210 Democrats Voted Against Providing Immediate Medical Assistance to Babies Who Survive Abortion

I’m sure I forgot more about the subject than you know.

Let’s try this: according to Marx, what determines when the time is right for socialism, economically?

Also, what was the more typical name by which Marx called socialism? It’s everywhere in Marx’s writings, so if you EVER read and understood him, you will easily know this one.

 

Ahh.. so let me get thus straight.

If Republicans vote against a pork filled bill disguised as a "feed the children bill", they hate children.

If they vote in favor of a pork filled bill that also includes feeding hungry children, "they just did it as a concession".


You have really established your perspective in any format that allows you to be partisan.

 

It would appear you are the one that can't seem to define born verse unborn.

 

doesn't mean they supported the children, they supported the Republican pork for the rich

 

You thunk every failed abortion resulting in a terminated live birth has resulted in prosecution? Seriously?

 

You've convinced yourself of such, in the name of political extremism. That's on you.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NOW explain why you think NONE of these people were prosecuted ?????????????

THAT IS what you are claiming

Couldn't answer my question on YOUR CLAIM....

You think NO one has ever been prosecuted (even though your own post shows at least one person who was prosecuted). SERIOUSLY ?? ???

SHOW all those who weren't prosecuted...

 

basing it on history, my friend, the right call those things socialism

I think many younger republicans no longer feel that way, but the older ones in power still do

 

Because at the end of the day, Democrats really do believe an "infant" is a woman's property.

 

So DNRs should be illegal?

 

No, it is because there are already laws on the books about this and the fringe right is just stoking their uninformed base over fake emergencies because they have no real contributions to make.

 

That's why abortions are disgusting in the first place and the suffering to that unborn child is unimaginable. 95% of that suffering could be prevented simply if the parents had decided to use a condom, birth control or the morning after pill. Simply sickening that Liberals are comfortable with this practice, simply because they can't see the baby yet in the womb.

 

No, I am correct. Who are the 210 who voted NO on the Born Alive bill?

 

The 210 who had the two brain cells to rub together to realize there were already laws on the books about this and that this was a stunt to dupe the uninformed into meaningless rage over nothing.

A question for you: should infant survivors like this have MORE medical rights than an adult or the SAME medical rights?

 

I read it. It is referring to the Born Alive Protection Act of Montana, in which the voters rejected that measure as well. In that act, as long as any fetus greater than 26 weeks or longer, it is considered "alive" under the law and under the act in question. It is thus a anti-abortion measure of the act. The key of the Act is In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)) If you read further in the bill, the bill's provisions provide the following: "chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United 6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Partial Birth Abortions’’ and inserting ‘‘Abortion."

What is basically a bill for lawsuits in the medical field on any baby "born alive" that may be deemed as an abortion or attempted abortion. This may include C sections in which a natural child birth may not be possible for medical reasons. And hence, the bill is very broad and is designed as an anti-abortion bill in and of itself.

 

Depends on which "leftist" you are referring to. By most conservative definitions, anyone who does not agree with their idealogy is automatically a "leftist."

 

The Constitution is not going to be gone within 10 years no matter who is President or controls the House or Senate.

That being said, freedom, like the freedom of women to wear what they want in the Missouri House of Representatives? No wait, male conservatives, who think the time is the 1920s, basically do not allow women to be sleeveless while on the House Floor.

As for the Constitution, it is not as straightforward as you might think since we have been debating and debating and debating what the Constitution says and does not say, along with its 27 amendments, since the country was founded. If the 1st Legislature was fighting what it meant, what makes you think it is clearer now?

 

I know its rare. But this bill will hurt people who are obtaining C-sections and if there are complications, again a rarety, where the child does not survive, then the mother can sue the doctor because she can claim it was an attempted abortion. The bill is so broad and it incorporates civil liability clauses in there on the belief of the mother or someone acting on behalf of the mother. But the iriony is that this type of bill has already been rejected in a couple of GOP controlled states by the populace. And that is the irony.

 

Everything on left is untenable and contemptible. Even if they're right on an issue, it's for the wrong reasons.

You guys are destroying our country. No good will come from that. A lot of people are going to die.

 

You are using broad terminology here. Need to be a little more specific on what "left" actually means. If you mean by "left" that rights of everyone should be protected, then I guess you are arguing that only certain rights on the right should be protected and all others not.

But then again, no one is destroying the country here.

 

Oy vey, lol... who cares about Marx??

Who controls the left?? Where does the money come from??

 

the other reason is they are trying to put more restrictions on abortion care providers to raise the cost of an abortion

we all saw this bill for what it was, just another anti-abortion bill

 

You said you do!!!!

Dodge deflect dance


You’re the one who declared superiority over me regarding Marx in post 83 and 113, and elsewhere like in 156, 157, and 174. But just like your posts declaring the left “has destroyed America”, you are more wind than fact. You don’t seem to have any rationale for any of it if we read your dodges and dances. You’re all hot air, dude. You substantiate nothing.

I asked you two basic questions above in 176, so you could show your most elementary knowledge behind your claims and it is turning out that you have nothing.
And yet you continue to posture and rant and declare that which you have shown you DO NOT KNOW. That’s pretty fraudulent fella. How about correcting that with some kind of answers to those 2 questions?

 

Who said "nobody"?

Has anybody ever NOT been prosecuted for failing to render assistance to a botched abortion?

My article says yes, and that's what this law is trying to prevent.

 

Well, it is a program based on socialist principals. Sorry if that's a bad word to you.

In fact, more Republicans do not support lassies faire capitalism and understand the need for things like anti-trust, preventing monopolies, establishing minimum workers rights, and *gasp* even social programs.

It's not an all or nothing world to satisfy your insatiable desire for partisanship.