Politics and Religion

Rubio: No abortions for Zika-infected women.....
saltyballs 492 reads
posted
1 / 13

Oh my, this could become a potential minefield for Trump during the upcoming debates.

Zika could become the newest flashpoint in America’s debate on abortion.

With nearly 1,000 pregnant women in the U.S. infected with Zika and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advising all expectant mothers to be screened for exposure to the virus, the USA is beginning to get a hint about why the issue became so contentious in Latin America this year.

There, where women’s health services of all kinds are less available and the Zika epidemic is most widespread, requests for medical abortions have increased dramatically. Even Pope Francis weighed in last February, suggesting that contraception could be morally acceptable in the fight against Zika.

[/quote

GaGambler 50 reads
posted
2 / 13

It does sound like a position that someone like Rubio or Cruz would take, but pardon me for not just taking your word for it.

weren't you just demanding the same thing in a thread right below your own?

WickedBrut 27 Reviews 65 reads
posted
3 / 13

So Texas is forcing women's health clinics to shut down through a bunch of hairbrain laws that The Supreme Court eventually have to explain are unconstitutional as they overturn them one by one. And ALEC keeps prodding the butts of Republican Governors to pass a wide range of bullshit legislation that accomplishes nothing but whack away at the wedge dividing their constituents from...us. (I don't want to get jumped on for calling us "normal people" and we have a range political ideology, nor can I use words like "sensible," "rational," or the like because some clown with demand that I show him where in the Constitution it says that he has to be sensible or rational).

Then the conservatives in Congress refuse to fund efforts to control and end the Zika virus as it spreads through the Southern States...no comment needed...and now Rubio insists that because in his world his version of his Bible trumps The Constitution of The United States, and that it suggests to him that abortion is wrong, so we cannot do anything to prevent a few thousand grapefruit-headed babies being born.

Now here's the part that doesn't make any sense. Rubio was part of the Stop Trump movement. But Trump THRIVED on people who have trouble thinking straight running around. So isn't Marco Rubio acting against his own best interests in causing this particular catastrophe? Shouldn't he look around for some other catastrophe he could cause? Maybe check with his drug-dealing brother-in-law? Something?

saltyballs 72 reads
posted
4 / 13
JackDunphy 55 reads
posted
5 / 13

Rubio is proudly pro-life.

Trump came to his so called pro-life position when he ran for prez as he was adamantly pro-choice before that.

GaGambler 67 reads
posted
6 / 13

and for the record the last time I pressed Brook for a link like I did with you, fg provided it for him and even fg's link proved Brook correct,

but back to Rubio, Trump would do well to distance himself from this position, and a few months ago I would have bet he would have been smart enough to do so. Today? not so much.

Trump has a lifetime of being pretty much pro choice, Trump is being dragged to the right by the GOP establishment every bit as much as Hillary was dragged to the left by Bernie. In normal years you could expect both candidates to try and find their way back to center, but this is hardly a "normal year"

Your thread does remind me why I am not a 'true conservative" The thought of the federal government FORCING a woman to give birth to a 'grapefruit headed" child is every bit as repulsive to me as the prospect of a Hillary administration.

saltyballs 50 reads
posted
7 / 13

.......I could see one of the debate moderators asking each candidate what they would do, if they found out their pregnant spouse had the Zika virus.

JackDunphy 56 reads
posted
8 / 13

He is Pro-life except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. A huge swath of the American people agree with him.

Even people with differing views believe TRump's view is at least reasonable.

The Zika virus has nothing to do with it as Trump's position already disqualifies abortions for pre-natal physical abnormalities, so again, this isn't news and would not hurt him

JackDunphy 46 reads
posted
10 / 13

Something as you know, he rarely ever does.

His official stance on abortion is mainstream.  

I don't believe the Zika thing will affect this race even one iota.

saltyballs 69 reads
posted
11 / 13

No one knows for sure where Trump stands on the issue of abortion. The Presidential debate moderators will flesh it out of him on the topic of aborting Zika fetuses.


Donald Trump's 'evolving' stance on abortion

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stirred up controversy when he said there should be "some sort of punishment" for women who have abortions. Here's a look back at how he "evolved" into his pro-life views. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

You can see the exact moment last week that Donald Trump made up his mind on whether women would face criminal punishment once he signed new restrictions into law. He is at a town hall with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, and, after Matthews badgers him for a while, he finally answers the question.

“The answer is ... that,” Trump says, eyes looking to the side in thought, “there has to be some form of punishment.” He punctuates “has” with a hand gesture. Done. Final.

But as it turns out — and as it has turned out repeatedly over the course of his life — that was not, in fact, Trump’s final position on the subject. This past week alone, he has held multiple contradicting positions, including that one.  

March 30, 2016, 2:30 p.m.

The interview with Matthews is taped, and Trump asserts that women who receive abortions once the procedure is illegal will face punishment. The men are involved will not, he adds.

News of the comments quickly leaks.

March 30, 2016, 3:30 p.m.

Before the MSNBC town hall even airs, a spokesperson for Trump releases a statement changing what he told Matthews.

March 30, 2016, 5 p.m.

About an hour later, Trump’s campaign releases a more formal “statement regarding abortion.” It’s different than what he said to Matthews and his initial statement.

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law,” the statement says, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.” (It’s worth noting that this is in line with the pro-life movement’s position.)

The statement includes a snippet written in the first person: “My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

April 1, 2016, 6:30 p.m.

CBS releases an excerpt of its interview with Trump that aired Sunday morning. Asked again about abortion, Trump’s position seems to change yet again.

“The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they're going to remain until they’re changed,” he said, according to CBS’s transcript. “I would’ve preferred states’ rights. I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set.... At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”

Understandably, this is not well-received. The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List replies that he had “disqualified himself as the GOP nominee” if this were his position.

5-Minute Fix newsletter
Keeping up with politics is easy now.
Trump also offered a reason for his initial comments to Matthews: “I’ve been told by some people that was an older line answer and that was an answer that was given on a, you know, basis of an older line from years ago on a very conservative basis.”

April 1, 2016, 9 p.m.

Again before the program airs, the Trump campaign re-frames what the candidate said.

“Mr. Trump gave an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now — until he is president,” it read. “Then he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn. There is nothing new or different here.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/

-- Modified on 8/7/2016 3:17:10 PM

JackDunphy 47 reads
posted
12 / 13

When you manage to piss off BOTH the Pro-life side AND the Pro-Choice side you have had a VERY, VERY bad day. LOL

brooks5 43 reads
posted
13 / 13

snip off and squeeze out when chopping the baby up during partial-birth-abortion (infanticide)!

it also allows for less in the landfill

lib perfection, killing in an environmentally responsible way!  ;)

Register Now!