B-Man Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Never Enough Abortions in California California is such a pro-abortion state that: 1. It allows non-doctor nurse practitioners to terminate fetal life. 2. Its voters have twice refused to vote in a “parent notification” law, requiring that parents of underage girls be told–not approve, just notified–that their daughter had an abortion. And now: 3. Crisis pregnancy centers–that help women choose to give birth by providing counseling and material support–will be required to post notices of where abortions can be obtained with phone numbers, as well as that they might be obtained for free. A federal judge earlier ruled that such forced speech is peachy keen because the communication is simply “factual.” Now, a Court of Appeals is allowing the law to go into effect. From the San Francisco Chronicle story: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Appeals-court-upholds-California-6730685.php Needless to say, abortion clinics do not have a similar requirement of forced factual speech, such as informing women that counseling and support is available to them to maintain their pregnancy for free, with phone numbers and locations of where the help can be found. Because in California, there can never be enough abortions and pro-life speech is officially disfavored speech. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Needless to say, abortion clinics do not have a similar requirement of forced factual speech, such as informing women that counseling and support is available to them to maintain their pregnancy for free, with phone numbers and locations of where the help can be found. Not only that, but imagine the ****-storm if abortion clinics were required to provide such info. I'm pro-choice...but I'm anti-double-standard. Which this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Never Enough Abortions in California California is such a pro-abortion state that: 1. It allows non-doctor nurse practitioners to terminate fetal life. 2. Its voters have twice refused to vote in a parent notification law, requiring that parents of underage girls be toldnot approve, just notifiedthat their daughter had an abortion. And now: 3. Crisis pregnancy centersthat help women choose to give birth by providing counseling and material supportwill be required to post notices of where abortions can be obtained with phone numbers, as well as that they might be obtained for free. A federal judge earlier ruled that such forced speech is peachy keen because the communication is simply factual. Now, a Court of Appeals is allowing the law to go into effect. From the San Francisco Chronicle story: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Appeals-court-upholds-California-6730685.php Needless to say, abortion clinics do not have a similar requirement of forced factual speech, such as informing women that counseling and support is available to them to maintain their pregnancy for free, with phone numbers and locations of where the help can be found. Because in California, there can never be enough abortions and pro-life speech is officially disfavored speech. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner I'm sorry but parents being notified that their 17 y/o daughter had an abortion would be pretty weak. At that point, nothing can be done. Releasing medical records just for a parental shitstorm doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I'm sorry but parents being notified that their 17 y/o daughter had an abortion would be pretty weak. At that point, nothing can be done. Releasing medical records just for a parental shitstorm doesn't seem right. What about parental concent prior to the procedure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 What about parental concent prior to the procedure? Much more torn, especially because I'm half a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 I'm sorry but parents being notified that their 17 y/o daughter had an abortion would be pretty weak. At that point, nothing can be done. Releasing medical records just for a parental shitstorm doesn't seem right. Parents will find out when they get the statement from the insurance, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Parents will find out when they get the statement from the insurance, anyway. That's true. It's an effort in futility I suppose, but if they go out of pocket and don't want to tell their parents, I wouldn't go over their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 That's true. It's an effort in futility I suppose, but if they go out of pocket and don't want to tell their parents, I wouldn't go over their heads. Actually, my point was more along the lines that the rules and regulations covering health care are so ill-conceived and contradictory right now that it's ridiculous. Particularly for a hot-button issue like abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 Actually, my point was more along the lines that the rules and regulations covering health care are so ill-conceived and contradictory right now that it's ridiculous. Particularly for a hot-button issue like abortion. No argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Illegal immigration now makes sense. Democrats have to figure out a way to replace all these future liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/25/planned-parenthood-grand-jury-indicts-anti-abortion-activists In a surprise move, a Texas grand jury investigating Planned Parenthood wrapped up on Monday by issuing several indictments not to the women’s healthcare provider, but to two of the anti-abortion activists who had prompted the investigation. The grand jury, convened by the Harris County district attorney’s office, indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for tampering with a governmental record, the DA’s office announced. Daleiden received a second indictment under a law prohibiting the purchase and sale of human organs. I find that hilarious. edit. I find it even more funny how much traction this story is getting, rushing to the top of headlines. Edited January 25, 2016 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Media bias in two pictures Do you remember this picture? It was taken by JD Mullane, a news columnist for the Bucks County Courier Times, showing the empty rows reserved for the media during the criminal trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. When America’s most prolific serial killer was on trial for multiple murders and the jury was hearing horrific details of what occurred in Gosnell’s abortion clinic, the media didn’t bother to show up. However, the media was highly interested when prolife activist/citizen journalist David Daleiden went to the Harris County courthouse yesterday to merely post bond after being charged with using a fake driver's license to go undercover into Planned Parenthood. Daleiden was offered a plea deal to receive only probation which he turned down. Below is a picture taken by Phil Archer, a KPRC Local 2 Reporter, showing the hallway of the courthouse filled with media. Archer also posted a video which shows media personnel with at least 7-8 large video cameras and numerous others taking photos. This is a prime example of media bias. When the media thinks a story will show abortion providers in a bad light, the media are nowhere to be found but when they think a story will hurt the prolife movement, they show up in droves. While Planned Parenthood has been giddy about the charges filed against Daleiden, if Harris County prosecutors go forward with these charges, Planned Parenthood executives will be subpoenaed to testify and the videos of Daleiden's undercover work will become evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 While Planned Parenthood has been giddy about the charges filed against Daleiden, if Harris County prosecutors go forward with these charges, Planned Parenthood executives will be subpoenaed to testify and the videos of Daleiden's undercover work will become evidence. That could prove to be very interesting indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Selling baby organs for profit: not a big deal Using fake credentials for undercover interview: Stone him! I would like to see him use the defense that he was a an undocumented reporter. A Dreamer. He's doing interviews no other journalist wants to do! Edited February 6, 2016 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Selling baby organs for profit: not a big deal Using fake credentials for undercover interview: Stone him! I would like to see him use the defense that he was a an undocumented reporter. A Dreamer. He's doing interviews no other journalist wants to do! It is blind hypocrisy at its best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I'm not sure how they can charge him with the purchase and sale of human organs, but not charge the PP rep that was haggling with him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Of course they do.................... Mediaite @Mediaite 3h3 hours ago Pro-Choice Group Denounces Doritos Super Bowl Ad for ‘Humanizing Fetuses’ http://bit.ly/1nSG1mW pic.twitter.com/zxBYtGmmTp 5:55 AM - 8 Feb 2016 · Details 32 retweets 17 likes Also......................against the "Super Bowl Babies" ad..... NARAL ProChoice Ohio@ProChoiceOH 17h17 hours ago Super Bowl Babies? Use protection, sports fans. #MediaWeLike Wait, even if they're chosen?? So you're not pro-choice, you literally just hate babies. . Edited February 8, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Never Enough Abortions in California Anywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Anywhere! I guess any death is a joke to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I guess any death is a joke to you. I would say that he is simply using my month old post to distract from today's ( reply #597) about the damning responses to the Super Bowl ads, but he hasn't got the intelligence for that. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts