January 3rd, 2014
Okay, this looks like it might be a good story, with a clear resolution. The Prez said no. No means no, doesn’t it?
Obama Administration Urges High Court to Preserve Birth-Control Mandate
Now, I know a little something about this. I was on a radio show several months ago, discussing this very thing. If I remember rightly a group called the hobby lobby thought it would be nice if companies had more control over the contraceptive methods their female employees used.
I was not impressed. Well, you never know, this might have nothing to do with that. Let’s have a look:
‘The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to allow enforcement of the federal health-care law’s contraception requirements, arguing that religiously affiliated nonprofits had no valid basis for seeking to block the provisions.’
Okay, so it IS that. I was going to post many articles about The Roman Catholic churches opinions on contraceptives (I thought they were the ones who were against it? Every sperm is sacred and all that) but then I saw this paragraph:
‘The case brought by the Little Sisters, an order of Catholic nuns, is one of dozens of challenges to the contraception coverage requirements brought by religiously affiliated institutions that say the compromise would still leave them complicit in the government’s system for distributing and subsidizing contraception, including the so-called morning after pill, which they consider to be an abortifacient.’
Little Sisters of The Poor? Why do nuns need contraceptives?
Essentially, this article is about ‘The 2010 Affordable Care Act requires that employers include free contraception in health-care plans offered to employees.’ Right, let’s start there. Just in case you (like me) didn’t fully understand this ‘Act’, have a read:
Okay, I guess what this document is trying to say is women are dumb. They have no clue about these sorts of things, so The Government must intervene. Is that too harsh do you think?
‘Obama believes that women “should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them,” Earnest said, adding that “today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies.” ‘
Does he really?
Seriously? is this true??
Who is responsible for this ‘killing’ of babies (up to 5 years old, which is not a baby, it’s a child)? If a parent did it, that would land them in prison wouldn’t it, so what is the difference?
So, he steps in to exclude religious companies from the Affordable Healthcare Act, and proposes post birth abortion (I know, he didn’t actually use those words. Potato, potato).
How far is he prepared to go with this? How old is too old for post birth killing? Can anyone kill their baby or are there ‘procedures’ that must be followed? What procedures (methods of killing) are acceptable? Will it be like euthanizing your pet dog? Can leaving your baby outside chained up, in the yard, in the middle of winter, without food or water, be an acceptable form of ‘authorized’ abortion?
The age-old question that STILL has people baffled, yet arguing about it to date, is at what point does a life have rights? Some people say its at conception, others say it is when pregnancy is confirmed by a doctor, some say it’s when the organs are fully formed, still others say it is when the baby draws breath. I haven’t found a single person (outside the Government that is) who believes a child has absolutely no right to human life, up to the age of 5. Go figure.
I think I am going to be sick. The Telegraph even stated it in the title ‘Killing Babies’, like it’s normal, natural, accepted even.
Who determines what is a disability?
‘The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.’
Let’s say, for example, that right here, today, we all agree that a baby is not a person. Should we all agree to that and then kill those babies on these very grounds, who is then to say YOU are not an ‘actual person’? or me? or your family, friends, colleagues? At what point do we draw a line in the sand? My wise old granny once told me: when you start breaking the smaller rules, it’s only a matter of time before you break the bigger ones. How true was that?
Okay so using this logic, there is no recourse for this woman, is there?
Can’t have it both ways, can you? You can’t say it’s right for post birth babies to be killed, and then prosecute a person for following that post birth abortion ‘legislation’.
I have a friend who was born deaf. That is a Globally recognized disability, but does it warrant murder? He has a full life now, nearly 40 years old.
What about another friend of mine, born with cancer? During his child and teenage years, he fought and won the battle 3 times.
Here is a deep thought for you. If God gave us life, and God takes it away again, then surely this one case involving my friends battle, is proof that God wanted my friend to live? Who gave the Government the right to question this, to play God themselves?
Also, by murdering babies with disabilities, aren’t they in effect saying, any person who is not considered a ‘normal’ ‘healthy’ human, is second class? Or deserves to be killed on sight, purely because this nation can not bear to see such ugliness in its realm? There are so many names for this kind of barbarity and it’s not accepted in any form. Racism – look at the outrage, the violence, the sheer hatred created by this. But isn’t killing disabled babies’ a form of racism too?
You know, I would have thought the churches of all different religions would be more outspoken about this. Would finally come together, be united in condemning this reprehensible action. Why?
This is why:
Long story short. There was a king. A bit of a Nutter, that’s true. He killed lots of people, but notably, ‘all the children of Bethlehem’. why? Because he was told that a child would come to usurp him. That was it. No ugliness, no ‘right to life’ issues.
Muslims and Christians. Again, not because ‘they didn’t look right’ or fit in with the country’s idealism of the perfect human.
I could go on, but I guess the question here, is how come the citizens of America are not concerned about having their babies murdered? Well, love them or hate them, these guys went out to find out:
Wow, so this is how Obama can get away with this shit. He even said it himself, that the people should hold The Government accountable because they won’t do it themselves.
So can anybody tell me why religious sects in America are exempt from the 2010 Affordable Healthcare Act by the very same person who is advocating the murder of babies and children? Doesn’t that imply those religious sects condoning this barbarity just by accepting this deal with the devil? Isn’t it true, that by allowing their employees to use whatever contraceptives their employees choose, these religious people/companies/organizations are preventing the murders of innocent children and babies, and in a kind of back-handed way, actually preserving life?
How can Obama say that women should be responsible for their contraceptive needs, not their employers, yet it is solely dependent on the Government to decide which of those babies has the right to live and which such be murdered in cold blood?
And who is the person/persons responsible for those killings? Another Herod? Pol Pot?
And more importantly, why don’t the citizens care more?