Dems Endorse Taxpayer Funded Abortions

[DSTRBD]

Why am I not surprised? Completely f*cking enraged, but not surprised. So now not only are we happily killing babies, we are making taxpayers fund it? How f*cked is this administration, seriously? How much worse does it get? I guess I shouldnt ask that question when BHO and his boys are steering the ship...

Democratic Platform Endorses Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

The 2012 Democratic party will officially adopt an extreme position on the issue of abortion on Tuesday. According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

That last part--"regardless of ability to pay"--is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. Obama wants Medicaid to pay directly for elective abortions, and Obamacare will allow beneficiaries to use federal subsidies to purchase health care plans that cover elective abortions. According to a 2009 Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of voters oppose public funding of abortion and 23 percent support it. In other words, public funding of abortion--a policy President Obama actively supports--is as unpopular as banning abortion in the case of rape, a policy on which the media have focused much attention over the past two weeks despite the fact that neither presidential candidate supports it.

The 2012 Democratic party also endorses an unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand. According to the platform, on the issue of abortion "there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way." In 2003, Obama was asked if he was pro-choice on abortion "in all situations including the late-term thing." Obama replied: "I'm pro-choice."

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton tried to soften the party's image on abortion by expressing his desire to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Although the Democratic party platforms in 2000 and 2004 stated the party's goal is to make abortion "rare," the 2012 platform makes no such claim. "In 2000, the Democratic platform said the party's goal was 'to make abortion less necessary and more rare,' Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe last week. "The 2004 platform declared, 'Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.' But even calling for abortion to be 'rare' is now too much for the Democrats' platform committee, which deleted the word in 2008." The word "rare" did not make a comeback in 2012.

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by DSTRBD

Why am I not surprised? Completely f*cking enraged, but not surprised. So now not only are we happily killing babies, we are making taxpayers fund it? How f*cked is this administration, seriously? How much worse does it get? I guess I shouldnt ask that question when BHO and his boys are steering the ship...

Democratic Platform Endorses Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

The 2012 Democratic party will officially adopt an extreme position on the issue of abortion on Tuesday. According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

That last part--"regardless of ability to pay"--is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. Obama wants Medicaid to pay directly for elective abortions, and Obamacare will allow beneficiaries to use federal subsidies to purchase health care plans that cover elective abortions. According to a 2009 Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of voters oppose public funding of abortion and 23 percent support it. In other words, public funding of abortion--a policy President Obama actively supports--is as unpopular as banning abortion in the case of rape, a policy on which the media have focused much attention over the past two weeks despite the fact that neither presidential candidate supports it.

The 2012 Democratic party also endorses an unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand. According to the platform, on the issue of abortion "there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way." In 2003, Obama was asked if he was pro-choice on abortion "in all situations including the late-term thing." Obama replied: "I'm pro-choice."

In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton tried to soften the party's image on abortion by expressing his desire to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Although the Democratic party platforms in 2000 and 2004 stated the party's goal is to make abortion "rare," the 2012 platform makes no such claim. "In 2000, the Democratic platform said the party's goal was 'to make abortion less necessary and more rare,' Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe last week. "The 2004 platform declared, 'Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.' But even calling for abortion to be 'rare' is now too much for the Democrats' platform committee, which deleted the word in 2008." The word "rare" did not make a comeback in 2012.

what is rare, is to find a democrat with any common sense or leadership skills or a set of balls.

[AK Gandy]

While not commenting on the issue of abortion itself (I think it should be "very rare")......... my tax money pays for wars I don't agree with.

What's the difference?


.

[whitjo]

Originally Posted by AK Gandy

While not commenting on the issue of abortion itself (I think it should be "very rare")......... my tax money pays for wars I don't agree with.

What's the difference?


.

With the blood of patriots, wars bought your freedom....can you say the same for abortion?.....

[AK Gandy]

Originally Posted by whitjo

With the blood of patriots, wars bought your freedom....can you say the same former abortion?.....

There hasn't been a war to "protect our freedom".....in over 65 years.

Not to say they have all been unjustified and shouldn't have been fought due to other reasons (national interest being an example)....but certainly not because someone was about to "take our freedom away."


.

[Bama]

Both sides love the word war.
War on poverty
War on drugs
War on terror
War on obesity
And the list goes on.
So your saying all these wars are a waste of your money. Never mind. It's not yours. Your on the side that wants to spread the wealth. So you don't mind giving it away do you gandy?

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by AK Gandy

There hasn't been a war to "protect our freedom".....in over 65 years.

Not to say they have all been unjustified and shouldn't have been fought due to other reasons (national interest being an example)....but certainly not because someone was about to "take our freedom away."


.

What we should just watch and see innocent people get murdered for nothing? What kind of human does that? I don't want to be the world police either, but sometimes you have to do the right thing.

Not only that, but to protect the interest of the world population. You all want equal rights for all, but then if you don't see it, you don't care.

[AK Gandy]

Originally Posted by Bama

So your saying all these wars are a waste of your money.

Have you been drinking tonight?

As you're having a real struggle with comprehension.

Show me where I said that I thought "all of these wars were a waste of money."

Ya know, even though you and Binder have found some kind of weird bond, two against one still isn't fair....for you two.

Originally Posted by Bama

Never mind. It's not yours. Your on the side that wants to spread the wealth. So you don't mind giving it away do you gandy?

Gosh, how many times can you be wrong in one night?

I think Blunder Boy's record is about 99.8% of his posts.

You trying to beat that?





I gladly pay a LOT in taxes.

I figure that's the price I pay to live in the greatest country......... this planet has ever seen.


.

[444-4D]

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born as a man but has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.

Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide the surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek's "serious medical need."

"The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care," Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing her to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf found that the DOC's security concerns are "either pretextual or can be dealt with by the DOC." He said it is up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

[AK Gandy]

Originally Posted by 444-4D

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born as a man but has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.

Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide the surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek's "serious medical need."

"The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care," Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing her to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf found that the DOC's security concerns are "either pretextual or can be dealt with by the DOC." He said it is up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

Now that's pretty silly.



.