Abortion coverage could be MANDATED!

Americans United for Life: Senate passes the pro-abortion Mikulski Amendment under the guise of preventive care

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today the Senate accepted the Mikulski (D-MD) amendment to the Senate health care bill by a vote of 61-39. The amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, but it also fails to explicitly exclude it. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans. The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage, furthering the abortion lobby's agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care.

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, “Abortion is not ‘preventive care.’ In this amendment, Sen. Mikulski apparently intends to expand abortion services under the guise of mandated preventive care. This deceptive tactic underscores the need for an amendment that explicitly prohibits the government from mandating that private insurance companies cover abortion under the guise of "preventive care.”

Senator Murkowski’s amendment would have ensured that abortion is not classified by the government as “preventive care” or as a “preventive service.” The Murkowski proposal was defeated 41 to 59.

Dr. Yoest added, “The Senate failed the first test to stop mandatory abortion coverage by voting against the Murkowski proposal. Senator Murkowski’s amendment would have prevented abortion from being categorized as ‘preventive care.’ It is critical that such language be added to the Senate health care reform bill. Otherwise, for the first time in history, the federal government could mandate that private insurance companies cover abortion."

To go to AUL’s analysis of the Mikulski v. Murkowski Amendment, click here.

AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest and Staff Counsel Mary Harnedare available to provide further comment and analysis on the Mikulski Amendment and other women’s health issues in the health care bill. To arrange an interview, contact Heather Smith 202-270-9962 orHeather.Smith@aul.org.

About Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life (AUL) is the first national pro-life organization in America. In 1980, AUL successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae.

Okay, wait a second.

After actually reading the Stupak amendment, I'm going to have to come out against it. It's just as I feared: the Stupak amendment doesn't just restrict abortion to medically necessary cases (you know, health care?). Instead, it forces me to pay for abortions in the cases of incest (why does incest get a separate exception?) and rape. Because if you're the victim of a violent act (rape, assuming the incest was unconsensual, in which case a separate exception is unneeded and dangerous), I'm apparently expected to pay for you to inflict graver violence (homicide) upon an innocent third party!

That's not compassion.

Those devious prenates!

Before they are even created, they force their parents to have sex. They then create themselves and begin sucking nutrients from the mother*. And they make themselves delicate and unviable so that they cannot be removed. What a cunning plan!

Wait, what's that? The offspring has no say in the matter? A prenate's existence, location, and dependency are thrust upon him or her? Wait, by who? By the parents?

Try telling that to the Roebots who compare an unwanted child to a rapist.

If you want intelligent debate on prenatal rights, don't go to NationStates.

*The mother's body delivers nutrients to the baby and the nutrients are passed from one circulatory system to another by diffusion.

The Vicious Circle of A**holes

A raging ring of rectums? An angry anal array? Or a sad social situation?

Don't believe me? Then why do we need "experiments" like Days of Kindness? Why is this? Let's assume that everyone is an a**hole. This will make sense later. Now, imagine someone is nice to you. Could they be doing it because they're nice? No, because everyone is an a**hole. They must have an ulterior motive. The nice man must want something from you and/or be a pervert. This leads to a social stigma against acts of kindness, which in turn leads to a reduction in the number of nice acts. This reinforces the notion that everyone is an asshole. Now imagine someone is nice to you. Could they be... See the problem? Want proof? Look at the suggestions of the aforementioned Days of Kindness. Notice how alot seem kind of creepy?

Want to disrupt the cycle? Go ahead; be my guest. Compliment someone and get yourself arrested for sexual harassment. That'll teach you for fucking with the VCoA.

Urgent reminder from DFLA!

HELP US STOP "FETAL FARMING" DECISION

The National Institutes for Health have released guidelines for a procedure known as fetal farming. These guidelines provide funding for research using human embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for that purpose.

The Obama administration legally is prevented from allowing the creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them for research, which is prohibited under a current federal law known as the Dickey amendment.

However, U.S. Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO) is sponsoring a bill to overturn that law and allow fetal farming, and the Obama Administration might sign that bill into law.

NIH Director Raynard Kingston in a media conference call made the outrageous claim that embryonic stem cell research would be a boost to overall scientific progress even though, unlike adult stem cells, it has never helped a single patient.

The guidelines also contain a long list of informed consent procedures and make it so parents know and agree to how the human embryos will be killed and used in scientific experiments. They only apply to research involving federal funds and do not affect research involving state funds or private dollars. The public will have one month to comment on the new guidelines and the Obama administration is expected to release the final set of rules in July.

ACTA update

Apparently, ACTA also impacts open source.

Oh, and it's been passed.

ACTA

This is just scary...

Rally the forces!

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2811.html

Arguments pro-lifers should not use 01

Pro-prenatal rights argument: Arguments that Assume Personhood

Example(s): What if you went to you're mom's house and she wanted to kill you? Would she have that right?

Why you shouldn't use it: Personhood is the state of having rights; basically, this is circular logic.

Exceptions to this prohibition: Arguments where personhood is a given. For example, arguing against abortion in case of rape. Also explaining how you think, not persuasively. Also, to get the discussion back to the issue of personhood.

Zero Tolerance

It looks good on paper, but it's not. It doesn't make you tough on crime; it makes you lazy.

And suspending a four-year-old for hugging a teacher, or suspending a 6-year-old for bringing lemon drops, or forcing a student into drug therapy for using "lookalike" drugs in an anti-drug commercial class project, or calling a teenage girl a drug trafficer for sharing her inhaler with a student suffering a severe asthma attack, you don't look tough on crime either.

You look stupid.

Woah.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2759.html

Just. Wow.

Feminism

I noticed NOW is now opposing conscience protection. Conscience protection has nothing to do with ensuring equality for women. Conscience protection doesn't even restrict abortion. It doesn't restrict pro-choice doctors, or even pro-life doctors, from performing abortions. All it does is not force pro-life doctors to perform abortions. Not only that, but the source of the controversy is a rule that merely calls for the enforcement of laws already on the books!

I hate it that feminism has been taken over by Roebots.

Feminism is about affirming the rights of females human beings. Being pro-life is about affirming the rights of unborn human beings. Not only are the two compatible, the two groups overlap! It's not about "the right to choose when to have a child". Men have the same right. You choose by having sex and not using protection. A man does not have a right to kill the unborn child. Nobody has a right to kill the child once the child's existence begins. Once you have a child, you can't choose to not have a child by killing him or her.

Nobody has a right to choose to abuse their child. Feminism is not about letting women do whatever they want regardless of how immoral it is.

 2. [After F. féminisme.] Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes). (Cf.WOMANISM.)

Statements by the original feminists such as calling abortion child murder can't be dismissed by saying abortion was illegal and dangerous back then. Those are statements of the worth of the child. Not merely stating that the procedure should be avoided, they state that it is morally wrong.

On a related note...

Being a nonpartisan organization does not mean all your members must be nonpartisan. Sarah Palin's membership in Feminists for Life in no way makes them conservative.

Activism

I took action yesterday. Did you? Among other things, I was silent. Of all the things duct tape can fix, I hope America is among them. It's a wonderful feeling to know you're helping make the world a better place. Abortion has been legal for three dozades and one day too long, and President Obama is not going to make things any easier.

Tell me in the comments what you did yesterday to make the world (or even America) better, especially in the field of prenatal rights.

On a sidenote, I will no longer be debunking Amanda Marcotte. Her stupidity is making me physically ill. Roebot does not even begin to descibe her.

Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber...

I saw this.

I was understandably [miffed].

So I emailed the author:

This blog post was borderline slander. There are many secular pro-life arguments. I should know.

I am a pro-life atheist.
So is Nat Hentoff. So is the Raving Atheist.

Might I suggest:
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-life League
Libertarians for Life - their arguments are entirely secular
Democrats for Life
Feminists for Life - continuing the legacy of Susan B. Anthony and other original feminists
Pagans for Life
Restraint of the Heartless - a pro-life liberal atheist's blog, did a good rebuttal of your anti-Personhood Reality Check episode

She replied:

I never said atheists can't be sexist. But in order to promote the idea that you think an embryo is a life that has more value than that of a living, breathing, feeling woman, you do have to believe in magic. Here's the argument.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/theocratic_or_pro_choice_not_much_middle_ground_between_them/

Non-religious arguments about women's subjection don't really make a lot of sense when you tease them out. Given the choice between his atheism and his sexism, Raving Atheist chose to convert to Christianity. Perhaps you should think harder about these things! But you should do it by yourself, because demanding that I hold your hand through email "debates" about my own right to live my life is something I don't have time for.

Baffled by her stupidity, I responded:

Main Entry:
sex·ism 
Pronunciation:
\ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\ 
Function:
noun 
Etymology:
1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date:
1968
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex ; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
— sex·ist \ˈsek-sist\ adjective or noun

Being pro-life just means you recognize that one person's right to live overrules another person's right to not be inconvenienced. We hold unborn children as equal, not superior to, women. We don't think men should be allowed to kill unborn children either.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

She, of course still as Roebotic as ever, replied:

Okay, you will get to waste one more minute of my time on you, even though you're clearly unwilling to think about things. But yes, it's sexist to suggest that women's basic rights to bodily autonomy should be restricted in order to punish them for having sex. The double standard with sex is the oldest there is. I reject the idea that "pro-life" has anything to do with the preciousness of fertilized eggs, except insofar as a lot of men have patriarchal fantasies about how babies are made by men ejaculating. It's an attempt to erase women's enormous effort in creating a baby through 9 months of hard work. Unshockingly, most atheist anti-choicers I meet are men with major issues regarding women.

I replied:

It's not about punishing anyone for having sex. I'm fine with nonviolent forms of birth control. I'm fine with embryo "transplants". The only thing I'm not fine with is homicide: the killing of one human being by another. I am not "anti-choice" any more than you are. Neither of us support the right of a man to choose to rape a woman, or of a person to rob a bank. I am no more "anti-choice" than you are "anti-life".


Abortion, like corporal punishment, is saying it's okay to use violence (against thosew you feel are beneath you) to get what you want. You say, "I reject the idea that "pro-life" has anything to do with the preciousness of fertilized eggs". First of all, there are no "fertilized eggs"; when the sperm and egg meet they become a zygote by definition. Second of all, I think I know my reasons for what I believe better than you do.


I am a full supporter of women's liberation. However, as with the feminist foremothers, I reject the notion that a mother has the right to kill her own child out of mere inconvenience.

[Note: The following paragraph is a quote from SciVille of Eight Mine Fortress.]
I get sick of being judged for it like it makes me a monster for believing the embryo's right to life should take precedence over the mother's convenience. Because that is all this is. If the mother's right to not want to be pregnant take precedence over the embryo's right to live, then you're pro-choice. If the other way around, you're pro-life. People like to throw in other reasons, like population or economic status or whatever, but it's irrelevant.

She didn't respond, so I sent another email:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#Secular

This time, she responded:

I told you initially that I have yet to meet an atheist anti-choice nut who isn't a misogynist with massive issues regarding women and sex, and your relentless emailing has proven the point. Thanks!

I replied:

1. That's because nobody is "anti-choice". Do you support the right of parents to choose to rape their children? Do you support the right of men to choose to beat their wives? By your logic, pro-gun control is anti-choice (choice to own a gun). [Note: And if pointing out the obvious fact that the child's right to live overrules the mother's convenience makes me a "nut", then call me nutty!]

2. I am not a misogynist.

3. The simple act of holding an email conversation does not make me misogynist.

Reading more of her post, and not yet recieving a reply, I said:

Two words: Jen Roth

She replied:

Your ongoing entitlement issues are doing nothing to convince me that this isn't about sexism.

I replied:

1. I have no idea what you're talking about.
   
2. That's an ad hominem. 
3. I just linked you to a female pro-life atheist.

So, faithful readers, do you think you can find a dumber Roebot than Amanda Marcotte?

I'll also be trying to pull some of the "Raving Theist"'s former subscribers over here, so expect some more antitheistic posts in the future.

The bigots at Democratic Underground

I just wanted to warn you that, as far as progressives go, I have never seen more hidebound, illiberal, intolerant, narrow-minded bigots as those at Democratic Underground. I spent less than a day there before I was banned for heresy. I am very supportive of progressive ideals, yet I disagreed with them on abortion, so I was banned. Never mind the fact that my opposition to abortion comes from an entirely secular progressive viewpoint. Never mind that I was completely civil in my posts.

I'm not surprized, though. Their demeaner is entirely that of a group protected from any and all opposition or criticism. They regularly call those who support the rights of the preborn "anti-choice" or "Jesus freaks" that "have a Bible to sell you", and generally show bigotry towards and prejudiced stereotypes of those who disagree with them. They are Roebotic to the extreme.

Now, not all of them are like this. Those that debated me were very civil and rational. I'm not talking about them.