Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,539
No. US LAW prevents using taxpayer money for abortion. That is perfectly proper and reasonable.Good questions. We rule ourselves in a nation of laws. All ruling authority resides in The People, who grant a bit of our authority to our representatives in Congress to write the laws we agree to live under and one of our rules is that OUR money can not be taxed from us and handed to abortion providers.Well, he's not happy with Trump!I gotta be honest, im not familiar with Moloch, but he sounds like a bad guy.
Breitbart News reported, "The Trump administration has redirected $34 million in federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood to other providers that do not perform or refer for abortions.
"Planned Parenthood chose not to comply with the administration’s enforcement of a rule that states Title X federal funds cannot be used for abortion providers.
"The rule does not cut back family planning funds, however. Instead, it redirects them to non-abortion providers — federally qualified health care centers, which outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics 20 to one."
Bu-bu-but the National Review told me he was pro-abortion.
He has done something everyone promised: De-funded Planned Parenthood.
In fact, they de-funded themselves.
Why was there ever a "rule" that states that Title X funds cannot be used by organizations that also provide abortions or provide references for them?
Heaven Forfend! They have every right to speak and perform this procedure. All that is happening here is that they are no longer receiving federal funding to do so.Why are there "gag rules" that are in obvious violation of the First Amendment?
They provide health services to women that do not include abortionc....Why are millions of dollars of federal money spent on "abstinence-only" education"? Who are these "other providers that do not perform or refer for abortions"?
Pregnancy crisis centers are "fronts" for proselytizing and indoctrination?How do we know that they are legitimate and not fronts for religious proselytizing and indoctrination, like the "pregnancy crisis centers" that some states have demanded women seeking abortions visit have been?
Is this "bizarre" pastor powered by federal funding or simply communicating beliefs you disagree with? Because as Americans we are dedicated to tolerating the latter, while not obligated to fund the former....this is a reply to someone straying from the topic of some bizarre theories of some "pastor"/politician (who knows) about the religious practices of supporters of a political party that he does not support and who is trying to align religious belief with a particular U.S. political party.
In our system, we have no Official Government Church, so, I'm not sure about your "align with a particular US political party" comment.
Federal rules should not be written to enshrine the beliefs of a particular religious group as federal law. Here, federal funds are being withheld to do just that...
If you want that prohibited then convince a majority of both Houses and the President.... Why are federal funds being spent on "abstinence-only" "education"?...
You are heading off into the weeds. If you think the duly passed law that US taxpayers may not be required to fund abortions is unconstitutional, then take it to court.... This is some sort of religious thing, being that it is "abstinence ONLY" rather than being integrated into comprehensive education about sex, reproductive health, and contraception. This IS government support for sectarian religion...
In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. (2017), a State grant program to improve playground surfaces so that when kids fell off a piece of equipment that they didn't injure themselves, could not be provided to a religious school, even though grants were also provided to non-religious group, violating the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This wasn't even a close call by the Court, but a 7-2 decision finding that the state violated the First Amendment by denying a public benefit to an otherwise eligible recipient solely on account of its religious status, calling it "odious to our Constitution" to exclude the church from the grant program.
In this case, funding is being withheld, not due to their religious beliefs, but because we do not use taxpayer money to fund abortions in this nation, and haven't for probably 40 years.
If you have a position to make and support, make and support it.... Which are these centers that "provide health services to women that do not include abortion"? Do they provide a full range of contraceptive services in a non-judgmental atmosphere, or are they involved in religious proselytizing of their clients?...
"By Force"? What are you talking about?... There have been many stories told by women, who have visited either voluntarily or by force from state governments...
It's your claim, support it.... state governments were complicit in forcing women to these indoctrination centers...
He has the right to free speech and free exercise, he can attribute the faith to red headed martians. We tolerate folks believing as they like and expressing those views as will, in this nation. Are you aware of what it means to be an American? Do you understand that it demands tolerance of the voicing of views you disagree with? The kind of society with the policing of thought belief and actions that you folks seem to want boggles the mind. Here is something that will save you a LOT of frustration:... This clown jeffress is deliberately trying to identify the Christian faith with the republican party...
We are a 50/50 nation, neither side holds power for very long. All these legal coercive systems you want to use on your opponents, will be handed over to your opponents, probably in a decade and used against you. So use your head and do not support these coercive systems, not just because that is the right and just thing to do, but it's also the SMART thing to do.
Why do we have a rule that federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions in the first place?
South Dakota, for one, forces women into counseling, specifically ideologically based counseling:
State Facts About Abortion: South Dakota
Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion
This jeffress can express his opinions blah blah blah. But it is scary to see a cult maniac having the ear of a sitting president. Moreover, if he has a tax exemption, he is not supposed to be in politics.