About Us

Name: Stefano
Location: Clayton, MO
Biography
Name:
Email: tectonic.stl@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is Abortion Included in the Politician Run Health Care Bill?

Posted by Stefano on Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:55:01 AM
We keep hearing assurances that abortion services are not mentioned in the different politician-run health care bills being considered in Congress.  I have heard such assurances from Congressman Russ Carnahan and Senator Claire McCaskill here in Missouri.  If you go to this link you will find the two amendments that were considered in the House Energy and Commerce Committee for the House government takeover of health care bill: the Capps amendment and the Pitts amendment. 
 
      http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/07/abortion-kabuki-dance-and-heal.html  
 
The Capps amendment was ultimately adopted and the Pitts amendment was rejected.  My take on this is that the Capps amendment basically allows a provider to provide abortion services as long as no part of the premium is used for abortion services.  A "Commissioner" will determine and make sure that providers comply with this provision.  Additionally, if at any time in the future the law restricting use of federal funds for abortion is repealed (Hyde Amendment), the doors will open wide to allow abortion on demand funded by taxpayer dollars. 
 
One Senate talking point is that the Senate bill does not mention abortion and the Senate will not be voting on the House bill but rather the Senate bill.  Of course, the two bills will be brought together in a conference committee after passage in its respective chamber.  Who knows what will be added in the conference committee.  In committee, anything is possible including earmarks for John Murtha's district.
 
 
 
 
Watch this clip of Carnahan.  He is a question dodger but not a particularly agile one.  Did he read the bill?  Does he say he'll come under the bill and its public option?  Is Medicare efficient?  On the subject of abortion, the question is phrased "should abortion be covered..." rather than "is abortion covered...".  This gives him weasel room. Does Carnahan goof on his prepared abortion talking point by saying "no" the first time he states it?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Embraces the Memory of Eugenics Proponent Margaret Sanger

Posted by Stefano on Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:01:39 PM
A post by Judi Lake at:     http://www.resistnet.com/group/iresisttheantilifeagenda/forum/topics/hillary-in-awe-of-margaret-1
tells of a recent speech by H. Clinton where she speaks in great admiring hyperbolic terms about Planed Parenthood founder and eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger: 
 
“…Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. "
 
We can now rest assured that the our government will be borrowing money on the public credit card to fund abortions all across the globe, thanks to the Obama administration and H. Clinton.  The goal of Margaret Sanger to eliminate the poor and feeble through progressive eugenics will go forward with pride and joy and money borrowed in your name.  That's certainly worth going into debt for.
 
"I am also pleased to tell you that we announced that the United States will once again fund family planning through the United Nations. (Applause.) We are going to fund a contribution of $50 million this fiscal year. That's a 130 percent increase over our last contribution, which was made in 2001. Congress has also approved the Administration's request for $545 million in bilateral assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs this year. And this is a significant increase over last year. Because I and the Administration are not wavering in our commitments to development assistance even in these tough economic times. (Applause.)"
 
Should our economic woes slow down our push to abort unborn children across the world?  H. Clinton doesn't think so, even if we must borrow on the public tab to do so.
 
"Now, some might ask, well, we've got problems here at home - and we sure do. Unemployment is rising. People are losing not only jobs but their homes. We're seeing small businesses that were flourishing a few years ago shut their doors."
 
Amazingly, through her cockeyed thinking, international abortions funded by the taxpayer debt tab will help the U.S.A. in areas of national security.  Go here to read the speech and prepare to be astonished:  http://newsblaze.com/story/20090328122708stat.nb/topstory.html
 
In these videos, Hillary Clinton has her feet held to the fire by Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry.  She uses clever misdirection rhetoric to weasel out of the applied pressure.  Shades of Bill.
 
H. Clinton compares Jefferson and Sanger.
 
 
It's quite interesting that when the pro-life folks compare the evils of slavery and abortion, the pro-choicers scream like stuck pigs, particularly when the Dred Scott case is invoked. In this case, H. Clinton uses Jefferson's ownership of slaves as something to condemn him for while still admiring him. She uses that to say that Sanger's eugenics promoting activities, while bad, are not enough to cause one not to admire all of the good things she did.

No pro-lifer would ever support slavery or abortion, or support the choice to have slaves or the right to choose abortion. You can safely infer that H. Clinton supports the choice to have an abortion but not the choice to have slaves. She is inconsistent here if freedom of choice is paramount. She is absolutely opposed to slavery but she supports abortion. In order to reconcile these inconsistent positions, she must on the one hand oppose the Dred Scott decision that declared that Africans were not persons and on the other hand affirm the Roe vs Wade decision that declared that unborn humans are not persons. The key to the argument is the personhood of the unborn. Margaret Sanger is not part of the core argument but invoking her dispicable record can lead one to the inconsistencies of the pro-choice for abortion proponents.

The Creator, science, and ethics are on the pro-life side of the argument. The pro-choice side is stuck with death, blood, destruction, evil and cognitive dissonance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oback and Infanticide

Posted by Stefano on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:41:02 PM
 Barack Obama abortion infanticide
 
I'm Oback Arama, and this is the last time I will address the issue of abortion and quote, infanticide, unquote, until I address it the next time.   Many are criticizing my 4 votes against providing health care to products of conception accidently born alive during an abortion.  Why people have a love affair with products of conception is beyond my ability to conceive.  Ha!  Ha!  You know, I went back and checked my record on these votes, because I was sure that I must have voted present at least once on this issue, but not so.
 
Now, we all have heard the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"  Well, I ask you a similar philosophical question, "If a breathing product of conception with a heart beat dies in a dirty linen closet, and it doesn't get health care, does that make it a person with rights?"  Due to the fact that this question may be above my pay grade, I must be very careful about my answer.  Firstly, I don't pretend to know for sure if these things are living persons with rights, so the safest way to deal with them is to be as careful as possible to protect the right to choose and just assume that they are not human beings.  Therefore, if it's not human, it's not infanticide.  Secondly, I don't want people to twist my words and spread lies saying that I don't support universal, free, Cuban style health care.  But if you put this pre-viable fetus thing in the closet, and of its own accord it ceases to have a heart beat, and stops breathing, and no one is there to see it, really, who cares?  We must at all costs protect the sacred holy right enshrined in the constitution through the Roe vs. Wade decision.  I'm not one to blow my own horn, but it took a great deal of courage for me to lead my party on this issue by denying health care to the born unborn.  Now, as I feared, politically motivated, petty people are attempting to use this against my humanitarian health care initiatives.  But, I stood up when faced with that dangerous political decision, and hit the no button on four different occasions, and protected the sacred right of every woman and brave abortionist to snuff out, by neglect, accidently born alive, breathing human blobs of tissue with heart beats.
 
I hope that I have cleared up any doubts about what I believe and what I have courageously done to show my compassionate, sensitive actions on behalf of human rights and I hope my opponents will now stop these empty personal attacks that never fed a hungry child.  We need to get back now to the central issues of this campaign, like change and hope, and change you can use, and change that works for you, and real change, not change of the last eight years.  I hope that my life issues positions will encourage you to support the coming glorious United States of Oback Arama Nation, by voting for me for President, and not for that old Navy flyer guy.
 
I'm Oback Arama and I approved this message.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BornAliveTruth.org
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Incomprehensible Numbers

Posted by Stefano on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:10:29 PM

  I have difficulty getting my mind around large numbers like the distance to the sun or the distance to the nearest star. In fact, when the number exceeds a couple of million, it helps me if I break the number down to a recognizable quantity to understand its enormity. For instance, how long would it take to drive to the sun (I know that this can’t be done) given that the distance is 93,000,000 miles? At 80 miles per hour, it would take about 177 years, assuming I lived that long and somehow managed to not be incinerated on the way. 

The number of abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade, now approaching 50,000,000 kids, is a similarly difficult number to comprehend. Here’s an attempt to put the number in context. The new Busch Stadium in St. Louis holds about 47,000 people. If I divide that capacity into the 50 million abortions number, I compute a total of 1,063. Divide that by the 81 home dates that the Cardinals play each year and you come up with the number 13. So the number of kids aborted since Roe vs. Wade would represent thirteen totally sold out seasons for the St. Louis Cardinals. That’s an image that I can wrap my mind around and an image that takes my breath away. It’s also an image that should move us to action.     

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »