Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 09, 2019

On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a "fetal heartbeat" bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country -- not just because it would impose severe limitations on women's reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

MFA:

Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years' imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are "conspiring" to end of the life of a "person" with "full legal recognition" under Georgia law.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-09 12:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When are we gonna send a carrier strike group off the coast of Savannah?

#2 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-05-09 12:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is all about control.

Nothing more, nothing less.

They'll just keep throwing new thresholds against the wall until something sticks that sufficiently undercuts Roe without directly challenging it.

www.jurist.org

As the name suggests, the bill asserts that a fetus is "viable" when a heartbeat can be detected. It locates the basis for this claim in "modern medical science, not available decades ago." Legislative findings quote the 2015 guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) identifying ultrasound as "the preferred modality to verify the presence of a viable intrauterine gestation." But ACOG's guidelines referred to "Early Pregnancy Loss," or miscarriage management. The ACOG guidelines cited by the legislature address how to determine whether a pregnant patient has a viable pregnancy, not whether a fetus could survive outside the womb. A fetus surviving outside the womb is the meaning of viability in abortion jurisprudence and popular understanding, not when a heartbeat can be heard.

Righties. If they ain't stupid, they're simply giant ass liars.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 12:55 AM | Reply

Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

Six-week abortion bans are effectively total bans on abortion, as many women don't know they are pregnant at six weeks.

I stand with everyone in Georgia and around the country fighting these illegal measures that threaten women's lives and freedoms.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC

"6 weeks pregnant" = 2 weeks late on your period.

Most of the men writing these bills don't know the first thing about a woman's body outside of the things they want from it. It's relatively common for a woman to have a late period + not be pregnant.

So this is a backdoor ban.

For context, this kicks in within days of a typical at-home test working.

If you were sexually assaulted (stress delays cycle), took a morning-after pill (throws off cycle), or have an irregular cycle, you‘d have no idea.

There are a TON of ways this law ignores basic biology.

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-09 07:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are a TON of ways this law ignores basic biology.

They don't care.

They don't care that women will be hurt.

They don't care that women will die.

They don't care that women will be forced to carry their rapists babies.

They only care about the fundies screaming for them to outlaw legal abortion.

Sharia law is marching across the US.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-09 10:01 AM | Reply

I am against abortion after three months/first trimester except in the cases of health of the mom and rape.

But this is ridiculous. So I ask again--when is a carrier strike group gonna arrive off the coast of Savannah and take care of this sort of extremist behavior?

#6 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-05-09 10:05 AM | Reply

"Sharia law is marching across the US."

Actually, many Muslim scholars/schools of thought allow for abortion prior to 4 months. That's what Wikipedia says anyway.

#7 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-05-09 10:07 AM | Reply

When we insist that the President is decided by People, then every other contentious item must be decided by the People.
On the ballet with abortion and gun control.
~pounds table

#8 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-05-09 10:14 AM | Reply

They'll just keep throwing new thresholds against the wall until something sticks that sufficiently undercuts Roe without directly challenging it.

Agreed its ridiculous ... I see nothing wrong with the RoevWade compromise.

If you were sexually assaulted (stress delays cycle),
There are a TON of ways this law ignores basic biology.
#4 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Its an interesting bit about Biology that you bring it up.

Rape Often Leads to Conception
www.psychologytoday.com

Thought the article is incorrect about humans not being sperm dumpers.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-09 10:21 AM | Reply

"Its an interesting bit about Biology that you bring it up."

Not me, AOC.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-09 10:27 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

More 11 year old rape victim moms!

The baby Jesus is happy!!!

#11 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-05-09 11:28 AM | Reply

I actually dont agree with this. If the state wants to restrict how it's citizens get an abortion, they cannot restrict the free movement of those citizens to get an abortion in another state. And I dont believe the cut off should be so short, I think 12 - 18 weeks is a better number, give a woman time to find out she's prego.

#12 | Posted by boaz at 2019-05-09 11:36 AM | Reply

The law is unconstitutional on its face, until Roe v. Wade is overturned. It's just bait for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

#13 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-09 12:14 PM | Reply

Fundamentalists of all stripes, Christian, Jewish, Muslim are all lunatics who cause problems in every country they live in. Freedom cannot exist in any place where they have the power to restrict the rights of the rest of us.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-09 12:24 PM | Reply

I know some real dunderheads can get elected to any state legislature but it's beyond crazy that this bill gets passed and then signed by a governor.

Legal question here........is it possible this is the bill that's going to be used to formally challenge Roe?

We can all assume this will get to the SCOTUS. Is the state of Georgia betting the SCOTUS will reverse Roe with this bill?

-The law is unconstitutional on its face, until Roe v. Wade is overturned. It's just bait for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Yes....unless we are missing something.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-09 12:27 PM | Reply

Is the state of Georgia betting the SCOTUS will reverse Roe with this bill?

That is absolutely what they're doing. There are basically two options for what happens next:

-the SC denies cert to all of the suits challenging the trend of laws like this one, leaving in place lower court rulings that likely say the laws are unconstitutional

-the SC grants cert, and the suit over this law is one of a consolidated group of suits that is heard by the SC in which they either reiterate the controlling precent of Roe v. Wade or they overturn it

In either event, more and more states are passing laws like this (didnt Ohio do one recently) that they know are unconstitutional, because one of their arguments is going to be that "the national trend is turning against abortion" and the more state laws that have passed, the better their argument looks.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-09 12:35 PM | Reply

I'm confident that Roberts and probably Gorsuch would stick to the conservative principle of stare decisis and uphold the viability standard set by Roe v Wade.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-05-09 01:11 PM | Reply

Lets pass a law that puts a 36,500 day waiting period on gun purchases. It isn't a ban on gun purchases just like this isnt a ban on abortions

#18 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-09 01:22 PM | Reply

I don't know why liberals are so pissed. There is a list of exceptions in the law.

Exceptions include:
1. Rape
2. ------
3. Danger to the Mother's Life
4. Republican Mistresses
5. Being the daughter of a rich family

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-05-09 01:47 PM | Reply

Alabama lawmakers on Thursday postponed a vote on a proposed abortion ban after anger erupted in the state Senate when some Republicans stripped exceptions for rape and ------ from the bill.

Shouting broke out in the Senate when the exemption for rape and ------ was removed from the bill, which would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony, without a roll call vote.

"You've got 27 men over on the other side ready to tell women what they can do with their bodies," Democratic Sen. Bobby Singleton said. "You don't have to procedurally just try to railroad us."

NBC4 Washington

#20 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-05-09 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just kill those minority babies before their heart beats.

Seeing as 85% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods and Margaret Sanger hates the "mongrel races" (her words, not mine).

#21 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-09 04:13 PM | Reply

Seeing as 85% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods and Margaret Sanger hates the "mongrel races" (her words, not mine).

#21 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU AT 2019-05-09 04:13 PM | REPLY

In 2014, the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research center, surveyed all known abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood clinics, in the U.S. (nearly 2,000) and found that 60 percent are in majority-white neighborhoods.

Planned Parenthood has not released numbers on the neighborhoods of its specific clinics, but responding to a request for demographic information, the organization said that in 2013, 14 percent of its patients nationwide were black. That's nearly equal to the proportion of the African-American population in the U.S.

Hmmmm another fact challenged right winger pops up on the DR.

#22 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-09 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

21/22

links?

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-09 04:46 PM | Reply

Here you go Eberly:
www.google.com

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-09 05:06 PM | Reply

Look on the bright side liberals.

Now Dick Cheney can be aborted since he has no heartbeat.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-09 05:08 PM | Reply

Bur please, tell me again how it is MUSLIMS and their "Sharia Law" that is threat to US freedoms.

#26 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-05-09 05:50 PM | Reply

This is Christian Sharia law at its worst.

Where are all those "less government" republicans when we need them?
They morphed into alt-right (R)tards.

The same "less government" crowd during the Obama years are in this thread now, for more government during the Orange Skidmark's presidency.

Radicalized Hypocrites!

#27 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-09 06:42 PM | Reply

Are most of Planned Parenthood's clinics in black neighborhoods?

In 2014, the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research center, surveyed all known abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood clinics, in the U.S. (nearly 2,000) and found that 60 percent are in majority-white neighborhoods.

Planned Parenthood has not released numbers on the neighborhoods of its specific clinics, but responding to a request for demographic information, the organization said that in 2013, 14 percent of its patients nationwide were black. That's nearly equal to the proportion of the African-American population in the U.S.

www.npr.org

#28 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-09 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Coathanger stocks are skyrocketing

#29 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-05-09 10:09 PM | Reply

They'll just keep throwing new thresholds against the wall until something sticks that sufficiently undercuts Roe without directly challenging it.

Agreed its ridiculous ... I see nothing wrong with the RoevWade compromise.

#9 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Did that actually happen?

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 10:18 PM | Reply

Legal question here........is it possible this is the bill that's going to be used to formally challenge Roe?

Interesting question but I don't think a direct challenge will be attempted, as Roberts seems to be keen on maintaining judicial precedence and will be the swing vote to avoid spuriously overturning it.

Seems like an attempt to get the SCOTUS to undercut it by judging the new rules Constitutional. Simply leapfrog Roe and avoid a direct confrontation.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 10:22 PM | Reply

Seeing as 85% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods and Margaret Sanger hates the "mongrel races" (her words, not mine).

#21 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU

Ahhh the old Margaret Sanger canard.

Should we just assume all "c-c-conservatives" are as racist, bigoted and podunk as they were in the late 19th century? Would you object to that, Drivelikegrandwizard?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 10:27 PM | Reply

You know it was REPUBLICANS that emancipated the slaves at the end of the 19th century?!?!

Bwahahaha. You're hilarious.

Margaret Sanger's racism is completely consistent with Planned Parenthood's CURRENT placement of its clinics and the disapportionately high black abortion rates.

Completely phony comparison, JPW

#33 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-09 10:59 PM | Reply

That NPR article is laughable in its one-sidedness. Anyone who knows how to research can see how off its "facts" are.

www.hli.org

#34 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-09 11:08 PM | Reply

You know it was REPUBLICANS that emancipated the slaves at the end of the 19th century?!?!
Bwahahaha. You're hilarious.

LOL yet you're racist as f--- now.

Margaret Sanger's racism is completely consistent with Planned Parenthood's CURRENT placement of its clinics and the disapportionately high black abortion rates.
Completely phony comparison, JPW

#33 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU

Ignoring #28 because it doesn't fit your narrative?

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 11:10 PM | Reply

More black babies aborted than born in NYC:
www.wsj.com

#36 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-09 11:11 PM | Reply

"National Statistics
More than 19 million Black babies have been aborted since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in our country.

Non-Hispanic Black women have a significantly higher abortion rate (25.1 per 1000 women of reproducive age) than that of Non-Hispanic Whites (6.8) and Hispanics (11.2)

36.0% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2014 were performed on Black women, however, only about 13.3% of the total population is Black

African-Americans are no longer the nation's largest minority group. Today, Hispanics have outpaced Blacks in population growth.

For every 1,000 live births, non-Hispanic Black women had 390 abortions. Non-Hispanic White women had 111 abortions/1,000 live births."

rtl.org

#37 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-09 11:13 PM | Reply

Science is clearly looking further and further into the womb.
Science is on the side of prolife, sorry you antitruthers.

#38 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-09 11:14 PM | Reply

More black babies aborted than born in NYC

And? Republicans hate black people. You should be dancing in the streets.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-09 11:17 PM | Reply

"Exceptions include:
1. Rape
2. ------"

Holy ----, this is retarded censorship. Rcade, is this somehow linked to mandates by your advertisers? I can't think of any other reason why you'd make yourself look so foolish.

#40 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-05-09 11:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's a bot doing most of the censorship IIRC.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 11:43 PM | Reply

Poverty more than race is a significant factor in who gets an abortion:

Between 2008 and 2014, the abortion rate declined 25%, from 19.4 to 14.6 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. The abortion rate for adolescents aged 15 to 19 years declined 46%, the largest of any group. Abortion rates declined for all racial and ethnic groups but were larger for non-White women than for non-Hispanic White women. Although the abortion rate decreased 26% for women with incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty level, this population had the highest abortion rate of all the groups examined: 36.6. If the 2014 age-specific abortion rates prevail, 24% of women aged 15 to 44 years in that year will have an abortion by age 45 years.

www.guttmacher.org

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-09 11:45 PM | Reply

Science is clearly looking further and further into the womb.
Science is on the side of prolife, sorry you antitruthers.

#38 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU

Is that why you guys have to lie so much? Because medical advances are supporting your position? /s

www.jurist.org

Not to mention, the "heartbeat" at that point in time is the contraction of a cluster of precursor cells that aren't anywhere close to an actual organ.

It's misleading garbage, which is the MO of the so called "moral, Chreestian" "c-c-c-conservatives" in the US.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-09 11:47 PM | Reply

Abortion rates by income

See the graph:

www.guttmacher.org

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-09 11:47 PM | Reply

"It's a bot doing most of the censorship IIRC."

Hope he's not paying for it. It's cringeworthy.

#45 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-05-09 11:51 PM | Reply

In 2014, three-fourths of abortion patients were low income -- 49% living at less than the federal poverty level, and 26% living at 100–199% of the poverty level.

No racial or ethnic group made up the majority of abortion patients: Thirty-nine percent were white, 28% were black, 25% were Hispanic, 6% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3% were of some other race or ethnicity.

www.guttmacher.org

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-09 11:54 PM | Reply

"Poverty more than race is a significant factor in who gets an abortion"

I was going to say something along these lines.

#47 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-05-09 11:54 PM | Reply

"I was going to say something along these lines."

It's reflected in the stats as well as in the reasons given for having an abortion:

Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor or low-income. Twenty-six percent of patients had incomes of 100–199% of the federal poverty level, and 49% had incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty level ($15,730 for a family of two).

More than half of all U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were in their 20s: Patients aged 20–24 obtained 34% of all abortions, and patients aged 25–29 obtained 27%.

Fifty-nine percent of abortions in 2014 were obtained by patients who had had at least one birth.

The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons -- each cited by three-fourths of patients -- were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner.

www.guttmacher.org

#48 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-10 12:04 AM | Reply

In 2014, three-fourths of abortion patients were low income -- 49% living at less than the federal poverty level, and 26% living at 100–199% of the poverty level.

Of course it is.

Raising children is above all else expensive.

All the love and warm feelings in the world aren't going to feed, clothe, warm or educate a kid.

In fact it's probably extremely painful for many to go through the experience of failing at one or several of those things everybody wants to provide for their children.

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-10 12:21 AM | Reply

Since the topic is abortion, we get to hear faux concern for aborted non-white babies, but if the topic was welfare, we'd get to hear outrage over non-white mothers having more kids in order to get bigger welfare payments. And so it goes.

#50 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-05-10 12:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

And? Republicans hate black people. You should be dancing in the streets.

#39 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-05-09 11:17 PM | FLAG:

Perhaps you're mistaken. You should set up an amusement park for punching straw men.

Why don't YOU care about black women and black babies?

I say black women, because moms who abort are more likely to commit suicide, be addicted to drugs and alcohol, abuse children they subsequently choose to have and raise, and have higher rates of fetal demise after their baby is born. We prolifers care about the moms, the children who survive abortions (it happens), the other children born to post abortive women, AND the babies.

#51 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 07:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

We prolifers

#51 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 07:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Will create lucrative businesses shipping women who can afford it to countries where abortions are legal.

You did it before, you'll do it again.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 08:00 AM | Reply

We prolifers care about the moms, the children who survive abortions (it happens), the other children born to post abortive women, AND the babies.

You do?

Then why do Republicans oppose universal prenatal healthcare?

Why do Republicans oppose a first world parental leave policy?

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 08:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No racial or ethnic group made up the majority of abortion patients: Thirty-nine percent were white, 28% were black, 25% were Hispanic, 6% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3% were of some other race or ethnicity.
www.guttmacher.org

#46 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2019-05-09 11:54 PM | REPLY

The rate of African American babies being aborted is more than TWICE as high proportionally than they make up in our society.

Yes, poverty plays a big role, but nonetheless, PP is a thoroughly racist organization with a racist past. Some of you distance yourself from their founder, Margaret Sanger, but PP has never denounced her.

Reconsider your ways.

And there is help for those of you men and women who have been involved in abortion, by paying for one, or having one.

#54 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 08:04 AM | Reply

And there is help for those of you men and women who have been involved in abortion, by paying for one, or having one.

#54 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 0

And, coming soon, spa packages to Mexican abortion clinics.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 08:07 AM | Reply

#54 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 0

All pro-life (so-called) means is a return to the status quo ante. There will be plenty of abortions. Poor people will have the in secret. Rich Republican daughters will have them in luxury.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 08:10 AM | Reply

Come on, JEHU. Contradict me.

#57 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 08:12 AM | Reply

Before the county I lived in became wet, it was upstanding religious folk who deliberately and continually operated liquor stores in areas set aside for that purpose. This is an old, old Texas story. The money was good so the values were....flexible.

Abortion was this way and will be again. Some of those Republicans most anxious to outlaw abortion are also those most anxious to make a buck off it.

#58 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 08:16 AM | Reply

You do?

Then why do Republicans oppose universal prenatal healthcare?

Why do Republicans oppose a first world parental leave policy?

#53 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-05-10 08:04 AM | REPLY

Some of us do, some of us don't oppose those things.
I don't care much about those issues.

The case against government run charity is (1)) that many studies have shown long terms harm to those receiving government charity, as opposed to private charity.

(2)
Look at who cares for the poorest people
In your city, for pregnant women and new moms through private charity: it's Christians. Often Republicans.

(3). Look at the personal giving rates of the GOP versus Dems. Ever done THAT? The evidence is clear Republicans care more, as evidenced by individuals' giving habits.

(4)
Additionally, I worry about the sustainability of these programs with W, Obama and Trump all spending money like crackheads or Paris Hilton.

(5)
In our town, a few thousands refugees were just released. The vast majority were just passing through to get to their sponsors. Private donors and religious charities ponied up ALOT of money and everyone was cared for. NONE was the government. It was beautiful.

Just last week, the city council decided they wanted to help, like 6 weeks later. Private charity beats public assistance so often. And private donors are slow to advertise that.

And private charity led, and often leads, the way. Private charity is more nimble and helps the recipients more.

#59 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 08:17 AM | Reply

So what will JEHU do when the abortion expresses get started again at regional and international airports?

I imagine pass laws mandating murder charges or some other legal consequence for those women who take advantage of such concierge service.

You salivated when Trump said he'd punish the woman who got abortions during the campaign, didn't you, JEHU?

It won't matter. It'll be like fighting the drug war. Those with enough money and desire will always buy what they want.

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 08:21 AM | Reply

Abortion was this way and will be again. Some of those Republicans most anxious to outlaw abortion are also those most anxious to make a buck off it.
#58 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-05-10 08:16 AM | REPLY

I'll gladly contradict your insanity.

First, I don't doubt that there are many self serving Republicans who are personally immoral monsters. Jesus warmed there would be religious hypocrites, your stories don't surprise me. They are sad and pathetic. I can't imagine living in Texas or the Bible Belt.

None the less, people who are real Christians and people who care for moms and babies (and others) exist and are changing the world.

It won't go well for people making money off of abortions.

I'm not so much looking for a change in LEGALITY re: abortion, I'm looking for it to be UNTHINKABLE, like race-based slavery is in the US now. Like Jim Crow laws are now.

#61 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 08:24 AM | Reply

The case against government run charity is (1)) that many studies have shown long terms harm to those receiving government charity, as opposed to private charity.

Utter claptrap. It is absolute fact that welfare reduced poverty rates. The only failures of welfare have the same cause as the failures of Obamacare; DELIBERATE ACTION BY CONSERVATIVES TO UNDERCUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM

#62 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-10 08:25 AM | Reply

You salivated when Trump said he'd punish the woman who got abortions during the campaign, didn't you, JEHU?

It won't matter. It'll be like fighting the drug war. Those with enough money and desire will always buy what they want.

#60 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-05-10 08:21 AM | FLAG:

Perhaps I can't stop domestic violence in my whole city, but I can stop it in my circle of influence.

But that could grow and it can get better everywhere.

Same with abortion.

Changing the legality without changing the hearts of our nation won't really change abortion.

I don't want legal or illegal coat hanger abortions.

I want the women who have/have had abortions, and the men who've paid for and/or coerced those abortions to change their hearts and
minds.

#63 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 08:29 AM | Reply

Utter claptrap. It is absolute fact that welfare reduced poverty rates.
#62 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2019-05-10 08:25 AM | REPLY |

What has it done to illegitimacy rates?!

Illegitimacy rates are shown in innumerable studies to increase poverty, crime, poor health and a million other awful things for kids.

#64 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 08:32 AM | Reply

And yes, welfare has reduced poverty rates. It just had/has some horrific downsides. At least the way we've done it.

#65 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 08:33 AM | Reply

I don't care much about those issues.

But you just said you cared about babies.

Prenatal care is proven to reduce infant mortality rates. So if you care about babies why don't you care about this?

Likewise, "there is compelling scientific evidence that the optimal length of time to ensure the best infant and child health and well-being is one year of paid leave at adequate wage replacement." If you care about babies, why don't you care about this?

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 08:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I am not protesting those government policy proposals.
Are THOSE the issues YOU care MOST about?

Every bit of gain of those policies is taken away for women that have had a previous abortion. Check out the movie "Hush" that discusses the public health implications of these matters.

#67 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 09:00 AM | Reply

I am not protesting those government policy proposals.

You just said you don't care about them. How is that, or even ambivalence, possible if you care about babies?

Are THOSE the issues YOU care MOST about?

I care about a lot of things, including those.

#68 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 09:04 AM | Reply

-Then why do Republicans oppose

he said "pro-lifers"...not republicans.

I think we can cite plenty of examples of republicans being pro-life in name only.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-10 09:06 AM | Reply

-There will be plenty of abortions. Poor people will have the in secret. Rich Republican daughters will have them in luxury.

which is exactly what we have now except the rich will have luxury and secrecy.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-10 09:09 AM | Reply

At least the way we've done it.

#65 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU AT 2019-05-10 08:33 AM | REPLY |

So why don't we do it right? Oh yeah because republicans

#71 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-10 09:11 AM | Reply

This is just what the power structure needed to inject some passion and energy into the abortion issue.

Gotta keep folks on their side of the fence.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-10 09:13 AM | Reply

he said "pro-lifers"...not republicans.

Who do pro-lifers vote for?

When is the last time you saw a pro-lifer championing universal prenatal care or a first-world parentsl leave policy?

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 09:14 AM | Reply

-Who do pro-lifers vote for?

true pro-lifers? or fake ones?

while you think about that.....

www.reuters.com

-When is the last time you saw a pro-lifer championing universal prenatal care or a first-world parentsl leave policy?

Again, true pro-lifers? or fake ones?

You don't have to point out to me the hypocrisy of republicans and the fools who vote party line GOP while clamoring on about their pro-life stances.

But I've been present when true pro-lifers discussed all relevant issues....wages, poverty, welfare, healthcare, education, etc...not just abortion.

You may be spending too much time on the internet to notice that there are some folks who live in the real world who aren't exactly as you think they are.....as you see them from your computer screen.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-10 09:20 AM | Reply

Joe, I laid out how private charity is way more effective than public assistance. And you ignore, or don't engage, on that.

I care even less about trade policy.

Wanna condemn me for that?

And it is quite obvious the GOP takes prolife votes for granted.
Just like the Democratic Party takes black votes for granted.

Sadly, Democrats in New York have now advocated for infanticide. What ever happened to prolife Democrats?

#75 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 09:27 AM | Reply

Check out this debate on Trump amongst black people by Vice News:
youtu.be

It shows how complicated political views can be.

#76 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 09:30 AM | Reply

laid out how private charity is way more effective than public assistance.

We are currently witnessing what happens when you rely upon public charity as opposed to universal prenatal care, and the US has some of the worst infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. So take your charity and shove it.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 09:47 AM | Reply

I'm not so much looking for a change in LEGALITY re: abortion, I'm looking for it to be UNTHINKABLE

#61 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05

Then you'll need to make sex unthinkable.

#78 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 09:56 AM | Reply

Joe,

Look up the link between our abortion rates, the most liberal in the world, and the link with infant mortality.

And thanks for your display of your real heart. I'll go shove it.

And take that comment as your loss of the debate.

#79 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 10:04 AM | Reply

Look up the link between our abortion rates, the most liberal in the world, and the link with infant mortality.

Why don't you post it here and explain its relevance?

And take that comment as your loss of the debate.

Nothing more embarrassing than a loser declaring victory. Your name starts with "Drivel" so at least that's accurate.

#80 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you care about babies, why don't you care about this?

#66 | POSTED BY JOE

Republicans are only Pro-life up until the baby is born. Then you are on your own. If you die or have a miserable life of poverty and disease after you are born that is all on you.

You should have been born to wealthy parents.

Like humpy.

#81 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-10 10:32 AM | Reply

Here's an idea.

Vasectomies are reversible.

Why not just require all males to have one when they hit puberty?

When he's ready to be a dad he can get permission from his wife or partner and get it reversed.

#82 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-05-10 11:40 AM | Reply

Imagine no religion...

#83 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-05-10 12:57 PM | Reply

Look up the link between our abortion rates, the most liberal in the world, and the link with infant mortality.
And thanks for your display of your real heart. I'll go shove it.
And take that comment as your loss of the debate.

#79 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU AT 2019-05-10 10:04 AM | REPLY

Most liberal in the world? The facts say no...

www.guttmacher.org

Latin America and the Caribean 32% infant mortality rate 0.8781
Europe 30% 0.6013
Asia 27% 0.5976
North America 17% 0.6510
Oceania 16%
Africa 15% 0.6837

So as you can see Europe and Asia have abortion rates almost double that of North America but have lower infant mortality rates and Africa has a lower rate of abortions but a higher infant mortality rate.

Studies show that abortion rates are lowest where it is legal and done in a medical setting.

www.nbcnews.com

#84 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-10 01:12 PM | Reply

"Look up the link between our abortion rates, the most liberal in the world, and the link with infant mortality."

^
Look up "bald-faced lie."

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-10 01:17 PM | Reply

"Again, true pro-lifers? or fake ones?"

LOL.

Next, Eberly will tell us Communism in the USSR wasn't true Communism!

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-10 01:20 PM | Reply

86

No, he won't.

#87 | Posted by eberly at 2019-05-10 01:27 PM | Reply

True Eberly would.
Fake Eberly is just a hack.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-10 01:32 PM | Reply

I already referred to the citation, Joe. Reading is fundamental.

Ad hominem attacks are further proof you lost.

#89 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 02:44 PM | Reply

epublicans are only Pro-life up until the baby is born. Then you are on your own. If you die or have a miserable life of poverty and disease after you are born that is all on you.

#81 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-05-10 10:32 AM | REPLY

False. Look at the private charitable endeavors in your city, and personal giving by Republicans.

Then repent for your envy.
A little reading on why Venezuela failed could help too.

#90 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 02:47 PM | Reply

I already referred to the citation, Joe. Reading is fundamental.
#89 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU AT 2019-05-10 02:44 PM

You did nothing of the sort. Link or stink, drivel.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:52 PM | Reply

Watch the movie "Hush".

It's on Amazon Prime right now.
Made by a prochoice.

#92 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:07 PM | Reply

False. Look at the private charitable endeavors in your city, and personal giving by Republicans.

Sure Comrade. They are just lining up in droves to adopt all those unwanted children and rescue those mothers from prison.

Why look in MY city? We do not have draconian abortion Laws here.

Maybe you should look in Georgia. And in case you were not aware, the more Republicans pay in taxes the more they give to charity. The less they pay in taxes the less they give to the needy.

Don't you find that interesting?

Probably not because you don't even know what "consumption philanthropy" means.

Look it up. I'll wait.

#93 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-10 04:08 PM | Reply

youtu.be

#94 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:09 PM | Reply

My best friend just adopted a lifers kid.

So just because you don't see it in your LGBTQIAA commune doesn't mean it isn't happening
😂😂😂

" the more Republicans pay in taxes the more they give to charity. The less they pay in taxes the less they give to the needy.

Don't you find that interesting?"

#93 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-05-10 04:08 PM | REPLY

Waitttttt,
People who make more money also pay more taxes?!?!
People who make more money also give more money away charitably?!

Nice Dodge. Have you actually looked up what Republicans versus Democrats give charitably?

#95 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:13 PM | Reply

Mr Drivel

I will give you a hint.

Think DJT and his $10,000 painting that he contributed to "Charity" his own personal charity.

Trump also used hundred of thousand of dollars from his "Charity" to fund his personal legal fees.

These are easy examples because we all know about them know.

Maybe it should be called "profit philanthropy".


#96 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-10 04:13 PM | Reply

"False. Look at the private charitable endeavors in your city, and personal giving by Republicans."

If they give to folks who spend it on, say, making gays 2nd class citizens, does that count as "charity"?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-10 04:15 PM | Reply

Nice Dodge. Have you actually looked up what Republicans versus Democrats give charitably?

#95 | Posted by drivelikejehu

Not a "dodge"

It is the rest of the story.

maybe read it again.

The more Republicans pay in taxes the more they give to charity. The less they pay in taxes the less they give to the charity.

They use it as a tax right off. And when they don't pay taxes anymore (not because they don't make money but because they have much better accountants and tax loopholes) they don't give to charity.

Profit Philanthropy.

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-10 04:16 PM | Reply

#97

Danforth,
For the sake of conversation, let's say that DOES count. Wtf? What charity would that be?

Why are you so obsessed with homosexuality? Over a decade and you still beat the same ----- drum.

#99 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:20 PM | Reply

#98 certainly that is a factor.

Why don't selfish Dems do it at anything CLOSE to similar levels?!

If I'm not mistaken, our tanning bed President was a Democrat when he did the above.

Private charity is more than any of you have admitted so far. Pretty cowardly.

And it helps people more.

Questions asked and answered. Now join me in giving charitably and stop complaining.

#100 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:23 PM | Reply

The movie "Hush" is about sex selection abortion, but covers other things such as how infant mortality has gone UP in the US because of abortion, as well as other reasons.

#101 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:29 PM | Reply

"Wtf? What charity would that be?"

Focus on the Family comes to mind.

"Why are you so obsessed with homosexuality? "

I've been in the arts all my adult life, and you vote for people want to make a lot of my peers second-class citizens.

"Over a decade and you still beat the same ----- drum."

It's an easy issue to single out, and the concept it's considered "charity" to vie for unequal rights sounds blasphemous to me.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-10 04:38 PM | Reply

"Why don't selfish Dems do it at anything CLOSE to similar levels?!"

If they're not deducting it on their taxes, how can you be sure?

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-10 04:39 PM | Reply

Danforth,

You can look at the context of my above quotes to see issue advocacy is NOT the kind of charity I referred to. Homelessness shelters, halfway houses, material and financial assistance IS. And it leaves its recipients better off and feeling better having received it than public welfare.

For all, cervical incompetence and placenta previa are terms you can study on how abortion contributes to premature babies and worse fetal health for subsequent pregnancies.

#104 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:48 PM | Reply

#103
There are LOADS of studies on rates of giving, why people give and who gives.

Restate your point if this doesn't answer it.

I thought you were a finance guy.

#105 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:51 PM | Reply

Here's your proper link, Joe:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

#106 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:53 PM | Reply

93% of women who've had more than 2 surgical abortions are born premature.

#107 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 04:55 PM | Reply

If a heartbeat at 6 weeks makes a fetus a child then ultrasounds are child pornography.

#108 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-05-10 05:17 PM | Reply

"study on how abortion contributes to premature babies and worse fetal health for subsequent pregnancies."

Your link says "associated" not "contributed."

The same author found similar results for single mothers.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-10 06:00 PM | Reply

Lee,

There is a different between a picture or video of something, where nudity can be seen, and PORN.

#110 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 06:57 PM | Reply

Watch the film then we'll talk.

#111 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 07:00 PM | Reply

Nixon,

"They don't care that women will be forced to carry their rapists babies."

HB 481 includes an exemption for rape, ------ and the mother's life as at risk.

Apparently you don't care about the truth.

#112 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-05-10 07:33 PM | Reply

#112 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Supporters of HB 481 will note that exceptions to the six week limitation do exist. However, these exceptions are fatally-flawed. For example, the bill requires that any girl or woman who is the victim of ------ or rape file a police report to access an abortion. Many survivors don't disclose childhood sexual abuse or rape until years after the abuse, much less within the course of an unplanned pregnancy. Forcing survivors to disclose by requiring a police report adds insult to literal injury, burdening survivors instead of lessening their pain.

The Hill

The recent Alabama bill had "exceptions" too. Until they took them out at the very last second.

#113 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-05-10 07:51 PM | Reply

"you can study on how abortion..."

Blah, blah, blah.

For me, it boils down to one thing: does the citizen decide, or does the government decide?

For me, the answer is easy and obvious.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-10 08:32 PM | Reply

"There is a different between a picture or video of something, where nudity can be seen, and PORN."

And what difference is that?

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-10 08:44 PM | Reply

"There are LOADS of studies on rates of giving, why people give and who gives."

Except those studies are all severely flawed: folks self-report, public barometers are woefully incomplete, and no line is drawn between issue giving and non-issue giving. What you don't call charity, all the folks giving to issue charities call charity.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-10 08:59 PM | Reply

Charity has the right to legally discriminate in all sorts of ways that the government can't.

This is why it's such a darling of the right.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-10 09:01 PM | Reply

"And it leaves its recipients better off and feeling better having received it than public welfare."

No, it makes YOU feel better. At least be honest; the recipient cares not one whit who the benefactor might be.

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-10 09:08 PM | Reply

The statistics you cite on charity do not show what you say they do. They show only that republicans CLAIM MORE CHARITY ON THEIR INCOME TAX FORMS. What you fail to understand is that the vast majority of charitable giving is anonymous. I fund raise for a charity. We have a handful of large donors who demand things in return for their gift. They represent about 20% of our funds and there are always costs to us that come with tbeir gifts. True charitable giving expects NOTHING in return. If you get a tax break and advertising that isnt really charity it is a business transaction.
On to point #2. If private charity is so awesome why were poverty rates so much higher BEFORE government welfare programs existed? How is it that if private charity PLUS welfare cant elikinate poverty you think private charity ALONE could do a better job? Just look at tge facts and stop trying to pretend that some republicans who vote UNANIMOUSLY against helping people in need on a regular basis are more charitable

#119 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-10 09:49 PM | Reply

Okay, how come my stuff keeps getting vanished? And it's most logical stuff too.

I'm calling Coca-Cola again. I'll get to the bottom of this. This is a deliberate attack.

#120 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-05-10 10:51 PM | Reply

Never enough for the Democratic Stalinists of the DR.

You want federal government control or nothing.

All private charity is dismissed, explained away.

Some of you are so patently dishonest and partisan it should scare yourselves.

#121 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-11 12:29 AM | Reply

Why is anyone still bothering with this halfwit? I'm reminded of an old saying:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

#122 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-11 12:50 AM | Reply

Some of you are so patently dishonest and partisan it should scare yourselves.

#121 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU

You're a righty. You're inherently dishonest.

Lick my ass.

#123 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-11 02:08 AM | Reply

There it is, the usual leftist DR way of things.

Final thought: are any of you actively involved in volunteering or working for a charity?

I work for one.

That flavors my perception.
I've seen so many amazing people do amazing things with incredible results.

I hope you each get to see people genuinely cared for in this life.

#124 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-11 07:12 AM | Reply

Where did Herm go?

Speaking of abortion lovers

#125 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-11 10:37 AM | Reply

"Final thought: are any of you actively involved in volunteering or working for a charity?
I work for one."

National Association for the Advancement of White People?

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-11 03:36 PM | Reply

are any of you actively involved in volunteering or working for a charity?

Yes. Any other super relevant questions?

#127 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-11 04:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort