1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    Why anon triggered. Again. Poor fellow. :p
    [​IMG]
     
    1. anon_de_plume
      One of Trump's many failures...
       
      anon_de_plume, Mar 2, 2023
  2. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324



    Let's just review to prove @anon_de_plume is neither triggered nor playing the victim. Which is actually treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans always being the poor poor pitiful me eternally wounded little snowflake victims.













    Nothing but actually discussing the topic using truth facts logic and reason.


    As opposed to this false propaganda hysteria.




    FBI Offers $25K Reward for Information about Attacks on Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fbi-offers-25k-reward-information-170358279.html


    Pro-Abortion Extremists Indicted for Allegedly Defacing Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news...ction-with-pregnancy-resource-center-attacks/







    The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate
    By Lori Robertson

    Posted on March 4, 2019

    Republicans and Democrats traded accusations on the topic of abortion after a “born-alive” bill failed in the Senate. Democrats say the legislation was unnecessary and aimed at restricting access to legal abortion, while Republicans say it was about protecting babies.

    President Donald Trump escalated the rhetoric in a tweet that claimed, “The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

    Existing homicide laws would indeed apply to a case of a baby being intentionally killed, but the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” raised questions about a complicated and sensitive topic that is likely to be a focus in the 2020 presidential election.

    We’ll go through what the recent legislation said and what both sides are saying about it.

    What does the recent born-alive legislation say?

    S. 311, the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” sponsored by Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, would amend the federal criminal code, instituting penalties and jail time for health care practitioners who don’t provide certain medical care “n the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive.”

    Specifically, the bill would require that a “health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive” to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” It also would require that the child be “immediately transported and admitted to a hospital” following that professional “skill, care, and diligence.” Violators could be fined and/or jailed for up to five years.

    There’s also a reporting requirement for anyone with knowledge of such violations. Another provision bars mothers from being prosecuted under the bill and allows mothers to bring a civil action against health care practitioners who violate the legislation.

    The bill specifies that an “intentional killing” through an “overt act” would be punishable under already existing federal law on murder.

    How does that compare to the 2002 born-alive law?

    Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine argued that the bill was unnecessary, as a 2002 born-alive bill had “reaffirmed” that “infanticide is already illegal in every state.” Kaine said in a statement: “I support that law, which is still in effect. There is no need for additional federal legislation on this topic. “

    In 2002, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Acteasily passed Congress — through a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. It became law on Aug. 5, 2002. It defined a “person” (or “human being,” “child” and “individual”) for the purposes of any act of Congress or any agency ruling/regulation as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.“

    The act went on to define “born alive” as: “the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”

    Are either of these laws necessary to prosecute the intentional killing of a baby as a homicide?

    No. Killing a baby is a homicide. “States can and do punish people for killing children who are born alive,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Law and the author of two books on the abortion debate, told us in a phone interview. “Most criminal laws are at the state level not the federal level.”

    Ziegler said Sasse’s bill would add uniform federal criminal penalties for health care practitioners, so it does include new measures. “It’s more just of questionable importance given that state law prosecutions are already happening.”

    In 2013, for instance, Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of three babies born alive in his Philadelphia abortion clinic and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a woman whom he treated.

    What is the aim of the legislation?

    A spokesman for Sasse told us the bill is aimed at “passive” situations in which there’s a “backing away” from providing medical interventions for a baby born alive. He cited the testimony of an OB-GYN doctor in the Gosnell case who said that if a baby were born alive as a result of an abortion procedure, the baby would “eventually pass.” According to reporting at the time by the Philadelphia Inquirer, she said that in such a rare instance, “comfort care” would be provided until the child died.

    The 2002 law, Sasse’s office says, didn’t mandate medical care. The senator’s website says the recent bill would require that if “a botched abortion results in the live birth of an infant, health care practitioners must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care to protect the newborn as would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

    What statistics are available on cases of failed abortions in which a baby is born alive? How often does this happen?

    There is some limited data on babies born alive as the result of an abortion procedure, but it’s unclear what the medical circumstances were in each of these cases. There is more extensive data on when abortions are performed. We’ll go through the available numbers.

    First, in terms of a baby’s viability — the ability to survive outside the womb — one 2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on preterm births said: “Active [lifesaving] intervention for infants born before 22 weeks of gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.” The study noted the “extremely difficult” decision on whether to use treatment for infants “born near the limit of viability,” saying that while in some cases treatment is clearly indicated or not, “in many cases, it is unclear whether treatment is in the infant’s best interest.”

    The study looked at the cases of 4,987 infants “without congenital anomalies,” or birth defects, born before 27 weeks gestation. It found that 5.1 percent of babies born at 22 weeks gestational age survived and 3.4 percent survived “without severe impairment.” Several weeks further into gestation, at 26 weeks, 81.4 percent of babies survived, 75.6 percent without severe impairment.

    Abortions in such later stages of pregnancies (which typically are 38 to 42 weeks full term) could be performed because of congenital anomalies, but that study provides some sense of when a fetus without birth defects could be viable and when decisions on medical interventions could be made.

    Late-term abortions are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1.3 percent of abortions in the U.S. were performed after 21 weeks gestational time, according to 2015 data. The CDC’s report showed that 65 percent of abortions that year occurred in the first eight weeks of pregnancy.

    Forty-three states have banned “some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy,” according to the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues.

    What about abortions that result in a live birth? One CDC report on death certificates for infants for 2003 to 2014, showed “143 deaths involving induced terminations” of pregnancies during that 12-year period, 97 of which “involved a maternal complication or, one or more congenital anomalies.” The data “only include deaths occurring to those infants born alive; fetal deaths (stillbirths) are not included.”

    The CDC notes that the 143 number could be an underestimate of induced terminations of pregnancies. In looking at the data, the CDC found some cases where it was unclear whether a pregnancy termination was induced or spontaneous. In such cases, if congenital anomalies and maternal complications also were involved, the CDC assumed those were spontaneous terminations, due to the “strong association between severe congenital anomalies or maternal complications and premature labor and birth.” In other words, the CDC assumed such cases were premature labor as opposed to a decision to induce labor or end the pregnancy.

    Six states require some reporting on abortions that result in a baby born alive: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Texas.

    In Minnesota, there were 10,177 abortions in the state in 2017 and three resulted in an infant born alive. None survived, according to the report from the state Department of Health. One infant was given “comfort care”; another was given no specific care; and the third had a low APGAR score, a measure of a newborn’s well-being.

    Arizona enacted a law in August 2017 requiring physicians to report born-alive cases and to “document that all available means and medical skills were used to promote, preserve, and maintain the life of such fetus and embryo.” A state Department of Health Services report says: “From August 2017 to December 2017, 10 abortion reports involving fetus or embryo delivered alive were submitted to ADHS along with the physician’s statement documenting the measures taken to preserve the life of the fetus or embryo.” There were a total of 12,533 abortions performed for the full year.

    And in Florida in 2018 there were six reported born-alive cases out of 70,083 abortions, according to state reports. As for late-term abortions, two occurred in the third trimester, one due to life endangerment and the other due to serious fetal defect.

    In Oklahoma, there were no reports of infants born alive due to an abortion from 2012 through 2014 and again in 2016. For 2015 and 2017, the state reports don’t contain figures for that reporting requirement. Also, Texas reported zero live births as a result of an abortion for the three years for which that information is available, 2013 to 2015.

    What is an “abortion” under the bill? Would the recent legislation pertain to cases of preterm births? What about induced labor for reasons of fetal abnormalities?

    This is one of the matters of dispute. Sasse’s office says the bill is aimed at “botched abortions,” but a doctor speaking on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposed the bill, told us it would pertain to difficult situations in which parents make the decision with clinicians to induce labor for medical reasons such as fetal abnormalities.

    The New York Times published an opinion piece on Feb. 26 by Dr. Jen Gunter, an obstetrician and gynecologist, who told her personal story of making the decision to forgo medical intervention when her 1-pound son was born prematurely at 22 weeks. “As Aidan’s parents we had decided that invasive procedures, like intravenous lines and a breathing tube in a one-pound body, would be pointless medical care. And so, as we planned, Aidan died,” Gunter wrote. “And that is the reality for so many parents. Some have known for weeks or even months that there will be no life after birth. With that knowledge some choose an abortion and others the blanket and embrace. Both are brave decisions.”

    Sasse’s spokeman told us S. 311 wouldn’t apply to a “heartbreaking” situation like Gunter’s because that was a premature birth. The bill specifically says it pertains to cases involving “abortion.”

    Here’s the definition of “abortion” in the bill:

    S. 311: (1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—

    (A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or

    (B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—

    (i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or

    (ii) to remove a dead unborn child.

    Sasse’s spokesman said inducing labor pre-viability wouldn’t fit that definition. But if induction occurred to “kill the unborn child” and it resulted in a live birth, “the legislation would mandate that the baby receives the same medical care that any child with similar gestational age and circumstances would receive if they were born any other way.”

    Dr. Colleen McNicholas, an obstetrician and gynecologist speaking on behalf of ACOG, told us that “absolutely” the definition of abortion in the bill would fit circumstances where labor is induced because of fetal abnormalities.

    The “vast majority” of late-term abortions, McNicholas said, would be performed with dilation and evacuation, which “is not survivable,” or in conjunction with medication that stops the baby’s heart. The “only conceivable situation” she could imagine the bill being relevant would be “catastrophic pregnancies” in which the parents and care team “intend to deliver the baby,” but know that there’s a chance the baby won’t survive. In such cases, there may be a plan in place, a “choice by the care team and the patient to not explore extraordinary measures” for a fetus with conditions that aren’t survivable, she said. The care team would provide “comfort and compassion” in such a circumstance.

    “Even those heartbreaking stories are abortion stories,” she said. “From a medicine standpoint, it’s an abortion regardless of the indication.”

    But the bill does say health care practitioners should use the same care as they would for other infants at the same gestational age. Wouldn’t that mean comfort care could be the appropriate medical course of action?

    Theoretically, yes, McNicholas said. But, she added, the bill “puts physicians in a terrible situation” where they know the appropriate medical care but wonder what the legislative interpretation of the circumstance would be, under the threat of criminal penalties. “It makes clinicians and physicians incredible uncomfortable to know that they … ultimately aren’t the ones who will decide whether that clinical situation should have or could have fit.”

    Why did most Senate Democrats vote against it? Why did Republicans introduce it?

    S. 311 was defeated on Feb. 25 in the Senate by a 53-44 vote, short of the votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, with just three Democrats in favor of it.

    Sen. Patty Murray called the bill “government interference in women’s health care, in families’ lives, and in medicine on steroids.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said: “This is an effort to intimidate doctors with the threat of criminal liability for performing safe and legal abortion, which will have a chilling effect on the ability of women to access the services they need in the United States.”

    Similarly, ACOG and 16 other medical groups said in a letter to the Senate that the bill amounted to “another restriction on women’s access to reproductive health care.”

    But Republicans maintained it was “a straightforward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies,” as Sen. Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. And Sasse’s spokesman said the issue wasn’t controversial in 2002, when that — albeit more limited — bill was easily passed.

    Ziegler, at Florida State University’s College of Law, told us that to some extent this was about politics. “I think they knew that this wasn’t going to pass,” she said of the Republicans. But politically it was advantageous, and it came in response to Democratic states passing laws to expand abortion rights, such as a recent law in New York.


    “Framing the conversation around born-live abortions and late-term abortions is something that will make more people view the abortion issue in a way that’s favorable to Republicans,” she said.




    https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/the-facts-on-the-born-alive-debate/
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban.


    South Dakota Gov. Noem threatens charges for abortion pills
    [​IMG]
    FILE - South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem takes part in a panel discussion during a Republican Governors Association conference, Nov. 15, 2022, in Orlando, Fla. The South Dakota Legislature’s nine-week session is slated to begin Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023, with all eyes on what lawmakers might do with the state’s $423 million surplus. Noem wants to use the money to cover repealing the state sales tax on groceries, a plan some of the state’s staunchest Republicans oppose. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack, File) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
    Tue, January 24, 2023 at 11:23 AM MST


    PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, along with the state's Republican attorney general, said Tuesday the state will prosecute pharmacists who dispense abortion-inducing pills following a recent Food and Drug Administration rule change that broadens access to the pills.

    The Republican governor and South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley released a letter to South Dakota pharmacists saying they are “subject to felony prosecution” if they procure or dispense abortion-inducing drugs. The state bans all abortions except to save the life of the pregnant person.

    “South Dakota will continue to enforce all laws including those that respect and protect the lives of the unborn,” Noem and Jackley said in the letter.

    The FDA earlier this month formally updated labeling for abortion pills to allow many more retail pharmacies to dispense them, so long as they complete a certification process.


    The change could expand access at online pharmacies. People can get a prescription via telehealth consultation with a health professional and then receive the pills through the mail, where permitted by law.

    Still, in states like South Dakota, the rule change’s impact has been blunted by laws limiting abortion broadly and the pills specifically. Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills as abortion-rights proponents bring test cases to challenge state restrictions.

    Amanda Bacon, the director of the South Dakota Pharmacists Association, said in an email that she was not aware of any South Dakota pharmacies with plans to participate in the federal program to dispense abortion pills.



    https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-dakota-gov-noem-threatens-182303115.html
     
  4. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    And stumbler joins the "discussion".
    With, as usual, a full page of bullshit aimed at diverting and confusing the issue.
    Really. Almost a full page of nonsense. Again.

    But lets cut to the real issue, shall we?

    Say, Stumbler, what's your opinion;
    Should abortion rights be a state issue, or a federal issue, you know, given the latest supreme court ruling?

    Shooter thinks states are the proper venue for the discussion since, you know, about half of the American population support abortion, and half don't. Pretty hard for the Supreme court, or for that matter, the Federal government, to find an answer that satisfies most Americans, eh?
    Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

    Course, no despicable worth their Molotov Cocktail will ever concede that any opinion but their own is worthy of consideration.
    You're either with us or against us, eh?
     
  5. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324

    There are two reasons I do not debate you on this forum. One, I cannot be more consistent and more clear. A woman right to chose to have a baby or not is her Constitutional right and no one but her and her doctor has anything do do with that. . I have never said anything different in all the time I have been on this forum.

    And two I could post all the times you used to say the same. But if I did those posts would be removed and I might be suspended or banned.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    1. shootersa
      Attaboy
      The issue is states right VS federal rights, not a womans right to control her body VS the right to murder her child.
       
      shootersa, Jan 27, 2023
  6. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    This is another one like gun control. If the American people were allowed to vote on it they would pass. So according to the Supreme court it us up to a state to decide on a lawman's rights. But at the same time they take the rights of the majority of the people in the state. One that has not only been proven in the mid terms but in actual referendums If the majority of the people in that state get a chance to vote on it they vote for abortion

    So no it is not state's rights. It is minority rule. And since it is a minority imposing their own personal Sharia Law For Christians beliefs on the nation the last thing they can afford is let people vote on it.

    But the times and the votes are changing none the same.

    Virginia Democrats Defeat 15-Week Abortion Ban And Glenn Youngkin's Anti-Choice Agenda
    Alanna Vagianos
    Thu, January 26, 2023 at 8:54 AM MST


    Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s (R) push for a 15-week abortion ban died late Wednesday evening when a state Senate subcommittee blocked the ban along with two other restrictions.

    The education and health committee blocked the proposed abortion restrictions with a 9-5 vote, officially defeating the 15-week ban, a near-total ban and a ban on the procedure later in pregnancy. Although the near-total abortion restriction was more extreme, the 15-week ban was the focus for many Virginia Republicans after Youngkin made it a priority in his December budget proposal.

    “Despite Gov. Youngkin and his allies’ relentless efforts to undermine our health and rights, today we reaffirmed that there is no place for abortion bans in Virginia,” Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said in a statement.

    Virginia Senate Majority Leader Louise Lucas (D), who is on the subcommittee that defeated the three abortion restrictions, tweeted about the victory on Wednesday night.

    “All of Glenn Youngkin’s bills to limit abortion rights come to my committee. I put them straight into my trash can,” Lucas tweeted with a photo of her throwing the bills in a garbage can.


    Youngkin’s 15-week abortion ban would have carried criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and/or $100,000 in fines for physicians who provided an abortion. It included narrow exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant person.

    Virginia Republicans knew the bill would likely fail after Democrats won a critical state Senate seat in a special election earlier this month. But the continued push for abortion restrictions was likely meant to appeal to a national audience. Youngkin is a potential 2024 presidential candidate and may need to point to his anti-abortion record in order to be competitive.

    Virginia currently allows abortion through the second trimester of pregnancy and into the third if the mother’s life is at risk. In addition, it’s one of a handful of states that allows abortion through the 28th week of pregnancy, making it a safe haven for abortions later in pregnancy.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/virginia-democrats-defeat-15-week-155444766.html
     
  7. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    So, 9 despicables decide the issue for all virginians?
     
  8. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    50,169
    When you get your facts straight and admit there are already laws on the event that a child is still alive...

    Oh what do you care... You obviously think your opinion is superior to everyone else's... All your claims to be better than the rest of us is proof of that.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    1. stumbler
      I recently posted an interesting article on this.

      Science has finally cracked the mystery of why so many people believe in conspiracy theories

      Social scientists are closing in on some answers. The personality traits known as the "Dark Triad" — that's narcissism, psychopathy, and a tendency to see the world in black-or-white terms — play a part. So do political beliefs, particularly populism and a tolerance for political violence. Cognitive biases, like believing only evidence that confirms what you already think, also make people more vulnerable.



      The more you think you're right all the time, a new study suggests, the more likely you are to buy conspiracy theories, regardless of the evidence.

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-people-buy-crackpot-conspiracy-111400996.html
       
      stumbler, Jan 27, 2023
  9. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    50,169
    It's how a representative Republic works... You know, like when the Republicans override the will of the people...
     
    • Like Like x 2
    1. stumbler
      And what is so laughable about that is its the treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican minorities in red states that are deciding the abortion issue for the majority of the people in their states. When if they brought it up for a statewide vote the right to abortion would win.
       
      stumbler, Jan 27, 2023
      anon_de_plume likes this.
  10. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    But you and despicables have been screaming since Roe V Wade was overturned that if people are allowed to vote they inevitably support abortions.
    Guess that only applies where you think you can jam your standard down the throat of people.
    Hypocrite.
     
  11. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    50,169
    And exactly where have those standards been jammed? Seems to me that has been done by all the Republicans who have legislated their laws. Those places that have been allowed to vote (as in Kansas and Michigan) have overwhelmingly shown support for abortion, despite how the Republicans scheduled the vote during a primary hoping to get a low turn out!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    1. stumbler
      And don't forget Kentucky which is about as red as a state gets. And Kentucky voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have removed any protection for abortion rights.
       
      stumbler, Jan 27, 2023
  12. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    You are entitled to your opinion.
    Even if it makes no sense to anyone else.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  13. mstrman

    mstrman Porn Star

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2020
    Messages:
    37,576
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    50,169
    The height of Republican debate...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. anon_de_plume

    anon_de_plume Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    50,169
    So you can't even answer the question. But when do you ever.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    When does your juvenile bullshit ever deserve an answer?
    All you do is demand answers to stupid questions, but you never answer questions posed to you with more than a "huh?" or a "what?" or some personal attack.

    Cmon. Bring it. Or go play in the ocean. Your choice.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    1. mstrman
      [​IMG]
       
      mstrman, Jan 27, 2023
      shootersa likes this.
  17. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    The Hyde amendment should have never been passed in the first place. And mostly treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans scream they don't want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. Well tough shit. I don't want my tax dollars spent on their fertility treatments.

    Barbara Lee Says She Can't Leave the House Without Repealing the Hyde Amendment

    Caitlin Cruz
    Thu, January 26, 2023 at 2:30 PM MST


    [​IMG]
    Photo: J. Scott Applewhite (AP)
    On Thursday, a group of pro-abortion Democrats in the House, led by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), re-introduced The EACH Act, a bill that would reverse the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal dollars being used to pay for abortions. It’s been a target of abortion advocates since it was first introduced in the 1970s.

    I know everyone wants to skip reading about health insurance, but I promise you: The EACH Act is a big deal. The 2020 Census found that nearly 35 percent of Americans have government-sponsored health insurance. The Hyde Amendment means that people who are enrolled in Medicaid, Medicare or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), are federal employees, use Indian Health Services, are Peace Corps volunteers, are in federal prisons, are poor in Washington, D.C., or use military or veteran insurance are enrolled in programs that do not cover abortion cost.

    Read more

    - ADVERTISEMENT -

    “It’s discriminatory,” Lee told Jezebel. “It’s racist. I’m going to continue doing [introducing the bill] until we repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

    But Thursday’s announcement of the EACH Act was a bit overshadowed by Lee’s looming Senate race launch. Two other high-profile House Democrats have already thrown their names in the 2024 race for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat—which Feinstein won’t say she’s giving up. Reps. Katie Porter and Adam Schiff already announced their candidacies in the traditional way, with short biographical videos.

    Lee, by comparison, is entering the race slowly. Earlier this month, she told members of the Congressional Black Caucus that she intends to run, but hasn’t commented publicly yet, perhaps because she will face some of the same criticisms as Feinstein. Feinstein is 89; Lee would be 79 by the 2024 general election, and 85 by the end of the term. Shee wouldn’t share any of her plans with Jezebel, saying only “Listen, I will discuss this when we officially launch... We’re going to launch this in a way that’s respectful to Sen. Feinstein and we’ll get back to you when we do.”

    For now, Lee has her sights set on repealing the Hyde Amendment and keeping its coverage ban out of the annual appropriations bill. But watching the disastrous speaker race, which has thrown the House into extreme disarray, you might be skeptical about the efforts of someone trying to pass a bill that’s already failed multiple times.

    “I don’t worry about that kind of challenge,” Lee said. “This was not an overnight kind of effort. This has been in place since the ’70s. I will keep going to re-introduce the EACH Act until the amendment gone.”

    The coalition outside of Congress has successfully lobbied to get more and more cosponsors of the EACH Act with subsequent introductions, but its passage is unlikely. Morgan Hopkins, president of abortion advocacy group All* Above All, was more realistic, saying that, while this is the first bill focused on expanding abortion access of this Congress, passing it will be a long-term fight. “We know this goes beyond one congress or one cycle,” she told Jezebel. “We will keep working until we move the bill.”

    The bill also seeks to stop federal politicians from interfering in private insurance companies that choose to cover abortion costs in their policies. “We’ve got to be consistent overall. People who work and have those insurances are being discriminated against,” Lee said. “We want to equalize this.”

    Lee added, “Everyone should have access to reproductive freedom and without public officials and judges forcing them to make decisions.”

    Securing any sort of equality, though, is unfortunately not high on the list of Republican priorities.

    More from Jezebel

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/barbara-lee-says-she-cant-213000913.html
     
  18. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    Stumbler and despicables simply cannot accept the fact that about half of Americans hold a sincere belief that abortion is murder and they do not want to see their tax dollars used to pay for murder.

    Nor do they care.
    Whatever it takes, eh?
     
    1. stumbler
      stumbler, Jan 28, 2023
    2. stumbler
      stumbler, Jan 28, 2023
    3. stumbler
      stumbler, Jan 28, 2023
  19. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Oh yeah the Dobbs decision was just all about state's rights.


    Anti-abortion protesters break into Walgreens AGM meeting room

    [​IMG]
    Signage is seen outside of a Walgreens, owned by the Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., in Manhattan, New York City
    331
    Thu, January 26, 2023 at 4:51 PM MST·2 min read


    (Reuters) - Anti-abortion protesters broke into the room where Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc held its annual shareholders meeting in Newport Coast, California on Thursday for its decision to start selling abortion pills, the pharmacy chain said.

    Walgreens and CVS Health Corp said on Jan. 4 that they plan to offer abortion pills following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) decision to allow retail pharmacies to offer the drug in the country for the first time.

    "Today, directly after the close of official business of our annual shareholders meeting, a small group of protesters entered the meeting room without authorization," Walgreens Senior Director for External Relations Fraser Engerman told Reuters.

    "We are grateful that none of our shareholders, team members and event staff were harmed during this incident," Engerman said in a written statement.

    - ADVERTISEMENT -

    The FDA on Jan. 3 finalized a rule allowing retail pharmacies to sell mifepristone. However, pharmacies must still weigh whether and where to offer the pill given political controversy surrounding abortion in the United States.

    "It was a wild annual shareholders meeting," said Walgreens shareholder and AGM attendee John Chevedden. "The protesters knew what they were doing because they found a way to enter the room from behind the podium. It was a complete surprise."

    "Upon leaving the meeting there were about 50 noisy protesters with signs just outside of the resort grounds," he said via email.

    U.S. abortion rights were curtailed in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to terminating pregnancies when it scrapped a landmark ruling in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case.

    "We believe strongly in the right to peaceful protest, and an area was set aside for this purpose, but unfortunately some protesters took further disruptive actions," said Engerman.


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-abortion-protesters-break-walgreens-235154214.html
     
  20. shootersa

    shootersa Frisky Feline

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    86,463
    Very dishonest editing, eh mr. newspaper editor? Shooter fixed it for you.
    "Washington, D.C., January 22, 2023 – Six months since the landmark Dobbs decision, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that while most Americans say abortion should be legal in most cases, two in five say they support the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. Agreement with the right to abortion is split along party lines, with Democrats more likely to be in favor of abortion rights and Republicans more likely to oppose them. However, during what would have been the 50-year anniversary of Roe, nearly seven in ten Americans, regardless of party, say they would support a state-level ballot measure or voter referendum to decide abortion rights at the state level. If a voter referendum was held, Americans say 2 (54%) to 1 (27%) that they would vote to establish legal abortion. Since Dobbs, three in ten Americans say accessing abortion care has gotten harder in their state. At the same time, many Americans hold misconceptions or are uninformed about key facts surrounding abortion."​

    key facts surrounding abortion.

    [​IMG]
    Your artful editing forgot to include the question about support for a state referendum. For a fellow who delights in filling a full page with a post full of mainly ads and irrelevant nonesense, your editing in this case is, shall we say, dishonest??
    And you forgot to include this part. How come?
    "At the same time, many Americans hold misconceptions or are uninformed about key facts surrounding abortion."

    Figures never lie, but liars figure, eh stumbler?