Assault on reproductive rights continues with a vengeance

I truly hope this isn't in the reconciled House-Senate bill. I'll be writing to my Representative, Rob Andrews, who co-authored the health care bill. We don't need one step back on on womens rights.

Well, I'm no political scientist or anything, but can't the president just write a "signing statement" that says he won't be enforcing that portion of the bill, and he'll leave it up to plan administrators to determine if abortion is an option.

Clearly any plan administrator would choose to perform a 1-time, low complication process over the 9 mo. process of having a baby, 18 year process of them growing up, etc.

I suppose it would be a bit of an issue if the next president chooses to enforce it though.

Worried about your reproductive rights are you?? Maybe you need to get yourself a little knowledge of obamas science czar John Holdren and what he has to say about it. I will provide you with a few of his quotes. Feel free to check them. They will check out...........
Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience------------ Page 837
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions--------------One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock---------- Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Continues below

The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children--------If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size------
In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born------Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force------If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

Now for those of you who still have a problem with what the right is doing and you choose to remain silent on the appointment of this fool to office of anything other than streets and sanitation. You need to get your priorities in line.

Great post Fountaingoats. People, and certainly women, need to be VERY aware of whats going on in the government when it concerns their reproductive rights. I hope I was able to help shed some light on what our government and its officials think about it.
Voted up and recommended.

"The effect of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment"

There are quite many strings hidden within this bill, but I am sure if we can get the specfic person who issued it, then at confront them at hand...

@Ihatethemall: You do realize that you're not going to get any response from your legit quotations.

Yes I do realize it. No one here can defend what he says because it is so far out there with the way 99.9999% of Americans think. Many will look at it. some wont even believe it. Others will say that will never happen. They are all selling their futures and their childrens futures down the toilet. They are sheeple.

The prez is playing host to all kinds of wacko's, allowing them to defile our sacred buildings with their presence. Even worse he is allowing them to make decisions about how best to destroy what our forefathers had put in place.
Make no mistake about it, these are the enemies within. Like a virus they reach into all facets of our lives, seeking to choke and kill any semblance of freedom.
The sheeple have been deceived and some will only awaken when it hits them personally, hopefully not too late.

Abortion is not all that expensive. I fully agree that federal dollars should not fund abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and when going to term threatens the life of the mother or when there is a medical necessity to abort a child who might already be born brain dead or horribly deformed.

Gravity Man recently made a compromise proposal that I thought was fair. The insurance should pay for the medical care if hospitalization is necessitated by the procedure, but tthe procedure itself could be paid by the patient.

Using abortion as birth control for lazy people who don't want to use condoms or meds to prevent pregnancy is wrong as far as I am concerned.

Keep abortion safe and legal, but it should only be for cases that are pscyhologically or medically necessary.

If you don't want to raise a baby from an unintended pregnancy, give the baby up for adoption.

I think it's a good time to post a quote here by Margaret Sanger, founded of Planned Parenthood. "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we wish to exterminate the Nego population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Sanger's "Negro Project.") -(Letter to Clarence Gamble, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College.) There's others, as well. Sanger was a racist eugenicist, who was an admirer of Ernst Rudin, one of Hitler's eugenics henchmen. You never see a Planned Parenthood Clinic in the wealthy white suburbs, only in the inner city- where thet exist to destroy unborn Black and Hispanic babies. And now we have the director of the PP Clinic in Bryan Texas resigning because she witnessed an ultrasound image of an abortion being performed, that combined with the push to increase the number of abortions at the clinic, to bring in the $$, because of a bad economy. Sanger also hated immigrants as well- and I, like most Americans, am descended from immigrants. It's a shame colleges are indocrinating kids with this thinly veiled racism. Men and women have died trying to eliminate racism from our nation- it's a shame it's being kept alive by NOW an and PP. Ignorance is bliss, eh? Educate yourselves of the racism and eugenics behind the mask. Read Sanger's quotes. Read the history for yourselves, and dump the indoctrination by your professors. The group Feminists For Life is a great antidote to all the politically correct racism in our society today. Think. Quit being a politically correct racist. Racism should be eliminated in all its forms- it matters not whether the racist is wearing bedsheets or a lab coat.

GEORGE CARLIN: Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren’t they?

They’re all in favor of the unborn.
They will do anything for the unborn.
But once you’re born, you’re on your own.
Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you. No nothing. No neo-natal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If your pre-school, your [bleep].

Conservatives don’t give a [bleep] about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine, just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life. Pro-life. These people aren’t pro-life. They’re killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor, they just might have to kill it?

They’re not pro-life.
You know what they are?
They’re anti-women. Simple as it gets. Anti-women.
They don’t like them. They don’t like women.
They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state. Pro-life? You don’t see any of these white, anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No. You don’t see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies, do you? No, that might be something Christ would do.

And you won’t see a lot of these pro-life people dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire. You know, morally committed religious people in South Vietnam knew how to stage a [bleep] demonstration, didn’t they? They knew how to put on a [bleep] protest. Light yourself on fire! Come on, you moral crusaders, let’s see a little smoke.

"The three monotheisms, animated by the same genealogical death instinct, share a series of identical contempt: hatred of reason and intelligence; hatred of freedom; hatred of all books in the name the one & only; hatred of life; hatred of sexuality, of women and pleasure; hatred of feminity; hatred of the body, of desires & impulses. Instead of all that, Judaism, Christianity and Islam defend: faith and belief, obedience and submission, a taste for death and a passion for the beyond, asexual angel and chastity, virginity and monogamic fidelity, the wife and the mother, the soul and spirit. In other words, life crucified and celebrated nothingness" – Michel Onfray

"Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over." -Frank Zappa