Trump MAGAthread VI

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sadly, "medically necessary abortions" has been expanded to mean any degree of mental health. Here's a link to what a former abortionist says about the subject. http://www.liveaction.org/news/former-abortionist-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/

Which is actually a good thing.

I don't know about what the fuck kind of medical health you're used to, but I prefer that my doctors tell me the risks I have with my lifestyle choices and health conditions such as my psoriasis of doing certain things without it exacerbating.

That's what doctors are supposed to do. Ultimately, as patients, it is our responsibility to be informed and to provide or deny consent to a procedure with aforethought.

[Salandriagado]

Actually, yes.
I might not vote for him, but I'd be happy with him President than either Trump or Hillary.

He's at the very least a decent human being who understands the system. ^^

He is in no way a decent human being, even by politician standards.

Earlier you suggested that only a select few would discriminate, given the opportunity. When asked you revised that to only major service providers. I seems to me that you think that substantial numbers of other businesses will discriminate.

It was my presumption that local monopolies and major service providers were one and the same.

Your presumption is wrong. Most are, for example, the only grocery store in a small town.

The people aren't paying for anything: the company (which isn't human, and doesn't have religious beliefs) is.

And if the company is owned by a single person?

Welcome to being a corporation: if you're not a moron, then your company is a legally distinct entity from you.

Is that how it works in the US? Employers have to terminate pregnancies for their employees? Do women not get abortions from, like, medical professionals?

The employer has to pay for it.

No they don't, unless they also happen to be their own insurance provider.

Except that you where talking about electricity a few sentience's ago.

And yes, it the topic you where discussing when Lilinia brought it up.

And as I pointed out, what Lilinia brought up is irrelevant to the argument, because it's a strawman of my position.

My position is that, if you pay for the service provided to someone, you should have the right to withhold funds if they are being used to procure an abortion, on the basis that it is a violation of Catholic canon-law to provide funds for an abortion, and, therefore, forcing someone to provide funds for an abortion to do business discriminates against Catholics.

So what, exactly, is the difference between that, and just giving them money directly (like, you know, their wages), and them going and spending that on an abortion?

In fact, how about this: you must either provide comprehensive insurance for your employees, covering abortion, or give your employees sufficient money, over and above their wages, to acquire such insurance for themselves?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We're not talking about taxes, we're talking about employers paying for their employees to receive abortions, and that would violate the faith of many people.

A business has no business promoting their beliefs in public.

The constituent people who make up the company have a right of speech, and while we tacitly let businesses as a whole promote opinions in public, the ultimate goal of a business in promoting a message should not be to show their owner's morals or lack thereof.

[Galloism]

He's at the very least a decent human being who understands the system. ^^

He is in no way a decent human being, even by politician standards.

It was my presumption that local monopolies and major service providers were one and the same.

Your presumption is wrong. Most are, for example, the only grocery store in a small town.

And if the company is owned by a single person?

Welcome to being a corporation: if you're not a moron, then your company is a legally distinct entity from you.

The employer has to pay for it.

No they don't, unless they also happen to be their own insurance provider.

And as I pointed out, what Lilinia brought up is irrelevant to the argument, because it's a strawman of my position.

My position is that, if you pay for the service provided to someone, you should have the right to withhold funds if they are being used to procure an abortion, on the basis that it is a violation of Catholic canon-law to provide funds for an abortion, and, therefore, forcing someone to provide funds for an abortion to do business discriminates against Catholics.

So what, exactly, is the difference between that, and just giving them money directly (like, you know, their wages), and them going and spending that on an abortion?

In fact, how about this: you must either provide comprehensive insurance for your employees, covering abortion, or give your employees sufficient money, over and above their wages, to acquire such insurance for themselves?

It's worth noting the ACA doesn't require abortion coverage anyway. This is all a red herring. It requires contraceptive coverage.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -provision

(Some religious groups have claimed the law requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs called abortifacients as well as contraception; as NPR has reported, the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus is that none of the mandated contraceptive methods cause abortions.)

[The Black Forrest]

Well that's not unconstitutional, not unconstitutional at all.

Which part? I don't think it's unconstitutional for Churches to have political positions.

People having an opinion is fine. It's that separation of Church and state thing. Many Religious people seem to hate that.

Religion with politics is a VERY bad thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's worth noting the ACA doesn't require abortion coverage anyway. This is all a red herring. It requires contraceptive coverage.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -provision

(Some religious groups have claimed the law requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs called abortifacients as well as contraception; as NPR has reported, the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus is that none of the mandated contraceptive methods cause abortions.)

I mean, it is, but that won't stop them from trying to wiggle out of it in order to cut costs.

Which is all this is, honestly, a way to be able to get away with not giving their employees insurance.

Not even corporations with Christian owners are immune to the pursuit of profit.

[Salandriagado]

He is in no way a decent human being, even by politician standards.



Your presumption is wrong. Most are, for example, the only grocery store in a small town.



Welcome to being a corporation: if you're not a moron, then your company is a legally distinct entity from you.



No they don't, unless they also happen to be their own insurance provider.



So what, exactly, is the difference between that, and just giving them money directly (like, you know, their wages), and them going and spending that on an abortion?

In fact, how about this: you must either provide comprehensive insurance for your employees, covering abortion, or give your employees sufficient money, over and above their wages, to acquire such insurance for themselves?

It's worth noting the ACA doesn't require abortion coverage anyway. This is all a red herring. It requires contraceptive coverage.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -provision

(Some religious groups have claimed the law requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs called abortifacients as well as contraception; as NPR has reported, the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus is that none of the mandated contraceptive methods cause abortions.)

:sibirsky:

Wow. That's a remarkable red herring.

I'm actually expecting it was kind of a joke, Gauth. You really don't help anything.

This dude gets it^

Apart from me saying "he's done some decent things" (in my opinion of course) none of those were serious answers.

I dunno, the hair is pretty funny.

Do you want your local church supporting an anti-porn bill?

The odd thing here is most churches I know of are already against porn, and many members of many Christian churches already protest at Pro-Life rallies and whatnot already, sooo...I don't understand why this part, again, is needed? Are people going to stand-up in church now and testify to how Trump has changed their lives?

Now, they can use their money to bribe "donate" to politicians to force through laws forcing their beliefs on everybody else.

[The Black Forrest]

It's worth noting the ACA doesn't require abortion coverage anyway. This is all a red herring. It requires contraceptive coverage.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -provision

(Some religious groups have claimed the law requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs called abortifacients as well as contraception; as NPR has reported, the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus is that none of the mandated contraceptive methods cause abortions.)

Wait you aren't suggesting Religious people lie?

[Galloism]

So, the house is currently voting on whether they should strip the language that makes the state waiver provisions (where the state can waive certain ACA provisions, including community ratings and preexisting condition nondiscrimination rules) not apply to members of Congress. Because the Republicans put in that language in the bill, then exempted themselves from the fallout thereof.

The amendment currently passing the house according to CNN live feed. Overwhelmingly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, the house is currently voting on whether they should strip the language that makes the state waiver provisions (where the state can waive certain ACA provisions, including community ratings and preexisting condition nondiscrimination rules) not apply to members of Congress. Because the Republicans put in that language in the bill, then exempted themselves from the fallout thereof.

The amendment currently passing the house according to CNN live feed. Overwhelmingly.

Heh, that was going to be a fun one the moment I read it.

[Thermodolia]

So, the house is currently voting on whether they should strip the language that makes the state waiver provisions (where the state can waive certain ACA provisions, including community ratings and preexisting condition nondiscrimination rules) not apply to members of Congress. Because the Republicans put in that language in the bill, then exempted themselves from the fallout thereof.

The amendment currently passing the house according to CNN live feed. Overwhelmingly.

In super confused on what's happening with the ACA what's going on?

[Galloism]

So, the house is currently voting on whether they should strip the language that makes the state waiver provisions (where the state can waive certain ACA provisions, including community ratings and preexisting condition nondiscrimination rules) not apply to members of Congress. Because the Republicans put in that language in the bill, then exempted themselves from the fallout thereof.

The amendment currently passing the house according to CNN live feed. Overwhelmingly.

In super confused on what's happening with the ACA what's going on?

First they had to vote on that amendment to the bill, which passed with 429 votes.

Now they're going to vote on the bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to neuter it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Am I seeing this right, that 2 Dems actually voted for it?

Color me surprised.

[Galloism]

All right, who are the two democrats who voted for the bill? Someone primary them.

One minute remaining, and "yeas" have 210, and "nays" have 205.

EDIT: Ah, one of them hit the wrong button.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Looks like it passes.

[Galloism]

Looks like it passes.

So it does.

Lawd have mercy.

[Corrian]

In super confused on what's happening with the ACA what's going on?

First they had to vote on that amendment to the bill, which passed with 429 votes.

Now they're going to vote on the bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to neuter it.

Wait, does that mean Democrats voted to keep themselves out of the fallout of the bill, too?

[Galloism]

First they had to vote on that amendment to the bill, which passed with 429 votes.

Now they're going to vote on the bill to amend the Affordable Care Act to neuter it.

Wait, does that mean Democrats voted to keep themselves out of the fallout of the bill, too?

No, it was created by republicans to keep them out of the fallout. The amendment makes them suffer the same fallout as everyone else. Nearly unanimous.

EDIT: And it passed 217 to 213. On to the senate it goes.

[Maichuko]

Of fucking course their celebrating with a Beer party.

[Corrian]

EDIT: And it passed 217 to 213. On to the senate it goes.

Welp. So much for me thinking it couldn't pass the House with how many Republicans I heard refusing to vote for it.

However, I've heard its actually less likely to pass the Senate.

...I hope.

[Astrolinium]

Wait, does that mean Democrats voted to keep themselves out of the fallout of the bill, too?

No, it was created by republicans to keep them out of the fallout. The amendment makes them suffer the same fallout as everyone else. Nearly unanimous.

EDIT: And it passed 217 to 213. On to the senate it goes.

These still need 60 to pass the Senate, yes?

[Galloism]

No, it was created by republicans to keep them out of the fallout. The amendment makes them suffer the same fallout as everyone else. Nearly unanimous.

EDIT: And it passed 217 to 213. On to the senate it goes.

These still need 60 to pass the Senate, yes?

Most likely yes, unless they go nuclear. Again.

[Washington Resistance Army]

EDIT: And it passed 217 to 213. On to the senate it goes.

Welp. So much for me thinking it couldn't pass the House with how many Republicans I heard refusing to vote for it.

However, I've heard its actually less likely to pass the Senate.

...I hope.

I wouldn't be so sure. The GOP might very well be able to bully Dems who are in red states into supporting it given 2018 is right around the corner. They only need, what, 7 or 8 Dems to jump ship in the Senate?

[Corrian]

These still need 60 to pass the Senate, yes?

Most likely yes, unless they go nuclear. Again.

If they go nuclear to pretty much let people die, I hope it goes over very terribly for them.

I wouldn't be so sure. The GOP might very well be able to bully Dems who are in red states into supporting it given 2018 is right around the corner. They only need, what, 7 or 8 Dems to jump ship in the Senate?

The thing is, the majority of people support the ACA, and want it improved if anything. I'm not sure if voting for this would really help them.

[Galloism]

Welp. So much for me thinking it couldn't pass the House with how many Republicans I heard refusing to vote for it.

However, I've heard its actually less likely to pass the Senate.

...I hope.

I wouldn't be so sure. The GOP might very well be able to bully Dems who are in red states into supporting it given 2018 is right around the corner. They only need, what, 7 or 8 Dems to jump ship in the Senate?

I was sort of hoping for an "in-your-face!" failure in the house.

Unfortunately, we don't get what we want.