MORE GOP HYPOCRISY: SMALLER GOVERNMENT (EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    I want smaller government. . . . .except when it comes to reproductive rights. Then I want a great big government right up in her business!!

    Signed,

    GOP


    http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/05/sonogram-bill-on-its-way-to-th.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 12:44 AM GMT
    Lets add this!:

    Senate sends 2 more abortion measures to governor
    http://www.wtsp.com/news/florida/article/190524/19/Senate-sends-2-more-abortion-measures-to-governor?

    TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- The Republican-led Florida Senate sent two more abortion bills to Gov. Rick Scott on Thursday after a veteran lawmaker scolded her colleagues for failing to create more jobs or shore up the state's dismal housing market by spending too much time and money arguing about abortion.

    Sen. Evelyn Lynn's fiery floor speech appeared to change a couple of votes at the last minute, but it wasn't enough. Only three other Republicans joined her with in opposition to HB 1127 that requires women to undergo ultrasounds before getting an abortion. It passed on a 24-15 tally. Former Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed a similar bill last year, but Scott is expected to sign the legislation.

    "I don't want to have to continually talk about these issues on this floor when I have people pleading with me to 'Please help me find money to keep my lights on,'" said Lynn, an Ormond Beach Republican who has been in the Legislature since 1994. "This is not the issue that it is the most important issue in the state."

    But a majority apparently disagreed.

    "You are here to answer the great questions of life," said Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico. "For most of you, it's what you believe to your core."
    ...........
  • Goofeyman

    Posts: 199

    May 06, 2011 3:51 AM GMT
    Once again, I must correct you. Abortion has no business being part of the federal budget. I object to my tax dollars and my government getting involved in paying for recreation abortion.

    The new breed of democrats that have taken the white house hostage have need to be exposed to their own hypocrisy: what about the rights of the unborn woman?? Brainwaves start in that little human as early as three weeks.

    The feminist groups also get paid according to the size of the baby they abort. And don't bring up "over population."
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 06, 2011 10:20 AM GMT
    The feminist groups also get paid according to the size of the baby they abort. And don't bring up "over population."

    crazy.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 1:06 PM GMT
    Cgavic saidOnce again, I must correct you. Abortion has no business being part of the federal budget. I object to my tax dollars and my government getting involved in paying for recreation abortion.

    The new breed of democrats that have taken the white house hostage have need to be exposed to their own hypocrisy: what about the rights of the unborn woman?? Brainwaves start in that little human as early as three weeks.

    The feminist groups also get paid according to the size of the baby they abort. And don't bring up "over population."
    I must correct you.. The above articles have NOTHING to do with your precious 'federal budget paying for abortions' (which doesnt happen moron).

    Are your 'talking head' utterances destroying your ability to actually READ? or is playing the part of a non thinking puppet just par for the course for you?

    icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
    Once again, the extreme right nutjobs in here must have their noses rubbed in the crap before they smell the real article/discussion/point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2011 1:19 PM GMT
    Obviously catfish is for late-term abortions and thinks that society has no right protecting a baby that is moments from being born. Oh wait, since it's not born yet it's really not a life and we have no business protecting it under the law like every other human being. Let the mother hurry up and jab it with a pick before the whole thing comes out! Come on you morons, it's her effing body!
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    May 06, 2011 11:56 PM GMT
    Seems Texas, the "small government state" and supposedly endorising the GOP's "government should not come between a patient and his/her doctor" is pursuing the same intrusive legislation, to be signed (it's expected) immediately by the TX governor:

    From Joe.My.God blog site:

    TEXAS: Lawmakers Pass Bill Requiring Sonograms Before Abortions
    Today the Texas legislature finalized a bill that requires doctors to take a sonogram and offer to show the image to the patient before performing an abortion. Gov. Rick Perry is expected to sign the bill immediately.
    The bill requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to give the woman the opportunity to see the results and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs. “This will be one of the strongest pieces of sonogram legislation in the nation,” the bill’s author, Representative Sid Miller, a Republican from Stephenville, told reporters. Mr. Miller predicted the measure would “save numerous unborn lives.” Because the measures passed both houses of the Legislature with a two-thirds majority, it will go into effect as soon as the governor signs it.



    The only purpose I can see in this is to invoke guilt on the woman, purely a guilt move inserting this mandatory sonogram into something that is the woman's decision, according to the US Supreme Court.

    A pregnant woman already knows what's inside her (or did we cancel sex education too early?), has to make a terribly difficult decision, and should not have something like this imposed.

    And by the way, who is going to pay for the mandatory sonograms? The GOP? There are also so many other arguments about compelling a woman (really that's what the legislators want) to give birth regardless, and then what does that do potentially to the welfare budget (plenty of low income mothers cannot afford health care insurance, the abortion, the sonogram, and bringing a baby into the world - perhaps unwanted, unable to care for it, and may have to put it into an orphanage -- where I'm sure the righteous will spring forward to adopt these unwanted babies. Or will they? It seems so many are concerned about the fetus, but once it's born, FU.

    I think TX and FL legislation like this is despicable.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    May 06, 2011 11:57 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidObviously catfish is for late-term abortions and thinks that society has no right protecting a baby that is moments from being born. Oh wait, since it's not born yet it's really not a life and we have no business protecting it under the law like every other human being. Let the mother hurry up and jab it with a pick before the whole thing comes out! Come on you morons, it's her effing body!


    Inflamatory rhetoric much???
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 07, 2011 12:17 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidObviously catfish is for late-term abortions and thinks that society has no right protecting a baby that is moments from being born. Oh wait, since it's not born yet it's really not a life and we have no business protecting it under the law like every other human being. Let the mother hurry up and jab it with a pick before the whole thing comes out! Come on you morons, it's her effing body!


    There it is ..............
    feigned morality parading around as if it had a scintilla of medical knowledge behind it

    a baby moments before it's born?
    do you have ANY idea what a late term abortion is?

    Do you even have a rational idea what would make a would be parent and her doctor make that decision to NEED one????

    Because let me tell you son .... there never is or never was a late term abortion done on demand
    There is ALWAYS ALWAYS a dire medical need for it
    Where there is consequences to the mother's health or the baby is too medically compromised to live on it's own

    So take your boxed morality and peddle it somewhere else
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 12:20 AM GMT
    Here I have to side with the more liberal-ish folks here.

    On the principle that the federal government has no business in either promoting or trying to prevent abortions from taking place. Or using taxpayers money to that end.

    If it weren't for this being largely settled law via Roe v. Wade, this should have been something that would be best left to the various states.

    That is, if Texas taxpayers are willing to pay for these sonograms and and attempts to guilt the mother into relenting from her decision, that should be the business of Texans.

    And if another state wants to pay for recreational abortions, then that it up to their taxpaying citizens as well.

    It really is too bad that there cannot be a reasonable middle ground in this debate - something to legally establish when life legally begins prior to exiting the womb.

    /sarcasm=on

    If we use the argument that a foetus cannot exist outside its mother's womb, then we can reasonably extend that argument to include post-partum children up to around seven years old, and perhaps as old as their teens:

    Because these kids cannot thrive very well apart from some parental involvement to keep them fed and in clothes and under shelter... so killing off those excess brats might just do the trick of solving the Malthusian crisis that ever looms large before us

    /sarcasm=off

    But really - if we have a consistent law to protect the unborn, if we all could agree that if a woman waits until the sixth month to kill that poor yet vile thing that *-somehow-* found its way into her belly.... then she has hesitated too long, and now bears a responsibility to bring that child into the world alive to the best of her ability.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 07, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    Cgavic saidOnce again, I must correct you. Abortion has no business being part of the federal budget. I object to my tax dollars and my government getting involved in paying for recreation abortion.

    The new breed of democrats that have taken the white house hostage have need to be exposed to their own hypocrisy: what about the rights of the unborn woman?? Brainwaves start in that little human as early as three weeks.

    The feminist groups also get paid according to the size of the baby they abort. And don't bring up "over population."





    How would you feel about contributing 25% of your salary to a fund that would pay for housing, medical, food, clothing and education for all of these fetuses that you don't want aborted ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2011 12:49 AM GMT
    Since Republicans say they read Ayn Rand...here are Ms. Rand's views on abortion...

    "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her body?" -Ayn Rand

    and another...

    "I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'" -Ayn Rand

    So, Ayn Rand is calling the Republicans Haters of Life...with a virulent hatred for human beings and their happiness, love, ambition, reason and success.

    Republicans = Hate

    I couldn't agree more!!
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    May 08, 2011 4:05 AM GMT

    I'm totally lovin' the term "recreational abortion" that has been used a number of times here. Makes it sound like Planned Parenthood is running an abortion clinic on the 4th hole of your local putt-putt golf course.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2011 4:09 AM GMT
    mke_bt said
    I'm totally lovin' the term "recreational abortion" that has been used a number of times here. Makes it sound like Planned Parenthood is running an abortion clinic on the 4th hole of your local putt-putt golf course.


    Kind of like bachmann's reference to planned parenthood as the Lenscrafters of abortion. Sick minds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2011 4:43 PM GMT
    I think legislators in Texas should concentrate on their dreadful finances, and not big-government intrusion into people's private lives.

    It's absolutely woeful that the self-proclaimed Libertarians (mocktwinkie etc) are such spectacular hypocrites when it comes to abortion. Didn't they bother to read the manifesto properly???

    I'll happily spank them with my copy of Ayn Rand (who was pro-choice).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2011 8:08 PM GMT
    Hey, go for it. But some other shit needs to change.

    But change the adoption red tape so people can adopt these kids. Or make programs that will help mothers that choose to have the baby. How can the quality of live for the baby be any better when the mother has to work two jobs (don't raise minimum wage) or two part time jobs to make ends meet? You criticize the mother if she takes government assistance. You criticize her once the kid gets to school age because she can't make it to teacher conferences because once again she is working two jobs or two part time jobs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 09, 2011 2:30 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidHere I have to side with the more liberal-ish folks here.



    That is, if Texas taxpayers are willing to pay for these sonograms and and attempts to guilt the mother into relenting from her decision, that should be the business of Texans.

    Sad part is here in FL the legislators speciffically made sure the state didnt pay for the sonograms now ordered.. the mother has to..

    Yeah right.. can you see the catch 22 crap the gop has pulled here? Despicable.. it amounts to 'obamacare' "forcing" people.. (sound remotely familar?????? Oh, the irony!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 09, 2011 2:18 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidHere I have to side with the more liberal-ish folks here.

    On the principle that the federal government has no business in either promoting or trying to prevent abortions from taking place. Or using taxpayers money to that end.

    If it weren't for this being largely settled law via Roe v. Wade, this should have been something that would be best left to the various states.

    That is, if Texas taxpayers are willing to pay for these sonograms and and attempts to guilt the mother into relenting from her decision, that should be the business of Texans.

    And if another state wants to pay for recreational abortions, then that it up to their taxpaying citizens as well.

    It really is too bad that there cannot be a reasonable middle ground in this debate - something to legally establish when life legally begins prior to exiting the womb.

    /sarcasm=on

    If we use the argument that a foetus cannot exist outside its mother's womb, then we can reasonably extend that argument to include post-partum children up to around seven years old, and perhaps as old as their teens:

    Because these kids cannot thrive very well apart from some parental involvement to keep them fed and in clothes and under shelter... so killing off those excess brats might just do the trick of solving the Malthusian crisis that ever looms large before us

    /sarcasm=off

    But really - if we have a consistent law to protect the unborn, if we all could agree that if a woman waits until the sixth month to kill that poor yet vile thing that *-somehow-* found its way into her belly.... then she has hesitated too long, and now bears a responsibility to bring that child into the world alive to the best of her ability.


    The point is that everyone can figure out that at some point it's murder, even if I am pro-choice to an extent. The issue I am trying to bring up is that it all just depends on when you define life beginning and when it finally becomes obvious murder.

    For them to use the argument that conservatives are being hypocritical by saying that they are for small government except when it comes to reproductive rights is just plain stupid, because they (conservatives) are merely thinking in terms of treating the developing baby exactly the way you would treat another human being, all of whom are supposed to be protected under the law.

    It gets sticky when trying to define when life begins, however, and that is why I do not take a hard stance either way. I was trying to make a point more than anything.