50
   

Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 12:44 pm
@MontereyJack,
Wrong. There is a big problem with ideological bias and fraud in their data, and climate scientists refuse to fix that problem.

Therefore many people don't pay any attention to their claims.

But like I said, if you want to reduce carbon emissions, all you need to do is build more nuclear reactors.

Avoid carbon emissions or don't. I don't really care.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 01:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The thing about global warming is that the science unequivocaly it is h[[/bnappening now and it will get worse. [/quote]
Now we are back to Global Warming? I hate to tell you this, but humans haven't had a significant effect on the climate. Is has been in constant flux since the planet was formed.

Quote:
Doesn't matter whether you or /trump thnik it will redistribute the wealth.

That is the only purpose of the lies about climate change, to take money from the 1st world and give it to the 3rd world. Nothing you leftist propose would have any effect on the climate, the hubris of man is funny though.

Quote:
Considering the whole twentieth century saw numerous redistributions of wealth that ain't a valid argument.

Yes, the socialists and communists committed a whole lot of deaths to redistribute wealth, over 100 million people on the short side lost their lives due to re-distributive dreams.

Quote:
Tell that to the mom and pop stores who saw all their wealth redistributed to amazon, or the railroads who saw rhwie q=welth redistributed to ford trucks.

That isn't redistribution, that is called business. No one took anything from the mom and pop stores, they just had better deals and selection. Mom and pop stores couldn't compete, that is capitalism.
TheCobbler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 05:28 pm
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/50664970_397422250801985_6469409371385233408_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=a43a68b457f7188dccbb4b1a28a9ae3b&oe=5CF5E277
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 06:25 pm
@TheCobbler,
They were all women too, that homophobic bastard.
0 Replies
 
TheCobbler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 06:58 pm
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/51193908_2238477243137922_7189219557750341632_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=50abde41af014217970e73b3adc7a60e&oe=5CEA27DC
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 07:57 pm
@TheCobbler,
How do you buy a billionaire? Do you own any? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:04 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
thnik it will redistribute the wealth

I do not only think so, it is a well known fact.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:15 pm
Quote:
Democrats told voters they would not do it. Now they have

Quote:
Vox reported on October 19, 2016, "No, Donald Trump, abortions do not happen at 9 months pregnant." The Donald said this happens.

This week Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York signed into law abortions up to birth, which Democrats insisted do not happen.

Can not remind Democrats enough. Ghouls. And they complain about children at the border?
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2019/01/democrats-told-voters-they-would-not-do.html?spref=tw
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:25 pm
@coldjoint,
Again, you have no practical knowledge of the law, nor understand how and why it was written. There is NO provision for abortion up to birth. None. Whatsoever. You made that up. You lied. You propagate fear and rhetoric.

The law states:

Senate Bill S2796
2017-2018 Legislative Session
Enacts the reproductive health act; repealer

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS WOMEN'S RIGHTS HEALTHCARE

SPONSORED BY

Liz Krueger
(D, WF) 28TH SENATE DISTRICT

Andrea Stewart-Cousins
(D, IP, WF) 35TH SENATE DISTRICT

Marisol Alcantara
(D) 0 SENATE DISTRICT

Tony Avella
(D) 0 SENATE DISTRICT

Jamaal T. Bailey
(D) 36TH SENATE DISTRICT

VIEW ADDITIONAL CO-SPONSORS

See Assembly Version of this Bill:A1748 Current Committee:Senate HealthLaw Section:Public Health LawLaws Affected:Add Art 25-A §2599-aa, rpld §4164, Pub Health L; rpld §6811 sub 8, Ed L; rpld §§125.40 - 125.60, §125.05 subs 2 & 3, §125.15 sub 2, §125.20 sub 3, amd Art 125 Art Head, §§125.00 & 125.05, Pen L; amd §700.05, CP L; amd §673, County L; amd §4, Judy LVersions Introduced in 2019-2020 Legislative Session:S240, A21
S2796 - SUMMARY
Enacts the reproductive health act; revises provisions of law relating to abortion.

S2796 - SPONSOR MEMO
BILL NUMBER: S2796

TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the public health law, in relation
to enacting the reproductive health act and revising existing
provisions of law regarding abortion; to amend the penal law, the
criminal procedure law, the county law and the judiciary law, in
relation to abortion; to repeal certain provisions of the public
health law relating to abortion; to repeal certain provisions of the
education law relating to the sale of contraceptives; and to repeal
certain provisions of the penal law relating to abortion

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :

Relates to access to reproductive services.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS :

Section 1 of the bill establishes the legislative intent.

Section 2 of the bill creates a new Article 25-A of the Public Health
Law (PHL), which states that an abortion May be performed by a
licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from
the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal
viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life
or health.


.....

In 1970, New York legalized abortion in some circumstances, thereby
recognizing that a woman has a fundamental right to make medical
decisions about the course of a pregnancy. Three years later, the
Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in
(Roe v. Wade), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), holding that this fundamental
right is protected by the United States Constitution.

During the decades since (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there have been
numerous court decisions clarifying the scope of the right to abortion
but, unfortunately, New York's laws have remained outdated.
Furthermore, it is clear that some provisions of New York law are
unconstitutional and have proved burdensome to women seeking to assert
their constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

This bill updates New York's abortion statutes to address
constitutional flaws in our laws and recognize a woman's fundamental
right to access safe, legal abortion.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

This is a new bill.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

None.

EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act shall take effect immediately.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:31 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
REPRODUCTIVE

Who is reproducing when these babies are killed? The law legalizes murder.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:33 pm
@coldjoint,
The law confirms a woman's right to control her own medical status.

The End.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:42 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
The End.

The beginning of infanticide.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 09:52 pm
@neptuneblue,
What part of

Quote:
there is an absence of fetal viability


Didn't you get?
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:08 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
there is an absence of fetal viability

How can it be diagnosed so quickly? What part don't you understand this is to cover the doctor's ass, and excuse murder.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:10 pm
@neptuneblue,
He doesn't, he has an absence of everything.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:15 pm
@coldjoint,
Come on CJ, don't do this. You'll know un-viability if you ever had to live through the death of a child.


Here’s The Truth About The New York State Reproductive Act
Wendy Wisner

I didn’t know this just a few months ago, but my home state of New York had not passed a women’s reproductive rights act in over 50 years. This meant that New York’s abortion laws were not even up to date with the rights afforded by Roe v. Wade. And in a political climate where women’s reproductive rights are very much at risk, it is more necessary than ever to protect these rights on a state level should Roe v. Wade ever get overturned.

That is why I was very glad to hear New York state governor Andrew Cuomo announce the passage of The Reproductive Health Act this past Tuesday, January 22nd.

As Governor Cuomo explains, the main goal of the act is to ensure that New Yorkers will be guaranteed the rights laid out in current federal laws no matter what the Supreme Court may decide in the future.

Andrew Cuomo

@NYGovCuomo
Today I signed the #ReproductiveHealthAct — codifying Roe v. Wade into state law and protecting women's reproductive rights no matter what the federal government does.

This is a victory for all New Yorkers.
8:32 PM - Jan 22, 2019

“In the face of a federal government intent on rolling back Roe v. Wade and women’s reproductive rights, I promised that we would enact this critical legislation within the first 30 days of the new session — and we got it done,” Cuomo said in a statement.

Now, as you can imagine, parts of this law are getting abortion activists and others quite upset. This happens anytime a new abortion law is passed, especially one that guarantees more autonomy and protection to women and their families (imagine that).

As with everything, there are a million mistruths and outright lies floating about concerning this new law, so let me break things down for you. (And see those little hyperlinks lit up in bright colors? Those are links to original, reputable sources so you can see where my data is coming from.)

Here’s what The New York State Reproductive Act of 2019 guarantees:

1. It changes the section of law dealing with abortion from penal code to health code.

2. It allows midwives and physician assistants to perform certain abortions.

3. It guarantees women a right to an abortion up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, as codified in Roe v. Wade. Again, this is no different than what has been guaranteed under federal law for 46 years.

4. It allows exceptions for abortions after 24 weeks, if the women’s life or health is at risk or if the fetus is not viable and cannot survive outside the of womb.

As you might have guessed, it’s really #4 that has got everyone in a tizzy. “Ok, you are allowing mothers to just go ahead and rip their full-term babies straight out of their bodies.” (I’m not just making this up; I’m paraphrasing how our current president characterized later-term abortions during the 2016 election.)

First of all, note the part about why the law is offering the option of abortion after 24 weeks gestation: If the mother’s life or health is at risk or if the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. Note also, that the New York law, last updated in 1970, only made exceptions when a mother’s life was at risk and did not allow women to terminate their pregnancies if they found out after 24 weeks that their babies could not survive outside the womb.

This meant that mothers, already wrecked with grief about losing an unviable baby, had to travel outside of New York in order to get an abortion, thereby delaying probably the worst moment of their lives by days or weeks. THIS WAS NOT OKAY.

And while we are looking at facts rather than suppositions and conspiracy theories, consider this: According to the CDC, only 1.3% of abortions actually take place after 21 weeks gestation, with 91% taking place within the first 13 weeks.

No one is running out to get an abortion at the last possible minute. This law is not going to encourage that. That is not how this works. In fact, it will likely make it so that women can get the care they need sooner rather than later.


Marley Dunn
@marleywdunn
No one is aborting a baby on their due date. NO ONE IS DOING THAT !!!!! 2% OR FEWER of abortions every year occur after 5 months, and this bill is really about when health of mother is in jeopardy. Stop overreacting. #ReproductiveHealthAct

145
2:36 PM - Jan 23, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
101 people are talking about this
What’s more, in almost all cases of later abortion, the deciding factor has to do with a mother’s health or life, or her fetus’s viability.

“Abortions that occur at this stage in pregnancy are often the result of tragic diagnoses and are exactly the scenarios wherein patients need their doctors, and not obstructive politicians,” Dr Jennifer Conti, clinical assistant professor at Stanford University, told The Guardian.

“Asking a woman to carry a fatally flawed pregnancy to term is, at the very least, heartbreaking,” she added. “I’ve often heard women say that they chose to end such pregnancies because of unselfish reasons: they couldn’t bear the thought of putting their fetus through even more pain or suffering.”

The bottom line is this: Laws like this one are passed in order to protect mothers and their families. They are passed to save lives, and bring dignity to families at their most heartbreaking, devastating moments.

And truly, unless you have been there trying to make a brutal decision such as the ones some of these mothers have to make – it is really not up to you to say a damn word about it. The best thing you can do is educate yourself on the issues at hand, open your heart and mind, and show a little compassion.

coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:31 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
Come on CJ, don't do this. You'll know un-viability if you ever had to live through the death of a child.

Is that like the people who lose someone they love to an illegal criminal?
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:34 pm
@coldjoint,
Bury a child.

Then get back to me.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:48 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
Bury a child.

I cannot make up for your loss but suggesting I bury a child is not called for, is it?
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jan, 2019 10:50 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
And truly, unless you have been there trying to make a brutal decision such as the ones some of these mothers have to make – it is really not up to you to say a damn word about it. The best thing you can do is educate yourself on the issues at hand, open your heart and mind, and show a little compassion.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 03:17:21