[TheRealVille]

you mean this one that President Obama did not vote for while in the state senate of Illinois?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet...B1093.html

92nd General Assembly
Status of SB1093

Amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.
Provides that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of
the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in
a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a
physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion
who shall address the child's viability and provide medical care for
the child. Provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results
in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable
attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or
inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and
provide medical care for the child. Provides that a live child born as
a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person
and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice
shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.

Which goes against federal law?

[TheRealVille]

Looks like those firgues are rates per women and it's comparing statically the same data. If they used just pregnant women the rate would be much higher but still show that minority women have abortions at 4+ higher rate that white women. Seems to me that those who support abortions are really just trying to wipe out a certain segment of the population.

I'm for a woman's right to choose, as long as it's legal.

[Hoot Gibson]

What's your point? Whether the abortion was legal or illegal it still resulted in the murdering of a baby. And, as for your "safe settings", these settings aren't safe for the innocent ones, are they?

In a civilized society, there is no justification for killing our preborn children. It is very revealing that Kardashian and the Democratic Party have so much empathy for terrorists but no concern for our preborns.

Kardashian had much more sympathy for terrorists when Bush was president. After taking office, Obama concluded that blowing up suspected terrorists with drones was much more convenient politically than trying to find an American city willing to host their trials.

What Obama showed in opposing bills to protect victims of botched abortions and his decision to personally pick assassination targets for drones is that he only respects others' right to life or granting them American-style due process as long as there is something in it for him politically.

[Hoot Gibson]

Which goes against federal law?

No it does not and did not contradict federal law. It was opposed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois and their bought and paid for State Senator.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I'm for a woman's right to choose, as long as it's legal.

I would not argue that women have a right to choose to become pregnant or not to become pregnant. However, once they become pregnant, there is another human being (as DNA indicates) whose life should be considered. The freedom to choose should end when another human being is a part of the equation. Otherwise, the woman is choosing to murder an innocent victim of her that woman's actions.

[nky]

I'm for a woman's right to choose, as long as it's legal.

So you're for genocide

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
lol

[RunItUpTheGut]

Like it or not. Thats a living human being your killing when you have an abortion.

[TheRealThing]

The whole argument for abortion is absurd on it's face. The main prop used by all who argue in favor of abortion cite the rape/incest angle as justification. It's worth looking at the stats for our country to see just how out of hand this national scourge has become.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996, it's really hard to get recent numbers)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Who's having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Legalized abortion, talk about your oxymoron, I mean, legal murder? Who in their right mind would attempt to justify the murder of an unborn child? The 1% number proves how moronic it truly is to base the slaughter of the innocents using the ludicris rape/incest argument. Women are getting pregnant and because the babies they have produced when they used their real 'right to choose', are inconvenient to their present life style, they just execute them, legally. :please: If there ever comes a time when going to the voting booth means I must vote for one candidate or another that is pro-choice, that will be the day I stop voting. The rationale dems use to justify pulling the democratic handle is that these political hacks, though prone to kill babies, will work to improve the jobs climate for organized labor. Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Beetle01]

I find it ironic that some of you "conservatives" get all up in arms about abortion, spouting off about Christianity. Then in another thread, demonize providing health care to uninsured children.

Abortion should not be govt funded, and should only be used in cases of rape/incest/ or danger to mother.

[TheRealThing]

I find it ironic that some of you "conservatives" get all up in arms about abortion, spouting off about Christianity. Then in another thread, demonize providing health care to uninsured children.

Abortion should not be govt funded, and should only be used in cases of rape/incest/ or danger to mother.

Try to get this through your head. 1 out of 100 abortions are loosely attributable to rape/incest or danger to mother. The other 99 are done to save the mother the inconvience of becoming a mother.

[Bob Seger]

Try to get this through your head. 1 out of 100 abortions are loosely attributable to rape/incest or danger to mother. The other 99 are done to save the mother the inconvience of becoming a mother.

Ah, the proverbial "unobtainable dream". Good luck with that one...lol

[TheRealThing]

Ah, the proverbial "unobtainable dream". Good luck with that one...lol

Geez, it's rediculous. There is no way any child would ever go untreated in this country, they have and will always be "provided health care." I certainly would never hold back taking care of our little ones and I know for sure I have never demonized anyone who advocates for their care. But, I suppose in some folks mind, it's a question of age. If a baby is 18 months old he's all for applied health care. But if the baby is only 7 1/2 months old it's okay to just murder it in the womb whether it's healthy or not. And this coming from someone at the summit of the insttutional health care industry, an old folks home. :please:

[nky]

I find it ironic that some of you "conservatives" get all up in arms about abortion, spouting off about Christianity. Then in another thread, demonize providing health care to uninsured children.

Abortion should not be govt funded, and should only be used in cases of rape/incest/ or danger to mother.

uninsured children? There are many programs already in place before Obamacare to help uninsured children
one example is The Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program (KCHIP)
http://kidshealth.ky.gov/en/kchip/

[TheRealThing]

uninsured children? There are many programs already in place before Obamacare to help uninsured children
one example is The Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program (KCHIP)
http://kidshealth.ky.gov/en/kchip/

These guys are getting a workout on here!
[attachment=o2551]

[Beetle01]

Try to get this through your head. 1 out of 100 abortions are loosely attributable to rape/incest or danger to mother. The other 99 are done to save the mother the inconvience of becoming a mother.

Not sure what you are trying to convince me of. I understand that those types of abortions don't happen often. They should still be legal. Abortions for other reason should not.

Based off the 1996 stat, that is still nearly 14,000 abortions a year.

[Beetle01]

uninsured children? There are many programs already in place before Obamacare to help uninsured children
one example is The Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program (KCHIP)
http://kidshealth.ky.gov/en/kchip/

And there are still 7.9 million children uninsured nationwide. 1 in 10 children are uninsured as the average. Some states, like Texas are 1 in 5.

One problem is the financial line is way to low for the enrollment.

[TheRealThing]

One more time--- States have different income eligibility, but in most states, uninsured children 18 years old and younger whose family incomes are up to $45,000 per year (for a family of four) can qualify for either Medicaid or CHIP. In many States, family income can be even higher and children can still qualify
Q: Is this program new?
A: No. Medicaid has been available since 1965 and CHIP since 1997. In February 2009 and March 2010, President Obama signed legislation that provided additional new funding for the Medicaid and CHIP programs, with a special focus on enrolling eligible but unenrolled children. States have expanded and changed their programs over the years, and in many cases, it is easier than ever to apply for Medicaid and CHIP.


SOURCE--- http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/qa/index.html

Now you have a state link (nky) and a federal link

[nky]

And there are still 7.9 million children uninsured nationwide. 1 in 10 children are uninsured as the average. Some states, like Texas are 1 in 5.

One problem is the financial line is way to low for the enrollment.

The Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program (KCHIP) is free or low-cost health insurance for children. KCHIP is for children younger than 19 who do not have health insurance and whose family income is less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. For example, a family of four can earn up to $44,700 a year and qualify for KCHIP.

Finanial line is way to low? $44700 doesn't seem low.

[nky]

[YOUTUBE="Obama Cut Medicare By $700 Billion"]YCEgidipc5g[/YOUTUBE]

mean while the Democrats are suggesting that Ryan wants to “Throw Granny from the Cliff”

[Beetle01]

The Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program (KCHIP) is free or low-cost health insurance for children. KCHIP is for children younger than 19 who do not have health insurance and whose family income is less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. For example, a family of four can earn up to $44,700 a year and qualify for KCHIP.

Finanial line is way to low? $44700 doesn't seem low.

44.7k between 2 parents is pretty low, especially today. If they do not have jobs that provide HC insurance, then there is no way they could afford it.

Health costs for a family of 4 without job provided coverage is around 20k a year. $19,393. Of course they could afford to spend half of their income on health care coverage.


And... since this thread is about Ryan, if his plan gets passed by 2030 the CBO predicts that seniors will be responsible for 70% of their health care costs.

[TheRealThing]

You want to talk CBO projections?


CBO: On Current Path, US Economy Could Cease by 2035

We are all aboard a taxpayer-funded high speed train to self-destruction, and our engineer-in-chief is shouting full speed ahead. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is now warning that unless major reforms are implemented very soon, overwhelming debt could crush the entire US economy:...Debt would reach 250 percent of GDP by 2035. The CBO’s model cannot reliably estimate GNP after debt reaches that amount, in the agency’s judgment: The assumptions about private saving and capital inflows incorporated in CBO’s model are based on historical experience, and if interest rates and the debt-to-GDP ratio rose to levels well outside of that experience, those assumptions might no longer be valid. In 2035, GNP would be 21 percent below the benchmark under the assumptions leading to the most negative effect on GNP; beyond 2035, the negative effect on GNP would grow under those assumptions as debt continued to increase relative to the size of the economy. [CBO]

In other words, if debt and stagnation persist under a negative outlook scenario, the CBO literally cannot compute how the American economy could continue to exist beyond the year 2035. That's 23 years from today. Obama wants to add 11 trillion more to the debt, which is largely due to ObamaCare costs. Let me ask you a question. If there is no country and therefore no money, much less heath insurance, a mere 23 years down the road. How many desperate and starving children at that time will literally be roaming the streets till they die of exposure, disease or starvation? We have to maintain and defend our nation as first priority, or the highways and friendly neighborhoods with decks and backyard pools will become killing fields. All this going over your head? Right now people are affluent and caring enough to care for the indigent and the youth who are 'out in the cold'. What you are advocating will stangle the economy and it will die. Now, if LAWS (like the affordable care act) could grow legs and go out and make things happen, I guess that would be good. But, laws cannot make money or give money, to anybody. Money is the product of commerce and commerce is at the mercy of that old economic force known as 'supply and demand'. Savvy? We can't pay for universal health care.

[nky]

44.7k between 2 parents is pretty low, especially today. If they do not have jobs that provide HC insurance, then there is no way they could afford it.

Health costs for a family of 4 without job provided coverage is around 20k a year. $19,393. Of course they could afford to spend half of their income on health care coverage.


And... since this thread is about Ryan, if his plan gets passed by 2030 the CBO predicts that seniors will be responsible for 70% of their health care costs.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21000.html

median household income in Kentucky 2006-10 was $41,576

http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/states-fs-111-1-87/ky.pdf

[SIZE=2]the average cost of an employer-based family insurance policy premium in 2008 was $12,680
[/SIZE]

[Granny Bear]

"mean while the Democrats are suggesting that Ryan wants to “Throw Granny from the Cliff”

Hey....wait a minute!!!!!

[Harry Rex Vonner]

44.7k between 2 parents is pretty low, especially today. If they do not have jobs that provide HC insurance, then there is no way they could afford it.

Health costs for a family of 4 without job provided coverage is around 20k a year. $19,393. Of course they could afford to spend half of their income on health care coverage.


And... since this thread is about Ryan, if his plan gets passed by 2030 the CBO predicts that seniors will be responsible for 70% of their health care costs.

It is called "personal responsibility". Spend less on cell phones, eating out, vacations, drugs,, and whatever else people spend their finite amount of money on and be responsible for your own status in life. The government, which means we taxpayers since the government only has what it confiscates from us, doesn't owe these freeloaders anything. It is called planning for your future needs. More should give it a try.

[tvtimeout]

It is called "personal responsibility". Spend less on cell phones, eating out, vacations, drugs,, and whatever else people spend their finite amount of money on and be responsible for your own status in life. The government, which means we taxpayers since the government only has what it confiscates from us, doesn't owe these freeloaders anything. It is called planning for your future needs. More should give it a try.

I agree...should have never bailed out the banks....but "responsibility" ends just at my choices right?

For the record:
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_bu...etail_fy13

End all of welfare and education and you still don't equal what you spend in the military. I think that was an interesting fact.

I also think that it is interesting that Republicans cry for fiscal responsiblity, when in fact that not one of the Presidents since I have been alive except for a Democrat even got close to balancing the budget.

As far as Roe V. Wade... Supreme Court has final say, unless there is a constitutional admendment, so go out there and support the amendment at the state convention level...Good luck on it.

Alright everyone go back to their talking points...ready set go!

[Harry Rex Vonner]

The return on investment is far better in regard to the military than it is for public education and welfare.

Roe v Wade will never be overturned. It is too embedded in our judicial history. However, that doesn't change the fact that, to many, it is an immoral decision. Regardless of the law, th murder of another human being (as proven by DNA), nearly always merely for the convenience of the woman involved, cannot by accepted by people of conscience.

[tvtimeout]

The return on investment is far better in regard to the military than it is for public education and welfare.

Roe v Wade will never be overturned. It is too embedded in our judicial history. However, that doesn't change the fact that, to many, it is an immoral decision. Regardless of the law, th murder of another human being (as proven by DNA), nearly always merely for the convenience of the woman involved, cannot by accepted by people of conscience.

Do you feel the same way about NASA? Also, not to be a smarty pants... but how would define return on investment for military, education, and welfare, where each could be defined by common variables.

As far as an immoral decision, that is up to those individuals... some think that it is immoral to work on Sunday... some think it is immoral to drink yeast.... some think it is immoral to eat red meat...some think it is immoral to gamble.

Now if your conscience is saying that one of the above is wrong...so be it. However, what right do you have over me to tell me how to live my life?

The law is clear...like I said change through the process in which we can change laws... if not it is a mute point.

[TheRealThing]

Do you feel the same way about NASA? Also, not to be a smarty pants... but how would define return on investment for military, education, and welfare, where each could be defined by common variables.

As far as an immoral decision, that is up to those individuals... some think that it is immoral to work on Sunday... some think it is immoral to drink yeast.... some think it is immoral to eat red meat...some think it is immoral to gamble.
Now if your conscience is saying that one of the above is wrong...so be it. However, what right do you have over me to tell me how to live my life? The law is clear...like I said change through the process in which we can change laws... if not it is a mute point.

Second bold first, nobody has the right to tell you how to live your life, as long as you can afford to pay for it. However, when those in government feel compelled to step in and help subsidize your immoralities through the various welfare programs, then it becomes a problem. A fact that obviously is a bridge too far for you to grasp.

Murder in the womb is wrong. That's never been up for debate. The smoke and mirrors associated with the right to privacy and the rape/incest rationale, are the building blocks of the house of cards which has served to constitute legal justification, for the murder of 1 1/2 million babies each year. The practice dates back through the Clinton years and amounts to at least 30 milion murdered innocents not remotely attactched to the criteria of rape/incest. Part of changing bad law is speaking put against it in the public forum. The Roe v Wade decision is nothing more than an immoral, nation killing atrocity, which should have been done away with long ago. I mean, in this case we even have the benefit of hindsight. The law was wrong and it was never intended to protect rape and incest victims. We see the true nature and intent of the liberal mind in this matter as the slaughtered, 30 million strong, are a matter of record.

The dems proudly campaign touting their pro-choice stand. In a word, it's disgusting. No man or woman so proud and ready to continue such a despicable practice is worthy of office.

[tvtimeout]

Second bold first, nobody has the right to tell you how to live your life, as long as you can afford to pay for it. However, when those in government feel compelled to step in and help subsidize your immoralities through the various welfare programs, then it becomes a problem. A fact that obviously is a bridge too far for you to grasp.

Murder in the womb is wrong. That's never been up for debate. The smoke and mirrors associated with the right to privacy and the rape/incest rationale, are the building blocks of the house of cards which has served to constitute legal justification, for the murder of 1 1/2 million babies each year. The practice dates back through the Clinton years and amounts to at least 30 milion murdered innocents not remotely attactched to the criteria of rape/incest. Part of changing bad law is speaking put against it in the public forum. The Roe v Wade decision is nothing more than an immoral, nation killing atrocity, which should have been done away with long ago. I mean, in this case we even have the benefit of hindsight. The law was wrong and it was never intended to protect rape and incest victims. We see the true nature and intent of the liberal mind in this matter as the slaughtered, 30 million strong, are a matter of record.

The dems proudly campaign touting their pro-choice stand. In a word, it's disgusting. No man or woman so proud and ready to continue such a despicable practice is worthy of office.

Interesting I agree that is why I feel so strongly against corporate wel-fare and the RINS tax credits. I would I also don't think they should subzides heating and cooling of the houses with electric bills...I am that brings on sloth, which kills people. So we could then close more coal mines...I mean that is what you would want right, people would stop dying by sloth which is a sin, now they will die the way they should old and poor. I love republicans.

The dems proudly campaign on how people should choose how to live their own life...I could see why some people would hate that.

Do you think abortions would stop if it was declared illigeal tomorrow? How is the war on drugs going? I mean drugs kill people and it is illegal. So, people have stopped right?

This logic is why the gun laws make no sense... but that is for another topic.