RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here?

RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

housesub4you -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/20/2011 3:52:18 PM)
has filed an anti-choice amendment to an appropriations bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. How is it BS that he did not attach it to an agriculture bill? The bill was introduced under Agriculture....

mastrcmmdr -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/20/2011 3:58:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you has filed an anti-choice amendment to an appropriations bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. How is it BS that he did not attach it to an agriculture bill? The bill was introduced under Agriculture.... I gave you the title. It is not an "agriculture bill" its an appropriations bill for several agencies/departments. Its irrelevant that Agriculture happens to be listed first, it includes FDA appropriations.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/20/2011 5:19:42 PM)
quote: H.R. 2112: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations... U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) successfully introduced an amendment to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012, HR 2112, to prevent any appropriations made possible by the bill to be used for mifepristone, for any purpose. Interesting... I thought the one we were speaking about was Demint's amendment.

mnottertail -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/20/2011 5:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mastrcmmdr quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you has filed an anti-choice amendment to an appropriations bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. How is it BS that he did not attach it to an agriculture bill? The bill was introduced under Agriculture.... I gave you the title. It is not an "agriculture bill" its an appropriations bill for several agencies/departments. Its irrelevant that Agriculture happens to be listed first, it includes FDA appropriations. And here is the shit you gave: Amd. 768 to that bill, proposed by DeMint, has nothing to do with the OP: Insert: Sec ___ None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486 Thats it. And of course the claim that its "buried in an unrelated agriculture bill" is bullshit. Its an appropriations bill that includes the FDA. .... Of course wilbur that is your S.Amdt Horseshit. This is 768, old shit same as you are running out here. http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/10/20/roll-call-vote-on-vitter-stabenow-bingaman-amendment/ His amendment would be indexed as S.amdt 768 if he had such a fuckin thing. I dont give a fuck if its a house bill and amendment to the appropriations (and farm bills are appropriations, nobody has yet put forward a bill calling for more or less teats on a cow......)hes in the senate and all appropriations bills really origiate in the house, and since hes in the senate they are senate amendments and if voted, which it wont be it would go back for resolutions. In any case whatever you are quoting might be out of the allow more ratpoison bill or something forwarded by republicans, but you are not known for credible quasi-virtual citations, and this is the reason why. Because you simply make shit up and pull it from your ass, and extremely sorry shit it is.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/20/2011 5:37:23 PM)
Ok.. here is the skinny.... The bill itself... http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr2112 The section 753 The words are exactly as willbe posted them. Now, here is the issue. The right to life group has virtually closed down most rural access to abortions. Unless a woman drives for hours, she wont get one. Here comes the internet part. Physicians have been offering scripts for RU-486 over the internet to these women, via teleconferences. This starting to make sense now?

CyrusKell -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 12:51:16 AM)
quote: For the women of South Dakota I lived in SD for a bit over 10 years and about the only thing I miss is working at Myrl & Roys Seeing people up and down 41st St for a few miles with kids as little as 3-4years holding anti-abortion signs cost me quite a bit of my faith in humanity. Those kids probably had no clue what childbirth/conception involved, let alone knew much about abortion itself. All they knew is mommy and daddy wanted them to stand there and look cute while holding a sign about the evils of abortion If someone wants to protest something, fine, just leave the kids with a babysitter as they most likely won't know wtf the protest is about

kalikshama -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 10:09:52 AM)
quote: Ok.. here is the skinny.... The bill itself... http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr2112 The section 753 The words are exactly as willbe posted them. Now, here is the issue. The right to life group has virtually closed down most rural access to abortions. Unless a woman drives for hours, she wont get one. Here comes the internet part. Physicians have been offering scripts for RU-486 over the internet to these women, via teleconferences. This starting to make sense now? Thanks...but where is the internet part in the bill? quote: 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...

mnottertail -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 10:10:50 AM)
could <<<<<<<<<<<<< right there.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 10:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Ok.. here is the skinny.... The bill itself... http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr2112 The section 753 The words are exactly as willbe posted them. Now, here is the issue. The right to life group has virtually closed down most rural access to abortions. Unless a woman drives for hours, she wont get one. Here comes the internet part. Physicians have been offering scripts for RU-486 over the internet to these women, via teleconferences. This starting to make sense now? Thanks...but where is the internet part in the bill? quote: 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... In introducing his amendment, King made clear that the purpose was to prevent Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from accessing a $ 15 million line item contained in the bill for development of telemedicine services; however, the language of the amendment is extremely broad. It states that “none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486, for any purpose,” which does not specifically target the telemedicine line item, but applies to any and all appropriations within the bill. The Bill itself... ~pg 42~ RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) The principal amount of direct and guaranteed loans 16 as authorized by sections 305 and 306 of the Rural Elec17 trification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936) shall be 18 made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans, 19 $100,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 20 Act, rural electric, $6,500,000,000; 5 percent rural tele21 communications loans, $145,000,000; cost of money rural 22 telecommunications loans, $250,000,000; and for loans 23 made pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural tele24 communications loans, $295,000,000. and DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM (INCLUDING CANCELLATION OF FUNDS) For grants for telemedicine and distance learning 9 services in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa 10 et seq., $15,000,000, to remain available until expended. 11 12 13 14 15 TITLE IV DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS OFFICE pg 43 of the bill http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr2112 But they are denying the use of those funds for the purpose of Drs giving RU-486. So, if the internet access these potential patients use is based upon those funds, it can be illegal for Physicians and patients to discuss such treatment.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 10:57:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: Ok.. here is the skinny.... The bill itself... http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr2112 The section 753 The words are exactly as willbe posted them. Now, here is the issue. The right to life group has virtually closed down most rural access to abortions. Unless a woman drives for hours, she wont get one. Here comes the internet part. Physicians have been offering scripts for RU-486 over the internet to these women, via teleconferences. This starting to make sense now? Thanks...but where is the internet part in the bill? quote: 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... It doesnt exist. The teleconferencing is a strawman for the anti-GOP crowd to whine about. There is no ban on teleconferencing for other drugs. the fact is RU-486 is a dangerous drug that has been blamed for dozen of deaths and thousands of complications worldwide. Prescription and administration without a physical presence not only should be banned it should constitute gross negligence.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 11:03:04 AM)
It does exist.

kalikshama -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 1:17:41 PM)
Lawyers, lawyers! I'm in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Wilbeur that Tazzy's analysis is a stretch; please chime in.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 1:26:22 PM)
Im wiling to discuss. Why do you consider it a "stretch"? Considering willbe posted 50 seconds after me, he didnt have enough time to read my post before making his own.

mnottertail -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 1:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy the fact is RU-486 is a dangerous drug that has been blamed for dozen of deaths and thousands of complications worldwide. Prescription and administration without a physical presence not only should be banned it should constitute gross negligence. ____________________________________________________________ The July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains it as follows: "Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone." ___________________________________________________________ Not nearly the death merchant that aspirin is, though. So yeah, we gotta get this RU-486 ban in the ag bill, fuck everything else. How could we have been so blind as to leave this RU-486 out of the ag bill? If people want to kill themselves, for fucks sake, take an aspirin.

kalikshama -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 1:47:57 PM)
While I personally find the connection tenuous, I'm not versed enough in the legislative process to rule out your theory. I think Wilbe had adequate background before your post for his position.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 2:07:21 PM)
My basis is the fact that the Kansas Planned Parenthood site shows three abortion clinics in the state...Overland Park, Hays and Wichita. Most women requiring their services are among the poorest who would need financial assistance. A day drive, a night in a hotel, then a drive back.... I cant afford that... many cant. So they are turning to the interet. These are women who live in rural areas. As I have read the bill, if money from the bill is used for internet access to these rural areas, then contact between Physician and patient in discussing the treatment of RU-486 isnt allowed. I would love to believe its not the case. Members of Congress Question Sebelius on Telemed Abortions Seventy-one members of Congress have signed their names to a letter sponsored by pro-life Rep. Steve King of Iowa questioning Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about federal funding of telemed abortions. The telemed or webcam abortion process involves the distribution of the dangerous abortion pill, RU 486 over the Internet, but denies women access to physical examinations or emergency care by licensed physicians. “RU-486 is a dangerous drug that has been associated with at least 11 deaths and thousands of cases of excessive bleeding and infection,” said King in the letter. “Evading FDA guidelines by dispensing RU-486 through telemedicine has the potential to increase complications and fatalities associated with its use. We cannot allow taxpayer dollars to be used to support ‘telemed abortions.’” The practice is very real. Currently, this experimental abortion pill distribution scheme is only employed in Iowa but Planned Parenthood has indicated publicly that it intends to expand the practice nationwide and promote the abortion drug further to women without giving them a chance to visit a physician in person. They would be denied the in-person consultation even though the abortion drug is responsible for killing dozens of women worldwide and injuring more than 1,100 in the United States alone as of FDA figures from 2006. The key concern for King and the other members of Congress is that Congress allocated $11.6 million in FY 2012 for HHS telemedicine programs, which are intended for the development of services in rural areas. ................. “A common misconception is that telemed abortion is for women in rural areas. However, Planned Parenthood’s Iowa telemed sites are located in major population centers, including the county with the highest population in the state,” said Newman. “Telemed abortions are Planned Parenthood’s solution to a shortage of abortionists. It helps them access customers in otherwise abortion-free population centers in order to increase revenue while disregarding the health and safety of women.” “We support Rep. King and the other members of Congress in their effort to get to the bottom of where our tax money is going. If it is funding this telemed abortion scheme, the people have a right to know, and a right to demand that the funding be stopped,” he concluded. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/04/members-of-congress-question-sebelius-on-telemed-abortions/ Im not going to post the whole article. Merely pointing out that practice is real... and its being targeted through this bill.

tazzygirl -> RE: Could we face jail time if we argued about abortion here? (10/21/2011 2:11:08 PM)
quote: It doesnt exist. The teleconferencing is a strawman for the anti-GOP crowd to whine about. There is no ban on teleconferencing for other drugs. the fact is RU-486 is a dangerous drug that has been blamed for dozen of deaths and thousands of complications worldwide. Prescription and administration without a physical presence not only should be banned it should constitute gross negligence. 14 isnt dozens willbe. WASHINGTON, D.C., September 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Fourteen U.S. women have died after taking RU-486 and a total of 2,207 reported adverse effects after using the drug, according to a report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released this summer. The FDA report, released in mid-July, shows a significant rise in women who have been subjected to “adverse effects” resulting from taking RU-486 since the previous report in 2006 noted 1,100 women. Approximately 1.52 million women have used the abortion drug through the end of April 2011. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ru-486-abortions-lead-to-14-maternal-deaths-2207-adverse-effects-fda-report

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875