Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Why did you edit my post and not answer my questions?Ok, so there's ONE who supports what Cruz said/pledged. Anyone else?YesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
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.
My views on compelling government interest being part of any exception to the rights of individuals and/or state legislatures is well known on this board.
But since you asked for a clarification, I gave it to you. Happy?
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.
My views on compelling government interest being part of any exception to the rights of individuals and/or state legislatures is well known on this board.
But since you asked for a clarification, I gave it to you. Happy?
If you do not mean to say that the government cannot force people to act against their moral beliefs,
then you would be well advised not to say
'the government cannot force people to act against their moral beliefs.'
What a fucking idiot.
Ted Cruz Pledges Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Birth ControlWhile 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.
Right wing news~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. -
Ok, so there's ONE who supports what Cruz said/pledged. Anyone else?YesI 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.
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?YesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
Just to let everyone know, in my state of Colorado we have had some fruitcakes that somehow come up with the 5k signatures to put a personhood bill on our ballot. They did it for 3 different election cycles, and all 3 times a personhood amendment was been soundly defeated. We as Coloradoans never want to see another one come up.
The problem with a personhood bill, is that under the law all deaths are investigated, if you don't die in a hospital or nursing home.
Meaning a common miscarraige would have to be investigated for foul play. An autopsy would have to be done. A woman that falls down the stairs and loses the baby would have to be investigated. If YOU get into a car accident, and it is determined that you are at fault, and a pregnant woman loses the baby over it, it's possible that you could get charged with involuntary manslaughter.
This is why "personhood" bills are a very bad idea.
You and others on the right seeking to compel through force of law women to give birth against their will are in no position to question anyone's sanity.What a topsy turvy world you live in. The Mad Hatter would invite you to tea, but every seat is taken by your fellow liberals.
What a fucking idiot.
Ted Cruz Pledges Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Birth ControlWhile 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.
And this is more acceptable?This only proves one thing and that is when democrats say anything it will be lie 50% of the time. It's knowing which half of the time is the hard part. What he probably said was that Ted Cruz supports an amendment banning abortion. Not the elastics and pills we use for birth control.
The OP is false.What a fucking idiot.
Ted Cruz Pledges Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Birth ControlWhile 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.
Wow if true that is extreme. I will have to research this further and reconsider my support of Cruz.
To be fear I have been reconsidering it anyways, since Kasich and Fiornia have really impressed me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
YesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
You should try to walk off that stretchYesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
It's been covered. Once you declare personhood to begin at conception, you effectively outlaw any form of birth control that could prevent the fertilized egg from continuing to live and grow.
That includes birth control measures that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus - that includes certain IUD's and the birth control pill.
You should try to walk off that stretchYesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
It's been covered. Once you declare personhood to begin at conception, you effectively outlaw any form of birth control that could prevent the fertilized egg from continuing to live and grow.
That includes birth control measures that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus - that includes certain IUD's and the birth control pill.
You should try to walk off that stretchYesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
It's been covered. Once you declare personhood to begin at conception, you effectively outlaw any form of birth control that could prevent the fertilized egg from continuing to live and grow.
That includes birth control measures that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus - that includes certain IUD's and the birth control pill.
That's their beliefs and they're entitled to them.You should try to walk off that stretchYesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
It's been covered. Once you declare personhood to begin at conception, you effectively outlaw any form of birth control that could prevent the fertilized egg from continuing to live and grow.
That includes birth control measures that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus - that includes certain IUD's and the birth control pill.
Hobby Lobby argued that they shouldn't have to provide insurance that covers the IUD because they believed the IUD is an abortifacient.
Were they wrong?
That's their beliefs and they're entitled to them.You should try to walk off that stretchYesI 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.
And why shouldn't I?
Can you quote the portion of the pledge that mentions birth control?
It's been covered. Once you declare personhood to begin at conception, you effectively outlaw any form of birth control that could prevent the fertilized egg from continuing to live and grow.
That includes birth control measures that prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus - that includes certain IUD's and the birth control pill.
Hobby Lobby argued that they shouldn't have to provide insurance that covers the IUD because they believed the IUD is an abortifacient.
Were they wrong?
There's a difference between a private entity choosing not to support something and government swooping in and declaring long-standing measures illegal.
They may as well try to make abortion illegal......same slim chance
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...
Yes, the writer of the piece is so far gone it sounds strange to him that many people believe life begins at conception.
...it could also endanger some common forms of birth control and put women who have suffered miscarriages at risk of prosecution.
Women who suffer miscarriages would be at risk of prosecution? This is unmitigated bullshit and I can't believe you aren't embarrassed to be seen in public after regurgitating this hyperbolic disinformation.
What special kind of retard does it take to make such a claim, and what special kind of parroting rube does it take to give this asshole any credence whatsoever?
