Abortion Up Until Birth Act Fails In Senate.

Harry Leggs

Super Member

Supported by almost all Democrats including the White House, Schumer, and Pelosi, the Women's Health Protection Act passed in the House but failed in the Senate. It would have made abortion up to birth legal in all states? This one was under the radar and do not notice a lot of coverage in the legacy media. All Repubs in both Houses opposed this bill. (y)
 
Last edited:

Yakuda

Well-known member

Supported by almost all Democrats including the White House, Schumer, and Pelosi, the Women's Health Protection Act passed in the House but failed in the Senate. It would have made abortion up to birth legal in all states? This one was under the radar and do not notice a lot of coverage in the legacy media.
I am always fascinated how they try to tie abortion to anything called "health". What's healthy about dying?
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
I am always fascinated how they try to tie abortion to anything called "health". What's healthy about dying?
I didn't know about it until about an hour ago. They try to pass this bill with all that is going on with Russia and Ukraine. Isn't Pelosi and Biden Catholics? Do they even go to church? And they are attempting to pass this bill which plainly indicates no moral compass at all. How morally despicable do they have to be to attempt to pass a nationwide bill legalizing elective abortion up until birth? The Dems control everything all branches, the media and on it goes so why did this bill fail when they are holding all the cards?
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
I didn't know about it until about an hour ago. They try to pass this bill with all that is going on with Russia and Ukraine. Isn't Pelosi and Biden Catholics? Do they even go to church? And they are attempting to pass this bill which plainly indicates no moral compass at all. How morally despicable do they have to be to attempt to pass a nationwide bill legalizing elective abortion up until birth? The Dems control everything all branches, the media and on it goes so why did this bill fail when they are holding all the cards?
Yes they are cultural Catholics. Brandon has been to church but I've never even seen it hinted that piglosi goes to church. Maybe it's too extreme for the one or two dens that might still have a few morals left.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member

The bill would:

Eliminate all state and federal parental consent laws in relation to abortion
  • Eliminate all state informed consent laws, including those that allow women to view an ultrasound prior to abortion
  • Prevent states from passing laws to protect babies at 20 weeks, thereby joining countries like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands in not protecting unborn children later in development
  • Force doctors and nurses opposed to abortion to lose their jobs, and Catholic hospitals could lose public funds unless they perform abortions
  • Eliminate decades-long limitations on direct taxpayer funding of abortion – including the popular Hyde Amendment, which has saved more than 2 million lives since enacted
In short, the legislation would overturn all federal and state pro-life laws and make it illegal for elected officials to even introduce pro-life legislation.

Wow!
 

Yakuda

Well-known member

The bill would:

Eliminate all state and federal parental consent laws in relation to abortion
  • Eliminate all state informed consent laws, including those that allow women to view an ultrasound prior to abortion
  • Prevent states from passing laws to protect babies at 20 weeks, thereby joining countries like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Canada, and the Netherlands in not protecting unborn children later in development
  • Force doctors and nurses opposed to abortion to lose their jobs, and Catholic hospitals could lose public funds unless they perform abortions
  • Eliminate decades-long limitations on direct taxpayer funding of abortion – including the popular Hyde Amendment, which has saved more than 2 million lives since enacted
In short, the legislation would overturn all federal and state pro-life laws and make it illegal for elected officials to even introduce pro-life legislation.

Wow!
Joe needs to come to the light
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

BMS

Well-known member
Would these politicians who voted for this allow an overturn of Roe v Wade if there was a vote in favour?
 

Michael R2

Well-known member

Supported by almost all Democrats including the White House, Schumer, and Pelosi, the Women's Health Protection Act passed in the House but failed in the Senate. It would have made abortion up to birth legal in all states? This one was under the radar and do not notice a lot of coverage in the legacy media. All Repubs in both Houses opposed this bill. (y)
It would not have allowed abortions "up to birth". As stated in the bill, it would have allowed abortions up to fetal viability (the Roe v Wade standard).

"In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health."

 

Temujin

Well-known member
It would not have allowed abortions "up to birth". As stated in the bill, it would have allowed abortions up to fetal viability (the Roe v Wade standard).

"In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health."

Sounds entirely reasonable. But then I am biased having lived in a country with a similarly sane abortion provision for the last fifty years. Abortion is not even a fringe issue here now.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Sounds entirely reasonable. But then I am biased having lived in a country with a similarly sane abortion provision for the last fifty years. Abortion is not even a fringe issue here now.
Suppose you would consider stitching skin from dead fetuses onto the backs of rats reasonable since it is all biological material with no rights and we as humans have no moral obligation to the unborn even if living and human.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Of course abortion is a serious major issue in the UK as a similar bill was presented to the UK parliament recently and also kicked out.
So despite what Temujin claims, obviously since those who want abortion up to birth presented the bill, it must be a big enough issue for them.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Suppose you would consider stitching skin from dead fetuses onto the backs of rats reasonable since it is all biological material with no rights and we as humans have no moral obligation to the unborn even if living and human.
I am not aware of that experiment. I would be interested in the purpose.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
It would not have allowed abortions "up to birth". As stated in the bill, it would have allowed abortions up to fetal viability (the Roe v Wade standard).
Before or after fetal viability which means surviving outside the womb. I do not see any specific restriction here banning abortion after a certain fixed time. Health of mother in these cases can mean anything. It simply means the mother and abortionist decide for any or no reason at all. Abortion services is a for-profit business so even the abortionist is compromised by profit.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Of course abortion is a serious major issue in the UK as a similar bill was presented to the UK parliament recently and also kicked out.
So despite what Temujin claims, obviously since those who want abortion up to birth presented the bill, it must be a big enough issue for them.
All four of them, lol! No political party has a manifesto to change the abortion law. No candidate mentions it in hustings. It never comes up on phone in programmes or street interviews. It is a non-issue. There has been no change in the law in fifty years. Even the bishops in the House of Lords are content.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
I am not aware of that experiment. I would be interested in the purpose.

In one study published last year, Pitt scientists described scalping 5-month-old aborted babies to stitch onto the backs of lab rats. They wrote about how they cut the scalps from the heads and backs of the babies, scraping off the "excess fat" under the baby skin before stitching it onto the rats. They even included photos of the babies' hair growing out of the scalps. Each scalp belonged to a little Pennsylvania baby whose head would grow those same hairs if he or she were not aborted for experiments with lab rats.

Newsweek Newsletter sign-up >
Pitt's explanation? "Lab mice, not lab rats," the university's witness told the committee indignantly.

In fact, the published study used both rats and mice to grow the babies' scalps. How was this paid for? With a $430,000 grant from Dr. Anthony Fauci's NIAID office at the NIH. Pitt's witness implied that government NIH grants somehow did not concern taxpayers in Pennsylvania.
-------------------------------

Also your ignoring the no moral responsibility to the unborn, living and human, is telling.
 

Temujin

Well-known member

In one study published last year, Pitt scientists described scalping 5-month-old aborted babies to stitch onto the backs of lab rats. They wrote about how they cut the scalps from the heads and backs of the babies, scraping off the "excess fat" under the baby skin before stitching it onto the rats. They even included photos of the babies' hair growing out of the scalps. Each scalp belonged to a little Pennsylvania baby whose head would grow those same hairs if he or she were not aborted for experiments with lab rats.

Newsweek Newsletter sign-up >
Pitt's explanation? "Lab mice, not lab rats," the university's witness told the committee indignantly.

In fact, the published study used both rats and mice to grow the babies' scalps. How was this paid for? With a $430,000 grant from Dr. Anthony Fauci's NIAID office at the NIH. Pitt's witness implied that government NIH grants somehow did not concern taxpayers in Pennsylvania.
What was the alleged purpose? Curing cancer or curing male-pattern baldness? Are you suggesting that abortions took place in order to supply the material?
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
What was the alleged purpose? Curing cancer or curing male-pattern baldness? Are you suggesting that abortions took place in order to supply the material?
Why don't you simply admit, you believe, countries or other humans have no moral responsibility to the unborn, living and human, to a say 8-month-old fetus in the womb. They enjoy zero rights, anywhere and you believe you owe not one thing to them
 

Michael R2

Well-known member
Before or after fetal viability which means surviving outside the womb. I do not see any specific restriction here banning abortion after a certain fixed time. Health of mother in these cases can mean anything. It simply means the mother and abortionist decide for any or no reason at all. Abortion services is a for-profit business so even the abortionist is compromised by profit.
You've hit on the point that is most contentious when it comes to Roe v Wade. Fetal viability is generally considered to be about 24 weeks, but with modern NICUs and procedures it can be lowered to approximately 21 weeks (where the facilities are available). The bill did not, and should not have, addressed that issue. It is a medical decision with fuzzy boundaries.
 
Top