The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@revelette,

I think that everyone (and I mean everyone) is just dreading the moment when Santorum pulls out.

0 Replies

Now Santorum is against prenatal testing because he says it promotes abortion.

Quote:

The former Pennsylvania senator was arguing against what he called a mandate in the health care legislation passed by President Barack Obama and Democrats in 2010. He said Saturday at an appearance in Ohio that the law was intended to increase abortions and reduce overall health care costs.

"One of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America," Santorum, a conservative Roman Catholic, told a Christian Alliance luncheon in Columbus. "Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society."

He added that the requirement was "another hidden message as to what President Obama thinks of those who are less able."

The White House referred CNN to Obama's re-election campaign for comment, and campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith called Santorum's remarks "the latest in a long string of unfortunate comments in the race to the bottom that the Republican presidential primary has become."

"Prenatal screenings are essential to promote the health of both the mother and baby and to ensure safe deliveries," Smith said. "These misinformed and dangerous comments reinforce why women cannot trust any of the Republican candidates for president."

source

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Taxing them has been tried. We have had top tax rates of 95%. The US 70%. I presume they didn't work.

What is a "more transparent lobbying process"?

Mr Murdoch is a naturalised US citizen.

Your solutions are no solutions because they won't work and won't even be attempted.

1 Reply

@revelette,

Quote:

"Prenatal screenings are essential to promote the health of both the mother and baby and to ensure safe deliveries," Smith said.

That's a mission statement which takes no account of how the screenings are used by the population. It has the perfect Your Life in their Hands episode ideal in mind.

It is aimed at insecure people and is itself a promoter of further insecurities.

If Ms Smith is going to describe Mr Santorum's remarks as "the latest in a long string of unfortunate comments in the race to the bottom that the Republican presidential primary has become" then she can hardly blame intelligent people for wondering what the Democrats are up to. It means "loser bullshit" and has as much value as anybody else using such a mode of argumentation.

All the Democrat materialists use the method to counter my arguments on the evolution threads. 8 year's worth too. In all that time they haven't worked out the sheer arrogance, not to mention the fatuity, of such cheapskate tricks which of necessity assume the audience is completely stupid.

Mr Santorum has a point. People may agree with it or otherwise but Ms Smith's assertion is no answer.

Then, as is normal in these unfortunate circumstances, she proceeds to provide a conclusion based on her assertion. And, had Ms Smith been having a day off when CNN rang, another voice, a moment of fame for an underling, would have read out the "bullshit", and I use the word scientifically as well as metaphorically, from the same sheet of the Campaign To Re-Elect the President's file sorted by "Potential Questions".

Our women are healthy and can do safe deliveries as is proved by the number of healthy children born before Mr Obama came on the scene. In fact he seems quite a healthy little bugger himself. He's trying to make you all feel that you really matter to him in a deep and personal way, no ITACHATOs now, whereas Mr Santorum might be thinking that it is America that matters.

2 Replies

@spendius,

And what is so funny is that it is the evolutionists who support the sort of things mentioned above and from even a half-witted evolutionary perspective the policy must be enervating. And accelerate the enervation causing more need for such policies.

If you consider how many actresses can turn on and off at will the milking of the udder of human kindness, and be well paid for it, I don't suppose you need me to tell you what's on the end of an increasingly enervated population and spiralling health care costs.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I'm not saying it won't require an unprecedented amount of international cooperation, but it's not impossible. Would you rather attack a poor American dirt farmer for the situation in Iraq or a wealthy Saudi oil sheik? I'm just trying to persuade JTT to aim his attacks at more deserving targets. At the moment his pronouncements are unproductive, they just seem to get people's backs up.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

The truth often does get people's backs up izzy. A good deal of what JTT reminds us of is true.

It may well be counter-productive in some quarters but not necessarily in all. It looks to be a principled position consistently held.

I think it naive but I wouldn't want us to be without it.

2 Replies

@spendius,

On population growth--

Quote:

But the US far outperforms any Western nation, except arguably Canada, in terms of population growth. In the second half of the 20th Century, US population increased by 85%, around four times the growth rate in the UK (20%), Germany (20%) and Italy (22%).

Although it took nearly two centuries to reach the 200 million population mark in 1966, the US rapidly gained another 100 million inhabitants, passing 300 million in 2006.

But the "second half of the 20th century" and 1966 is just about the time mass contraception became available to women.

I know there's immigration and longer lives to be considered but Europe has both of those things too.

0 Replies

@spendius,

You act as though insurance has not been providing coverage for prenatal screenings before the affordable health care was passed into law. It is an important part of prenatal care regardless of whether it is in the health care bill or not and pretty routine. The affordable health care just makes it more affordable for women who might not have been able to afford before.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Only you can be cowed into silence by the propaganda, djjd.

1 Reply

@revelette,

It's a lame attempt to create a moral panic.

"If we provide people with information, they might make decisions we don't agree with!"

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Certainly not - there's no doubt that over 90% of women told their fetus has an extra chromosome (aka Down's syndrome) will choose to have an abortion.

Mr Santorum has a girl who is profoundly retarded, and if he and his wife can pay $$$ for as long as that child lives, fine, but taxpayer funded subsidies for her massive lifetime costs?! That's the issue here - prenatal screening should be free on grounds it pays back for itself many times over.

4 Replies

@High Seas,

Prenatal care and screenings is not just too see if a fetus has Down's syndrome, it is to check the overall health of the child so that steps can be taken either before or after the birth of the child.

Prenatal Testing

Quote:

Prenatal testing provides information about your baby's health before he or she is born. Some routine tests during pregnancy also check on your health. At your fist prenatal visit, your healthcare provider will test for a number of things, including problems with your blood, signs of infections, and whether you are immune to rubella (German measles) and chickenpox.

Throughout your pregnancy, your healthcare provider may suggest a number of other tests, too. Some tests are suggested for all women, such as screenings for gestational diabetes, Down syndrome, and HIV. Other tests might be offered based on your:

Age
Personal or family health history
Ethnic background
Results of routine tests

Some tests are screening tests. They detect risks for or signs of possible health problems in you or your baby. Based on screening test results, your doctor might suggest diagnostic tests. Diagnostic tests confirm or rule out health problems in you or your baby.

1 Reply

@revelette,

His message is of fear, not reality. Screenings have different purposes; not just abortion. Santorum is a fruitcake; he's trying to make non-issues into a battle of abortion and religious belief.

Not only that, but Boehner is going to make high gas prices the fault of Obama. That's because people like him don't understand that the oil supply cuts to the UK and France from Iran has a world-wide impact. Obama has nothing to do with Iran's actions, except for the fact that the US is advocating a blockade to Iran.

These jokers are using non-issues to attack Obama, and most Americans are too stupid to understand what they're being fed by the GOP candidates.

2 Replies

@JTT,

See, I was right.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

but taxpayer funded subsidies for her massive lifetime costs?! That's the issue here - prenatal screening should be free on grounds it pays back for itself many times over.

Which is eugenics in all but name. And what are the health costs across the nation caused by making mothers feel that without these aids they couldn't manage and that pregnancy is some sort of illness. Creating insecurity and anxiety which might well be passed to all unborn children.

One might focus on small numbers of cases and end up banning motor vehicles. It's Nanny Obama.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I've never accused JTT of lying, just that I think he would persuade more people if he changed his tactics. I think an arms dealer living in a tax haven is more to blame for the Iraq war than Joe Public USA. Remember how biased the American media was in the run up to invasion, maybe if they'd been a bit more even handed the outcome would have been different.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Then again, there's the case of the person at my office who had pre-natal screening and discovered a heart defect that would have been fatal.

The surgeon performed heart surgery in-utero and saved the baby's life.

0 Replies

@revelette,

Someone being tested to see if there are problems with their blood, signs of infections, and whether they are immune to rubella (German measles) and chickenpox and for gestational diabetes, Down syndrome, and HIV is bound to become a little anxious. Which might itself give rise to certain conditions requiring further institutional treatment.

Ivan Illich has said, in Medical Nemesis, that the medical profession is aiming at us all being rendered into a state of sub-lethal illness.

Nothing comes free in this line of work.

0 Replies

@JTT,

i doubt that

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know