Joe Biden Wins

[SilverBear]

Sorry, this is in my area of competence. You are decidedly incorrect here.

Please re-read Section 4 again, which indicates all abortions are permissible WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. Read it out loud, as I tell college students. You will hear what the language is actually saying if you can't detect it in the written words.

"Without any of the FOLLOWING restrictions"

a) General rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:

So...WITHOUT this restriction: (8) A prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

Hence, a baby can be aborted and the patient has a RIGHT to an abortion "without a prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability. " That is exactly what it reads.

PRIOR

An attempt at obfuscation is made with the next sentence, which reads as follows, vaguely and unnecessarily, considering the former sentence:

(Without a restriction on ) 9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

so there are restrictions. Thank you for pointing that out

Hence, a baby can be aborted at any time

Fetus and not true

if any "treating health care provider (NOT DOCTOR- is specifically not required under3this Bill under multiple sections)"

spelled out in section 4

decides the fully developed baby ready to be born poses a risk to "life or health". Completely undefined.

See section 3

"My life will be affected" because I don't have a babysitter." "I'm not mentally prepared to have a baby". Good enough reasons here,

another fine example of anti-abortion lies

but of course even this statement is NOT required under number 11 in Section 4. Read it.

You obviously didn't read it.

Some laugh-out-loud moments in this ridiculously named "Women's Health Protection Act of 2019" for those who understand and can interpret legal language:


11) Not all people who become pregnant or need abortion services identify as women. Access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person regardless of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, immigration status, sex (including gender identity, sex stereotyping, or sexual orientation), age, or disability status. This Act’s protection is inclusive of all pregnant people.

(Complete pandering, virtue signaling nonsense. A pregnant person is by biological definition a FEMALE. Males cannot become pregnant or give birth. Very basic Biology. They can call themselves whatever they want but they are women if pregnant and/or giving birth/having their babies aborted)

Outside of your desire to malign and belittle people does it matter?

Section 7: Liberal Construction. Oh, how very aptly named. So liberally construed that anything goes. In interpreting the provisions of this Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to effectuate the purposes of the Act."

another fine example?

And this: (5) VIABILITY.—The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.

that is the medical definition

Translation: "Sustained fetal survival outside the uterus = the BABY will live. It's not a fetus anymore but the writers could not admit it is a BABY.

You can't make this stuff up. We need to remove Congress and start again with non-lifer, term-limited rational people.

saying only what you want to hear doesn't make anyone rational.

 

[Postvieww]

evidence....? Evidence that this woman needs to exercise more?

Is all you see wrong with this video Ruby’s weight?????????

 

[tulc]

Is all you see wrong with this video Ruby’s weight?????????

The video shows a woman getting winded while just talking and walking around. What else was it supposed to show?
tulc(seriously)

 

[Postvieww]

The video shows a woman getting winded while just talking and walking around. What else was it supposed to show?
tulc(seriously)

Most intellectually honest people would notice the very small number of people in the room . No poll watchers, Ruby’s comment “this is how we do it in Fullton county. Many unsecured ballots stacked around for Miss Ruby to count. I ‘m sorry , if you see nothing here you just don’t want to see it. Seriously!!!!!!!!!! There is so much evidence of fraud with multiple eyewitnesses coming forward yet some still howl no evidence here. Seriously!!!!!

 

[tulc]

Most intellectually honest people would notice the very small number of people in the room . No poll watchers, Ruby’s comment “this is how we do it in Fullton county. Many unsecured ballots stacked around for Miss Ruby to count. I ‘m sorry , if you see nothing here you just don’t want to see it. Seriously!!!!!!!!!! There is so much evidence of fraud with multiple eyewitnesses coming forward yet some still howl no evidence here. Seriously!!!!!

...how does no one there show that? Wouldn't someone have to be there in order to commit the fraud? Sounds more like someone desperately trying to find fraud than any evidence of fraud.
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[SilverBear]

Most intellectually honest people would notice the very small number of people in the room . No poll watchers, Ruby’s comment “this is how we do it in Fullton county. Many unsecured ballots stacked around for Miss Ruby to count. I ‘m sorry , if you see nothing here you just don’t want to see it. Seriously!!!!!!!!!! There is so much evidence of fraud with multiple eyewitnesses coming forward yet some still howl no evidence here. Seriously!!!!!

Intellectually honest people would note that the woman in the video, Ruby Freeman, announces that she is just back to work after ten days off. In a Facebook post on November 8, Freeman says notes that she had worked for 16 hours on Friday, November 6 and that she had not had a weekend off in three weeks. So the earliest Ruby could have made this video was November 19. We see unopened envelops supposedly of ballots but with no return addresses and no signature on the back. Ballot counting was long since over so what exactly was Ruby supposedly counting?

 

[Postvieww]

Intellectually honest people would note that the woman in the video, Ruby Freeman, announces that she is just back to work after ten days off. In a Facebook post on November 8, Freeman says notes that she had worked for 16 hours on Friday, November 6 and that she had not had a weekend off in three weeks. So the earliest Ruby could have made this video was November 19. We see unopened envelops supposedly of ballots but with no return addresses and no signature on the back. Ballot counting was long since over so what exactly was Ruby supposedly counting?

Maybe you should ask her. About the 2:17 mark of the video she said she had to enter absentee ballots. Recounts continued into December.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

"Without any of the FOLLOWING restrictions"

PRIOR

An attempt at obfuscation is made with the next sentence, which reads as follows, vaguely and unnecessarily,

Actual substance would have been appreciated in those comments. I had to go back to my response to make any sense of it.

The point here is that you are misreading the WHPA.

When you read Section 4, it clearly states that an abortion provider can provide - and patient can receive - an abortion without any of the following limitations or requirements:

Meaning WITHOUT this restriction: (8) A prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability. That means without a prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability anyone can get an abortion = no restrictions.

Hence, a baby can be aborted and the patient has a RIGHT to an abortion "without a prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability. " That is exactly what it reads.

I'm explaining what it says.

On the other hand, you are merely making bald assertions that are not backed up by the language in the Act.

9 is irrelevant since 8 removes all restrictions. 9 is merely an effort at obfuscation. And even if a Court held 8 to actually mean something other than it says in plain writing, 9 removes all restrictions when it permits any exclusion on the basis of "life or health" which is pretty much anything and everything today. Anything can be labeled by these NON-DOCTORS (who are not competent to make medical diagnoses, as the Act clearly permits in plain language) as affecting life or health.

Sorry, you are incorrect on this one. I won't go through each statement, because you are more interested in preserving your ideological view than in examining the language, as it quite clear from the responses.

Section 3 neither restricts the type of provider to a medically trained person(rather "including" them, not limiting abortion to them, nor defines Life or health, FYI.

 

[SilverBear]

Maybe you should ask her. About the 2:17 mark of the video she said she had to enter absentee ballots. Recounts continued into December.

the envelopes were unopened and lacked return addresses and signatures on the back. Ballots are separated from their envelopes when counted so this wasn't a recount. Try again

 

[SilverBear]

Actual substance would have been appreciated in those comments. I had to go back to my response to make any sense of it.

[ I'm sorry i made you think about what you previously posted

The point here is that you are misreading the WHPA.

When you read Section 4, it clearly states that an abortion provider can provide - and patient can receive - an abortion without any of the following limitations or requirements:

Meaning WITHOUT this restriction: (8) A prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability. That means without a prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability anyone can get an abortion = no restrictions.

Hence, a baby can be aborted and the patient has a RIGHT to an abortion "without a prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability. " That is exactly what it reads.

Yep, prior to viability.

I'm explaining what it says.

On the other hand, you are merely making bald assertions that are not backed up by the language in the Act.

9 is irrelevant since 8 removes all restrictions. 9 is merely an effort at obfuscation.

Section 8 is in regards to abortions PRIOR to viability.
Section 9 is in regards to abortions AFTER viability

Two different and clearly defined times Different times, different restrictions

And even if a Court held 8 to actually mean something other than it says in plain writing, 9 removes all restrictions when it permits any exclusion on the basis of "life or health" which is pretty much anything and everything today. Anything can be labeled by these NON-DOCTORS (who are not competent to make medical diagnoses, as the Act clearly permits in plain language) as affecting life or health.

the simple word for this is bull

Sorry, you are incorrect on this one. I won't go through each statement, because you are more interested in preserving your ideological view than in examining the language, as it quite clear from the responses.

Funny, i'm saying the same thing about you

Section 3 neither restricts the type of provider to a medically trained person(rather "including" them, not limiting abortion to them, nor defines Life or health, FYI.

i know you don't care but...

(2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—The term “health care provider” means any entity or individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and physician assistant) that is—
(A) engaged in the delivery of health care services, including abortion services; and
(B) if required by law or regulation to be licensed or certified to engage in the delivery of such services, is so licensed or certified.

So they are competent to make medical diagnoses

 

[Postvieww]

Any available videos of Biden make an address anywhere, anytime even remotely resembling this one?

 

[Isilwen]

Any available videos of Biden make an address anywhere, anytime even remotely resembling this one?

If only we knew he was sincere...

 

[Postvieww]

If only we knew he was sincere...

On what do you base the judgment he is not?

 

[Isilwen]

On what do you base the judgment he is not?

Same question to you... On what do you base the judgment that he is?

 

[Postvieww]

Same question to you... On what do you base the judgment that he is?

I just judged the words he said. Your turn.

 

[Isilwen]

I just judged the words he said. Your tirn

I judge his actions and do not go by words alone. Do his actions line up with his words?

For me, they do not.

 

[Postvieww]

I judge his actions and do not go by words alone. Do his actions line up with his words?

For me, they do not.

Do you judge Biden with the same judgment you judge Trump? I really doubt it.

 

[Isilwen]

Do you judge Biden with the same judgment you judge Trump? I really doubt it.

Actually, I do and will continue to do so.

 

[Postvieww]

More evidence for the left to ignore!

 

[Postvieww]

Even more evidence for the left to ignore. If you rely on the MSM exclusively you really don’t know what has happened and what is happening.