Republican Senate Nominee:"Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

First bill.

Nothing in this title shall be construed as restricting
25 the ability of any non-Federal health benefits coverage
VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1135.IH H1135 smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
51
•HR 1135 IH
1 provider from offering abortion coverage, or the ability of
2 a State or locality to contract separately with such a pro3
vider for such coverage, so long as only funds not author4
ized or appropriated by Federal law are used and such
5 coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds re6
quired for a federally subsidized program, including a
7 State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching
8 funds.
9 SEC. 606. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE,
10 INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE
11 MOTHER.
12 The limitations established in this title shall not apply
13 to an abortion—
14 (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of
15 rape or incest; or

it goes on, only about not paying for it.
I will allow you to pull the rest of the legal language from each and explain what is different and how it restricts the rights of women.

Are you crazy? Read what you wrote - read page 50 - this bill MEANS TESTS for WELFARE, and further restricts access to abortion by welfare recipients!

You are pulling out random words without reading the entire bill.

If you want to make the argument that the current Republican House has introduced no bills restricting womens rights and attempting to restrict further abortion rights, you can stand alone in the face of overwhelming public evidence and discussion of the same, starting with House Bill 3.

It is a factually bereft position - even the Republicans say why they are submitting the bills, and what is contained within!

[Clip-Clop]

PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO
4 ABORTION.
5 For taxable years beginning after the date of the en6
actment of this section, no credit shall be allowed under
7 the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid
8 or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts
9 paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including pre10
mium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion.
11 SEC. 604. CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO SEPARATE COV12
ERAGE.
13 Nothing in this title shall be construed as prohibiting
14 any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing
15 separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage
16 that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid
17 for entirely using only funds not authorized or appro18
priated by Federal law and such coverage shall not be pur19
chased using matching funds required for a federally sub20
sidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribu21
tion of Medicaid matching funds.
From Page 50

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you crazy? Read what you wrote - read page 50 - this bill MEANS TESTS for WELFARE, and further restricts access to abortion by welfare recipients!

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you crazy? Read what you wrote - read page 50 - this bill MEANS TESTS for WELFARE, and further restricts access to abortion by welfare recipients!

You are pulling out random words without reading the entire bill.

If you want to make the argument that the current Republican House has introduced no bills restricting womens rights and attempting to restrict further abortion rights, you can stand alone in the face of overwhelming public evidence and discussion of the same, starting with House Bill 3. It is a factually bereft position - even the Republicans say why they are submitting the bills, and what is contained within!

Still looking for the restriction on women's rights, not what the federal government will pay for. Please site an example that says what you are accusing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Still looking for the restriction on women's rights, not what the federal government will pay for. Please site an example that says what you are accusing.

Read page 50. It restricts welfare recipients right to abortions.

Seriously - are you taking the stand that the GOP has not introduced multiple bills into the Congress, in the past two years, restricting womens rights and increasing restrictions on abortion?

Yes or no? Is that your position, or not? Because if you are taking that position, it is simply wrong. Don't ask for "show me the bills" - I have. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's been documented all over the news the past 2 years. Just read!

First month of new GOP House:

GOP Introduces Four Anti-Abortion Bills Into Congress; Other Women's Issues at Risk
http://www.seniorwomen.com/news/inde...issues-at-risk

Since taking control of the House last month, Republicans have introduced several major anti-abortion bills that women's rights activists say could place severe limitations on a access not only to abortion, but complete reproductive health and family planning services.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQbrMwwEbCA

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Read page 50. It restricts welfare recipients right to abortions.

Seriously - are you taking the stand that the GOP has not introduced multiple bills into the Congress, in the past two years, restricting womens rights and increasing restrictions on abortion?

Yes or no? Is that your position, or not?

POST A QUOTE FROM THE BILL THAT SAYS WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING. You have read the bill, pull page 50 and put it here and please explain which portion is restricting women's rights.

My position is that you are unable to prove any of what you allege with quoted documentation.
Are there republicans that are against abortion, of course there are, there are democrats too.
Is that a settled topic since 1973 in the minds of most people, yes.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

POST A QUOTE FROM THE BILL THAT SAYS WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING. You have read the bill, pull page 50 and put it here and please explain which portion is restricting women's rights.

My position is that you are unable to prove any of what you allege with quoted documentation.
Are there republicans that are against abortion, of course there are, there are democrats too.
Is that a settled topic since 1973 in the minds of most people, yes.

I said this current congress has introduced over 40 bills to curtail abortion and womens rights.

You demand to see the bills.

I post 38 of them.

Again: if you are taking the position that the Republicans have not introduced multiple bills attempting to curtail abortion and women's rights, that's as easily proven wrong as reading todays news.

That's just a crazy, wrong position, as wrong as saying the sky is not blue. It's common knowlege. The GOP even brags about it. And you say it doesn't exist?

Seriously - is that what you are saying? Because that's so crazy, I'm trying to see if I am misunderstanding you.

Again:

First month of new GOP House, 2010

GOP Introduces Four Anti-Abortion Bills Into Congress; Other Women's Issues at Risk
http://www.seniorwomen.com/news/inde...issues-at-risk

Since taking control of the House last month, Republicans have introduced several major anti-abortion bills that women's rights activists say could place severe limitations on a access not only to abortion, but complete reproductive health and family planning services.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQbrMwwEbCA

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I said this current congress has introduced over 40 bills to curtail abortion and womens rights.

You demand to see the bills.

I post 38 of them.

Again: if you are taking the position that the Republicans have not introduced multiple bills attempting to curtail abortion and women's rights, that's as easily proven wrong as reading todays news.

That's just a crazy, wrong position, as wrong as saying the sky is not blue. It's common knowlege. The GOP even brags about it. And you say it doesn't exist?

Seriously - is that what you are saying? Because that's so crazy, I'm trying to see if I am misunderstanding you.

Again:

First month of new GOP House, 2010

GOP Introduces Four Anti-Abortion Bills Into Congress; Other Women's Issues at Risk
http://www.seniorwomen.com/news/inde...issues-at-risk

Since taking control of the House last month, Republicans have introduced several major anti-abortion bills that women's rights activists say could place severe limitations on a access not only to abortion, but complete reproductive health and family planning services.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQbrMwwEbCA

lots of disclaimers in there. zero quotes.
You posted bills, I read the first one and saw nothing other than financial explanations.
I ask for a quote from a doc you posted that proves your point and I get a couple videos and potential effects as read by women's rights groups.
This is the process of debating you and the reason so few remain that are willing to do so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

lots of disclaimers in there. zero quotes.
You posted bills, I read the first one and saw nothing other than financial explanations.
I ask for a quote from a doc you posted that proves your point and I get a couple videos and potential effects as read by women's rights groups.
This is the process of debating you and the reason so few remain that are willing to do so.

Again: what are you saying? Be clear!

I said, "This current congress has introduced over 40 bills attempting to restrict abortion and womens' rights".

Are you saying my statement is false? Yes or no? Are you saying the GOP has not introduced bills to restrict women's rights and abortion? Yes or no?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

lots of disclaimers in there. zero quotes.
You posted bills, I read the first one and saw nothing other than financial explanations.
I ask for a quote from a doc you posted that proves your point and I get a couple videos and potential effects as read by women's rights groups.
This is the process of debating you and the reason so few remain that are willing to do so.

Now she will say the same thing over and over again and call you stupid. Watch.

[bigrun]

Priebus: GOP platform 'not the platform of Mitt Romney'

The official platform language poised for approval at next week's Republican National Convention doesn't fully represent the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Tuesday.

"I think as far as the details of some of these things, like an exception for rape or life of the mother, these are not uncommon differences that candidates have and don't share some of the detail on some of those exceptions," Priebus said on MSNBC. "This is the platform of the Republican Party; it's not the platform of Mitt Romney."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...tt-romney?lite