Egypt

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think it maybe be 358. but yeah, let's worry about the resolution number, rather than the subject.

I would have never asked for a correction on the bill number if I wasn't planning on reading it. And I never was really worried.

BTW if a clause is in there stating a hospital refusing treatment to a dying woman, in an emergency, if part of that treatment terminates a pregnancy, is legal, it's embarrassing. Though I suspect this is some sort of huffington hyperbole based on exemptions for catholic hospitals.

[dellinger63]

Just read the bill (it's short) and low and behold my suspicions were correct. I will take it over to the appropriate thread.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Just read the bill (it's short) and low and behold my suspicions were correct. I will take it over to the appropriate thread.

Well, no. Your suspicions were not correct

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, no. Your suspicions were not correct

I did as you always request before being requested and opened a new thread. And yes they were correct.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I did as you always request before being requested and opened a new thread. And yes they were correct.

Well, okay. You keep thinking that

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I would have never asked for a correction on the bill number if I wasn't planning on reading it. And I never was really worried.

BTW if a clause is in there stating a hospital refusing treatment to a dying woman, in an emergency, if part of that treatment terminates a pregnancy, is legal, it's embarrassing. Though I suspect this is some sort of huffington hyperbole based on exemptions for catholic hospitals.

I'm amazed you dismiss something as false with absolutely zerio direct knowledge of what you are talking about

Wait: no, I am not amazed. Sorry.