on the border..."

He "invented a crisis?" Tens of thousands of people are known to hike through Mexico on their way to the U.S. border, with every intention of illegally swarming into our country, and you say that's NOT a crisis? In what fantasy world are you living?

Thank you for proving my point better than I could have done on my own.

"Just because Lipinski is anti-choice doesn't necessarily mean his district at large agrees with him."

Yes, and using that same logic I can argue that just because Nancy Pelosi is pro-abortion doesn't necessarily mean that her district-at-large agrees with her!

Gee, you've got me there. Maybe San Francisco would prefer a Republican. Now it's my turn to ask about fantasy worlds!

If Dan Lipinski's pro-abortion constituents disagree with him then they should have challenged him in the primaries during one of the eight times he successfully won his party's primary to represent Illinois's 3rd U.S. Congressional District.

They have, and last time they almost won. Let's see what happens this time. (And you're still ignoring the fact that Lipinski was literally installed by a party machine based on the fact that his father used to hold that seat. Normally that's just the sort of thing you love to rail against - corrupt Democratic machines! - in cases where it doesn't even exist. But when presented with a case where it DID happen, you're perfectly fine with that because the guy is anti-choice. Now who doesn't have any principles?

"'Tried to remove Lipinski from the ballot?' That's not what having a primary challenger means."

That's EXACTLY what having a primary challenger means! No, removing a person's name from the ballot doesn't automatically remove them from office - for example, in 2006, liberal anti-war Democrats successfully replaced Connecticut U.S. Senator Joe Liebermann as their state's official Democratic Party candidate with that of a much-more-liberal guy named Ned Lamont. But, instead of stepping down after losing the primary, Liebermann ran as an Independent - and (with Republican support) defeated Lamont, getting re-elected that November!

That's defeating the incumbent in the primary, not removing him from the ballot. They're two different things.

That same thing could happen to Lipinski - if Planned Parenthood successfully funds a pro-abortion primary challenger to replace him as the official Democratic Party candidate in 2020, Lipinski could then run for re-election as an Independent, and (with pro-life Republican support) get re-elected!

First of all, some states have sore-loser laws that prevent that, although I don't know offhand if Illinois does. Secondly, even when it's allowed, what you describe rarely works. Besides Holy Joe, the only other successful case I can think of was Lisa Murkowski in 2010. (Oh, and why did she lose the GOP primary? Because she was pro-choice!) You're also assuming the Republicans won't run a legitimate candidate of their own (as they didn't in Connecticut in 2006, hence Lieberman's ability to attract their votes). Then again, in 2018 they literally nominated an avowed Nazi in Lipinski's district, so who knows...

"I'm pointing out that you have misrepresented her testimony again and again and again."

I'm not misrepresenting anything. Sandra Fluke was a college girl unhappy that her sex life was getting too expensive for her, and so she asked sympathetic congressional Democrats for government assistance, and they were so impressed with her that they asked her to speak at their party's 2012 national convention!

Nope. What really happened is this: the Republicans in Congress pushed for an exemption to the mandate in Obamacare that contraception be covered by health insurance plans, which would have allowed employers to refuse such coverage on religious grounds. To no one's surprise, the Republicans (then in the majority in the House) invited only male theologians and clergy to testify on the clause, which of course they all supported. The Democrats invited Fluke because - and this is true regardless of your opinion on the conscience clause, Dumpington - she was affected by it, and the Republicans hadn't invited anyone who was. Her testimony was concerned with the fact that Georgetown, as a religiously-affiliated university, would be free to deny coverage to her where other universities would not. She also testified about the reality that many women use birth control for medicinal purposes, including a friend who had polycystic ovarian syndrome and needed hormonal contraceptives costing about $100 per month (not $3,000 as you claimed earlier), and which the university's insurance company denied her repeatedly even though the policy covered treatment for her PCOS.

And I'll ask again, do you even know how the Pill works? You have repeatedly made claims here that suggest you don't. (And they're also exactly what Rush Limbaugh had to say about it at the time, which is why I suspect everything you "know" about Sandra Fluke, you heard from him.)

"Have you seriously never heard that he had his chance to face the Senate and they voted on him, neither of which is true of Merrick Garland?"

Yes, Robert Bork & Merrick Garland were BOTH brought down by partisan opposition in the U.S. Senate! NEITHER man ever got to serve on our nation's highest court. Is that FAIR? Probably not, but that's how our U.S. Constitution works.

No, it isn't. Bork got a hearing, he got a fair chance to convince the Senate that he wasn't the extremist he was made out to be, and he failed. Garland's nomination never even got to a committee vote. That is NOT how the Constitution works: the Constitution calls for the Senate to "advise and consent" on presidential nominees. Whether you like the outcome or not, they did do that with Bork and they did not do that with Garland.

It's like President Obama said back in 2009: "Elections matter!"

I suppose the irony of this is lost on you. Obama was the president in 2016; he had a right to have his Supreme Court nominee get a fair hearing and a vote, even if the vote was unsuccessful. THAT is what "Elections matter" means.

"He wasn't anti-Trump. Which probably is one reason why he lost."

Since we were just now talking about primary challengers... incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Dean Heller faced a challenge in his Nevada Republican senate renomination from Las Vegas businessman Danny Tarkanian, a strong supporter of President Donald Trump! In challenging Heller, Tarkanian stated that: "we are never going to make America great again unless we have Senators in office that fully support President Trump and his America-First agenda." But Tarkanian ended-up dropping out of the race, leaving Heller as the G.O.P. candidate, with him ending-up as the ONLY incumbent Republican U.S. senator to lose his seat in 2018!

Tarkanian is a famous gadfly, who has run for office eight times and never won. All his candidacy proves is that being a doctrinaire conservative like Heller sometimes isn't enough anymore in the party of Drumpf.

"The thing is, Dumpington, you see a lot of stuff that really isn't happening at all."

Again, your lack of any kind of firm principles is shining through, YDB95 - if I had told you a year ago that a male track & field athlete who never won any medals would announce that he's now a woman before then winning an NCAA WOMEN'S Track & Field championship title in 2019, you'd have told me that such a thing was preposterous. But now that it's actually happened you pretend that it's all perfectly normal & acceptable!

No. YOU pretend it's commonplace when even you can only point to that one example (and it's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you think it is).

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes (to dan_c00000): "I've seen him claim under his own handle that Trump is a successful businessman with a track record of building businesses and creating jobs..."

Yes, President Trump has done wonders for our economy - so much so, that even Barack Obama & Joe Biden are both attempting to claim credit! (But I think that Dan was trying to claim that President Trump was pro-abortion!)

"Have you ever watched it? If so, you know he doesn't say New York would be underwater by 2015."

Al Gore has made all kinds of predictions that never came true. But at the same time, his preaching about global-warming & climate-change have also made him a very wealthy man - I mean, if your religion is the environment, then the Reverend Al Gore is your very own TELEVANGELIST!

"Exactly. A clump of tissue is not a living baby."

Your entire body is one large clump of living tissues, YDB95 - no, you're no longer a baby, but you remain a human being!

"Cute, but no, I don't think murderers are being treated unfairly if they're charged with murder. I DO question the motives behind the law that they can be charged with the murder of two, which is essentially to kiss up to people like you. But that's a different question."

SERIOUS QUESTION: A dangerous killer ignores Joe Biden's "Gun-Free Zone" warning signs, enters a school building, and shoots at a pregnant teacher, killing her unborn baby. The teacher survives. The prosecution wants to charge the guy with murder, but his pro-choice lawyer argues: "My client didn't kill anybody... his bullet was stopped by that clump of tissues in the woman's abdomen!" As a juror, do you agree with the defense attorney?

"I support abortion rights, and I oppose legalized prostitution."

So... you're saying that, in some instances, guys CAN create laws telling a woman what she can & can't do with her own body? I just want to make that clear!

"By the way, have you ever heard of a woman becoming a prostitute by choice? I haven't"

NOW who's being naive?

"And you're still ignoring the fact that Lipinski was literally installed by a party machine based on the fact that his father used to hold that seat. Normally that's just the sort of thing you love to rail against - corrupt Democratic machines!"

I love at how QUICK you are to admit that Chicago politics is horrendously corrupt when it's a pro-life Democrat you're hoping to see defeated!

"That's defeating the incumbent in the primary, not removing him from the ballot. They're two different things."

Defeating an incumbent in the primary IS the same as removing a candidate from the ballot! We're a two-party system, and VERY FEW candidates win running as independents! Almost one year ago, a complete unknown young woman named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the Democratic Party's primary election in New York's 14th congressional district, defeating the powerful ten-term incumbent Congressman: Democrat-Caucus-Chair Joe Crowley! Crowley COULD have run as an independent, but he didn't. His own party had rejected him!

"The Democrats invited Fluke because - and this is true regardless of your opinion on the conscience clause, Dumpington - she was affected by it, and the Republicans hadn't invited anyone who was."

Sandra Fluke "was affected by it" because she was having sex all of the time and couldn't afford the contraceptives that she liked - and she wanted the government to pay for them. And, of course, the congressional Democrats agreed, and they then invited her to address their 2012 national convention!

"That is NOT how the Constitution works: the Constitution calls for the Senate to "advise and consent" on presidential nominees."

When Democrat Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader, he ONLY allowed the senate to vote on those things that he wanted to see voted on, and apparently the U.S. Constitution gave him that power. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the ENORMOUS unpopularity of ObamaCare would end Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate in 2014, making Republican Mitch McConnell the new Senate Majority Leader! What comes around, goes around!

"Obama was the president in 2016; he had a right to have his Supreme Court nominee get a fair hearing and a vote, even if the vote was unsuccessful."

Unfortunately for President Obama, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is the one who schedules votes for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, as per the U.S. Constitution. In a 2005 speech (back when Republican George W. Bush was president) then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Nowhere in [the Constitution] does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote."

I repeat: WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND!

"Tarkanian is a famous gadfly, who has run for office eight times and never won."

So you're saying that no Nevada U.S. Senate election would have been necessary because Tarkanian couldn't possibly win? Isn't that exactly what they were saying about Donald Trump on the eve of the 2016 presidential election?

"No. YOU pretend it's commonplace when even you can only point to that one example..."

Again, have you NO PRINCIPLES? - just ONE instance of injustice should be one-too-many! Instead, you pretend that this was only a one-time deal that will NEVER be repeated! But when it IS repeated over and over again, will you accept it as normal? OF COURSE YOU WILL!

Seriously, YDB95 - HOW MANY TIMES will this have to happen before you acknowledge that it's complete bullsh*t? Or will the fear of some far-left wacko labelling you a "trans-phobe" keep you forever silent?

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

SERIOUS QUESTION: A dangerous killer ignores Joe Biden's "Gun-Free Zone" warning signs, enters a school building, and shoots at a pregnant teacher, killing her unborn baby. The teacher survives. The prosecution wants to charge the guy with murder, but his pro-choice lawyer argues: "My client didn't kill anybody... his bullet was stopped by that clump of tissues in the woman's abdomen!" As a juror, do you agree with the defense attorney?

The Bible does.

Exodus 21:22 “If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no misfortune follow, he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.