For the ladies, why is Santorum TOO conservative?

Why are you arguing for the right to get the test if not to make an informed decision about to kill the child or not?

Because of people like this:

I actually have a friend who just had a baby with hydrocephalus. He's 2 months old and has had several surgeries. They knew, they did not abort. But they were able to prepare for his disability before he was born. Had that been thrown on them at birth because their insurance didn't cover it, they wouldn't have been prepared for any of it - the emotional or financial aspects.

I do not feel you should have to go into ANY lifelong commitment blind. Especially when insurance companies cover stupid things like Viagra.

The first Amenedment isn't picking and choosing.

Absolutely right! That's what Santorum is trying to do. He wants the freedom for everyone to practice his religion and agree with his views on pre-natal testing/abortion and birth control. Last time I checked, I have every right to NOT have a child if I don't want one right? Or is preventing pregnancy a no-no now too? When pregnancies aren't prevented the "right" way, abortion happens more. Also a fact of life people like to ignore.

Go ahead and make birth control hard to get. Watch the abortion rate climb back up to where it was when you had to show a marriage certificate to get the pill. People will have sex whether the pill is available or not. Women do get raped and end up pregnant. Some woman on the pill would be less likely to even get pregnant from the assault, but seeing as they're anywhere from 50-100/month with no insurance, not everyone who wants to be on it can be.

That being said - there are a TON of other reasons for amnios besides finding disabilities to abort a fetus. If the mom and fetus have a different RH type an amnio could be necessary - but if insurance doesn't cover it? What do we say then, too bad so sad? Some people wanted to have an abortion after their amnio so your insurance that you pay into won't cover it even if it will save your or the fetus' life?

Would Santorum end federal funding of abortion?

Is there even federal funding of abortion at this point in time? Last time I checked any money PP gets is earmarked and can't be used for that purpose (which makes up a whopping 3% of their service anyway *yawn*). I'm not aware of any abortion factories that say PAID FER WIT UR TAX DOLLARS on the front

Of course there are those who get the test to plan for the future...but there are also those who get the test to terminate the future..

But you have no right to compell those with a religious objection to finance those tests for you......if it is important, pay for it without compelling the religious conscientious objector.

Because of people like this:



I do not feel you should have to go into ANY lifelong commitment blind. Especially when insurance companies cover stupid things like Viagra. Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

Really? Why don't you detail why we desperately need to get Obama out of office, consider what he has done. Originally Posted by BigLouie

OK, I took the time to look some of this up:

Obama has overhauled the food safety system Originally Posted by BigLouie

His administration, not him, toughened regulations on eggs, poultry, tomatoes and other foods. There was already no hormones allowed to be given to poultry. And when, really when, was the last time you or anyone you know gotten food poisoning from eating within the American food system?

What he did was add more bureaucratic controls. We need that like we need a another hole in the head.

Advanced women's rights in the work place Originally Posted by BigLouie

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was on his desk when he took office. It was signed on the 29th of January, 2009. The Bill was in the hopper and passed the Houses before he was even elected. Any president would have signed it. Besides, we already had very strong sexual discrimination statutes on the books.

Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military Originally Posted by BigLouie

Personally, I could care less if someone’s gay, and I’m glad he did it. We’ll see how well it’s intrigued into the military

Stopped defending DOMA in court. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Again, got no problem with that. But nevertheless, gay marriage needs to be dropped as a federal issue. It’s a state’s right thing.

Passed the Hate Crimes bill. Originally Posted by BigLouie

State’s rights issue. Not saying I disagree with it, but it’s a state’s right issue.

Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Any Democratic president would have done the same, and we were going to get a Democrat after the abomination of Bush II reign. Besides, those justices may have waited out W’s term hoping for a Democrat before retiring.

Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Originally Posted by BigLouie

What? Obamacare? It’s a monkey fuck that’s in the courts costing the tax payers a fortune and it’s a tax on the poor.

Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Any Democratic president would have.

Invested in clean energy. Originally Posted by BigLouie

No, that moron was going to get us out of the recession via clean energy investments and industries. That didn’t work so much, and all we’ve done is spend more money we don’t have.

Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.

While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector. Originally Posted by BigLouie

That was gonna happen regardless. W was even in the process of a finance industry overhaul. Remember we got into this mess due to deregulation during the Clinton administration.

He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Great! He created yet another agency to spend money we don’t have. Yeah!

He's done a lot for veterans Originally Posted by BigLouie

Define a lot. Like getting us out of the wars when he said he was going to or just when campaign season started?

He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Obama administration stunned New York's delegation Thursday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.

Here’s the link: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-01-28/news/27088199_1_health-bill-military-funding-legislators

Apparently, that didn’t go over well then on January he signed the bill.

None of these things were priorities for Republicans. They actively opposed, directly or indirectly through obstruction, every single item on this list. In fact, they succeeded in killing a Cap & Trade bill in the Senate after it had passed through the House.

All of these things are improvements that would not have occurred under a McCain-Palin administration. Moreover, a McCain-Palin administration would have moved in the other direction on most of these issues, or come up with even worse compromises. Originally Posted by BigLouie

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME; I’M NOT A REPUBLICAN. Stop with the dogma. Obama didn’t do anything more or less than any Democratic president except water down and cave on key fucking issues like health care, overspending, pork, stimulus, Gitmo and the Wars. He got out foxed because he’s INEXPERIENCED. HE’S NEVER HAD A JOB THAT HE ACTUALLY SHOWED UP FOR UNTIL THE PRESIDENCY.

McCain introduced campaign reform, and he didn’t raise a billion dollars to run for el Jefe. Nor would he have had to pay back billion in favors like Obama has had to do.

He's killed Osama Bin Laden
Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders
Ended the War in Iraq
Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan Originally Posted by BigLouie

See above. A, anyone would have killed Bin Laden. And B, see above on the other repeats to make this dumb list look longer.

End-run Republican obstructionism by recess-appointing Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Board. Originally Posted by BigLouie

He went around the Senate. The only reason you applaud it is because he’s a Democrat. If a Republican had done the same, you’d be all ate up with it.

This list is full of things that:

1. Any president would do, or
2. Any Democratic president would do, or
3. End run around state’s rights and the Senate, or
4. The healthcare abortion, and
5. Things that are good, but in no way offset the spending and damage he’s done.

Oh, and the economy is not turned around. He’s using funny math and marginal progress to claim a miraculous turnaround based on his dynamic and stellar presidency.

Of course there are those who get the test to plan for the future...but there are also those who get the test to terminate the future..

But you have no right to compell those with a religious objection to finance those tests for you......if it is important, pay for it without compelling the religious conscientious objector. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yes we can! Everyone's Constitutional rights end at the other guy's nose. To not fund the tests is forcing YOUR religious ideas on ME. It goes both ways. But you're myopic and don't want to see that.

"Everyone's Constitutional rights end at the other guy's nose"

Not if you mandate their participation

That is a ridiculous stretch...where is that right enumerated?

To not fund the tests is forcing YOUR religious ideas on ME. It goes both ways. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l?ref=politics



You've got to be kidding me. Women usually have these tests and then decide from there depending on life circumstances. And seeing as it's legal to do so, again I'm not seeing the problem. If you find out at 24 weeks that your baby will not live past a month, it's YOUR decision what to do with it. Or at 18 weeks that your baby has chromosonal issues that will lead to a full life of YOU having to care for it.

Affordable testing to discover this isn't bad, it's not going to create a rush to the abortion mill - most of the tests come back FINE. And those who don't - well honestly it's a personal decision whether or not you want to commit the rest of your life to someone with Downs, Hydrocephalus, T18, or any other mental disorder. And it's a incredibly hard and personal choice. I envy no one who has to make it. But withholding the testing so they're surprised in the delivery room*? Sucky. Id hate to have a baby and then be told "Oh yeah it's disabled and you could have been in classes learning how to care for him but sorry you couldn't afford the amnio!" And again, I worry this would make infantcide a real concern.

*The average person probably can't afford it out of pocket Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

+1!!!!

I have a child who was born with medical disabilities. I did the screening at 24 weeks and everything came back normal. Then at about 32 weeks my babys heart rate suddenly dropped to a very low 84 beats per minute. After weekly testing throughout the remaining weeks of my pregnancy they couldn't find anything wrong with her. I delivered her at 39 weeks, c-section went fine, but the very next day I was given terrible news. They diagnosed my lil one with congenital heart disease, congenital scoliosis, hyrocephalis, and severe hearing loss. And she was taken into open heart surgery at only 6 days old. Then spent the next 71 days in ICU. The first 2 years of her life were difficult for her, myself, her father, and her older sister. Luckily she is doing great now 12 years later!

My reason for sharing this with you all is this.... taking care of a disabled child is difficult and so very scary. It's more than just providing the normal responsibilities that come with having a child. Even if my tests would have shown something, I would of course still continued the pregnancy, BUT this is not something every body can do. Point being is this is a individual choice. This is not something that should be decided by anyone other than the family involved PERIOD!!!!!

I seriously am not sure if I would be able to do it again. I am thankful we have screening that can be done during pregnancy and the option to terminate or continue that pregnancy.

Just don't ask the religious objectors to pay.

Just don't ask the religious objectors to pay. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

like the catholics who lobby for federal handouts to support their private healthcare programs ther take their patients to abortion clinics

THOSE religious groups.?

like the catholics who lobby for federal handouts to support their private healthcare programs ther take their patients to abortion clinics

THOSE religious groups.?

Originally Posted by CJ7

For clarification - based on his earlier posts - CJ7 is claiming Planned Parenthood does nothing but provide abortions.

Excellent points, Olivia. (Referring to post #108.)

The only thing I would add is this:

...In fact, they succeeded in killing a Cap & Trade bill in the Senate after it had passed through the House... Originally Posted by BigLouie

Republicans, along with at least a half-dozen Senate Democrats, saw to it that this lemon was killed stone dead, and justifiably so. Cap-and-trade, as envisioned by its supporters, would have been a dream come true for Capitol Hill power brokers, K Street lobbyists, Washington lawyers, and corporate rent-seekers of various stripes. It also would have been a serious drag on the economy. Jason Furman told some senate staffers about three years ago that once it got cranked up, cap-and-trade could raise as much as $300 billion annually in new revenue for the Treasury. Understandably, a number of politicians got nervous about the prospect of getting caught sneaking a huge tax on the middle class through the back door while nobody was looking.

Watch what new senator (elected in 2010) Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) says about cap-and-trade in this 30-second commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM

(But not only is it "bad for West Virginia", it's bad for everyone.)

If the Democratic Party wants to reform itself and seek to be a party of fiscal responsibilty and soundly-based prosperity, it needs more people like Manchin and fewer like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

One might also note that Dodd-Frank was badly botched. It contains hundreds of pages of gibberish and doesn't even do anything meaningful about TBTF. Compliance costs, as a percentage of assets, will be far higher for smaller community banks than for their larger competitors. This legislative lemon is already hampering smaller banks' ability to compete effectively in many markets. It is a "jobs program" in one sense though -- for lawyers!

In these days of high unemployment, placing unreasonable hurdles in the path of small business finance hardly seems to be a wise choice.

Thanks IB I was wondering what Crazy CJ was jabbering about. I have never seen a poster with such dis-combobulated thoughts.....

For clarification - based on his earlier posts - CJ7 is claiming Planned Parenthood does nothing but provide abortions. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Excellent points, Olivia. (Referring to post #108.)

In these days of high unemployment, placing unreasonable hurdles in the path of small business finance hardly seems to be a wise choice. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Thanks and exactly! Small business employs half the workers in America.

That is a ridiculous stretch...where is that right enumerated? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Well ok, tell me where your right to limit pre-natal health care to women is in the Constitution. It isn’t there either. They didn’t have advanced medical health care in the eighteenth century. The Necessary and Proper Clause is what we have to tie the advanced world to the world of our Founding Fathers.

I can’t believe I’m actually explaining this to anyone that is assumed to be a grown up but here it goes. I have the right to life, liberty and happiness. It makes me happy to provide good medical care to a child that I want. It also makes me happy to have medical care that will allow me to live and not die giving birth. Happy now?

"Everyone's Constitutional rights end at the other guy's nose"

Not if you mandate their participation Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What exactly does this mean? I’m not advocating abortions for all just for those that want them.

This is dumb. I have literally nothing further to say to you. You are a talking head for those that you wish you were.

You are advocating that others pay for services that they have a legitimate religious objection to. Nothing dumb about religious and conscientious freedom.

And your rights end at your nose. So don't mandate that others pay for it.

Again, nothing dumb about asserting the First Amendment and religious rights attached.

For clarification - based on his earlier posts - CJ7 is claiming Planned Parenthood does nothing but provide abortions. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In did no such thing ... rather than lie, quote me.