Democrats are not happy unless they're intruding in our lives!
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Democrats are not happy unless they're intruding in our lives!

  1. #1

    Democrats are not happy unless they're intruding in our lives!

    The headline reads - Texas approves bill requiring sonogram before abortion. Here is a link to the article.Texas approves bill requiring sonogram before abortion - Yahoo! News The most alarming portion of this article is quoted here
    Democrats tried unsuccessfully to add a series of amendments to the bill. One of those said that if the woman decided not to go through with the abortion, the state would have to pay for the college education for the child. Another, which also would have applied to cases in which the woman decided not to have the abortion, would have allowed women to get a court order to require the father of the child to get a vasectomy.
    Since when can you force someone to medically alter their body because that person impregnated another person? I'm just sick that someone would even suggest such a preposterous idea! Poli, from the Latin word for many. Tics from the Latin word for blood sucking worthless parasite.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Posts
    17
    Don't be so quick on this one... this is a republican tatchic...

    The proposal, the first significant bill considered by the House this year, was designated by Republican Governor Rick Perry as an emergency priority. A similar measure has already been approved by the state Senate.
    Republicans tried unsuccessfully to pass the sonogram proposal in 2007 and 2009. The measure benefitted from a much larger Republican majority in the House this year after the Republican victories in the 2010 elections. Texas is one of several states with strong Republican legislative majorities proposing additional restrictions on abortion this year.

    Although I am a big conservative... this is B.S.

    The idea is to get women to emotionally attach them selves to the child and by this preventing the abortion.

    Your argument of government intrusion is exactly why this is so hard to believe this was a republican bill.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by peepsnet View Post
    Although I am a big conservative... this is B.S.

    The idea is to get women to emotionally attach them selves to the child and by this preventing the abortion.

    Your argument of government intrusion is exactly why this is so hard to believe this was a republican bill.
    I agree, the Republican party needs to start being a conservative party again.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    We need to hold all the politicians feet to the fire and make them do the job they were elected to do. Represent us. You can not make laws prevent people from making poor decision. The government needs to stick to governments job and stop all this touchy feely nonsents legislation. We have a constitution that lists what their legal power is. It's time to make them follow it.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    We need to hold all the politicians feet to the fire and make them do the job they were elected to do. Represent us. You can not make laws prevent people from making poor decision. The government needs to stick to governments job and stop all this touchy feely nonsents legislation. We have a constitution that lists what their legal power is. It's time to make them follow it.
    This was not a federal law. It was a state law. This is within the power of the states to make this law. The question will be to the constitutionality of the law, if challenged.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Doesn't really matter in my opinion. Does the state constitution give elected representatives the power to involve themselves in peoples private lives? Were do you draw the line. We are either a free representive government of the people or we are a people governed by the wise and caring progressive liberals. I for one am not ready to let government control my life from cradle to grave. I make my own decisions every day, some wise some not so wise. It's not the peoples resposibility to solve everyones life problems.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7

    Question Sonogram mandatory.

    The intent behind this bill is to prevent abortions. This sonogram would show the woman that she has a living being in her stomach, not a blob of jelly. A woman with any humanity shouldn't possibly be able to abort the fetus after seeing it and hearing the heart beat. Personally, I do not advocate abortions on demand and can think of few medical reasons for one to occur. I can support bills such as this whole-heartedly.

    As for the Democrats opposing the bill, they are up to their usual shenannigans (?) trying to keep abortions happening. Rep. Alvarado says the requirement would traumatize a woman in an already difficult situation. She showed a trans-vaginal probe used for the sonogram and called it a"very intrusive process." What about the probe used to get her pregnant? She didn't consider that to be too intrusive. And for requiring the man to receive a vasectomy if she decided to keep the baby and the state paying for it's college education, what planet is this woman from? Damn, the inmates are running the asylum again!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast