More Republican leadership on freedom

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

    Oct 19, 2011 10:13 PM GMT
    GOP Senator Pushes Radical Bill To Restrict Discussion Of Abortion Over The Internet
    Instead of focusing on job creation, congressional Republicans have spent their time passing socially conservative legislation like the “Let Women Die” bill that would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to deny women life-saving abortion procedures.
    Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers, has jumped on the bandwagon by sneaking a radical anti-abortion amendment onto a completely unrelated piece of legislation. DeMint’s amendment would ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet:
    Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.
    Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

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

    Oct 19, 2011 11:24 PM GMT
    Sure.

    Click here and scroll down to Amendment 768
    More background from a pro-life site here.


    The amendment is similar to the one Congressman Steve King, an Iowa Republican, introduced in the House this summer that the lower chamber approved on a bipartisan 240-176 vote. The amendment prevents any funds within the legislation from being spent on the abortion drug RU-486 “for any purpose,” including use in “telemed abortions.”
    Telemed, or webcam, abortions are those in which a woman gets the abortion drug only after a webcam conversation with the abortion practitioner, who may be out of state.


    The gist is this: by banning the use of these funds for mifepristone "for any purpose" (these funds go to provide medical consults between a doctor and a patient, especially in rural areas) patients now cannot discuss abortion, as a pregnancy consult might include abortion, which might include mifepristone, and that internet conversation might take place over a connection paid for by these funds.

    GOP Rep. King's office had this to say:

    “This amendment must be passed in order to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are going to build facilities or set up computer networks designed to facilitate these gruesome, and dangerous procedures over the Internet,” the lawmaker concluded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2011 3:24 AM GMT
    That shut him up
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2011 3:29 AM GMT
    Its gone.. says it timed out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2011 9:40 PM GMT
    Sorry about that; thomas searches don't last.

    This one should. On that page, click CR S6610. Then, on the next page, click S6610 again and search on the page for 768.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Oct 20, 2011 10:27 PM GMT
    What kind of people are living in South Carolina and electing the likes of Jim DeMint to Congress? The stupid things he obsesses over are so disconnected with the real problems our nation faces. About 1 out of every 3 women in the US has had an abortion.. and those numbers are probably even higher in SC.
    The right-wingers need to stop pretending abortion is some rare situation.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Oct 21, 2011 12:58 AM GMT
    The first amendment to the US Constitution:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 21, 2011 1:16 AM GMT
    "People that over use the 1st Amendment shouldn't be surprised when other people use the 2nd Amendment on them."

    lol

    Sorry...Saw it earlier on something or other. I know some of you PC types wont like it but I find it hilarious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    JP85257 said"People that over use the 1st Amendment shouldn't be surprised when other people use the 2nd Amendment on them."

    lol

    Sorry...Saw it earlier on something or other. I know some of you PC types wont like it but I find it hilarious.
    Don't worry, my second amendment is on my belt.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Oct 21, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    The Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    As originally worded, the guarantee to keep and bear Arms belongs to 'A well regulated Militia,' not to individuals, who could never be "well regulated," and certainly are not "a Militia."
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 21, 2011 1:36 AM GMT
    tokugawa saidThe Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    As originally worded, the guarantee to keep and bear Arms belongs to 'A well regulated Militia,' not to individuals, who could never be "well regulated," and certainly are not "a Militia."

    Yah...I still have mine in my center console.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 4:56 AM GMT
    TropicalMark saidIts gone.. says it timed out.


    the GPO actually is the publisher

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

    You can also retrieve through Westlaw, LexisNexis and I think Findlaw also has access. It's public domain so all depends on what search engine you like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidHas anyone been able to find the language in the amendment that would "ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet?"


    Did you see my discussion of this up-thread and the statement from King's office? The "logic" here is to extend the "no RU-486" language and "other purposes" to claim that since conversations between a woman and her doctor might include abortion and might include RU-486 and some part of said conversation might be over a part of an Internet route paid for with this act, so.... no conversations of abortion on the Internet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:50 PM GMT
    Banning professional-to-patient discussion of specific drugs on the internet, simply because of the possible uses of the drugs, is as stupid as it can be.

    Next thing you know, it'll be methotrexate and misoprostol being banned (since both used together can be used for abortion, and vaginal misoprostol alone is sometimes used for abortion).

    But wait--methotrexate is a fairly standard anti-proliferative agent (for conditions as varied as cancer and lupus), and misoprostol is used in heartburn and gastric ulcers. Good luck for women who are NOT pregnant and need either drug but live in a rural area.

    Or take birth control pills. We all know what the social conservatives say about contraception.

    So much for sound medicine being legislated by the GOP, supposedly the bastion of freedom against government intrusion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:55 PM GMT
    And where are the libertarians on denouncing this invasion of doctor-patient privacy?