What You Need to Know About the House's Abortion Funding Ban
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 янв 2017
- On Tuesday, Jan 24, 2017, the House passed H.R. 7, a bill that will make the Hyde Amendment permanent. For 40 years, the amendment, which has been subject to annual renewal since Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) first proposed it in 1976, prevents the federal funding of abortions through Medicaid. H.R. 7, formally known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017, goes even further, extending the provisions of the Hyde Amendment by eliminating abortion coverage by all medical insurance plans participating in the ACA.
Read the full story: billmoyers.com/story/how-the-h...
As far as I know there is no limit or ban on the acquisition of contraceptives. The responsibility of using a contraceptive falls on the shoulders of the people involved, in every instance. Not having to take responsibility for your own actions is not a right , but a special privilege. Women get more special privileges than any political group I know. There is no war against women. They already have equal rights and now continue to fight for more. Is there such a thing as more equal? However, any ban or limitation on abortion should also infringe upon the rights of the men who choose to run away from being responsible for babies they made. If you can't do the dance, keep it in your pants.
Some estimates have numbers as high as 58,000,000 abortions since roe v wade. That should be a concern regardless of your political feelings towards women's rights . The right to Life is basic civil rights .
The real debate is defining when an unborn baby becomes a human life with constitutional rights. As someone who's pro-choice, I personally believe a baby can be considered human life once it begins having brain activity (Which lands roughly 7 weeks after conception), but another part of the debate is when the baby's life becomes valuable enough to be worth preserving even if it means ruining (or rare some cases, killing) an already established life of a woman who is already a member of society. There should definitely be a cut-off as to how far into the pregnancy you can get an abortion (At the third trimester, it's basically a full baby waiting to be born), but outright banning all abortions is just hurting women's right to control their own body.
*Only Citizens have Civil Rights and only born humans have Human Rights.* And the number is just some "random" estimate over "random" time to make it sound big. People die in traffic all the time. Should those numbers alone mean we should never be allowed to drive? Of course not, so the issue has to be put into proper perspective. Its the same with abortions and early abortion is not killing a human being because if it was. Then guys would be guilty of genocide every time they jack off because all their sperm are also living entities on a similar none human scale.
+Smash. I agree about having a limited time period where abortion should be strait forward without any interference, which allot of nations already have, but the problem in the US is that that *ONLY* works if there is proper and easy access to abortion clinics during that time. Which Christian fundamentalists pro lifers, who ironically are also for the death penalty, try to prevent. So as long as obstruction tactics is an issue. You cant allow that to be a factor until the fundamentalist move away from trying to prevent people within the early stages to take an abortion when the Women choose to have one.
Lobos222 the numbers are not random. They are statistical facts tracked since 1973. Furthermore Comparing traffic accidents to intentionally terminating a life is like comparing first degree murder to a tragic & ACCIDENTAL death. Abortions at not accidents. Yours is A classic case of the straw man argument.
+Mike LoL, tracked by who? Could it be super biased fundamentalists with dog in play for getting manipulated numbers. Do the same sources track how many have died via unsafe abortions with coat hangers or similar or how many families have been ruined because they ether cant afford to have another child or were not capable of taking care of one at that time? No, what a fucking suspire...
Those numbers are nothing, but propaganda and you can act like you dont know this. But we both know how dishonest your side is. You even try to claim that no one gets pregnant by accident. Despite practically everyone living today know someone that didnt get a child when they were planning to get one.
Yet on the "post birth" aspect for those that actually want a child. Guess which side is against socialized healthcare. Oh its those "caring" right winger fundamentalist nuts. Oh yeah, they care sooo much about actual lives until it costs them something. Then its more about no healthcare for anyone that cant afford it. No social programs for parents and so on. Fucking hypocrites. You can falsely accuse others of strawmaning, but when it comes from a strawman like yourself. It looks nothing more than tragically funny for ironic reason.