SEMI-POLITICAL: Equality, Beliefs & the Constitution

[the_mother_thing]

Yes. It's called the Lemon Test http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

Thank you, Matata. That is helpful.

For reference:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Might you happen to know if there is a similar 'test' that is used more broadly than just religious scenarios?

 

[monarch64]

I would like to know how people plan to enforce abortion laws in the event that a woman could walk into an office and say "I was raped and I do not want this fetus inside of me."

Okay well,what then? Try to prove whether or not she's lying first?

Oh, then it will become an issue of whether she reported it or not, blah blah blah. Or, why didn't she take Plan B right away. Or, why did she wait to have a surgical abortion instead of using the medical option. Etc.

 

[AnnaH]

I think the following at least touches on questions directed to me, or ones I assume were directed to me.

Liberals have long threatened to end tax exemption for faith based charities.
Maybe what it comes down to--is the government the best organization to care for people, or are there better options. There are good and bad government programs and good and bad charities. Individuals do have more control over choosing a charity, I think.

Of course, women could lie about rape or incest in order to get an abortion, and I have no answer to that. But if a bill were introduced to ban partial birth obortion or abortions in the third trimester with those limitations, I probably would support it. That was the question I was answering.

As to would I be willing to personally support the newborn child. To my knowledge, there's no lack of people wanting babies. It's the older children who are more difficult to place. The issue to me is the sanctity of life.

There are many conflicts for taxpayers, some mentioned here. Some are strongly felt conflicts and some we can live with in such a diverse society. To me, those that involve life are paramount, the unborn, death penalty, war. We differ, we march, we vote. We do what we can.

 

[Tekate]

I think the following at least touches on questions directed to me, or ones I assume were directed to me.

Liberals have long threatened to end tax exemption for faith based charities.
Maybe what it comes down to--is the government the best organization to care for people, or are there better options. There are good and bad government programs and good and bad charities. Individuals do have more control over choosing a charity, I think.

Of course, women could lie about rape or incest in order to get an abortion, and I have no answer to that. But if a bill were introduced to ban partial birth obortion or abortions in the third trimester with those limitations, I probably would support it. That was the question I was answering.

As to would I be willing to personally support the newborn child. To my knowledge, there's no lack of people wanting babies. It's the older children who are more difficult to place. The issue to me is the sanctity of life.

There are many conflicts for taxpayers, some mentioned here. Some are strongly felt conflicts and some we can live with in such a diverse society. To me, those that involve life are paramount, the unborn, death penalty, war. We differ, we march, we vote. We do what we can.

Yes, liberals, but especially atheists. I'm all for banning partial abortion and late abortion unless of extreme problem. Yes there are plenty of people who desire a child, but we are a republic, run by law and the law says abortion is legal.

The republicans are going to find it very difficult to stand against democrats at the next election(s) if they defund planned parenthood and continue to allow non believers money to be sent to a religious organization, even if church says we don't, there is the fungible money.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/01/13/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood-taxpayer-money-abortion-care/

I personally do not like any of my tax money to go to a religious institution, but I don't fight against it because I recognize that while my money may go somewhat to the church - it is providing assistance to those in need.

 

[AnnaH]

Kate, you spoke of a religious university. Conservative taxpayers support very liberal universities. I agree that we can't storm the gates over everything we find objectionable.
You agree with some restrictions on abortion as do most Americans. However, a significant number want no restrictions. Probably not to you, but to me, that's a worthy fight.

 

[the_mother_thing]

As far as the little sisters of the poor. I'm assuming most of their employees are nuns. Yes, they probably won't be using birth control, sterilization, abortion services. They also won't be using prenatal care, pediatric services, protate exams or viagra prescriptions. Taking out that coverage wouldn't be saving them any money. In fact it would become prohibitively costly to offer individually tailored insurance for every individual or particular situation. And again, just because something is covered, does not mean it needs to be used, or someone is forcing them to use those services. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

Again regarding planned parenthood funding, non of the federal funding goes towards abortions. So there shouldn't be any religious conflict, etc for tax payer monies to go to planned parenthood or similar agencies. It is called "planned" parenthood. It is legal in our country for women to plan if or when or how many children they will have. If a woman does not have control over her own body, her own reproductive choices, how can we be equal citizens?The answer is, we cannot. And that inequality will fall harder on economically disadvantaged women, increasing the divide in this country.

This is getting a bit on the edge of the original topic (specifically all the focus on abortion), but it probably warrants parsing out a bit, so I took off my 'personal opinion' hat, and put on my "objective & investigative hat" yesterday and today as time allowed, and came up with the below. I *just* now read the additional posts since I started, and some of it was already mentioned (specifically the Forbes article). Nevertheless, I put effort into researching and darnit I refuse to 'waste' it.

1) On the first bold item, I *think* an issue here may be "could not use" vs "would not use", and is it reasonably and/or even legally permissible to compel someone to pay for something they cannot use? Would it still be a$tronomical to have two 'plans' that address the unique health care needs of men & women? I have homeowners' insurance; I don't have a swimming pool, so I don't have nor pay for coverage associated with one. I have car insurance, and drive a 3-yr old mid-range sedan. I pay higher insurance premiums than someone with a 20-year old beater. Both cases - as well as health insurance - are priced according to a risk model, and in the case of car insurance that model also varies by gender.

2) On the second bold item, Planned Parenthood receives Federal funding via Title X - not only by way of medicaid reimbursements for "family planning services", but also grants. What I found interesting about that is, per Dept. HHS (https://www.hhs.gov/opa/sites/default/files/notice-42-cfr-59.pdf):

... the statutory requirement that no funds appropriated under Title X of the Public Health Service Act be used in programs in which abortion is a method of family planning.

and

1. General Principles. In general, section 1008 prohibits Title X programs from engaging in activities which promote or encourage abortion as a method of family planning.

The HHS August 2016 "Title X Family Planning Directory of Grantees" list (https://www.hhs.gov/opa/sites/default/files/title-x-directory-grantees.pdf) clearly shows PP as one of the "family planning" programs that receives Title X grants. I looked at the first one on the list (Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, Inc.) thinking "well, maybe they only provide grants to PP clinics that do not offer/advertise abortion. The PP-SNE, Inc. website (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-southern-new-england/patient-resources) clearly shows they provide abortion services. Does PP "advertise" abortion as a method of "family planning"? Not that I can find; however, abortion services are offered, performed and advertised in the same clinic and on the same website (in the same list of 'services' even) where "family planning" is offered, performed, and advertised. This 'trail' leads me toward a reasonable nexus that Federal funding may - in fact - pay for abortions, albeit in a round-about and somewhat misleading way.

And this article (which I'll acknowledge is written for Forbes by a 'contributor', but his bio reads far more 'credibly' than the average drivel-posting hack on a website) also outlines how Federal & State funds pay for abortion. Link to article from which below quote is found: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#3c58fb847709

The author concludes (and elaborates how he arrived at this in the article, if you wish to read it):

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers.

And his findings regarding that "3%":

Consider the agency's own Planned Parenthood at a Glance page whose only mention of abortion consists of "Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services." But as explained in footnote [6] below (and many others have pointed out), this is thoroughly misleading given that at minimum 22% of Planned Parenthood revenues come from abortions.

And WaPo agrees the "3%" assertion is misleading with 3 Pinocchios (from a 'Reporter' - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.6cf593377f24)

The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test.

Looking at ALL of these things, I can't help but wonder: are there really ~250,000 cases in the U.S. each year where taxpayers LEGALLY subsidize abortion specifically as a result of rape, incest and/or mother's life endangerment? Because - by law - that is the only way Federal funds (Title X programs & Medicaid) are supposed to pay for that service. And if there are, then we have a much bigger problem to address than if/how abortions are subsidized.

If not, then taxpayer funds - albeit somewhat indirectly, discreetly or misleadingly - sure do appear to pay for (possibly illegal) abortions.

Individuals may do their own research & draw their own conclusions. I would be very interested in reading alternative, evidence-based findings from objective and credible sources if someone cares to share.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Just to play devils advocate, some religions don't believe in drinking coffee. I'm reasonably sure that tax payers pay for coffee in gov't offices as a pretty standard item, likely paying a lot more than for 24% of the coffee drank. Why is their religion/religious convictions not as important? Why should 1 religion be able to control purse strings, but not the others?

I cannot speak for 'today', but when I did work for the Federal gov't (12-18 years ago), it definitely was NOT a standard item available to employees for free; our team offices usually had a coffee pot & made our own - both of which was paid out of our own pockets. It WAS available in the cafeteria at our individual expense, or via a coffee vendor/cart outside. Likewise, it also was not a 'freebie' in offices, squadrons, etc. when I was in the Air Force (18+ years ago).

The only place I can think of where it *may* have been available (e.g., at 'taxpayer' expense) is only in the most-senior executive service members' offices for visitors during high-ranking meetings ... I'm talking civilian Secretaries of Energy, Defense, Education, etc.

I guess there will always be issues, where one's personal values, conflict with how taxpayer money is used. There are many pacifists who are truly against how much we are spending on the military, one of the largest parts where our tax dollars go, and for them even one drone-related death is too many. I'm actually always surprised that people who are pro-lifers don't necessarily protest about how much money our gov does to fund, essentially "death"....

This is (in my opinion) a matter of THE most critical ACTUAL role of the Federal government - national security. It was also a fundamental force in our declaring in independence and establishing the United States. Without it, we can kiss every other right, privilege and freedom goodbye, and there would be no point continuing this topic.

Anna, take for example, Liberty University, the growth of federally backed student loans has skyrocketed, I pay taxes, I don't want to fund LIberty University and any way, shape or form. If we go along with republicans and Ryan then my tax money and all those who do not want to fund in any way Liberty University is being used.

I can see your point that - if you restrict Federal funds from one, you have to restrict it from them all. The only counter-argument one *might* make is: how can one be 'pro-choice' about abortion but not education? I'm not making that argument, mind you. I'll have to think on it a bit because I really do see both sides there, and Anna makes a good counter-point (below) as well. Not that my thoughts are the end-all-be-all or anything, but I hadn't thought about this scenario.

Kate, you spoke of a religious university. Conservative taxpayers support very liberal universities. I agree that we can't storm the gates over everything we find objectionable.

I would like to know how people plan to enforce abortion laws in the event that a woman could walk into an office and say "I was raped and I do not want this fetus inside of me." Okay well,what then? Try to prove whether or not she's lying first?

Oh, then it will become an issue of whether she reported it or not, blah blah blah. Or, why didn't she take Plan B right away. Or, why did she wait to have a surgical abortion instead of using the medical option. Etc.

I realize this will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I'm removing the 'emotion' and thinking purely from a legal perspective; if a person is seeking a taxpayer-funded abortion, there perhaps should be a police report filed either before or as part of the administrative aspect of the procedure because both (the crime and the procedure) are inter-tangled with the law. If the person decides - for their own personal reasons - they do not want to report the crime, they may certainly still get the abortion, but it would not be taxpayer funded. Perhaps this is an area where a special fund could be established with donations from individuals, organizations, etc.


What about other non-abortion related matters ... there HAS to be other areas the equality movement finds intolerable of religion and/or vice versa.

Personally, I'd love to get the government as much out of our lives as possible ... out of our marriages, beliefs, bedrooms, doctors offices, classrooms, wallets, etc. It seems the more it's interjected itself into our day-to-day lives, the more complicated & divided co-existing has become.

 

[Tekate]

Kate, you spoke of a religious university. Conservative taxpayers support very liberal universities. I agree that we can't storm the gates over everything we find objectionable.
You agree with some restrictions on abortion as do most Americans. However, a significant number want no restrictions. Probably not to you, but to me, that's a worthy fight.

You are right Anna so that is why I don't fuss about where my tax dollars go. Yes I do agree with some restrictions on abortion Anna, always have.. I also do not think abortion should be a means of birth control (and I don't think any woman uses it that way)..

The washington times is very conservative right wing but it has some interesting stats.. although Marist is a Catholic College.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/19/abortion-poll-finds-81-americans-66-pro-choice-adv/

 

[Tekate]

Just to play devils advocate, some religions don't believe in drinking coffee. I'm reasonably sure that tax payers pay for coffee in gov't offices as a pretty standard item, likely paying a lot more than for 24% of the coffee drank. Why is their religion/religious convictions not as important? Why should 1 religion be able to control purse strings, but not the others?

I cannot speak for 'today', but when I did work for the Federal gov't (12-18 years ago), it definitely was NOT a standard item available to employees for free; our team offices usually had a coffee pot & made our own - both of which was paid out of our own pockets. It WAS available in the cafeteria at our individual expense, or via a coffee vendor/cart outside. Likewise, it also was not a 'freebie' in offices, squadrons, etc. when I was in the Air Force (18+ years ago).

The only place I can think of where it *may* have been available (e.g., at 'taxpayer' expense) is only in the most-senior executive service members' offices for visitors during high-ranking meetings ... I'm talking civilian Secretaries of Energy, Defense, Education, etc.

I guess there will always be issues, where one's personal values, conflict with how taxpayer money is used. There are many pacifists who are truly against how much we are spending on the military, one of the largest parts where our tax dollars go, and for them even one drone-related death is too many. I'm actually always surprised that people who are pro-lifers don't necessarily protest about how much money our gov does to fund, essentially "death"....

This is (in my opinion) a matter of THE most critical ACTUAL role of the Federal government - national security. It was also a fundamental force in our declaring in independence and establishing the United States. Without it, we can kiss every other right, privilege and freedom goodbye, and there would be no point continuing this topic.

Anna, take for example, Liberty University, the growth of federally backed student loans has skyrocketed, I pay taxes, I don't want to fund LIberty University and any way, shape or form. If we go along with republicans and Ryan then my tax money and all those who do not want to fund in any way Liberty University is being used.

I can see your point that - if you restrict Federal funds from one, you have to restrict it from them all. The only counter-argument one *might* make is: how can one be 'pro-choice' about abortion but not education? I'm not making that argument, mind you. I'll have to think on it a bit because I really do see both sides there, and Anna makes a good counter-point (below) as well. Not that my thoughts are the end-all-be-all or anything, but I hadn't thought about this scenario.

Kate, you spoke of a religious university. Conservative taxpayers support very liberal universities. I agree that we can't storm the gates over everything we find objectionable.

I would like to know how people plan to enforce abortion laws in the event that a woman could walk into an office and say "I was raped and I do not want this fetus inside of me." Okay well,what then? Try to prove whether or not she's lying first?

Oh, then it will become an issue of whether she reported it or not, blah blah blah. Or, why didn't she take Plan B right away. Or, why did she wait to have a surgical abortion instead of using the medical option. Etc.

I realize this will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I'm removing the 'emotion' and thinking purely from a legal perspective; if a person is seeking a taxpayer-funded abortion, there perhaps should be a police report filed either before or as part of the administrative aspect of the procedure because both (the crime and the procedure) are inter-tangled with the law. If the person decides - for their own personal reasons - they do not want to report the crime, they may certainly still get the abortion, but it would not be taxpayer funded. Perhaps this is an area where a special fund could be established with donations from individuals, organizations, etc.

No public money is used for abortion so there would be no need for reports. Jo, that is shaming a person.

What about other non-abortion related matters ... there HAS to be other areas the equality movement finds intolerable of religion and/or vice versa.


Personally, I'd love to get the government as much out of our lives as possible ... out of our marriages, beliefs, bedrooms, doctors offices, classrooms, wallets, etc. It seems the more it's interjected itself into our day-to-day lives, the more complicated & divided co-existing has become.

Yeah, I don't think anyone wants the government in their lives, but the problem is, people don't stay on their side of the yard, until we can co-exist with respect for each other in the USA I think the government(s) will always be involved. Take me, I don't want to pay taxes! but dang I do

 

[the_mother_thing]

No public money is used for abortion ...

Based on what I posted earlier (before the post you quoted), that statement appears to be false.

 

[AnnaH]

Jenn, your research is appreciated, and, yes--the government is far too intrusive in our lives.

 

[Calliecake]

Let me make sure I have this correctly. You think the government is too involved in our lives and yet you feel you have the right to tell me what I can do with my own body. Oh I forgot YOUR religious beliefs are supposed to influence our laws too. It time you got your own life and quit worrying about everyone else's.

 

[missy]

Let me make sure I have this correctly. You think the government is too involved in our lives and yet you feel you have the right to tell me what I can do with my own body. Oh I forgot YOUR religious beliefs are supposed to influence our laws too. It time you got your own life and quit worrying about everyone else's.

Hypocrites.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Let me make sure I have this correctly. You think the government is too involved in our lives and yet you feel you have the right to tell me what I can do with my own body. Oh I forgot YOUR religious beliefs are supposed to influence our laws too. It time you got your own life and quit worrying about everyone else's.

Who are you talking to? Who said you can't choose what to do with your body? Who said religion should influence laws? Not me. It is NOT my goal to make abortion illegal. FTR - I am conservative in most things, and I am also largely pro-choice; but more importantly than both of those, I am pro-constitution, as it is the foundation for EVERY citizen's rights & choices.

And your last statement might also to apply to those who were out marching for something others disagree with. Should the marchers also "get a life and quit worrying about everyone else's"?

All of the world's major religions regard abortion as a theological issue, although their doctrines on the issue differ. Some religions teach that abortion is a sin; others, that it is a woman's duty if a pregnancy imperils her life or health. Bans on abortion force all citizens to conform to particular religious beliefs. Thus, the ACLU believes that such laws violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits governmental encroachment on an individual's right to act according to her own beliefs or conscience. Abortion bans that establish, as a matter of law, that a fetus is a person violate the First Amendment's stricture against "an establishment of religion."

(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con17.htm)

In the same manner, by forcing taxpayers to fund that procedure (as I outlined earlier), it would appear to also "prevent the free exercise" of religion by those who do object for religious reasons.

For me, this is not a religious matter, per se; rather, it's a constitutional matter. And the only fair, constitutional solution I can see is to eliminate Federal & State funding of the procedure. That removes any legal "right" of the religious to object, allows women control over their bodies, AND keeps the procedure legal & available. I welcome other constitutionally-based suggestions or arguments against removing taxpayer funding.

You also remain free to donate as much money as you want to support the organizations that offer it if you personally feel it is necessary without anyone else weighing in on your choice.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hypocrites.

There is NO shortage of them on BOTH sides.

 

[missy]

Hypocrites.

There is NO shortage of them on BOTH sides.

That may be true JoCoJenn but right now I was referring to the Pro Lifers and their stance on wanting every single pregnancy to come to fruition but they don't want to help support these new lives.

For the record I detest hypocritical behavior in general and recognize it even in my behavior. i.e. Loving animals and not eating meat but wearing leather. I'm aware and always working towards a solution I can personally live with while always striving to be better. Can everyone say the same? The pro lifers make me feel ill with their hypocrisy.

 

[telephone89]

Just to play devils advocate, some religions don't believe in drinking coffee. I'm reasonably sure that tax payers pay for coffee in gov't offices as a pretty standard item, likely paying a lot more than for 24% of the coffee drank. Why is their religion/religious convictions not as important? Why should 1 religion be able to control purse strings, but not the others?

I cannot speak for 'today', but when I did work for the Federal gov't (12-18 years ago), it definitely was NOT a standard item available to employees for free; our team offices usually had a coffee pot & made our own - both of which was paid out of our own pockets. It WAS available in the cafeteria at our individual expense, or via a coffee vendor/cart outside. Likewise, it also was not a 'freebie' in offices, squadrons, etc. when I was in the Air Force (18+ years ago).

The only place I can think of where it *may* have been available (e.g., at 'taxpayer' expense) is only in the most-senior executive service members' offices for visitors during high-ranking meetings ... I'm talking civilian Secretaries of Energy, Defense, Education, etc.

You might be right, could be a bad example. Anna didn't reply to me, but I still wonder about the general question of why should 1 religion take precedence of their beliefs and purse strings. Many religions believe in many different (and conflicting) things, but it seems like it's always 1 particular religion that gets special treatment on dealing with issues. I would think that if many of the other religions tried to impart their beliefs on others it wouldn't go very well. Someone had mentioned working for Jehovas witnesses and not receiving a blood transfusion, which is a great example.

eta - you just mentioned removing federal funding for abortions. To bring it back to my point above, not all religions believe in life at conception (which is largely the basis of the pro-lifers), so it would seem that ONLY those religions (and really we are only talking about 1) would be in control of where tax dollars go/don't go.

 

[ksinger]

Just to play devils advocate, some religions don't believe in drinking coffee. I'm reasonably sure that tax payers pay for coffee in gov't offices as a pretty standard item, likely paying a lot more than for 24% of the coffee drank. Why is their religion/religious convictions not as important? Why should 1 religion be able to control purse strings, but not the others?

I cannot speak for 'today', but when I did work for the Federal gov't (12-18 years ago), it definitely was NOT a standard item available to employees for free; our team offices usually had a coffee pot & made our own - both of which was paid out of our own pockets. It WAS available in the cafeteria at our individual expense, or via a coffee vendor/cart outside. Likewise, it also was not a 'freebie' in offices, squadrons, etc. when I was in the Air Force (18+ years ago).

The only place I can think of where it *may* have been available (e.g., at 'taxpayer' expense) is only in the most-senior executive service members' offices for visitors during high-ranking meetings ... I'm talking civilian Secretaries of Energy, Defense, Education, etc.

You might be right, could be a bad example. Anna didn't reply to me, but I still wonder about the general question of why should 1 religion take precedence of their beliefs and purse strings. Many religions believe in many different (and conflicting) things, but it seems like it's always 1 particular religion that gets special treatment on dealing with issues. I would think that if many of the other religions tried to impart their beliefs on others it wouldn't go very well. Someone had mentioned working for Jehovas witnesses and not receiving a blood transfusion, which is a great example.

eta - you just mentioned removing federal funding for abortions. To bring it back to my point above, not all religions believe in life at conception (which is largely the basis of the pro-lifers), so it would seem that ONLY those religions (and really we are only talking about 1) would be in control of where tax dollars go/don't go.

That is a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to be that way.

 

[telephone89]

That is a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to be that way.

I'm not feeling well today, but I am assuming you mean this sarcastically - about how we preach about separation of church and state but it hasn't actually happened?

I'm actually all for having input based on peoples personal (religious or not) beliefs, but it should be equal for all. Instead, 1 rules the US, and another is being stopped at airports

 

[the_mother_thing]

That may be true JoCoJenn but right now I was referring to the Pro Lifers and their stance on wanting every single pregnancy to come to fruition but they don't want to help support these new lives.

For the record I detest hypocritical behavior in general and recognize it even in my behavior. i.e. Loving animals and not eating meat but wearing leather. I'm aware and always working towards a solution I can personally live with while always striving to be better. Can everyone say the same? The pro lifers make me feel ill with their hypocrisy.

I see your point (and as you know from my other posts, I also detest hypocrisy). With regard to your first statement, that is why I would love to see a 'resolution' to this ongoing debate. It's baffling we (collectively) cannot find common ground that meets the constitutional rights for all, and why I wanted to discuss it. There are a lot of smart people on PS with various perspectives & ideas. It may not ever change anything, but we ARE talking about it, being respectful, creating awareness, and that is a heck of a lot better than the politicians.

The counter that I would pose (to those who are staunch supporters of religion and oppose abortion from a gov-funding perspective or entirely) is IF they "get their way" on this, they need to "put their money with their mouth is" with regard to voluntarily helping their fellow citizens in need. Otherwise, their taxes will just go up and be redirected to those who need assistance.

 

[ksinger]

That is a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to be that way.

I'm not feeling well today, but I am assuming you mean this sarcastically - about how we preach about separation of church and state but it hasn't actually happened?

I'm actually all for having input based on peoples personal (religious or not) beliefs, but it should be equal for all. Instead, 1 rules the US, and another is being stopped at airports

Sorry you're not feeling well. I'm not doing so hot today either, so yes, I forgot to use my sarcastic font. I'm glad you knew my online persona well enough to squint hard enough to see a font that looked like it.

I keep starting replies to things, and then find myself completely losing my desire to finish any of them. Very meh today.

I'll go back to reading I 'spect.

 

[the_mother_thing]

.eta - you just mentioned removing federal funding for abortions. To bring it back to my point above, not all religions believe in life at conception (which is largely the basis of the pro-lifers), so it would seem that ONLY those religions (and really we are only talking about 1) would be in control of where tax dollars go/don't go.

That debate - also - gets taken off the table by removing taxpayer funding because it's no longer "relevant or pertinent" for them to weigh in. Meaning - abortion is legal, opposers are not funding it, so they have no reason to debate when a fetus is viable because they don't have to have an abortion. Women get to choose, and "religious conscience" is relieved of the perceived burden of support, and the government is out of it from a legislative & constitutional perspective.

 

[the_mother_thing]

That is a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to be that way.

I'm not feeling well today, but I am assuming you mean this sarcastically - about how we preach about separation of church and state but it hasn't actually happened?

I'm actually all for having input based on peoples personal (religious or not) beliefs, but it should be equal for all. Instead, 1 rules the US, and another is being stopped at airports

I'm sorry you both aren't feeling well; hope you're on the mend soon.

I'm glad you mentioned that (bold) Telephone - the current border issue - because it's another area related to the topic. Someone far more well-versed on immigrant law would need to weigh in, but generically speaking, I have always understood our constitution to apply to our citizens. If someone is here temporarily as a guest, on travel, etc., while they need to respect our laws, I am not clear how exactly out constitutional rights apply to them, if at all.

 

[monarch64]

.eta - you just mentioned removing federal funding for abortions. To bring it back to my point above, not all religions believe in life at conception (which is largely the basis of the pro-lifers), so it would seem that ONLY those religions (and really we are only talking about 1) would be in control of where tax dollars go/don't go.

That debate - also - gets taken off the table by removing taxpayer funding because it's no longer "relevant or pertinent" for them to weigh in. Meaning - abortion is legal, opposers are not funding it, so they have no reason to debate when a fetus is viable because they don't have to have an abortion. Women get to choose, and "religious conscience" is relieved of the perceived burden of support, and the government is out of it from a legislative & constitutional perspective.

THIS. So much this. I've been saying this for awhile now. I am a former user and forever supporter of Planned Parenthood. If we don't want the government involved in our reproductive rights, well then, it's not logical to be taking money from it. It's like asking your parents for money to buy a house and getting all pissy when they tell you what color to paint your walls and what furniture to buy and from whom. Strings. Attached.

 

[AnnaH]

Didn't mention you specifically, Telephone, but my answer was that citizens don't tend to protest everything objectionable. To my knowledge, coffee is not a big agenda. I realize, of course, that it was just an example.
Assuming I or any stranger posting on the internet doesn't contribute generously to charities is unfair.
I stated that, for me personally, it's important to support life. To some people, animal rights is very important. While I would never mistreat an animal, I don't choose that issue as a charity. I'm not going to throw blood on someone wearing fur, even though I don't wear it myself. (I do wear leather). As long as there are hungry people, I will focus on that need. But if someone chooses to help animals, fine with me. Most of us can't support every worthy cause.
Abortion is legal. Free speech is legal.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Didn't mention you specifically, Telephone, but my answer was that citizens don't tend to protest everything objectionable. To my knowledge, coffee is not a big agenda. I realize, of course, that it was just an example.
Assuming I or any stranger posting on the internet doesn't contribute generously to charities is unfair.
I stated that, for me personally, it's important to support life. To some people, animal rights is very important. While I would never mistreat an animal, I don't choose that issue as a charity. I'm not going to throw blood on someone wearing fur, even though I don't wear it myself. (I do wear leather). As long as there are hungry people, I will focus on that need. But if someone chooses to help animals, fine with me. Most of us can't support every worthy cause.
Abortion is legal. Free speech is legal.

I am sorry Anna. I didn't mean to imply you or anyone else isn't charitable or caring, etc., or are not entitled to your feelings or opinions - including about religion or abortion. These are both highly-charged topics evoking emotion from every angle. That is why I tried to take the emotion out of it, and keep the focus & basis for discussion on the constitutional aspects, to which everyone (including our government) is held.

 

[AnnaH]

Didn't mention you specifically, Telephone, but my answer was that citizens don't tend to protest everything objectionable. To my knowledge, coffee is not a big agenda. I realize, of course, that it was just an example.
Assuming I or any stranger posting on the internet doesn't contribute generously to charities is unfair.
I stated that, for me personally, it's important to support life. To some people, animal rights is very important. While I would never mistreat an animal, I don't choose that issue as a charity. I'm not going to throw blood on someone wearing fur, even though I don't wear it myself. (I do wear leather). As long as there are hungry people, I will focus on that need. But if someone chooses to help animals, fine with me. Most of us can't support every worthy cause.
Abortion is legal. Free speech is legal.

I am sorry Anna. I didn't mean to imply you or anyone else isn't charitable or caring, etc., or are not entitled to your feelings or opinions - including about religion or abortion. These are both highly-charged topics evoking emotion from every angle. That is why I tried to take the emotion out of it, and keep the focus & basis for discussion on the constitutional aspects, to which everyone (including our government) is held.

The shoe doesn't fit YOU, Jenn, but thanks for your reply.