Republicans Include Tax Hike In Latest Abortion Bill

[Common]

The no taxs GOP just keeps right on passing tax increases for everyone but the rich.
They want a gas tax hike to make it harder on the poorest and now this. They are truly the full of shit of the rich party and for the rich party.


After a botched effort (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/house-20-week-abortion_n_6520358.html) to pass legislation imposing a 20-week ban on abortions, House Republicans are moving forward Thursday with what's being dubbed a less controversial bill that codifies a ban on federal funding for abortions.The bill would do a number of things -- including block federal funds for abortion for women who are in the military, who live in Washington, D.C., and who are poor -- but one aspect of the legislation that hasn't received much attention is the fact that it would raise taxes on the vast majority of small businesses.
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would deny small businesses a tax credit they currently receive through what's known as the SHOP exchange, a part of the Affordable Care Act, if they include abortion care in their health plans. Roughly 87 percent of private plans include abortion services as part of comprehensive coverage, meaning the bulk of small businesses would be hit with a tax hike if the bill were to become law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/republicans-tax-abortion_n_6523714.html

[Chris]

Yea, those Reps are doing so well, botching a simple bipartisan abortion bill. What are they thinking?

[Crepitus]

Yea, those Reps are doing so well, botching a simple bipartisan abortion bill. What are they thinking?
Keep dreaming. Nothing bipartisan about that bill even though they might have managed to get a few democratic signatures on it. Pure pandering to the religious conservative base.

[Mac-7]

Pure pandering to the religious conservative base.

And we can't have that can we?

In godless lib la la land Christians should just sit down and shut up.

[Common]

Yea, those Reps are doing so well, botching a simple bipartisan abortion bill. What are they thinking?

They have to pay back their backers chris just like democrats do.
I read on a moderate site that the gop had a PRIME CHANCE to not only prove their governance but to cement a leadership position for many years. By starting their new majority with A STRONG MIDDLECLASS AGENDA, if they did that then they could spend years screwing the middleclass again and making the rich richer before the dumbass middleclass woke up again.

Republicans ALWAYS do stupid shit and cut their noses off

[Chris]

Keep dreaming. Nothing bipartisan about that bill even though they might have managed to get a few democratic signatures on it. Pure pandering to the religious conservative base.

Sorry, but most people agree that abortion once the baby is viable is morally wrong, even Democrats. That is what the bill originally concerned before Republicans foolishly amended and defeated it, even among Republicans.

[Chris]

They have to pay back their backers chris just like democrats do.
I read on a moderate site that the gop had a PRIME CHANCE to not only prove their governance but to cement a leadership position for many years. By starting their new majority with A STRONG MIDDLECLASS AGENDA, if they did that then they could spend years screwing the middleclass again and making the rich richer before the dumbass middleclass woke up again.

Republicans ALWAYS do stupid shit and cut their noses off

Perhaps is was corruption that led them to try and take a giant step instead of baby steps. (Pun intended.)

[Chris]

rwild1967, some facts: Why Everyone Should Be Terrified By The GOP’s Abortion Bill Debacle (http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/22/why-everyone-should-be-terrified-by-the-gops-abortion-bill-debacle/)


...Pro-lifers were promised by the Republican leaders they just helped elect and re-elect that the House of Representatives would pass a bill today banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a point after which infants can feel pain and survive if born prematurely.

The legislation has been passed by the House in the previous Congress and is extremely popular in national polling. “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends,” the polling firm reported, “is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.” A Washington Post/ABC survey showed that 64 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. When just women were asked, the figure jumped to 71 percent. Such measures are popular among independents and Americans of various income levels.

Quinnipiac even asked detailed questions about the bill last go-around:



As you may know, in 2013 the House of Representatives approved legislation that would ban virtually all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape and incest that are reported to authorities. Would you support or oppose such legislation?



Sixty percent of voters said they would support it, while 33 percent said they were opposed. Even Democrats were evenly divided (46 percent to 47 percent) on the question. We’re one of just a small handful of countries, including notorious human rights violators North Korea and China, that allow late-term abortion.

And yet somehow the Republicans managed to make a disaster of passing the bill....

[BB-35]

Yea, those Reps are doing so well, botching a simple bipartisan abortion bill. What are they thinking?
Not to mention proposing a bipartisan gas tax bill...

[Crepitus]

@rwild1967 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345), some facts: Why Everyone Should Be Terrified By The GOP’s Abortion Bill Debacle (http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/22/why-everyone-should-be-terrified-by-the-gops-abortion-bill-debacle/)
I'm not terrified at all Chris. I am in fact encouraged that reason and clear thought triumphed over emotional chest thumping for a change.

[Crepitus]

And we can't have that can we?

In godless lib la la land Christians should just sit down and shut up.
When it comes to governing and laws you're damn right they and every other group that wants to govern according to some religious fantasy should.

[Crepitus]

Sorry, but most people agree that abortion once the baby is viable is morally wrong, even Democrats. That is what the bill originally concerned before Republicans foolishly amended and defeated it, even among Republicans.
That's pretty debatable.

[Chris]

I'm not terrified at all Chris. I am in fact encouraged that reason and clear thought triumphed over emotional chest thumping for a change.

Huh? Nonresponsive aren't we. You doubted the people's and Democrats' support for the initial abortion bill. I provided facts they do. And you're not, what, terrified? Try reading past the headline.

[Chris]

That's pretty debatable.

Again, I provided facts on support. Just try reading past the headline. And then, if you think it debatable, say something to debate.

[Mac-7]

When it comes to governing and laws you're $#@! right they and every other group that wants to govern according to some religious fantasy should.

Then maybe we should join the crazy anarchists and not let anyone govern.

Because by your logic the godless heathens have no more right to their beliefs than Christians do.

[Crepitus]

Again, I provided facts on support. Just try reading past the headline. And then, if you think it debatable, say something to debate.
You and I both know we can find polls that support either way.

[Crepitus]

Then maybe we should join the crazy anarchists and not let anyone govern.

Because by your logic the godless heathens have no more right to their beliefs than Christians do.
No, using logic is the only way to govern properly.

[Mac-7]

No, using logic is the only way to govern properly.

Logic is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one is banned.

[Chris]

You and I both know we can find polls that support either way.

Yet you've done nothing to rebut the fact a majority of Democrats supported the initial bill. So you really know nothing.

[Crepitus]

Yet you've done nothing to rebut the fact a majority of Democrats supported the initial bill. So you really know nothing.
Can't post find any stats right now, on my phone. will look later and post some up for ya.

[Crepitus]

Logic is that everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one is banned.
Yup, you're entitled to your opinion, but not allowed to force it on others by making your religious prejudices laws.

[Mac-7]

Yup, you're entitled to your opinion, but not allowed to force it on others by making your religious prejudices laws.

i have just as much right to my religious preferences in public policy as you do to believe in nothing.

[Ethereal]

When it comes to governing and laws you're $#@! right they and every other group that wants to govern according to some religious fantasy should.

Statism is a religion, too.

[Common]

i have just as much right to my religious preferences in public policy as you do to believe in nothing.

As long as your religion doesnt infringe on anyone elses rights, sure you do

[Mac-7]

Statism is a religion, too.

So is the Church of Man-made Global Warming.

[Mac-7]

As long as your religion doesnt infringe on anyone elses rights, sure you do

The same goes for you if you believe in nothing.

[Chris]

Yup, you're entitled to your opinion, but not allowed to force it on others by making your religious prejudices laws.

That's in the Constitution.

[Mac-7]

That's in the Constitution.

Where?

[Chris]

Where?

First Amendment.

[Mac-7]

First Amendment.

That guarantees freedom OF religion.

Not freedom from religion.

[Chris]

That guarantees freedom OF religion.

Not freedom from religion.

Baloney, mac. It guarantees a limitation on government power: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Freedom of and from religion is a natural right.

[Mac-7]

Baloney, mac. It guarantees a limitation on government power: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Freedom of and from religion is a natural right.

Yes.

There is no official Christian Church Of The United States so no violation of the Constitution.

But it also means the godless libs can't stop me from believing in God.

[kilgram]

Yes.

There is no official Christian Church Of The United States so no violation of the Constitution.

But it also means the godless libs can't stop me from believing in God.
And that means that the believers can't force their beliefs on non-believers. Thing that believers try to do every day. Mainly the ones that are in the heads of your respective churchs.

[kilgram]

That guarantees freedom OF religion.

Not freedom from religion.
Freedom of religion means that no one forces the religion on others.

And it means that the religion has no voice in state affairs. Secularism.

The constitution is secular. Like it or not. Or at least tries to be it.

However, it is known that in USA, even today, you must have a religion. The worst thing is being a non-believer.

[Chris]

Yes.

There is no official Christian Church Of The United States so no violation of the Constitution.

But it also means the godless libs can't stop me from believing in God.


Read the amendment closely, mac, it says nothing about a church. It says, read it. And, no, no one or government can take away liberty of conscience.

[Mac-7]

And that means that the believers can't force their beliefs on non-believers. Thing that believers try to do every day. Mainly the ones that are in the heads of your respective churchs.

We are free to believe in God.

And libs are free to not believe.

So no harm no foul.

[PolWatch]

Read the amendment closely, mac, it says nothing about a church. It says, read it. And, no, no one or government can take away liberty of conscience.

I really admire how you keep trying to explain things. You have a lot of patience.

[Chris]

Freedom of religion means that no one forces the religion on others.

And it means that the religion has no voice in state affairs. Secularism.

The constitution is secular. Like it or not. Or at least tries to be it.

However, it is known that in USA, even today, you must have a religion. The worst thing is being a non-believer.



No, the Constitution limits government, not religion. The people with their faith, or lack thereof, do and should have a voice if the state represents them at all.


I and many others have no religion so, no, there is no you must have one.

[Mac-7]

Read the amendment closely, mac, it says nothing about a church. It says, read it. And, no, no one or government can take away liberty of conscience.

Wrong.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

There is no law establishing a religion.

You want to deny Christians their civil right to vote and petition their government.

[Chris]

I really admire how you keep trying to explain things. You have a lot of patience.

Thanks! Someone has to. Otherwise it's lost to ephemeral whims.

[Chris]

Wrong.



There is no law establishing a religion.

You want to deny Christians their civil right to vote and petition their government.



You said church, mac.

And now while you're using the word "religion," you're leaving out the words "respecting" and "an." It doesn't read "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion...."

Read it carefully, unless you're just another living documentist.

[Mac-7]

I really admire how you keep trying to explain things. You have a lot of patience.

Someone will have to explain it to Chris first.

And apparently PolWatch.

[Mac-7]

You said church, mac.

And now while you're using the word "religion," you're leaving out the words "respecting" and "an." It doesn't read "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion...."

Read it carefully, unless you're just another living documentist.

Church, mosque, synagog, Buddhist temple, whatever.

No religion has been established.

[Mac-7]

It doesn't read "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion...."

Read it carefully, unless you're just another living documentist.

I get it.

You don't understand the words that are written.

You think that "respecting" means showing respect for.

but in this context it is just fancy 18th Century English that means congress cannot create an official state church.

[Chris]

I get it.

You don't understand the words that are written.

You think that "respecting" means showing respect for.

but in this context it is just fancy 18th Century English that means congress cannot create an official state church.


Now you're back to making up lies.

No, it doesn't mean 'show respect for" but "having to do with".

No, it doesn't say "church" but "religion".


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

[Crepitus]

i have just as much right to my religious preferences in public policy as you do to believe in nothing.
No, you don't. You may believe in whatever you want but you cannot implement your beliefs as public policy or law.

[Crepitus]

Statism is a religion, too.
Statism is a political ideology. It has none of the trappings of religion.

[Bob]

The no taxs GOP just keeps right on passing tax increases for everyone but the rich.
They want a gas tax hike to make it harder on the poorest and now this. They are truly the full of shit of the rich party and for the rich party.


After a botched effort (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/house-20-week-abortion_n_6520358.html) to pass legislation imposing a 20-week ban on abortions, House Republicans are moving forward Thursday with what's being dubbed a less controversial bill that codifies a ban on federal funding for abortions.The bill would do a number of things -- including block federal funds for abortion for women who are in the military, who live in Washington, D.C., and who are poor -- but one aspect of the legislation that hasn't received much attention is the fact that it would raise taxes on the vast majority of small businesses.
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would deny small businesses a tax credit they currently receive through what's known as the SHOP exchange, a part of the Affordable Care Act, if they include abortion care in their health plans. Roughly 87 percent of private plans include abortion services as part of comprehensive coverage, meaning the bulk of small businesses would be hit with a tax hike if the bill were to become law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/republicans-tax-abortion_n_6523714.html

I see no gas tax hike.

Also, under 50 employees and they provide no health plan.

Also, congress should not reward killing.

[Chris]

Statism is a political ideology. It has none of the trappings of religion.

Statism is the replacement of God (however you might define that) with the State.

http://i.snag.gy/nbMbE.jpg

[Mac-7]

No, it doesn't mean 'show respect for" but "having to do with".

That's what I said.


No, it doesn't say "church" but "religion".


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Congress has not created a religion.

And no government churches, mosques, synagogs or temples to practice the government religion in.

[Mac-7]

No, you don't. You may believe in whatever you want but you cannot implement your beliefs as public policy or law.

Yes I can.

Otherwise you are denying me equal participation in the political process.

[Chris]

That what said.



Congress has not created a religion.

And no government churches, mosques, synagogs or temples to practice the government religion in.



That what said.

English, please.


Congress has not created a religion.

Learn to read English too. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

[Mac-7]

Learn to read English too. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

That means no government religion.

And there has not been a state religion.

[Howey]

I don't understand.

What right does Congress have to tell women what do do with their bodies?

[PolWatch]

I don't understand.

What right does Congress have to tell women what do do with their bodies?

I dunno...if you figure it out, let me know too

[Matty]

Babies don't have bodies?

[Chris]

I think the original bill was about protecting the rights of viable babies.

[PolWatch]

I've said before, I don't agree with the abortion of a viable fetus. However, politicians & preachers have no business in the question. It should be a medical/personal/private discussion.

We have government deciding what medical treatments you are forced to let your child undergo, we are told who we can love & marry...why should we be surprised that women's bodies are not their concern? Obviously women have no right to decide who or what can inhabit her body. What's next? forced breeding with the stud of government's choice?

[Chris]

I've said before, I don't agree with the abortion of a viable fetus. However, politicians & preachers have no business in the question. It should be a medical/personal/private discussion.

We have government deciding what medical treatments you are forced to let your child undergo, we are told who we can love & marry...why should we be surprised that women's bodies are not their concern? Obviously women have no right to decide who or what can inhabit her body. What's next? forced breeding with the stud of government's choice?



I'd agree, keep government out of it, let society decide. It's a moral issue.

[Howey]

I'd agree, keep government out of it, let society decide. It's a moral issue.

It's not a moral issue.

It's a personal issue.

[Mac-7]

I'd agree, keep government out of it, let society decide. It's a moral issue.

Society decided to ban abortions.

But 7 unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court overrode the will of the people.

[Peter1469]

Baloney, mac. It guarantees a limitation on government power: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Freedom of and from religion is a natural right.

You contradict yourself. If Congress can't prohibit the expression of religion, then the State can't protect you from religion.