Dem hysteria mounting, Pelosi: Republicans "want women to die on the floor"

[Little-Acorn]

The further Democrats fall behind in the upcoming elections, the more strident and nutty their rhetoric becomes.

They have always based their words, not on what is true, but on what they think they can persuade someone to believe even when they know it's not so.

But when people's belief in their speeches starts slipping away, as it has for the last several years, their response is predictable: Make the things they are saying, more ominous- and draconian-sounding. This also moves them farther from reality, but they are so used to that they apparently forget that their audience is not as likely to believe them any more.

Sometimes the results can be hilarious... such as this example.

----------------------------------------------------------

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/pay-abortion-or-women-die-floor

Pay for abortion, or women 'die on the floor'

by David Freddoso

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., accompanied by House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., attend a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday Oct. 13, 2011. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was essentially stripped of any formal input into the legislative process in last November's election. I heave a sigh of relief over this fact every time I see her say something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoltiuM00TQ&feature=player_embedded

She's talking about a bill that simply protects taxpayers from having to subsidize abortions through Obamacare. This is about just how out-of-touch progressives are on social issues. If you fail to show sufficient enthusiasm for paying to kill someone else's baby, it is a sign that you're heartless.

[darin]

This is about just how out-of-touch progressives are on social issues: If you fail to show sufficient enthusiasm for paying to kill someone else's baby, it is a sign that you're heartless.

spot-on. Well-said.

[Psychoblues]

Using taxpayers money to subsidize abortions has been a federal crime since 1976 and still is. Why do republicans constantly want to harass, deny and intimidate women with their incessant assaults on them? Where are the jobs? Where are the examples of genuine concern for the overall health of this country and it's people and in this case especially women from the republicans?

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

Using taxpayers money to subsidize abortions has been a federal crime since 1976 and still is. Why do republicans constantly want to harass, deny and intimidate women with their incessant assaults on them? Where are the jobs? Where are the examples of genuine concern for the overall health of this country and it's people and in this case especially women from the republicans?

Psychoblues

Because according to your side, we want women to "die on the floor". What assault are you even talking about, PB? Is refusing to fund abortion clinics now the same as striking a woman? Even when republicans do step up, it's glossed over, but when we want to cut something.... we get the above statement from Pelosi. Not exactly incentive to keep striving, now is it?

[Gunny]

Because according to your side, we want women to "die on the floor". What assault are you even talking about, PB? Is refusing to fund abortion clinics now the same as striking a woman? Even when republicans do step up, it's glossed over, but when we want to cut something.... we get the above statement from Pelosi. Not exactly incentive to keep striving, now is it?

It is for the left. They strive, no one steps up, they win. They learned from Ho Chi Minh.

[ConHog]

Using taxpayers money to subsidize abortions has been a federal crime since 1976 and still is. Why do republicans constantly want to harass, deny and intimidate women with their incessant assaults on them? Where are the jobs? Where are the examples of genuine concern for the overall health of this country and it's people and in this case especially women from the republicans?

Psychoblues




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

[red states rule]

Like a well trained dog, DNCTV (aka MSNBC) reports Pelosi's rant as news

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106540" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[Psychoblues]

Because according to your side, we want women to "die on the floor". What assault are you even talking about, PB? Is refusing to fund abortion clinics now the same as striking a woman? Even when republicans do step up, it's glossed over, but when we want to cut something.... we get the above statement from Pelosi. Not exactly incentive to keep striving, now is it?

Federal funding of abortions has been illegal since 1976, DS72. So far, 5 times this year the republicans have brought up various bills to eliminate that which has already been eliminated. It's a wedge issue only used to hide more pertinent and important issues that the jerks of the republican party don't want to discuss. Like j-o-b-s.

Do you have a clue as to the wording of the Hyde Amendment which has been the LAW since 1976? Then what is all this horse shit from the repubs about? Present day whining by the repubs concerning federal funding for abortions is only assault on women and the entire subject of the health and health choices of women. Just another reason why I believe that repubs are NOT the party of liberty but are in fact the party of hate, fear and self-loathing.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Do you have a clue as to the wording of the Hyde Amendment which has been the LAW since 1976?


In U.S. politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States), the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment#cite_note-0) It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation))" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services). It primarily affects Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)So it's not exactly as you say is it?

[Psychoblues]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment)So it's not exactly as you say is it?

It has not been rescinded or modified in any way therefore it remains in every way everything I say it is. Prove me wrong, fj.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

It has not been rescinded or modified in any way therefore it remains in every way everything I say it is. Prove me wrong, fj.

Psychoblues



I'm not FJ, but I'll prove you wrong. Not that difficult at all.



The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

From your very own Wiki link. LOL


Federally funded abortions are in fact NOT illegal. Idiot.

[red states rule]

This is more like Dems want babies to die on the floor

or in the trash can

[fj1200]

It has not been rescinded or modified in any way therefore it remains in every way everything I say it is. Prove me wrong, fj.

I already have, you said it was a law. The Hyde Amendment is in fact an amendment which does happen to get attached to other actual laws making it of course a law but there is nothing permanent about it. You said that it covered all Federal funding, it of course does not as it only covers HHS, primarily Medicaid.

Come on PB, did you even read what I linked? You're better than this.

[red states rule]

Wow, 11 Dems voted with R's to let women die on the floor






The House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday that Republicans say is necessary to keep taxpayer money from funding abortions but that Democrats call "savage" to women and possibly deadly.

The bill, which passed 251-172, according to The Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/house-votes-to-stop-abortion-coverage-under-new-health-care-law/2011/10/13/gIQAQczRiL_story.html), would bar federal funding for abortions. It would also prohibit women from using tax subsidies acquired through President Obama's health care reforms to pay for health insurance that covers abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's health. Additionally, the bill would let health care providers refuse to perform an abortion if it violates their personal beliefs.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press briefing Thursday that the legislation is a "savage" attempt to withhold health care for women. She called the provision allowing doctors to refuse to perform an abortion particularly dangerous and could result in a woman dying.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120145-503544.html

[logroller]

Where else does govt fund abortions, beyond the scope of the Hyde Act?

[Delenn]

Well, this bill allows hospitals to opt out of performing abortions and doctors in hospitals from doing so if they don't wanna.

Summery:

3/17/2011--Reported to House amended, Part I. Protect Life Act - Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.) Requires any qualified health benefit plan offered through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions to also offer a qualified health benefit plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions. Prohibits a federal agency or program and any state or local government that receives federal financial assistance under PPACA from requiring any health plan created or regulated under PPACA to discriminate against any institutional or individual health care entity based on the entity's refusal to undergo training in the performance of induced abortions, require or provide such training, or refer for such training. Creates a cause of action for any violations of the abortion provisions of PPACA. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of such provisions by issuing any form of legal or equitable relief, including injunctions and orders preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased. Gives standing to institute an action to affected health care entities and the Attorney General. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to receive and investigate complaints alleging a violation of PPACA abortion provisions. Requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that no multistate qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion services.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-358&tab=summary

The full text is available ^^^

So, there is a bit more at stake then the hysterical Dem call. Don't you think?

[Nukeman]

Well, this bill allows hospitals to opt out of performing abortions and doctors in hospitals from doing so if they don't wanna.

Summery:


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-358&tab=summary

The full text is available ^^^

So, there is a bit more at stake then the hysterical Dem call. Don't you think?Are you saying that hospitals and Drs. shouldn't be allowed to opt out, Why would that be?? Are you saying that just because they provide medical services they should be FORCED to perfom procedures they deem inappropriate or unneccessary? Most abortions are performed for contraception and not to save the mothers life or due to major malformation, or incest/rape... so this is an ELECTIVE procedure that any PRIVATE CITIZEN should be able to say if they will or won't perform. just because they have an MD or DO after their name does not make them the govt's bitch to do what ever they say....

By the by, abortions really are not that expensive, if you can play than you can pay in my book. I for one have a hard time justifying MY tax dolars going to performa these procedures

[Delenn]

Are you saying that hospitals and Drs. shouldn't be allowed to opt out, Why would that be?? Are you saying that just because they provide medical services they should be FORCED to perfom procedures they deem inappropriate or unneccessary? Most abortions are performed for contraception and not to save the mothers life or due to major malformation, or incest/rape... so this is an ELECTIVE procedure that any PRIVATE CITIZEN should be able to say if they will or won't perform. just because they have an MD or DO after their name does not make them the govt's bitch to do what ever they say....

By the by, abortions really are not that expensive, if you can play than you can pay in my book. I for one have a hard time justifying MY tax dolars going to performa these procedures

I am saying that the majority of these hospitals do not pay property taxes. This translates into my (and others, obviously) covering what they do not pay. Yes. I, too, pay taxes. Secondly, this restricts "private dollars" in exchanges (government bitches). Where is the outrage? So, the hospitals would not even have to make a referral, non medical personnel can refuse to process a bill, and so on.

It does not matter one whit why someone decides to go through with an abortion. If you do not want one do not have one. We have several states that are trying to or have criminalized women for miscarrying a baby. Enough is enough.

[Nukeman]

I am saying that the majority of these hospitals do not pay property taxes. This translates into my (and others, obviously) covering what they do not pay. Yes. I, too, pay taxes. Secondly, this restricts "private dollars" in exchanges (government bitches). Where is the outrage? So, the hospitals would not even have to make a referral, non medical personnel can refuse to process a bill, and so on.

It does not matter one whit why someone decides to go through with an abortion. If you do not want one do not have one. We have several states that are trying to or have criminalized women for miscarrying a baby. Enough is enough.The majority of hospitals due pay taxes, those are the "for profit" hospitals there are more of them than you realize, the "not for profit" is a joke in my opinion. That however is another problem and really has NOTHING to do with forcing a PRIVATE entity to perform a procedure thay do not want to do...

Are you saying that is a company/person recieves govt funds they give up any choice they have in how those monies are allocated??

[Delenn]

The majority of hospitals due pay taxes, those are the "for profit" hospitals there are more of them than you realize, the "not for profit" is a joke in my opinion. That however is another problem and really has NOTHING to do with forcing a PRIVATE entity to perform a procedure thay do not want to do...

Are you saying that is a company/person recieves govt funds they give up any choice they have in how those monies are allocated??

Yep. I sure am.

I believe that stat rides in at 69% at non-profit hospitals.

[Nukeman]

Yep. I sure am.

I believe that stat rides in at 69% at non-profit hospitals.Do you realize what a slippery slope that is?? I am assuming not.... so if someone receives federal/state funds than they are OBLIGATED to do as the state says??? Just want to be clear on that!!

[logroller]

Do you realize what a slippery slope that is?? I am assuming not.... so if someone receives federal/state funds than they are OBLIGATED to do as the state says??? Just want to be clear on that!!
The point I think Delenn was trying to make was that of many pro-lifers, who argue the funding of PP (both directly and indirectly through non-taxable status), who does provide abortion services, 'frees up' their non-earmarked funding to provide such services.
Federal funding, well, any funding really, can be conditionally granted. Planned Parenthood receives federal funding for the provision of certain healthcare services, like education on, testing for, and the treatment of STD's for example. If they failed to provide such services, the monies could be revoked. even in the case of private donations, you could give money to PP under the condition it not be used to fund abortions, and they are bound, legally and ethically, to honor that condition.

My last post kinda got marooned at the end of the last page, so Ill ask again---
Is there a case of federal funds being used for abortions outside the scope of the Hyde Act?

[Delenn]

Do you realize what a slippery slope that is?? I am assuming not.... so if someone receives federal/state funds than they are OBLIGATED to do as the state says??? Just want to be clear on that!!

Actually, it is pretty straight forward. I'll do something simple.

2/3 of all funding for the Catholic Charities comes from the Federal, State and local governments. In two states, when same sex couples were denied the ability to adopt because it went against the Catholic view then they lost funding due to discrimination.

The government did not say, alter your view. The government said, this is discrimination and you can either comply or stop receiving public funding and we will transfer that funding to another organization that will comply.

We have a similar problem, in my state, where a church can run a daycare and have a dangerous amount of kids with few staff ( 3 staff 28 children between the ages of 6 months-12). Further, they are currently not obligated to do things that are required of all other facilities. Will regulations be harmful to the church? No. Nobody cares. It is simply, if you receive this money then you will have to increase the ratio of staff to children and you must keep toxic material out of reach and you must account for the money.

And logroller is right, all funding may be subject to conditions. That is why writing proposals for grants was/is such a lucrative career.

There is no slippery slope here.

[Nukeman]

Actually, it is pretty straight forward. I'll do something simple.

2/3 of all funding for the Catholic Charities comes from the Federal, State and local governments. In two states, when same sex couples were denied the ability to adopt because it went against the Catholic view then they lost funding due to discrimination.

The government did not say, alter your view. The government said, this is discrimination and you can either comply or stop receiving public funding and we will transfer that funding to another organization that will comply.

We have a similar problem, in my state, where a church can run a daycare and have a dangerous amount of kids with few staff ( 3 staff 28 children between the ages of 6 months-12). Further, they are currently not obligated to do things that are required of all other facilities. Will regulations be harmful to the church? No. Nobody cares. It is simply, if you receive this money then you will have to increase the ratio of staff to children and you must keep toxic material out of reach and you must account for the money.

And logroller is right, all funding may be subject to conditions. That is why writing proposals for grants was/is such a lucrative career.

There is no slippery slope here.Ohh but there is!! Your putting stipulations on businesses but when do we mandate what welfare checks can and can not be spent on, as you said earlier they should all be limitted to what the govt says is OK. So yaa your are on a VERY slippery slope when it comes to freedoms. Your stating that ANY and ALL state monies are to have stipulations placed upon them regardless... Hmmm

[Nukeman]

The point I think Delenn was trying to make was that of many pro-lifers, who argue the funding of PP (both directly and indirectly through non-taxable status), who does provide abortion services, 'frees up' their non-earmarked funding to provide such services.
Federal funding, well, any funding really, can be conditionally granted. Planned Parenthood receives federal funding for the provision of certain healthcare services, like education on, testing for, and the treatment of STD's for example. If they failed to provide such services, the monies could be revoked. even in the case of private donations, you could give money to PP under the condition it not be used to fund abortions, and they are bound, legally and ethically, to honor that condition.

My last post kinda got marooned at the end of the last page, so Ill ask again---
Is there a case of federal funds being used for abortions outside the scope of the Hyde Act?Thanks LR no sarcasm. I have pretty a good idea on what they are reffering to, I am attempting to make a point on where do you draw the line!!!!!

[Delenn]

Ohh but there is!! Your putting stipulations on businesses but when do we mandate what welfare checks can and can not be spent on, as you said earlier they should all be limitted to what the govt says is OK. So yaa your are on a VERY slippery slope when it comes to freedoms. Your stating that ANY and ALL state monies are to have stipulations placed upon them regardless... Hmmm

I do not see a slippery slope. If the business is afraid of stipulations, then do not take the money. The Federal government is limited and there is no reason why any entity that receives public money should not be able to account for it. Secondly, there is no reason why any entity that receives that money is allowed to violate the rights of others. I think that there is a grave error in standing there with our wallets out saying, "Why sure, just take $30,000 here and another $25,000 here!"

Many not for profits stepped in to replace government services and, especially, over the past 20 years. Well, the deal with the many of those services is that the public is not allowed to discriminate and there is no picking and choosing based on whether you believe in god or the color of your skin or how many times you have been married and there is no cutting corners because it is not profit seeking and you must be accountable for the money. Many nonprofits said that they could do these things better and cheaper. Ok. The truth is that many nonprofits are making a profit and get to pick and choose who gets what on whatever criteria that they have established. People are not being screened in, they are being screened out. Services are being denied for profit.

And I say, you wanted the job then you do the job or you don't get funding. I cannot agree with what amounts to theft of public funds.

Ah, but we have nailed welfare recipients at the bottom and I believe the hammer started to come down under So, some programs (as they differ by state) one might find that they must have less than $1,000 in assets. They may have to have dependent children under the age of 18 living with them. If you live in section 8 housing and you or children go to jail then you may be evicted from the property and may not receive funding for x amount of time. You may be limited to how long that you receive assistance. Food stamps are limited. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

Now the money is tracked through debit looking cards and vouchers and stuff like that. This doesn't mean that there still are not cases where scamming is not done. In my state they have been going after them and convicting them.

[Delenn]

I had a thought and lost it. It should have read: The hammer started to come down under Clinton. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Another proud reason to be pro-life. The story is long but worth reading



Oklahoma cancer patient trades her life so her baby could survive

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-cancer-patient-trades-her-life-so-her-baby-could-survive/article/3613629#ixzz1b7P4th00

[red states rule]

Federal funding of abortions has been illegal since 1976, DS72. So far, 5 times this year the republicans have brought up various bills to eliminate that which has already been eliminated. It's a wedge issue only used to hide more pertinent and important issues that the jerks of the republican party don't want to discuss. Like j-o-b-s.

Do you have a clue as to the wording of the Hyde Amendment which has been the LAW since 1976? Then what is all this horse shit from the repubs about? Present day whining by the repubs concerning federal funding for abortions is only assault on women and the entire subject of the health and health choices of women. Just another reason why I believe that repubs are NOT the party of liberty but are in fact the party of hate, fear and self-loathing.

Psychoblues

and Dems are the party of murder PB. Here we have a Dem calling the heartbeat of a baby "sounds"

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vrV8Q3v25RI" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

I had a thought and lost it. It should have read: The hammer started to come down under Clinton. :laugh:




http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/GM111017CLR-Proteste20111017032312.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

the only thing that died on the floor was this bill......

[logroller]

Another proud reason to be pro-life. The story is long but worth reading



Oklahoma cancer patient trades her life so her baby could survive

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-cancer-patient-trades-her-life-so-her-baby-could-survive/article/3613629#ixzz1b7P4th00


Thanks RSR, That is a beautiful story of love and sacrifice; a truly inspirational story. But I disagree on the pro-life thing; this is a shining example of how high moral character can flourish with the individual right to choose (ie pro-choice)-- which wouldn't be a consideration if policy had made the decision for her. Too often people think pro-choice means pro-abortion-- this story proves otherwise. So again, thank you for posting.

[red states rule]

Thanks RSR, That is a beautiful story of love and sacrifice; a truly inspirational story. But I disagree on the pro-life thing; this is a shining example of how high moral character can flourish with the individual right to choose (ie pro-choice)-- which wouldn't be a consideration if policy had made the decision for her. Too often people think pro-choice means pro-abortion-- this story proves otherwise. So again, thank you for posting.

We can agree to disagree LR. To me this is all about the joy of life, and the love of a mother

Some would tell her to abort the child and get the chemo. After all, the heartbeat of the baby are "sounds" to some

Pro life is always the way to go LR

[logroller]

We can agree to disagree LR. To me this is all about the joy of life, and the love of a mother

Some would tell her to abort the child and get the chemo. After all, the heartbeat of the baby are "sounds" to some

Pro life is always the way to go LR
I don't think we disagree. We're both saying she made the right choice. i'm saying If she didn't have a choice; she could very well make it. Do you disagree?
For the record, I find abortion appalling; but I think a lot of the choices people make are appalling. I think the Westboro folks are disgusting human beings, but I support their freedom to be as such. In the end, we answer to He who gave us the freedom to choose-- 'He' is not congress or scotus, but He who instilled within us, by birth, certain freedoms-- none more important than choice-- because without freedom to choose, all other freedoms would cease.

[red states rule]

I don't think we disagree. We're both saying she made the right choice. i'm saying If she didn't have a choice; she could very well make it. Do you disagree?
For the record, I find abortion appalling; but I think a lot of the choices people make are appalling. I think the Westboro folks are disgusting human beings, but I support their freedom to be as such. In the end, we answer to He who gave us the freedom to choose-- 'He' is not congress or scotus, but He who instilled within us, by birth, certain freedoms-- none more important than choice-- because without freedom to choose, all other freedoms would cease.

Point made LR. I satnd corrected

I grew up in a Democrat house where on election day it was YVD (you vote Democrat)

Now my mom and brother are both conservatives. The Dem party is now one that wil not waterboard a terrorist to save innocent lives - but go out their way to snuff out innocent unborn lives