Thread Useless Politics

Cause they can totally afford it. But this should be a good case study instead of sinking all fifty states at once.

Edit: at first glance it looks about 10000% better than the bs in the feds plan. Add in lawsuit protections and it could work really well.
 
Last edited:
plot said:
Cause they can totally afford it. But this should be a good case study instead of sinking all fifty states at once.
Click to expand...

There are arguments that is costs less this way. Tax dollars per year per person < insurance premiums per year per person. Too much for me to work out, but it does sound plausible.
 
wtf.

House GOP Unanimously Passes Anti-Abortion Bill That Redefines Rape, Raises Taxes, And Creates Rape Audits
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/04/house-gop-hr3/

In a 251 to 175 vote this evening, 16 anti-choice Democrats joined every House Republican present in passing H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. A chief weapon in the House GOP’s “comprehensive assault” on women this bill proposes some of the most radical and draconian restrictions on women’s rights. They include:

– Redefinition Of Rape: The bill sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) faced serious backlash after he tried to narrow the definition rape to “forcible rape.” By narrowing the rape and incest exception in the Hyde Amendment, Smith sought to prevent the following situations from consideration: Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults.

Smith promised to remove the language and while it is not technically in the bill, Mother Jones reports that House Republicans used “a sly legislative maneuver” to insert a “backdoor reintroduction” of redefinition language. Essentially, if the bill is challenged in court, judges will look at the congressional committee report to determine intent. The committee report for H.R. 3 says the bill will “not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape” — thus excluding statutory rape-related abortions from Medicaid coverage.
Click to expand...

– Tax Increase On Women And Small Businesses: H.R. 3 prevents women from using “itemized medical deductions, certain tax-advantaged health care accounts or tax credits included in last year’s health care law to pay for abortions or for health insurance plans that cover abortion.” In doing so, the bill forces women and small businesses that provide health insurance that covers abortion to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise. Both economic conservative Grover Norquist and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce noted that the bill is basically a tax increase.
Click to expand...

– Rape Audits: Because H.R. 3 bans using tax credits or deductions to pay for abortions or insurance, a woman who used such a benefit would have to prove, if audited, that her abortion “fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.” Essentially, the bill turns Internal Revenue Service agents into “abortion cops” who would force women to give “contemporaneous written documentation” that it was “incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger” that compelled an abortion.
Click to expand...

– Bans D.C.-Funded Abortions: The most recent spending resolution contained a ban on abortions in the District of Columbia by redefining the D.C. local government as the federal government. Thus, health clinics in D.C. are banned from using public funds from D.C. taxpayers to provide abortion services. H.R. 3 “would enshrine the District ban into federal law.” According to the Office of Management and Budget office, such a restriction violates “home rule.”
Click to expand...

Despite receiving nearly 135,000 signatures in opposition to the bill, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the House Republicans leveled a serious blow on American women and their right to choose. Some Republicans even suggested holding the debt ceiling increase hostage over the passage of H.R. 3. The bill, however, is unlikely to pass as a standalone in the Democratic-led Senate. President Obama has also threatened to veto the bill.
Click to expand...
 
Sooooo much time is wasted on abortion when its an issue that effects so few people.

I think a tubiligation would be mandatory though when the public pays for the abortion.
 
plot said:
Sooooo much time is wasted on abortion when its an issue that effects so few people.

I think a tubiligation would be mandatory though when the public pays for the abortion.
Click to expand...

That's far too much government control.
 
If government is gonna pay for it, it should come with incentives to make people avoid it or it should fix the issue permanately. Why create more dependence?
 
plot said:
If government is gonna pay for it, it should come with incentives to make people avoid it or it should fix the issue permanately. Why create more dependence?
Click to expand...

Maybe the woman wants to have kids later? Allowing the government to have such control over someone like that is absurd.
 
depo provera if you are receiving any sort of govt assistance. sterilizing is way way over the top
 
Harold of the Rocks said:
Maybe the woman wants to have kids later? Allowing the government to have such control over someone like that is absurd.
Click to expand...

If they want kids later they can pay for their own abortion now.

I see zero issues with attaching stipulations to any handouts you get from the government. You have zero reason to bitch at that point.
 
you can't just force someone to have invasive surgery. that goes against pretty much every principle the US has ever stood for. why don't you like the depo idea? you want money, you get a shot every 3 months. couldn't be much easier
 
cause they'll skip the depo. Not exactly talking about responsible people here.

And its not forcing shit on people, they have every right and every choice in the world to skip the surgery and gov paid abortion and go to a private clinic. Its incentive to make people think twice...
 
they can't skip it if they have to get the shot to get their govt cheese. obviously you can't leave that up to people who've already been established to be irresponsible
 
You can't force people to do any of this, its not right.






But we can slip some shit into their water to sterelize them.
 
shamwow said:
they can't skip it if they have to get the shot to get their govt cheese. obviously you can't leave that up to people who've already been established to be irresponsible
Click to expand...

They are getting an abortion. They've already established themselves as irresponsible.

Fuck it. Ban fed paid abortions. Government shouldn't be involved in it at all. Shouldn't decide if its legal, illegal, right, wrong, and shouldn't pay for it.
 
plot said:
If they want kids later they can pay for their own abortion now.

I see zero issues with attaching stipulations to any handouts you get from the government. You have zero reason to bitch at that point.
Click to expand...

What the government make as policy should be what the people want. If they want the government paying for abortion, then the government should pay for abortion.
 
Harold of the Rocks said:
What the government make as policy should be what the people want. If they want the government paying for abortion, then the government should pay for abortion.
Click to expand...

The majority of people that share the same idealology does not make it the right idealolgy.

For example: religion. Im sure you would freak if the government forced religion on you because the majority of people wanted it.
 
April23 said:
The majority of people that share the same idealology does not make it the right idealolgy.

For example: religion. Im sure you would freak if the government forced religion on you because the majority of people wanted it.
Click to expand...

This is a tricky subject. Especially now that you bought religion into it.

Religion is unproven, therefor it shouldn't ever be forced upon people until it can be proven.

But in this case, it's just about what the government spend tax payers dollars on. What tax payers dollars are spent on, tax payers should decide.
 
Harold of the Rocks said:
What the government make as policy should be what the people want. If they want the government paying for abortion, then the government should pay for abortion.
Click to expand...
what about an issue where 51% of the people want something the other 49% don't? which is often the case is our current spectrum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back