|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 1, 2013 16:18:16 GMT
In 1973 the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade established that a woman had a Right to have an Abortion. It did not "legalize" abortion but instead struck down laws that made abortion illegal because those laws violated the Constitutionally Protected Rights of the Woman. There is a huge difference.
As for women being able to obtain an abortion since 1973 that is not exactly true.
Denial of Access = Denial of Right So, how many abortions for this one poor woman who doesn't even have a way to get to the store evidently....per you.....do I have to pay for? At what point can I require something on her part.....like responsible behavior? Sorry---but there is NO RIGHT to an abortion. That is not even what Roe v Wade said. In fact, Roe v Wade said that states STILL have the right to set limits on the legality of abortions.....which is why Texas was on safe grounds by recently setting the limit for abortions in our state at 20 weeks. A compromise, for sure, but at least it's something. Your first paragraph is a difference without a distinction. Before 1973, back alley abortions were taking place; illegally. After 1973, any doctor who chose to do them could....legally.
Having to commute perhaps hundreds of miles or possibly to a different state that might be closer isn't quite the same as going to a local store.
Roe v Wade most certainly did confirm the Woman's Right to an Abortion and then, in a very progressive interpretation of the US Constitution, allowed limited infringements upon the Rights of the Woman based upon the "potential" personhood of the fetus at natural viability. Only "persons" have "Rights" under the US Constitution and affording any protections based upon "potential" personhood was a very progressive interpretation. Under a conservative interpretation of the Constitution all restrictions upon abortion would have been struck down as unconstitutional. Always funny how "social-conservatives" like to claim that they oppose "progressive" interpretations of the US Constitution but if a "conservative" interpretation had been rendered in Roe v Wade any laws restricting abortion would be unconstitutional.
No tax dollars are used for abortion services although I believe that if the government is paying for medical services then it should also fund abortions especially when the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy.
Finally I'd check the news more often. The new Texas anti-abortion law has been challenged in part in a federal court as being unconstitutional.
news.yahoo.com/planned-parenthood-sues-texas-over-abortion-restrictions-144658002.html
Once again it's time to thank the ACLU for it's never-ending dedication to protecting the Constitutional Rights of the American People from violations by government.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 1, 2013 18:08:39 GMT
Shiva: " Do you support unconstitutional laws?"
No. That's why I do NOT support Obamacare. Regardless of what Roberts said.....it was a real reach to call the fines and penalties a "tax" so that he could claim it WAS constitutional while making his comment that the people are at fault based on who they vote for.
As far as abortion and the "personhood" issue......just remember that YOU were ONCE a fetus. Everybody was. Think about it.....
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 1, 2013 19:15:40 GMT
Shiva: " Do you support unconstitutional laws?"
No. That's why I do NOT support Obamacare. Regardless of what Roberts said.....it was a real reach to call the fines and penalties a "tax" so that he could claim it WAS constitutional while making his comment that the people are at fault based on who they vote for.
As far as abortion and the "personhood" issue......just remember that YOU were ONCE a fetus. Everybody was. Think about it.....
Under that criteria (unanimous consent) then Social Security/Medicare/Obamacare would all be unconstitutional as would any law restricting abortion as well as the Patriot Act, drug prohibition laws, and numerous other federal laws, programs, and actions. But that isn't the way it is so any majority decision of the US Supreme Court determines what is and what is not Constitutional.
I didn't see you or any other conservative ever support my calls for a Constitutional Amendment requiring unanimous consent on Supreme Court decisions and I seriously doubt it would have any support from Republican leadership at all. You see, Republicans like "progressive" decisions based upon a majority vote but only if it supports their agenda and oppose them if it favors the liberals. They're truly hypocrites when it comes to the US Constitution. Don't feel too bad though because Democrats are just as bad. The only ones that lose are the American People when our Rights are Violated by laws of dubious Constitutionality.
Yes, there was a time when I was a part of my mother's body and I was not yet a person. I've also suggested that if "social-conservatives" and "Republicans" were honest and had the desire to follow the US Constitution that they would propose a Constitutional Amendment that would establish "personhood" for the "preborn" but it must be understood that it would require 3/4ths of the States to ratify that amendment. Instead of changing the legal precedent in the United States for "personhood" under the US Constitution using the Amendment process Republicans instead seek to circumvent the US Constitution based upon laws of nefarious intent that deny the Rights of the Woman by Denying her Access to abortion clinics.
You see, I'm consistent and have already addressed all of the issues and my opposition to nefarious attempts to circumvent the US Constitution cannot be logically disputed. I'm not dishonest and I don't make arguments based upon hypocrisy where sometimes I support the US Constitution while other times I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 2, 2013 19:57:05 GMT
"A new Gallup poll has found that 25 percent of today's uninsured plan to stay that way.
The poll, released on September 30, noted that two in three of those surveyed said they "planned" to get insurance rather than pay the small fine at the end of the year. The poll further found that under half intend to take advantage of the state or federal insurance exchanges when they are finally up and running.
It should be noted that that this result was based on what people say they intend to do, not what they have actually done or are even in the process of doing.
Statistics worsened in the important 18 to 29 age bracket. Sixty-nine percent of the youth demographic were unaware they were required to get health insurance by January 1, 2014. This is the age group that Obama is hoping will foot the bill for the rest of America.
In other bad news for Obamacare, 62 percent said they were "not too familiar" or "not at all familiar" with the Obamacare exchanges being set up by the federal and state governments."
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/30/25-of-the-Uninsured-Say-They-Plan-to-Stay-That-Way
|
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 3, 2013 5:04:08 GMT
Wait til they find out that 'small' penalty will increase every year until it reaches around $2k
What fools libs are. Just hate they dragged us into this fiasco. They don't have a clue what power theyre giving the govt. By the time they figure it out, itll be too late... for all of us
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 3, 2013 5:10:43 GMT
Wait til they find out that 'small' penalty will increase every year until it reaches around $2k What fools libs are. Just hate they dragged us into this fiasco. They don't have a clue what power theyre giving the govt. By the time they figure it out, itll be too late... for all of us more fear mongering like the death squads... just debase everything with won ton airy fairy anti democratic rhetoric Smartie... you run around posting this tripe and then when a response is given to you, you try to negate the person totally...with nothing to do with what they said just negate for the sake of negating... you take a word like small penalty and blow it into something it never can possibly be... |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 3, 2013 5:22:50 GMT
It is a big lie and the republican army are the ones either lieing or being brain washed.. universal health care should be your right... this watered down obamacare version is useless... In Canada the insurance companies cannot tell you how much health care you get... why would you want to be the last civilized country to hang on to corporate greed. You really don't have a clue, dear. We're not getting UHC, we're being forced to do business with big greedy corporations who sell health insurance. Maybe you better stick to hockey. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 3, 2013 8:50:10 GMT
"A new Gallup poll has found that 25 percent of today's uninsured plan to stay that way.
The poll, released on September 30, noted that two in three of those surveyed said they "planned" to get insurance rather than pay the small fine at the end of the year. The poll further found that under half intend to take advantage of the state or federal insurance exchanges when they are finally up and running.
It should be noted that that this result was based on what people say they intend to do, not what they have actually done or are even in the process of doing.
Statistics worsened in the important 18 to 29 age bracket. Sixty-nine percent of the youth demographic were unaware they were required to get health insurance by January 1, 2014. This is the age group that Obama is hoping will foot the bill for the rest of America.
In other bad news for Obamacare, 62 percent said they were "not too familiar" or "not at all familiar" with the Obamacare exchanges being set up by the federal and state governments."
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/30/25-of-the-Uninsured-Say-They-Plan-to-Stay-That-Way
If between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of those that are required to purchase insurance on the exchanges actually do so then that is a huge success where many millions of Americans will become insured that were previously unable to afford insurance. From a taxpayer standpoint that means that I won't have to pay for their medical bills because they won't be showing up in emergency rooms for medical services.
We can also assume that the 25% that say they won't be purchasing insurance included a lot of those in the important 18-29 yo age group where 69% of them weren't even aware of the fact that they needed to get insurance. When they find out that they are required many will decide to insure but more importantly most of these qualify to be on their parents insurance that they can do because they're 26 yo or younger.
Of course 62% were not too familiar or not at all familiar with the insurance exchanges on Sept 30th because the insurance exchanges weren't even open. When the exchanges opened there was a massive online attempt to find out more and, while there were computer glitches because of the overwhelming number of people all trying to access the database, the first day response was very encouraging. Computer glitches were being resolved and the system was working far better on the second day.
All-in-all the news is positive for implementation of the Affordable Care Act that indicates that between ten and twenty million Americans, maybe more, will obtain either insurance through the private exchanges or by being included under the expanded Medicaid program (except in 26 Republican controlled states, as I recall, that will deny the expanded Medicaid benefits to about five million Americans).
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Oct 3, 2013 14:02:57 GMT
I would agree with the thread topic insasmuch as the collection of half-truths misrepresentations and blatant falsehoods amount to "Obamacare" being one big lie. Luckily American health consumers can see through the lie and are crashing websites in their rush to sign up for the ACA.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 3, 2013 14:48:01 GMT
I would agree with the thread topic insasmuch as the collection of half-truths misrepresentations and blatant falsehoods amount to "Obamacare" being one big lie. Luckily American health consumers can see through the lie and are crashing websites in their rush to sign up for the ACA.
Yes, Oct 1st was amazing in that so many people tried to find out the specifics once the private exchanges went online. There was a huge amount of interest considering that they really have about 6 months to sign-up as I recall. I believe enrollment extends to the end of March 2014. |
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 3, 2013 16:53:59 GMT
It is a big lie and the republican army are the ones either lieing or being brain washed.. universal health care should be your right... this watered down obamacare version is useless... In Canada the insurance companies cannot tell you how much health care you get... why would you want to be the last civilized country to hang on to corporate greed. You really don't have a clue, dear. We're not getting UHC, we're being forced to do business with big greedy corporations who sell health insurance. Maybe you better stick to hockey. thats the most asinine statement ever to come out of your Mouth. your system of doing business with greedy insurance companies is what has you hog tied. |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 3, 2013 18:06:39 GMT
You really don't have a clue, dear. We're not getting UHC, we're being forced to do business with big greedy corporations who sell health insurance. Maybe you better stick to hockey. thats the most asinine statement ever to come out of your Mouth. your system of doing business with greedy insurance companies is what has you hog tied. Not my biz, dear. Our govt is the one doing biz with big crooked insurance. You can blame the Democrats for that. |
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 3, 2013 18:09:13 GMT
thats the most asinine statement ever to come out of your Mouth. your system of doing business with greedy insurance companies is what has you hog tied. Not my biz, dear. Our govt is the one doing biz with big crooked insurance. You can blame the Democrats for that. actually they are trying to make it a fair system for all...and what they initially wanted would have been even better... |
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 4, 2013 18:11:50 GMT
Not my biz, dear. Our govt is the one doing biz with big crooked insurance. You can blame the Democrats for that. actually they are trying to make it a fair system for all...and what they initially wanted would have been even better... No they're not. Their forcing us to hand over our money to big insurance companies. Nothing fair about that. Congress, the President, his family and big unions are exempt. What's fair about that? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 11:02:29 GMT
actually they are trying to make it a fair system for all...and what they initially wanted would have been even better... No they're not. Their forcing us to hand over our money to big insurance companies. Nothing fair about that. Congress, the President, his family and big unions are exempt. What's fair about that?
OMG - Is this Fox News reporting responsible for this myth?
Congress and the unions are not exempt from the Affordable Care act and, in fact, it was Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) that added the amendment to the Affordable Care Act that required Congress, it's staff, and the Presidential staff to participate in the Affordable Care Act in 2009.
So basically Ted Cruz started a false rumor and Republicans picked up that false rumor and began running with it. Of course Ted Cruz would get coverage on Fox News and no one at Fox News would have the balls to flat out state that Ted Cruz was lying to the American People.
As for the unions the White House recently rejected a request for waivers by the unions that would have allowed them to receive federal subsidies from the Affordable Care Act. This was actually reported on Fox News so I don't know how any conservatives that watch Fox News missed it.
|
|
