New Bush Legislation Uses Religion to Deny Federal Funding to Womens Clinics

Nope. In cases where a crime has been committed I would not expect the woman to have the baby AND I would not complain to pay for it.

But... I think there should be some type of deadline or cutoff for reporting the crime. How many guys would get charged with rape when the girl discovers that she is pregnant 2 months after you last slept with her? Gotta CYA.

 

Some women are never able to come forward, they are mentally devastated after such an instance. To put a time limit on it would only allow more rapists to get off the hook.

Many woman may wish to get an abortion from a pregnancy caused by rape, even though they never do report it.

 

Too bad. You can't have it both ways. I am not willing to pay for every abortion in the US because some girls might be traumatized.

Here is the scenario that I would like to avoid. Keep in mind that my concern here is who pays for it.

Chick has sex. 2 months later she discovers she is pregnant. She knows that in instances of rape, she won't have to pay for it. She blames Joe Schmoe that only had sex. Joe goes to jail. Chick gets free abortion.

You know damn well that there are chicks out there that would do that in a second.

Let's face it. This is a pretty worthless discussion. No one will ever listen to either one of us. We'll both end up paying for every abortion in the US because all women are "entitled" to free abortions.

If I smoke 2 packs a day and get lung cancer, who's going to pay for my hospital care? I have a right to breathe, don't I? Don't tell me it's not the same thing. I know it's not the same thing, but it's a pretty good parallel.

 

You don't realize it's your stance making it 'both ways' and your stance making it possible for abuse to happen, not the other way around?

I'm glad your stance of paying taxes is so much more important in your mind than possibly helping out a traumatized woman who was raped 'yet' you have the audacity to claim the moral high ground? :confused?

You also are not using even a fraction of fact, you are outright lying which I will have no time for.

We DO NOT pay for 'every abortion' in the US, nor is anyone saying that woman are entitled to 'free abortions'.

People do get help from the federal government for lung cancer if they do not have the money to pay for it in one way or another, next failed attempt? Speaking of this however, I guess you'll have no problem with doctors not treating their patients for lung cancer because they are against smoking... After all it's their 'personal beliefs' they should not be forced to provide care or information, nor should the pharmacist be forced to dispense meds for patients with lung cancer.

 

Wow GRIM,

That's just way too nasty. I thought we we almost on the same page. I'm agreeing to some of the same things you believe (i think).

You wouldn't really enforce a law on some Christian pacifist doctor to throw the switch at a convicted murderer's execution, would you? A life is lost either way. Please don't tell me that they are not the same, I know that. One death would be a convicted murderer and one death would be an innocent baby. From the perspective of some doctor that only wants to save lives, requiring him to abort a baby could be the same. Don't make hime do that.

Jeez, GRIM, would wouldn't believe how much I paid in taxes a last year. If the woman is raped, then all I would ask is that she report it in a timely manner, then, at least in my perfect world, the govt would help her out of her situation. As I said before, this would prevent situations where three months down the road, she discovers that she is pregnant and names some guy she had sex with as the rapist in order to save some $$.

Sorry you think I'm such an evil person. I just don't think my tax dollars should pay for abortions in instances where no crime has been committed. On the other hand, you think it's OK to kill unborn babies.

I think my views are reasonable. I don't want to turn our conversation into a sarcasm contest. Disagree if you like, but take it easy with the flamethrower.

 

Who said anything about forcing a doctor to do the procedure? Last I checked no doctor does every procedure, you are twisting the law/legislation into something it is not. Giving someone all the facts and information, availability is NOT forcing them to do a given procedure, not even close.

No actually it would increase it, your theory is TOTALLY WRONG. Now you will have people coming forward and claiming rape simply to get an abortion if we did things your way.

What happens then if the guy who is accused is let off and not convicted of rape, do you charge the woman for murder?

The point you say is 'all you ask' is that the woman comes forward in a timely matter also sickens me, no other crime of this level needs to be reported within a few months, yet rape is one of the worst when it comes to traumatizing a person, yet you'd rather risk the chance of creating more trauma for the victim just for your tax dollars? Are you serious?

You again like to pick and choose where to pay taxes and for what, sorry but it doesn't work that way, You also still don't realize not all abortions are paid for by the tax payer.

Where btw did I say that I think it's ok to kill unborn babies?

Your theory of report in X amount of time in order to get a tax payer paid abortion is simply dreadful, I don't even know where to start. The fact that many actually pay for their own abortions, the fact that it can be medically necessary, the fact that if one does not abort you may very well pay MUCH more down the road in assisting the family, the fact that your policy would create the problem you claim it would fix 'a woman coming forward after a time period to claim rape to get a tax payer paid abortion'

So many things simply dreadfully wrong with your argument.

Sorry but they are not reasonable. I am all for reducing the tax we pay, you however have not thought very well as your 'solution' would more than likely raise taxes as well as create the problems you are trying to fix.

 

I'm sorry but I have to post something about this statement.

I agree with GRIM 100% that if you feel this way, then please do NOT become a pharmacist.

As a pharmacist, you have no access to a patient's medical records and have absolutely NO way of knowing if they come to fill birth control/emergency contraceptives for obvious purposes OR for actual medical conditions. That's right, many of these drugs can be prescribed for medical conditions, not just to prevent/terminate pregnancy. These drugs can help prevent tumors, cysts, severe bleeding of the uterus, etc. Would you really be willing to take that risk?

Would you allow your moral beliefs to interfere with another person's care? What if you were the only pharmacy for 100 miles and the person had no way of driving to get her medication? You don't know every situation or the details, but you want to make a moral decision that could cost a woman her life?

It's one thing to risk you OWN life for your beliefs, but to risk someone else's is just retarded.

 

Well said.
As with many issues in this country, people want to inflict their beliefs on all of society without considering the needs of EVERYONE.

To me , the issue is simple. Men have no place citing theory or creating a law that only effects women.
If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's pretty simple.

I wonder if those who don't believe in aborting, or contraception would deny their mothers or sisters a life saving hysterectomy as well, or deny their wife birth control pills even if it meant a pregnancy could kill her.

Nah ....I am sure they would stick to their beliefs and just stop having sex.

 

Yeah, you girls are real cute.

Get off your high horse, crybabies. I am not trying to inflict my beliefs on you. Have an abortion if you want. I just don't want to pay for it. That seems fair doesn't it? Do you really think that I need to pay because you can't keep your legs together? Maybe you just feel entitled. Too bad.

Now there's a knife that cuts both ways. It seems that you are both pro-choice, but only when it applys to you. The pharmacy should be able to have a choice as well. You are very quick to defend your right to kill your unborn baby, but refuse to accept that someone in the world may choose not to participate?

I know you're going to make the point of rape victims. This is a valid point. As the term, victim, implies, she would not have been a willing participant in the conception. The compassionate thing to do would be to terminate the pregnancy ASAP at little or no expense to her.

What if the next pharmacy was right next door?

I'm not really sure where you get the idea that I am against the pill??? Before we accept the rest of your statement as fact, please tell us the additional life saving benefits of RU-486 or Mifeprex (the abortion pill).

Save the sarcasm. Let's see if we can have a normal discussion. Tell me why I need to pay for your abortion.

 

#1 I'm sorry to say but you are one sick SOB, how about the guy? Nope never his fault just the girls can't keep their legs together.
#2 You STILL fail to realize not all abortions are paid for by taxes.
#3 You ARE inflicting your beliefs, you'd rather not pay for an abortion 'when' it is tax payer funded, but would rather pay for the child and family into the future costing you more $$$. If that is not picking the more expensive option because of your beliefs I don't know what is.

You CAN NOT be serious. Birth control is NOT 'killing an unborn baby' a pharmacist's job is to simply dispense medication that has been prescribed by a doctor. If he/she wants a 'choice' he/she can NOT be a pharmacist, pretty simple..

It's funny you think of compassion, yet you don't care about causing the victim more trauma, nor can you guarantee she's been raped.
All you're going to do is create more fake rape charges, all the while letting many of the real rape victims falls through the cracks because they are too ashamed to come forward. I mean seriously do you not have an ounce of logic in your bones?

What if it wasn't? Your arguments are simply dreadful.

What do you not get about it does not matter, a DOCTOR decided a patient needs it, a pharmacist does NOT know why she needs a medication nor does he/she have the right to determine it, the doctor does! If it's so against their personal beliefs it's simple DO NOT be a pharmacist.

Again you do understand not all abortions are paid for by the government do you not? You have stated they ALL were in this very thread.

Why should we pay for anyone, why should we pay for millions of children and their mothers who decide not to have an abortion? That particular instance alone destroys your lack luster 'but but it's taxes' as you pay MORE in taxes by them not having one!

Why do we pay for the poor who have lung cancer, why do we pay for the poor who have aids, why do we pay for anyone?

I'm all for a normal discussion, it however would be nice if something you stated made sense or was based on truth.

Remember the Horn thread, you didn't even know what a grand jury was yet you acted all high and mighty for pages on end. This is much the same case here, you want to stop certain things yet what you want to do will CREATE them.

 

Now there's a way to start a reasonable discussion.

and??? What is your point here? Tax dollars should be spent because the guy is a jerk? If you think the guy should pay equally, then I agree.

Not true. I realize that. I just got wound up.

Not true. I would prefer to pay for neither.

Where did I say that birth control is killing an unborn baby? I think abortion is killing an unborn baby. That is something that the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life. When I look at my kids and realize that I could have killed either one of them, it scares me to death. I just find that hard to justify.

What is your point here, GRIM? What would you suggest? I don't want to pay for abortions except in cases of violence. That seems reasonable to me.

It response to "What if your pharmacy is the only one for 100 miles", which is different in what way? Dreadful? Really? No, you're just getting nasty again.

If a pharmacy choose not to participate in the abortion process, simply go to another pharmacy. End of discussion.

I understand that not all abortions are paid for by the US govt. Can we get past this?

Lack luster??? Ha! There you go with your flame thrower again. Something you don't like about adoption? If she doesn't want the child, she can have her abortion or give the baby up for adoption. What's the problem?

What is your point here? AIDS = abortion? In the majority of cases, having a baby won't kill you. If it will, then have an abortion. Don't have the money? Get a job. Sell your car. Sue your boyfriend. Just stay out of my pocket.

Grim... so inflamatory...
My suggestions make perfect sense. How have I lied?

I think that we agreed in the end that the prosecuter didn't have enough evidence? Is that correct?

Exactly what is it that you want here, GRIM? I have simply offered that I don't want to pay for abortions. You, on the other hand, rip my views at every opportunity and yet you offer no views of your own. Do you think that the American women are entitled to tax payer funding for abortions?

 

I am not sure that tax dollars go for abortions, but the legislation implies that clinics with federal funds cannot deny anti abortionist employment, therefore, if they are hired, they can choose not to counsel women on that option or answer any questions about it.

If that is the very nature of the clinic..to explore all option, then it is irresponsible to have employees that cannot do that.
I would not hire anyone that could not perform ALL of his/her duties.

The point of this post is that religious beliefs have no place in deciding who can and cannot receive federal funding as long as the law of the land is clear regarding the issue.

As far as pharmacies go...most are privately owned, they would not fall under that statute so they have the right to hire anyone they want.
I am sure if a pharmacist denied a patient a prescription based on nothing but personal beliefs, he/she would be removed.

I didn't start this post to discuss who is wrong or right about abortion, but that the government is trying to legislate morality, for an issue that has already been decided in the Supreme Court.

If this is allowed, what other Government funded programs can be held hostage this way?

Everyone in this country has different beliefs, but laws are made for the benefit of everyone, (supposedly), not just the special interest of one group.
If we start down this slippery slope of who's beliefs are right and wrong, then we are doomed to become no different from other countries that are constantly fighting civil wars.

The law is clear. If it is not what you think it is, then fight to change it, but coming around through a back door, and making it difficult for the law to be applied, and holding much needed funds to clinics that rely on them is wrong.
This doesn't just apply to poor, inner city clinics, the law is across the board. Every Hospital, and Clinic in the country has a certain amount of federal funding, so this affects all of us.

I don't want the government picking and choosing what legal information, and options I can get when it comes to the health and well being of me, and my loved ones. Especially when I am paying for it.

 

Hmmm yet you were the one to talk about woman keeping their legs crossed, and you wonder why someone might bring out a 'flame thrower'

It is a health issue, we pay for health issues for the poor a crossed the board. You are making it a 'moral' issue, even though you are claiming it's not a moral issue. Start debating for not helping any poor for any health related issue if you wish to claim it's not about 'morals' but about tax money.

My point is also that you continue to harp on how evil the woman is, in a disgusting and vile way IMO all the while not putting blame on the man.

Ahh it was true, now you've finally claimed you realize it after the fact.

Then why aren't you claiming such, you continue to use moral issues at the same time using 'oh it's about taxes' your arguments do not add up or hold even an ounce of water as you're all over the place.

Ahh so here again it's a moral issue, not 'about taxes'

As far as 'birth control' killing an unborn baby, #1 read the opening post in this thread, #2 even the morning after pill can be used as 'birth control' The pharmacist is not doing anything more than dispensing a form of birth control that was prescribed by a doctor.

Yet you want a time limit, and you bring up false accusations of rape, plus you bring up the mother carrying guilt of aborting a baby, but you have no problem with a rape victim being traumatized or the fact that your own policy would actually create the problems you want to fix. Are you serious?

Again it's about 'paying' next it will be about 'morals' which one is it? Can you not stick with one?

It is dreadful simply because the pharmacist's job is to simply dispense a prescribed medication, your 'but but but what if there is another pharmacy next door' does nothing for the fact that he/she's only job is to dispense the medication, not knowing why it's prescribed or change the fact of cases when the next pharmacy is 100 miles away. Talk about trying to create an argument that simply does not exist.

Again how does the pharmacy know if they are 'engaging in the abortion process'? They DON'T! If they do not wish to dispense medication prescribed by a doctor, don't be a pharmacist END OF DISCUSSION.

So you admit you were wrong and lied now, ok.....

Umm ok did you read before you typed that? Now you're saying 'she can have her abortion' but you've been debating the entire time that she shouldn't. Do you even know what you stand for?

Ahh so your idea is simply to never help anyone out at all that needs it?
As you don't want to pay for health care of the extremely poor, in such a case abortion, but you also don't want to pay the MUCH MORE it will take to feed and clothe, educate the child if the mother does not have an abortion. You keep going back and forth from morals to 'money/taxes' well if you want to save money in all logic you'd be for abortion. But since you appear to not even know why you're against it I don't find it unreal that you don't actually stand up for what you claim all the while making no sense at all.

Your suggestions make no sense at all, I have shown you how.
'oh oh but it's about the money' yet it'll cost more money if she doesnt' have an abortion.

But, but she should claim rape within X amount of time otherwise it will create false accusations, of which your own policy would create the false accusations.

How anyone can not see this is simply amazing.

Lying, well claiming that we pay for all abortions to start. Lying, well your arguments themselves are lies. As stated the false accusation for instance, YOUR policy would CREATE the accusations, not fix them as you claim.

Nope, it was just one possible reason there was no indictment. It however did not stop you from posting over and over ripping on everyone, claiming that you knew all when you didnt' even know what a Grand Jury was.

I rip on your views as they make ABSOLUTE 0 SENSE.

Your 'solutions' would cause the problems you are trying to fix. You have also gone far more than simply saying tax payers should not pay for abortion, plus failing to realize that by not having an abortion it will cost you more in the long term making your 'tax money' stance truly a falsehood.

I have no problem helping those who actually need it, especially if it saves us in the long term.

 

Of course some funds do go to them, not all of them though was my point.

I for the most part agree, I'm only responding to those trying to twist it into 'doctors being forced to give abortions' and the such when it's not reality, it's simply a method to try to make something into something it's not in order to make a point.

 

Hey GRIM,

How about this? Because I don't feel that abortion is a good thing, I don't want my tax dollars paying for them. Why in the world can't you realsize that because I think abortion is morally wrong, I object to spending my tax dollars on abortions?

If a woman wants an abortion, she can pay for it herself! I don't want to. Why not? Because I don't think it's right. I can't be any clearer than that.

Here is a pro life pharmacy for you to ridicule:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502180.html

Again, you never answered the question.

Do you think that the American women are entitled to tax payer funding for abortions?

 

Ahh so still back and forth from 'morals' to 'taxes' you're all over the board.

But now try to claim because you are morally against it you don't want to spend your tax dollars on it. So in other words you'd RATHER pay for a poor woman and her children which will cost you much more than the abortion.

Abortion is a health issue, as is birth control, as is the actual delivery of the baby. Poor are paid for by the government a crossed the board, we do NOT get to pick and choose simply because of 'morals' of which item we want our tax money to go to.

Some might morally object to paying for a poor persons lung cancer treatment, should that person not get treatment because some object to smokers and treating them?

Actually I did answer, pretty clearly...

As far as your 'pro life' pharmacy is... It's 'somewhat' of a different story if they are publicly known as being 'pro life' and only filling certain prescriptions, in many states however they will be breaking the law and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

Not all over the board at all. I don't want my tax dollars paying for something that I think is wrong.

Don't use "so in other words" on me. Those are your "other words", not mine. I stated before that I don't want to pay for either.

Abortion is a health issue if it endangers the life of the mother, otherwize it is a moral issue or maybe just a question of convenience for the mother.

We are talking about abortion. Treatment for lung cancer differs in that an innocent baby won't have to die to treat lung cancer.

So, yes, but only for the poor? What makes the poor special? Why in the world are the poor in this country allowed to be irresponsible in every facet of their life? Why in the world do we reward the poor for their bad behavior?

The pro life pharmacy is not another issue. Here is your stated opinion

You have stated that we don't get to choose what we spend out taxes on. I know that is true, but I still don't like it. I mentioned that earlier when I said something about this being a worthless discussion anyway. I didn't ever mean to argue that point with you.

 

I can't believe I didn't see this sooner.

Perfect!

 

No actually you have been all over the board, from 'it's about morals' to it's about 'tax money'

Actually it is a health issue, just as birth control is a health issue even when it does not endanger the mothers life. You stating it is not does not make it so.

Are you against helping the poor children for moral reasons as well?.. That is where the 'other words' comes into play..

It is a fetus, not an innocent baby. They are both health issues, but I see you like to be selective on only applying your moral issues to taxes and not others, very interesting.

Wow you are surely showing your true colors. Rich can be just as irresponsible in fact they often are just as much if not more so. The poor are helped out for obvious reasons, I am not even going to go there as nobody can be that idiotic, but you sure are showing your true colors in this thread.

'woman and keeping their legs crossed' 'the poor and being irresponsible in every fact of their life, rewarding them for bad behavior' yet you have the balls to act like you're the moral authority.

Ahh yes it is a different issue, look at the beginning of this thread again. It is not talking about a 'pro life' pharmacy, far from it. A pharmacy that clearly states it is 'pro life' MIGHT change things, it is a far cry from a pharmacist simply rejecting to fill a prescription when they have the drugs on hand.



Your 'pro life' pharmacy could very well be breaking the law, I still find it repugnant when their job is to dispense a medication prescribed by a doctor, especially when the medication can have other uses than birth control.

You have gone from it being a moral issue, to it being a tax issue, to it being a tax issue you don't want to support because of morals.

I hate taxes as much as the next person, I however have no problem helping those who actually need help..