Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   America Needs a White Republican President (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=772123)

  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:12 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Racist, well I'll have to let my abo's go loose, goose, then won't I. Racist because I don't want my country overrun by middle eastern and south asian yobboos, because I don't want the same conditions you enjoy to arise here. Because I don't want an underclass. Declare your hispanics citizens and then speak to me of racism. When I look at Obama I don't see a black man, can you say the same?

    It is not racist to be anti-muslim, anti-terrorist and anti-bullshiite. We, in this country, are fed to the teeth with multi-culturism, an idea completely foreign and imported from northern climes who now wish they had never thought of it. Our original inhabitants are unimpressed with boat people, discuss racism with them

    I rest my case.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:21 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Nahhh... It's a non existent victory in the non existent war on women...

    non existent excon

    What's odd is on the "affordable" health care thread the argument is people should be happy to be forced to purchase coverage that's provides better care, while on this one you're arguing women should be happy to have less stringent standards of care.

    You libs make no sense.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:28 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman
    Breaking News

    Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional
    Don't tell me, it's a racist law.
    Sexist is a better word.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:30 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:
    Quote:

    You libs make no sense.
    Well, when you grasp that the law to require a doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, has NOTHING to do with care, and EVERYTHING to do with closing down the clinic, you'll understand.

    But, I ain't holding my breath..

    excon
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:43 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve, my very, VERY naive friend:
    Quote:

    But, I ain't holding my breath..
    I been thinking... You really CAN'T believe that trap laws are designed to protect women.. You CAN'T...

    If you came upon a 3 Card Monty player on the street, you'd IMMEDIATELY recognize that the PURPOSE of the game was NOT to offer the player a chance to win money, but to STRIP the player of his money...

    That's what trap laws are for. It's the ONLY reason. The INTENTION of the law is to SHUT DOWN abortion clinics, and it was going to DO that before the judge stepped in..

    Look, my friend.. I'd have a LOT more respect for you if you'd ADMIT that you KNOW what trap laws are for, instead of pretending they're for the health of the woman...

    If in fact, you BELIEVE 3 Card Monty is an honest game of chance, then I have some real estate to sell you..

    excon
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Well, when you grasp that the law to require a doctor to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, has NOTHING to do with care, and EVERYTHING to do with closing down the clinic, you'll understand.

    But, I ain't holding my breath..

    excon

    And in light of Gosnell you have no issues with making sure women have quality care.

    Quote:

    The State’s Exhibits appear to be devastating to the abortion clinic’s arguments that abortion is so safe that hospital privileges are unnecessary.

    A declaration submitted by John Thorp, Jr., M.D. notes that hospital privileges make it more likely that abortionists can effectively care for patients. He stated that 73% of hospitals report inadequate on-call coverage by specialists, especially Ob/Gyns. Dr. Thorp also concluded that hospital privileges prevents patient abandonment by itinerate physicians.

    A declaration by James C. Anderson, M.D. states that the new law “will most likely improve the quality of care…and enhance patient follow-up care after an abortion.”

    Anderson continued, “As stated earlier, I have worked in local Emergency Rooms across Virginia for over thirty years. When women have come to the Emergency Room with complications related to an abortion, never once have I received a phone call initiated by the provider conveying information about the abortion, the young woman’s condition or potential complications. I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patient’s best interest. I have called many abortion clinic physicians but never once has the provider come to the Emergency Room to assume care. I have always had to call a staff physician. This then creates another delay since the staff physician is taking care of his/her own patients, but now must change his/her schedule to assume the care of someone else’s patient. These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.”

    Dr. Anderson cites the cases of 35 abortion clinics and providers from recent news stories as “illustrative of the need for state regulation of abortion practice and conformity to standards of care in medicine.” Those cases include that of Ann Kristin Neuhaus in Kansas, Feliciano Rios and Andrew Rutland in California, Rapin Osathanondh in Massachusetts, Alberto Hodari in Michigan, and ten abortionists in Texas who were discovered to have committed violations during an undercover investigation conducted in 2010 by Operation Rescue and The Survivors, and other cases.
    I can admit that such laws will either force abortionists to provide quality care or close, I have no problem with that. I don't believe any woman should face the prospect of a Gosnell.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:53 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I can admit that such laws will either force abortionists to provide quality care or close, I have no problem with that. I don't believe any woman should face the prospect of a Gosnell.

    If they do abortions at a walk-in/women's clinic, it must be a Gosnell-type clinic.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:59 AM
    speechlesstx
    I said nothing of the sort, I said women deserve quality care. Why would any reputable abortionist, an oxymoron if ever there was one, not have admitting privileges? Why would they not want to care for their patient in the hospital?

    It's more of the absolute contradiction that is liberal/progressive America. Whine about anti-choice Americans while limiting our choices. Forcing us to pay for better care while denying higher standards to women facing an abortion. It makes no sense.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:07 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Why would any reputable abortionist, an oxymoron if ever there was one

    So it's not the cleanliness of the clinic that bothers you. It's what they might be doing inside.
    Quote:

    It's more of the absolute contradiction that is liberal/progressive America. Whine about anti-choice Americans while limiting our choices. Forcing us to pay for better care while denying higher standards to women facing an abortion. It makes no sense.
    Isn't Republican closing of walk-in/women's clinics exactly that -- limiting women's choices? and forcing us to go to high-priced hospitals where they charge $$ for your "welcome pack" of toothpaste/toothbrush/tissues/deodorant/paper slippers?
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:18 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    So it's not the cleanliness of the clinic that bothers you. It's what they might be doing inside.

    Isn't Republican closing of walk-in/women's clinics exactly that -- limiting women's choices? and forcing us to go to high-priced hospitals where they charge $$ for your "welcome pack" of toothpaste/toothbrush/tissues/deodorant/paper slippers?

    I make no pretense that I don't despise abortion or that such laws may limit "choice", I've been very clear and non-contradictory about that. I'm not the one that remained silent about the horrors in Philadelphia while fighting every effort to set standards of care and loudly,hypocritically for years and years claiming they want to make abortion "safe and rare."
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:20 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:
    Quote:

    And in light of Gosnell you have no issues with making sure women have quality care.
    If Gosnell were the norm instead of a criminal, certainly. But, it's NOT.
    Quote:

    Andrea Ferrigno, vice president of Whole Woman's Health, which operates for-profit abortion clinics in five Texas cities, testified Tuesday on the potential impact of the law on two clinics in the Rio Grande Valley. Abortions account for 90 percent of the company's business, she said.

    The company so far has approached 32 hospitals and submitted 15 applications for privileges without success, Ferrigno said. Ferrigno acknowledged under cross examination that none of the applications has been rejected. She said she didn't know whether they will ultimately be accepted or denied.

    State law also bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and, as of Sept. 1, 2014, will require clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. Those provisions weren't challenged in Planned Parenthood's lawsuit.

    The law says any doctor who performs abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (48 kilometers) of his clinic. The rule is unjustified because fewer than 0.3 percent of abortions nationwide result in hospitalization, according to Planned Parenthood.
    excon
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    And you believe everything Planned Parenthood says. Bwa ha ha!
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:26 AM
    talaniman
    Abortions or most female reproductive services can be done safely in a doctors office. Why make them go to a hospital? And what hospital wants a doctor who has no need to admit patients?

    And not all abortion facilities are the rat infested unclean place that the right paints them to be. If you cannot understand that the Texas law creates obstacles then you must have an agenda besides safety or health.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:32 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Abortions or most female reproductive services can be done safely in a doctors office. Why make them go to a hospital? And what hospital wants a doctor who has no need to admit patients?

    Things go wrong.

    Quote:

    And not all abortion facilities are the rat infested unclean place that the right paints them to be. If you cannot understand that the Texas law creates obstacles then you must have an agenda besides safety or health.
    Already answered, and in the spirit of the OP if you can't see I despise racism you must have an agenda besides ending racism.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:51 AM
    talaniman
    Things that go wrong are not widespread or the norm for 99.9% of clients and middle class clients have had no such obstacles placed before them because they have insurance to pay for a private doctor. That's the whole key for making abortions rare.

    To address racism, which is only a small part of hate, you must first address inequality. You may not change a sick mind, but you can make sure the law is applied equally to all and protection under the law is equal. You cannot outlaw racist thinking, but you can outlaw racist behavior.

    Agreed?
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:12 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    That's the whole key for making abortions rare.
    Nah ,making abortions rare was just another lie . They want it free ;and on demand .
    Evidently safe is optional .
    Free Abortions on Demand Without Apology | The Nation
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Things that go wrong are not widespread or the norm for 99.9% of clients and middle class clients have had no such obstacles placed before them because they have insurance to pay for a private doctor. That's the whole key for making abortions rare.
    You know PP is in this not only for an agenda but to make PROFIT while obfuscating how they get all that revenue, but those evil profits don't concern you any more than making sure women have access to that "safe" abortion they preach. And no, having insurance is not the key to making abortions rare. That's a ridiculous argument.

    Quote:

    To address racism, which is only a small part of hate, you must first address inequality. You may not change a sick mind, but you can make sure the law is applied equally to all and protection under the law is equal. You cannot outlaw racist thinking, but you can outlaw racist behavior.

    Agreed?
    No, I disagree. We don't need more laws and the ones we have now have spurred a lot of resentment as it is and in some areas as segregated as ever. As I've said before until your side stops fanning the flames racism will always be an issue, Democrats WANT it to remain an issue.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:19 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Things go wrong.

    Women have home births all the time. That must be even risker and, gosh, should be forbidden because she is pushing out an 8+ pound object (instead of a miniscule one). Things could go wrong! New law = no more home births.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Women have home births all the time. That must be even risker and, gosh, should be forbidden because she is pushing out an 8+ pound object (instead of a miniscule one). Things could go wrong! New law = no more home births.

    Giving birth is a natural event taking place for millennia, induced abortion is medical intervention.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:30 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Giving birth is a natural event taking place for millennia, induced abortion is medical intervention.

    Guess how many home births are not totally natural and need medical intervention of some kind. That little object doesn't just slip out effortlessly.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:54 AM
    talaniman
    Woman have been terminating pregnancies for centuries. Men still don't know when they do and I doubt they ever will but targeting those that depend on walk in clinics is a rather cowardly way of doing things.

    And even more hypocritical in my view is getting between a doctor and patient with laws passed by republican lawmakers always men for some reason against objections by women. What would we call unwanted advice and help for someone that isn't affected by that help and advice?

    You want to stop abortions and Planned Parenthood, then give females money, doctors, and insurance. And stop the hypocrisy,

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...rtion-Edition#

    Quote:

    So if this bill passes, it provides Rick Perry's sister's company an opportunity to move into a new field, one where poor women can be charged an exorbitant rate for a desperate procedure. Expect abortions in Texas to continue, just at 2-3 times the previous going rates.
    http://texasascsociety.org/

    Destroying the completion is a great way to make MO' money so its not about the patients completely but a new revenue stream. Helps if your brother is the GOVENOR.

    http://tascs.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=8

    Quote:

    Become an Industry Leader

    We have had a tremendous start to the 2011 - 2012 election cycle, but we need your support to continue the push! We are asking each ASC to become an "Industry Leader" by contributing $1,000 or more to the Texas ASC Society PAC. See enclosed contribution form. By supporting your PAC, you and your colleagues can ensure that the Texas ASC industry continues to have a strong voice in the political process.

    Accept our challenge, step up and be a true ASC Industry Leader by contributing $1000 or more to your Texas ASC Society PAC today!

    How do I contribute?

    Click here to contribute and learn who can contribute.
    It's about money in Texas, not morals. And lets be clear about Perry's decision to not support Medicaid expansion to his uninsured citizens. Its about him running for president, as he knows the NEXT governor WILL expand to save money and his sister will get that money for her company without it being an issue.

    I daresay funneling tax payer money from the government to private businesses is so pervasive in this country its no wonder we are going broke with such corrupt business practices.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:55 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Guess how many home births are not totally natural and need medical intervention of some kind. That little object doesn't just slip out effortlessly.

    I never said intervention wasn't ever necessary in childbirth, I said it's natural. I said induced abortion is intentional medical intervention. Especially the one where they shove instruments up her vagina that can cause damage to the woman while they cut, crush and suck the life out of the child.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:58 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I never said intervention wasn't ever necessary in childbirth, I said it's natural. I said induced abortion is intentional medical intervention. Especially the one where they shove instruments up her vagina that can cause damage to the woman while they cut, crush and suck the life out of the child.

    How many women are able to have natural childbirth? From what I know, not many.

    And the instrument probing and device shoving and life sucking are the norm?
  • Oct 29, 2013, 09:48 AM
    speechlesstx
    Moving along, it's obvious you people don't believe abortionists should meet even a minimum standard of care, and the Perry's sister thing was debunked months ago.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 09:58 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Moving along, it's obvious you people don't believe abortionists should meet even a minimum standard of care, and the Perry's sister thing was debunked months ago.

    I agree all facilities should have a high standard of healthy and safety, but we disagree as to how to get there. Just like we disagree how to address many problems we face as a country.

    Trying to do better isn't an easy transition at all. Especially when you have no money to finance this mess. :(
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:03 AM
    speechlesstx
    Stop wasting all our money.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:13 AM
    NeedKarma
    Wouldn't sending billions of dollars to Israel every year be a much bigger waste of your money instead of funding a high standard of safety for healthcare facilities?
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Wouldn't sending billions of dollars to Israel every year be a much bigger waste of your money instead of funding a high standard of safety for healthcare facilities?

    What, you don't like Jews?
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:29 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Stop wasting all our money.

    End corporate welfare, and tie tax rates to job creation. Thus reducing social welfare also. Just an idea.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:38 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    What, you don't like Jews?
    Playing the anti-semitic card is lame and tired, it could be East Bucketstan for all I care, the amount given yearly is a terrible waste of taxpayer money.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:50 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Playing the anti-semitic card is lame and tired, it could be East Bucketstan for all I care, the amount given yearly is a terrible waste of taxpayer money.

    I don't consider supporting Israel a waste of money. Obama spent nearly 8 times our total aid to Israel since we began with a loan in 1949 in one swoop with his porkulus bill.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 10:55 AM
    NeedKarma
    But that likely won't happen again, yet that large sum goes to them every single year.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 11:06 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    But that likely won't happen again, yet that large sum goes to them every single year.

    Whatever, one day everyone whines that we don't give enough foreign aid and the nest they when we give too much - to Israel - even though the emperor himself had over $3 billion in his last budget.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 11:18 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    one day everyone whines that we don't give enough foreign aid
    I don't think that's ever the case.
  • Nov 1, 2013, 06:39 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Breaking News

    Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Federal judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

    Breaking news, federal appeals court reinstates Texas new abortion regs.

    Quote:

    New restrictions on abortions in Texas went into effect Thursday night after a federal appeals court lifted an order that would have blocked them.

    One provision requires any doctor performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. On Monday, a federal district court judge in Austin said the requirement places an undue burden on a woman seeking a legal abortion and adds no medical value. The women's groups challenging the law said it would force about a third of the 36 abortion clinics in Texas to shut down. The judge blocked the law the day before it was going to take effect.

    The state immediately appealed, and late Thursday a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order, allowing the restriction to go into effect. The panel said the provision does have a valid medical purpose – helping to ensure that the credentials of doctors who perform abortions are current. The law, the court said, acts as another layer of protection for patient safety.

    It's not an undue burden, the panel said, even though it may make it harder or more expensive for women in Texas to get access to an abortion clinic. The state, it said, has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession.
  • Nov 1, 2013, 06:54 AM
    excon
    Hello Steve:

    It AIN'T over till it's over.. We've heard from the lib judge, and we heard from a right wing 3 judge panel.. The NEXT level is the FULL panel OR the Supreme Court.

    Personally, I think it IS a burden on low income women to have to travel LONG distances and spend LOTS of money for something that WAS available locally, but not now.

    But, that's just me.

    excon
  • Nov 1, 2013, 07:10 AM
    tomder55
    Yup there is always Gosnell like clinics for the low income.. right ? Or maybe the clinics can spend the money necessary to comply to mandated standards like every other business is expected to do.
  • Nov 1, 2013, 07:21 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:
    Quote:

    Yup there is always Gosnell like clinics for the low income.. right ?
    If you were pregnant, poor, and can't get a legal abortion, would you opt for (a) a Gosnell like clinic, or (b) a coathanger?

    I know you THINK you're gonna force her to have her baby.. But you guys THINK laws against marijuana are gonna KEEP people from smoking marijuana.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

    excon
  • Nov 1, 2013, 07:24 AM
    speechlesstx
    We aren't the ones fighting every "layer of protection for patient safety" for women in need.
  • Nov 1, 2013, 07:48 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:
    If you were pregnant, poor, and can't get a legal abortion, would you opt for (a) a Gosnell like clinic, or (b) a coathanger?

    I know you THINK you're gonna force her to have her baby.. But you guys THINK laws against marijuana are gonna KEEP people from smoking marijuana.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

    excon

    Let's say instead of an abortion factory we were talking about a Catholic clinic that ministers to the poor. Would you accept substandard facilities that don't comply with code ? Don't answer .I already know... You don't think that faith based charity should operate at all unless they violate their own convictions to comply with a law that violates their 1st amendment protections..

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.