-
-
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/...0205054533.jpgOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
So Democrats back a " woman's right to choose" , to kill a child after birth ? I'm confused, I thought that was the definition of Homicide ? And if it is " a woman's right to choose" , why is it not legal when the child is 2 months, 2 years , 5 years , or more ?Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Just like NY, abortion con needs to do some research about the VA bill (which is a bill, not yet a law)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...athy-tran.html
Gilbert’s implication—that, if it were legal, women would routinely wait until they were physically in labor before making an impulsive decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy—is a timeworn right-wing scare tactic. Abortions late in pregnancy are rare—in 2015, just 1.3 percent of abortions occurred at or after 21 weeks’ gestation, the same as it was in 1992. And in 1992, one study found that only about 2 percent of that 1 percent of abortions were performed at more than 26 weeks’ gestation. But pregnant women are not as capricious, nor doctors as slapdash, as anti-abortion advocates make them out to be. There are plenty of legitimate reasons that a woman might want or need an abortion later in her pregnancy. As doctor and public health researcher Daniel Grossman explained in a Twitter thread on Thursday, changes in the health of the fetus or pregnant woman, late-in-pregnancy test results revealing fetal abnormalities or nonviability, and legal restrictions—”Everything from medically unnecessary waiting periods and ultrasound laws to shuttering of clinics and insurance bans,” Grossman writes—can all contribute to a woman’s decision to get an abortion in her second or third trimester..Arguing for the right to third-trimester abortion means arguing that the exceptions should become the rule: Even though third-trimester abortions are extraordinarily rare, if restrictions on them are too strict, they could prevent women in unimaginably difficult and dangerous situations from getting the care they need. But it’s hard to convince the general public that loosening abortion restrictions to account for these few cases won’t then allow all manner of women to wait until they’re 30 weeks pregnant to request elective abortions. The reality is, there’s no reason why any woman would decide of her own free will to opt for a more dangerous, painful, and wildly expensive procedure over an earlier, easier one. But in a culture that believes women to be fundamentally irrational and untrustworthy—in issues of sexual harassment, assault, and discrimination as well as reproductive health—an If they can, they will argument is more convincing than the simple truth of They won’t.Comment
-
versus cartoon con who posts multiple times in a row. Or the other con that always highlights parts of his posts? Yeah, those guysOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Notice how the cons are ignoring the scandal around Trump's inaugural funds? They raised more than twice the amount Obama, Bush and Clinton did, had far fewer events and can't account for the left over money or who donated all of it. (Foreigners are not allowed to donate but there have already been a few cases of Russian and Ukrainians attending the events via a thrid party purchaser). It would be so like him to keep some of the kitty for himself or find other says to scam the funds like with his "charity." The so-called president and his family are banned from serving on NY non profit boards because of the scam they ran with that "charity". Think about that for a minute.Comment
-
Think about what is more important . Another " bombshell" , or the killing of infants after they are born.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
LOL. Lib talks about ignoring issues. We spend weeks talking about a porn star, how many scoops of ice cream he has, how much TV he watches, but that's OK.....
#liberalhypocrisyComment
-
Porn stars he had affairs with and paid off to keep quiet with campaign funds is relevant because it's illegal and he lied about it. It also led to other things, like Michael Cohen. "Executive time" is relevant because he's the laziest president ever. The man hardly works. More importantly, part of that laziness is his ignoring intel briefings. That has national security risks.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
People are working. People are making money. People don't care.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
" He hardly works " but the economy is working. Maybe Obama should have gone on all those trips with Michelle , instead of trotting out gimmick after gimmick that failed.Comment
-
Greetings -
So SDNY moving on Trump like a B***, eh?
Remind me , are there any guidances around whether or not the eponymous company of a sitting president can be indicted ?
Didn’t think so ....Comment
Comment