Two trillion $ relief

[little2add]

“At a time when our country is mourning the deaths of 500,000 Americans, very little (less than 10%) of the misnamed COVID relief package actually goes toward combating the pandemic,” she said. “Pro-abortion Democrats are using this bill to push through billions of dollars in subsidies for abortions, not only here in the U.S. but also abroad.”

 

The American Rescue Plan Act would appropriate more than $400 billion with no Hyde protections. Therefore, these funds would be eligible to subsidize elective abortions.

The bill would allocate an additional $50 million for the Title X Family Planning Program.
 

$50 million dollars in direct funding for abortion is unconscionable, in the guise of covid relief, no less. 

disgraceful  

[hakutaku]

20 hours ago, little2add said:

The American Rescue Plan Act would appropriate more than $400 billion with no Hyde protections. Therefore, these funds would be eligible to subsidize elective abortions.

The plan says the $400 billion is for covid treatments.  So unless you think elective abortion is a covid treatment, leaving out Hyde amendment language doesn't suddenly make the money available for abortion.

[little2add]

It makes it ELIGIBLE 

furthermore President Biden has pledged ( as of last year ) to end the Hyde amendment,  entirely  

34 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

abortion is a covid treatmen

In the eyes of the official j2021democratic platform, woman’s rights, healthcare and abortion is synonymous.

Just listen to Nancy for a minute 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by little2add

[hakutaku]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

It makes it ELIGIBLE 

I cannot tell what you mean.  The Hyde amendment bans federal funding for elective abortion.  It does not say "you have to specifically mention the Hyde amendment every time the government spends money or else abortion funding is fine."

The covid relief package provides money for covid care.  Abortion is not covid care.

That people want to get rid of the Hyde amendment is an entirely separate issue.

[little2add]

3 hours ago, hakutaku said:

covid relief

Read this:

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20210304/covid-abortion 
 

Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a new COVID relief bill, called the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which addresses the needs of many vulnerable people related to the pandemic. Unfortunately, unlike previous COVID relief bills, this bill appropriates billions of taxpayer dollars that are not subject to longstanding, bi-partisan pro-life protections that are needed to prevent this funding from paying for abortions.
 

The Senate approved 49 to 50. 

50 Democrat voted: Yay

49 Republican 49  voted: Nay

Edited March 8, 2021 by little2add

[Ash Wednesday]

Washington Post's coverage of it

 

[ReasonableFaith]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

Read this:

The positions taken in the linked article are largely those expected from a fundamentalist group. Interestingly,  the article contradicts, or at least tempers, a claim made by the original poster: $50mill in Title X funding = $50mill in direct abortion funding. This claim ignores other services provided under Title X. 

The article presumes the necessity of bipartisan cooperation in order to establish the legitimacy of such legislation. To what degree must it be bipartisan? (eg...how many opposition votes must be obtained?) Is this also true when the current opposition party is in power?  Further, the article goes on to claim wider support would have been garnered if more of the bill’s funding had been aimed at direct intervention of the COVID virus. What percentage of the funding should have been aimed at direct intervention to acquire the suggested 100 votes in the Senate?  Does this indicate the support for ‘corporate America,’ in particular the support for the ‘industrial military complex,’ and other non-direct COVID relief in previous bills was illegitimate?

If one intends to have an impact on legislation in a largely, practically, secular society, I believe a more parsed and precise discussion over these issues is needed to avoid the perception of being reactionary Christian fundamentalists.  It is important bring a well informed, accurate and logical argument to the debate.  If not, the result is likely to be a bunch of hand waving until the point of exhaustion. 
 

 

[ReasonableFaith]

5 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Washington Post's coverage of it

Is this a ‘race,’ ethnic, or political based trope? Has the North Korean, state controlled media reported on the latest COVID relief legislation passed by the US Congress?  
 

If the North Korean state controlled media has reported on the passage of this legislation, do you have any video or textual link(s) to these reports or any analysis of such reports?

[little2add]

 

8 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

The positions taken in the linked article are largely those expected from a fundamentalist group.

So, anything and everything a conservative and pro-life group say or report is BS?

 

 

Good to know.

 

[chrysostom]

When the senate and house were controlled by opposing parties - not to mention the White House, it was simply necessary to attract votes from both republican and democrat legislators to pass anything.

Now that the senate and house and white house are single party, there is no need to bother. Oversimplification I know, but still generally I think that holds true and the evidence is in the party line vote at the senate. It still boggles the mind how the republicans got next to nothing done in Trump's first two years despite having all chambers.

One thing that annoys me are states that seem to deliberately spend over budget in hopes /expectation of a federal bailout somewhere down the line, like now. They are effectively spending on the dime of people who don't even live there. But the rate of gov spending has shot so sky high under both parties recently that...what does money mean anymore? Or so they say.

[ReasonableFaith]

3 hours ago, little2add said:

So, anything and everything a conservative and pro-life group say or report is BS?

No.  Where have I made this implication?  One need not be a fundamentalist to be pro-life or politically conservative. 
 

This is a good example of the axiom: All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. 

[Ash Wednesday]

14 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Is this a ‘race,’ ethnic, or political based trope? Has the North Korean, state controlled media reported on the latest COVID relief legislation passed by the US Congress?  
 

If the North Korean state controlled media has reported on the passage of this legislation, do you have any video or textual link(s) to these reports or any analysis of such reports?

I was mocking how over the top the Post's headline was about America getting "showered with money". That's it.

[little2add]

10 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

This is a good example of the axiom (too)

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by little2add

[ReasonableFaith]

22 hours ago, little2add said:

 

This seems to be the type of material/speech/discourse popular on the social medias. 

In your experience have you felt the use of this type of material, particularly outside of nearly any context, has produced meritorious results in public discourse? Eg...have you posited a claim or position rebutted or challenged by a fellow interlocutor and used this type of material to a productive end?  Have you experienced making a rebuttal with such material resulting in the fellow interlocutor accepting or making a deeper consideration of your claim or position. Or is the use of this material to some other end?

As a note, I have long argued those desiring to make a strong and convincing pro-life argument should point directly to the intrauterine biological realities during pregnancy as well as the mechanical realities of induced abortive procedures. This could include photographic support. 
 

I don’t believe making inaccurate claims is a useful way to further the pro-life cause. The cause is better served through coherent, informed, well articulated, and accurate argumentation. If one’s intent is to merely hand wave and gain cuddos from ‘the choir’ perhaps none of this is necessary. 

[little2add]

Bla-bla-bla

(what you just said)