Ted Cruz Pledges Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Birth Control

[hortysir]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Yes

And why shouldn't I?

Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?

 

[g5000]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

 

[martybegan]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Might also make you wonder why Hobby Lobby didn't object to the Pill when they came up with their list of birth control methods they considered abortifacients.

It still makes your last statement unsupported by any scientific evidence.

I suggest you withdraw it.

How do you know it's unsupported by any scientific evidence?

Google searches on the topic.

Now you're just lying.

The Polycarp Research Institute TPRI How Do The Pill And Other Contraceptives Work

Did you read their mission statement?

The Polycarp Research Institute is a non-profit organization (501 C3) dedicated to the promotion and dissemination of high-quality research designed to enhance the physical, psychological and spiritual condition of mankind. TPRI will help researchers with projects that are designed to reveal the truths contained within Nature's laws. TPRI will support research efforts that improve the spiritual condition of men and women, and will not promote methods or intentions that are inconsistent with the ethical and moral guidelines of the Catholic Church;

And? Are they factually incorrect on the science?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

 

[martybegan]

It still makes your last statement unsupported by any scientific evidence.

I suggest you withdraw it.

How do you know it's unsupported by any scientific evidence?

Google searches on the topic.

Now you're just lying.

The Polycarp Research Institute TPRI How Do The Pill And Other Contraceptives Work

Did you read their mission statement?

The Polycarp Research Institute is a non-profit organization (501 C3) dedicated to the promotion and dissemination of high-quality research designed to enhance the physical, psychological and spiritual condition of mankind. TPRI will help researchers with projects that are designed to reveal the truths contained within Nature's laws. TPRI will support research efforts that improve the spiritual condition of men and women, and will not promote methods or intentions that are inconsistent with the ethical and moral guidelines of the Catholic Church;

And? Are they factually incorrect on the science?

There is no science as it pertains to actual proven results of BCP's being abortificants, just a lot of "could, may, maybe".

and again, its a catholic group, and your use of them is interesting, in a hacky sort of way.

 

[g5000]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

Please explain why a government should be dictating what perqs a business must provide to their employees.

The employee-employer relationship should be a strictly cash for services transaction. If the employers wants to add some bennies to the package, that should be entirely up to the employer as a means to attract more valuable employees.

Why anyone in their right mind would want their health care to be held hostage to the single insurance company choice offered by their boss is beyond me. That people actually demand to be made into hostages is insane.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is one of the main drivers bending the cost curve up. It needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[martybegan]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

Actually its the courts saying government cannot force people to act against their moral beliefs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

Please explain why a government should be dictating what perqs a business must provide to their employees.

The employee-employer relationship should be a strictly cash for services transaction. If the employers wants to add some bennies to the package, that should be entirely up to the employer and employee.

Why anyone in their right mind would want their health care to be held hostage to the single insurance company choice offered by their boss is beyond me.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is one of the main drivers bending the cost curve up. It needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

The People's representatives put business laws in place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

Actually its the courts saying government cannot force people to act against their moral beliefs.

The government should have that power. Otherwise why have any government?

 

[g5000]

The government should have that power. Otherwise why have any government?

Wow. Just...wow.

It seems you missed the part in history class about how America fought a revolution in order to create a government of LIMITED POWERS.

And here you are, saying government should take whatever power it wants.

HOOOOOOOOOOLY FUCK!!!!

All right, kids. Where do I sign up for the Second Revolution?

 

[oreo]

What a fucking idiot.

While everyone is still transfixed by the outrage reality show that is the Trump campaign, other candidates like Ted Cruz have been scrambling behind the scenes trying to gather support wherever they can. When the Trump bubble finally pops and the whole thing goes down in flames, the most likely people to court his current supporters are Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. (Bobby Jindal may even be further right than those two, but despite all of his desperate attempts to outdo Donald Trump and get attention, he is less popular than Hillary Clinton, in his own state of Louisiana.) The biggest prize for 2016 GOP presidential candidates is the evangelical conservatives who are adamantly against abortion for any reason, as well as some popular forms of birth control like the IUD which they also consider to be abortion. They believe that once a sperm fertilizes an egg, anything that prevents that egg from turning into a fetus, is the same thing as abortion. I know this sounds strange to some of us, but this is actually what they think, and I can confirm that the anti-choice activists in my family subscribe to this mindset. So that’s where Ted Cruz comes in. Cruz pledged last week to the extreme anti-choice Georgia Right to Life group that he would support a personhood amendment that would declare fertilized eggs to be human beings. Georgia Right to Life, one of the most outspoken proponents of the movement to grant legal “personhood” to fertilized eggs and fetuses, has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for president after he signed their candidate pledge promising to “support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” GRTL’s pledge, which the group says Cruz signed, asks candidates to affirm that “a continuum of human life and personhood begins at the moment of fertilization” and promise to protect “the civil rights of the pre-born at an embryonic or fetal level.” In practice, personhood would not only criminalize all abortions, it could also endanger some common forms of birth control and put women who have suffered miscarriages at risk of prosecution. The Georgia group’s advocacy of sweeping personhood measures to ban abortion is so radical that it caused it to split from the National Right to Life Committee. (Source) Yes, these people were too radical for the already extreme National Right to Life Committee, and that was just fine with Ted Cruz. Not content just to defund Planned Parenthood or place serious restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, they also want to ban certain types of birth control which would prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.

Ted Cruz Pledges Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Birth Control

Yes--he is kind of a nutcase. Cruz has no chance of winning the general election, and I imagine Democrats have their mouths watering over a Cruz or one of the below's nomination. He would get slaughtered in the general election if he actually became the nominee.

But we have 10 in this pack that have absolutely no chance of defeating a wet paper bag, because of their no exceptions to abortion, or their deliberate attempt to interfere between a doctor/patient relationship while trying to dictate the type of birth control contraceptives that women use--LOL

THE UNELECTABLE IN THE GOP ARE:
1. Ted Cruz
2. Rick Santorum
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Rick Perry
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Rand Paul
8. Marco Rubio--(who can't seem to pick a lane on this exception or no exception)
9. Scott Walker
10. Ben Carson

These 10 candidates are only representing 9% of the entire population of the United States that also don't give exceptions to abortion. Since women represent 52% of the voting population you can see the writing on the wall. Anyone of them would be creamed if they became the nominee.
Ted Cruz Ignites 2016 Race to the Bottom on Abortion and Women s Health - US News

 

[bodecea]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Yes

And why shouldn't I?

Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?

Ok, so there's ONE who supports what Cruz said/pledged. Anyone else?

 

[bodecea]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

But the question was...do you support what Cruz said/pledged? Yes or no?

 

[g5000]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

But the question was...do you support what Cruz said/pledged? Yes or no?

Please show us where Cruz pledged to prosecute women who have miscarriages.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no.

 

[martybegan]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

Actually its the courts saying government cannot force people to act against their moral beliefs.

The government should have that power. Otherwise why have any government?

Argumentum ad absurdum, i.e. the government should have any power it feels like, or why have government?

The government should have that power when there is a compelling interest, and what a company offers as part of its benefit package is not compelling enough to violate said companies owners right to follow their own beliefs.

 

[Stephanie]

What a fucking idiot.

While everyone is still transfixed by the outrage reality show that is the Trump campaign, other candidates like Ted Cruz have been scrambling behind the scenes trying to gather support wherever they can. When the Trump bubble finally pops and the whole thing goes down in flames, the most likely people to court his current supporters are Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz. (Bobby Jindal may even be further right than those two, but despite all of his desperate attempts to outdo Donald Trump and get attention, he is less popular than Hillary Clinton, in his own state of Louisiana.) The biggest prize for 2016 GOP presidential candidates is the evangelical conservatives who are adamantly against abortion for any reason, as well as some popular forms of birth control like the IUD which they also consider to be abortion. They believe that once a sperm fertilizes an egg, anything that prevents that egg from turning into a fetus, is the same thing as abortion. I know this sounds strange to some of us, but this is actually what they think, and I can confirm that the anti-choice activists in my family subscribe to this mindset. So that’s where Ted Cruz comes in. Cruz pledged last week to the extreme anti-choice Georgia Right to Life group that he would support a personhood amendment that would declare fertilized eggs to be human beings. Georgia Right to Life, one of the most outspoken proponents of the movement to grant legal “personhood” to fertilized eggs and fetuses, has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for president after he signed their candidate pledge promising to “support a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” GRTL’s pledge, which the group says Cruz signed, asks candidates to affirm that “a continuum of human life and personhood begins at the moment of fertilization” and promise to protect “the civil rights of the pre-born at an embryonic or fetal level.” In practice, personhood would not only criminalize all abortions, it could also endanger some common forms of birth control and put women who have suffered miscarriages at risk of prosecution. The Georgia group’s advocacy of sweeping personhood measures to ban abortion is so radical that it caused it to split from the National Right to Life Committee. (Source) Yes, these people were too radical for the already extreme National Right to Life Committee, and that was just fine with Ted Cruz. Not content just to defund Planned Parenthood or place serious restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, they also want to ban certain types of birth control which would prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.

Ted Cruz Pledges Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Birth Control

Yes--he is kind of a nutcase. Cruz has no chance of winning the general election, and I imagine Democrats have their mouths watering over a Cruz or one of the below's nomination. He would get slaughtered in the general election if he actually became the nominee.

But we have 10 in this pack that have absolutely no chance of defeating a wet paper bag, because of their no exceptions to abortion, or their deliberate attempt to interfere between a doctor/patient relationship while trying to dictate the type of birth control contraceptives that women use--LOL

THE UNELECTABLE IN THE GOP ARE:
1. Ted Cruz
2. Rick Santorum
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Rick Perry
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Rand Paul
8. Marco Rubio--(who can't seem to pick a lane on this exception or no exception)
9. Scott Walker
10. Ben Carson

These 10 candidates are only representing 9% of the entire population of the United States that also don't give exceptions to abortion. Since women represent 52% of the voting population you can see the writing on the wall. Anyone of them would be creamed if they became the nominee.
Ted Cruz Ignites 2016 Race to the Bottom on Abortion and Women s Health - US News

You keep spreading that around as if it means anything. Not everyone is like you libs who thinks abortion is the number priority in THEIR LIVES and the reasons they vote for someone. my gawd how shallow and sick really

 

[martybegan]

I think the question should be...do the posters on this thread attacking the OP support what T. Cruz said and pledged....or not? Yes or no.

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

But the question was...do you support what Cruz said/pledged? Yes or no?

Not really, but again, the point is moot unless so many people approve of said position, that my view would be meaningless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government should have that power. Otherwise why have any government?

Wow. Just...wow.

It seems you missed the part in history class about how America fought a revolution in order to create a government of LIMITED POWERS.

And here you are, saying government should take whatever power it wants.

HOOOOOOOOOOLY FUCK!!!!

All right, kids. Where do I sign up for the Second Revolution?

I'm going to give you ONE example and you tell me which side you come down on:

Today in History Adams v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue War Tax Talk

Priscilla Adams, a Quaker, asserts that her moral/religious beliefs are against paying tax that goes to war funding and therefore she should not have to pay them.

She loses.

Do you agree with the decision?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ted Cruz has not pledged to support the prosecution of women who have miscarriages. The OP completely and deliberately misrepresents Cruz's position.

So your question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" variety.

The main point is that he is supporting an amendment, which means it would need massive support to go anywhere. This is the right way to do things, as opposed to using the Courts to make up rights and law, which is the preferred method of our current crop of progressives.

As opposed to the Courts allowing Hobby Lobby to make up their own healthcare insurance law?

Actually its the courts saying government cannot force people to act against their moral beliefs.

The government should have that power. Otherwise why have any government?

Argumentum ad absurdum, i.e. the government should have any power it feels like, or why have government?

The government should have that power when there is a compelling interest, and what a company offers as part of its benefit package is not compelling enough to violate said companies owners right to follow their own beliefs.

That's not what you said.