Thread: NRA defends itself after corporations pull away

Originally Posted by Boomslang

I'd like to agree but I can't.

Here's an example why:
Republicans favor, in some cases, strict voter ID.
The 24th Amendment states that no citizen should be charged any money in any election, local or federal. The right to vote except in some cases cannot be taken away and I cannot be made to purchase anything for the right to vote
I have a driver's licenses because I choose to have one. Therefore, holding my voting rights to a driver's license is unconstitutional.

Georgia has to "eat" four million dollars every election cycle and offer people a free ID certified for voting. Due to the "money clause".

No money and no mental tests or civic test. Give me my ballot!!!!!

Without voter I.D., what suggestions do you have to legitimize our voting process?

How many voters out there are actually without a picture I.D. I would think the cost of providing the I.D. would be negligible. Small price to pay for a state interested in an honest election process.

I would rather we "eat" four million for an ID than to have had that witch HILLARY for President. Money well spent.

Everybody should have an ID...and we need National Voter ID Law put in place NOW before the next Presidential election.

Any State giving ID's to illegal aliens should not have their vote counted.

Originally Posted by Boomslang

I'd like to agree but I can't.

Here's an example why:
Republicans favor, in some cases, strict voter ID.
The 24th Amendment states that no citizen should be charged any money in any election, local or federal. The right to vote except in some cases cannot be taken away and I cannot be made to purchase anything for the right to vote
I have a driver's licenses because I choose to have one. Therefore, holding my voting rights to a driver's license is unconstitutional.

Georgia has to "eat" four million dollars every election cycle and offer people a free ID certified for voting. Due to the "money clause".

No money and no mental tests or civic test. Give me my ballot!!!!!

You can also use a state issued photo ID that is not a driver's license and if you can't afford one, the state will provide it free for you. It's up to the states to decides this.

I'm not a fan of photo ID to vote, although I understand the concern fellow Republicans have about illegal voting by non-citizens. But so far, we've not been able to prove it exists in any significant numbers in states where we win.

Originally Posted by Judy

jtdc, the state of California probably includes abortion procedures in their state funding programs, so does New York, and maybe a few other states, but they pay the same benefit or coverage to all abortion providers, not just those performed or arranged by Planned Parenthood.

So what difference does it make whether the federal government or a state is taking money from someone who is opposed to abortion and giving it to PP or any other abortion provider?

Originally Posted by Judy

So again, why are you or anyone else targeting Planned Parenthood and mixing up state funding for abortions and the illegal act under law since 1974 of using federal money?

Planned Parenthood (Planned Abortion) is the largest abortion provider in this country! This one organization allegedly performs 35% of all abortions performed in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Judy

The % of elective abortions provided or arranged by Planned Parenthood is less than 1 out of 4 performed in the United States, so again, why are you targeting a minority service provider like Planned Parenthood?

"Minority"? See Politifact-Wisconsin

Originally Posted by Judy

You seem to be at a loss for an explanation like everyone else when asked the question.

No! Read the article!

Originally Posted by Judy

I have concluded that the Pro-Life religious movement targets Planned Parenthood because they provide abortion services to the poor and minorities.

That's your opinion. I am not religious, but from what I see, many religions consider it a sin, they consider it murder. They are against anybody aborting a fetus, and it has nothing to do with them being poor.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Pro-Life Movement was started by an attorney named James Bopp from Indiana in the 1970's after Roe V Wade.

When I was a kid, I was raised in a Baptist Church environment. Abortion was an absolute no-no. And in that time I heard the Catholic Pope condemn abortion as well. And all of that was before 1970. So it did not start with James Bopp!

Originally Posted by Judy

Honestly, the peculiar obsession that these groups have with sex and reproduction that isn't their own is weird and creepy in my opinion.

I agree! I think that conservatism is harmful to many children. But I consider the other extreme just as harmful. I think too much repression breeds promiscuity.

Originally Posted by Judy

I'm Pro-Choice, which means I support the pregnant girl or woman whose life it involves and her decision whatever that is. If she wants to reproduce, great, her choice, have a baby. If she doesn't, fine, her choice as well, terminate the pregnancy.

As I pointed out in another thread, I lean toward abstinence outside of marriage. That used to be the standard before the '70s and free love.

Originally Posted by Judy

Why anyone would want to force a pregnant girl or woman into childbirth against her will is completely beyond my comprehension.

Benjamin Franklin said “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. If children are taught abstinence and adults practiced it, this choice would not have to be made.

The problem is we didn't get here overnight. And trying to go back would take a lot of time and a lot of pressure. And I am convinced it isn't going to happen while I am alive, if at all.

Originally Posted by jtdc

So what difference does it make whether the federal government or a state is taking money from someone who is opposed to abortion and giving it to PP or any other abortion provider?

Planned Parenthood (Planned Abortion) is the largest abortion provider in this country! This one organization allegedly performs 35% of all abortions performed in the U.S.

"Minority"? See Politifact-Wisconsin

No! Read the article!

That's your opinion. I am not religious, but from what I see, many religions consider it a sin, they consider it murder. They are against anybody aborting a fetus, and it has nothing to do with them being poor.

When I was a kid, I was raised in a Baptist Church environment. Abortion was an absolute no-no. And in that time I heard the Catholic Pope condemn abortion as well. And all of that was before 1970. So it did not start with James Bopp!

I agree! I think that conservatism is harmful to many children. But I consider the other extreme just as harmful. I think too much repression breeds promiscuity.

As I pointed out in another thread, I lean toward abstinence outside of marriage. That used to be the standard before the '70s and free love.

Benjamin Franklin said “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. If children are taught abstinence and adults practiced it, this choice would not have to be made.

The problem is we didn't get here overnight. And trying to go back would take a lot of time and a lot of pressure. And I am convinced it isn't going to happen while I am alive, if at all.

1. The state has the right to pay for it if they want to, there's nothing wrong with a state paying for an abortion for someone who can't afford it on their own. Why would there be something wrong with that? I don't believe it's wrong for the federal government to pay for them when the girl or woman can't afford it, but we have a Hyde Amendment at the federal level that prevents the use of federal money to fund abortions, which is why no federal money is used to pay for abortions since 1974.

2. Planned Parenthood may be the single "largest" provider. When I researched this a few years ago, Planned Parenthood either provides or arranges through referrals, 22% of the elective abortions in the US. But whether it's 22% or 35%, who cares? They are not providing the vast majority of the abortions in the US, so why target them? It's a legal, moral and vital service for pregnant girls and women, regardless of who pays for it or who provides them.

3. Then they should go after the other 78% of the "sinners" providing abortions to rich white people and see how well that works out for them. They'll be like the DEMS with their Russia Hoax trying to out run the BOOMERANG.

4. Yeah, it was a "no-no" until you needed one, and then off to a state where it was legal to get rid of it. All the hypocrites better keep their eyes open for the BIG BOOMERANG, especially the Baptists and Catholics.

5. I have no problem with promiscuity. It's a personal choice to be so. It's not something I'm interested in, but if it appeals to someone else, I have no problem with that. I don't support repression.

6. The abstinence thing has been proven unnatural. It only works in countries with arranged marriages and death penalties for adultery.

7. No, it will never happen. Americans will never go back to days of either repression or oppression. This country was founded on the fundamental philosophy of "laissez-faire", which means to leave the people alone. It's taken awhile for most Americans to understand what that means. Religions still don't get it, but thankfully, Americans go to church on Sunday and go back to their lives on Monday. Always have, always will, and thank God for that. Benjamin Franklin meant use a sock or pull out.

Originally Posted by Judy

1. The state has the right to pay for it if they want to, there's nothing wrong with a state paying for an abortion for someone who can't afford it on their own.
Why would there be something wrong with that? I don't believe it's wrong for the federal government to pay for them when the girl or woman can't afford it, but we have a Hyde Amendment at the federal level that prevents the use of federal money to fund abortions, which is why no federal money is used to pay for abortions since 1974.

The state is using our money to pay for it. And the evidence is that Federal money is paying for them despite the claims that it is not. Throwing the money in a pool is laundering it so you can't say what money went directly to abortion. If the government pays for an insurance policy to cover abortions, they will claim that the money did not go for abortions.

Originally Posted by Judy

2. Planned Parenthood may be the single "largest" provider. When I researched this a few years ago, Planned Parenthood either provides or arranges through referrals, 22% of the elective abortions in the US. But whether it's 22% or 35%, who cares? They are not providing the vast majority of the abortions in the US, so why target them?

Here we go again! According to the article, 49% of the abortions through them are performed by them! And as for this argument that because they are not doing over 50% of the nations abortions, they are a minority, I hear the same argument about whites. In California "whites" makeup about 46%. So they are the largest minority. There is no "majority". Can you name the second largest abortion provider? I can't find one. In California there is listed 121 providers. But PP is apparently the only "abortion mill"!

Originally Posted by Judy

It's a legal, moral and vital service for pregnant girls and women, regardless of who pays for it or who provides them.

It is legal because a court decided to make law, Congress would not. That is not to say I disagree with Roe-v-Wade. But Roe-v-Wade was a ruling that said it could not be prohibited. At this point I still agree with that. But the ruling did not say it was a right to be paid for by the public.

As for "moral", that is a real controversy. As I have pointed out, I prefer avoiding pregnancy over abortion. However, as I have also said, I feel it is better for a fetus to be aborted than to be born to be abused!

As for "vital", pregnancy is an easily avoidable affliction. Again, as I have said, abstinence is the most effective and, I believe, the most healthy all around. This too is controversial. Before Roe-v-Wade women aborted by many bad ways, with unqualified doctors, self abortion and other methods that sometimes killed them. Roe-v-Wade, by making it legal, allowed them to get proper medical care. But it also became a license to get pregnant all you want. And that is bad!

Originally Posted by Judy

3. Then they should go after the other 78% of the "sinners" providing abortions to rich white people and see how well that works out for them.

Those "rich" sinners have always paid for their own abortions!

Originally Posted by Judy

4. Yeah, it was a "no-no" until you needed one, and then off to a state where it was legal to get rid of it.

Yes! I was aware of one in my church who disappeared soon after it was know she was pregnant. I knew of only two girls in my high school (one of them the one from my church) who got pregnant. It wasn't epidemic then. And I don't know that either of them got an abortion. They had to leave school because of school rules, so I never saw them again.

Originally Posted by Judy

All the hypocrites better keep their eyes open for the BIG BOOMERANG, especially the Baptists and Catholics.

It's already here! Much of the molest and abuse I have seen is religion based. And those children, not imprisoned by their parents like with that Paris California couple with all those children, those children will rebel once they are of age, and have grown up uneducated in how to deal with their urges.

Originally Posted by Judy

5. I have no problem with promiscuity.

I do! Expanding what I wrote earlier, if homosexuals were monogamous, they would not have had diseases like AIDS wipe half of them out. These days, heterosexuals seem to be competing with them in that category.

Originally Posted by Judy

It's a personal choice to be so. It's not something I'm interested in, but if it appeals to someone else, I have no problem with that. I don't support repression.

But it is not very "personal" these days.

Originally Posted by Judy

6. The abstinence thing has been proven unnatural.

I'd like to see that evidence! Yes, it goes against our natural instincts, but so does our self restraint against murder.

Originally Posted by Judy

7. No, it will never happen. Americans will never go back to days of either repression or oppression.

And I don't want them to. But I would like it tone back a ways. We have killings in schools. They will be next to arm. But we already lost a lot of freedom when we fly and do a lot of other things. It is not because they have become less safe, it is because this free society values others less. That is a learned behavior!

Originally Posted by Judy

This country was founded on the fundamental philosophy of "laissez-faire", which means to leave the people alone.

Yet we have many laws that do just the opposite! We are a "democracy", yet when we go to war, our military is a dictatorship. That is because a democracy cannot effectively fight a dictatorship. So freedom does have responsibilities!

Originally Posted by MW

Without voter I.D., what suggestions do you have to legitimize our voting process?

How many voters out there are actually without a picture I.D. I would think the cost of providing the I.D. would be negligible. Small price to pay for a state interested in an honest election process.

I don't know the answer to legitimizing the voting process but I know the Constitution calls for no money to be exchanged to be able to get a legal ballot.
Now that we have a starting point, let's put our heads together and see if there is a solution.

I never claimed to know or have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution is a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Beezer

I would rather we "eat" four million for an ID than to have had that witch HILLARY for President. Money well spent.

Everybody should have an ID...and we need National Voter ID Law put in place NOW before the next Presidential election.

Any State giving ID's to illegal aliens should not have their vote counted.

Like a true democracy, let's put it on the ballot. Wait... How will we be able to get a ballot?

Originally Posted by Judy

You can also use a state issued photo ID that is not a driver's license and if you can't afford one, the state will provide it free for you. It's up to the states to decides this.

I'm not a fan of photo ID to vote, although I understand the concern fellow Republicans have about illegal voting by non-citizens. But so far, we've not been able to prove it exists in any significant numbers in states where we win.

(Emphasis mine)
How?
After reconstruction, many poor people couldn't vote simply because they couldn't afford the poll tax. How is a free democracy to function with only
the voice of the rich?
I use my state DL to vote because I choose to drive. Driver's license in my state is $25 dollars.
Now, what if I use public transportation because it's cheaper and my job is close?
Do my right to vote suffer due to my choice to stop driving? I'm still an American.

There are many alternatives to abortion thru PP today.
The morning after pill for 1, and 2 a 10 day after missed menses extraction procedure and of course 3, the good old condom that additionally prevents the spread of STDs.
Also available, hormonal birth control pills for women with health disadvantages and still waiting for a sperm control pill for men as they are the other half of the equation.