Anybackhandedbigot,  the Obamacare is coming through the pipeline and wouldn’t you know it but the lone presidential candidate that supported partial-birth abortions also thinks it appropriate for the taxpayers to support a 5 o’clock FREE ABORTION Give-away! (via Hotair) And who said that Obama’s stance on abortion wouldn’t matter??? Oh, right my lying-their-ass-off liberal friends who were drunk on kiizzzzzzzzz-oooo-laid!

After all, universal care means universal coverage, and pro-abortion Democrats believe that abortions are an integral part of gynecology. That isn’t limited to just the pro-abortion Democrats, either. Harry Reid, who advertises himself as “pro-life” said in March that he would vote for a health-care bill that provided taxpayer-funded abortions.

Here’s also the video from HotAir’s blog about it. Notice how Peter Orszag skirts away from the issue like a little biyatch…”Uhhhh, I’m not prepared to rule it out”

In case you didn’t know, that’s Beltway slang for “Yes, we are pursing that full force in the most partisan fashion possible.”

I can’t help but relate this to the gun issue. Even if you think that abortion is a constitutional right, does that mean the federal government should fund it? Ummm, N-O.  We also have constitutional rights to bear arms, but I haven’t received my .22 caliber in the mail courtesy of taxpayers. So why should taxpayers fund abortions???

Sure, the law of the land says that both are legal but just because something is deemed a constitutional right, doesn’t also mean that the right is funded as a collective for use by the general public. You have the right to carry out birth control measures, but that doesn’t mean Obama henchmen are patting you on the back with some Trojan men supplied by the taxpayer dime. Nor do I want the remote possibility of a government at the direction of a eugenics-fanatic science czar, influencing anyone on birth control matters: (via the Washington Examiner)

Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual’s discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.

As Principal Edward Rooney would warn, “He’s just leading you down the primrose path!”  There is so much fine print in these slimy proposals for healthcare. Watch yo’ back, America! As for Obamacare, “I don’t trust this kid any further than I can throw him.”

I say “election-only” because that’s really the only time you hear about this “IMPORTANT” issue is on the freakin’ campaign trail, OR if a supreme court judge is up for nomination (which only seems to be once every 4-8 years).

For the most part everyone on both sides can agree to the ABCs of all other reproductive right methods – abstinence (100% effective), birth control pills (99% effective) and condoms (98-97% effective – depending on what the brand states).  But as my friend Jim once stated, pro-choice has now evolved into Pro-ONE-choice.  For the most part you don’t hear people debating about the reproductive rights to condoms or bc pills – unless distributed on a govt. school campus which is a different issue entirely (sorry, it is for those that are having a difficult time with that thing called the trufffffffffffff).

Anytangent, to me the issue of abortion can be a very gray issue. I don’t think it should completely illegal. Doing so would make it illegal for doctors to abort the fetus if the mother’s life was in danger. So in this scenario there could be a legal case made for abortion. And I could see where a case could be made for circumstances involving rape/incest.

But oh, but hold up all you pro-choicers – don’t start the celebration wagon yet. That said, all other cases of abortion should not be legal. And before any liberal pipes up about mother’s danger, rape or incest situation – FYI those circumstance account for less than 1% of all abortions – such a small # it practically doesn’t count.  Do we make drunk driving legal even though it only accounts for less than 1% of the total possible results everytime a person gets in the car? No. Do we allow pregnant women to smoke cigarettes or crack cocaine? No. Why Not? Doesn’t the govt. not have the right to put a gun to woman’s head demanding what she do with her body? Gee, liberals, kind of stumped???

That’s because the right to liberty does not trump the right to life. And that my friends is at the center of this debate.

Unfortunately, this weekend the Catholic Church’s top worldwide notable university, Notre Dame, decided to go against the moral underlying of the Pope (the Pope! for @#$!@#$@ sake) and invite the HAPIC (head abortion proponent in charge) to come speak at the university’s commencement. OH! and give him an honorary degree. Brillzzzz! (rolling eyes).  Just what did President Teleprompter say during the controversial appearance. You guessed it – just your standard “we should continue to be open minded in this heated social debate while the side I represent never givens in from their extremist POV.” Classic liberalism – I’m going to request that you be open-minded while I’m as close minded as possible to your positions (via Doctor Zero at HotAir’s GreenRoom)

The majority of people who identify themselves as “pro-choice” do not believe the aborted fetus is a living human being with any legal rights. Some see abortion as essentially a surgical procedure to remove a clump of cells. This view is hard-coded into federal law through the Roe vs. Wade decision, which states that no legal restriction can be placed on aborting a fetus until it can potentially survive outside the mother’s womb. The majority of people who identify themselves as “pro-life” believe the unborn child is human long before it can pass this “survivability” test, so abortion involves the killing of a living human being. This is not a difference of opinion that can be resolved by “holding hands” and “building bridges.” I doubt it is a question medical science will ever resolve conclusively for us, since they’ll never develop a soul detector… and if they did, it would immediately be suppressed by politicians, to prevent it from being used on them.

What people seem to miss is that most pro-lifers (even the religious ones) have compromised on most issues considering the supposed “true” pro-choice stance.  They may not engage in the pro-choice activities themselves, but they accept the public’s use or availability to them.

• They’re accepted the choice of abstinence.
• They’re accepted the personal choice of engaging in sexual promiscuity without protection.
• They’re accepted the personal choice of using condoms and birth control.
• Most have accepted the Plan B birth control option – since technically Plan B is not terminating an already reproduced life; it’s preventing prior to reproduction technically.
• Like myself, they’ve even for the most part compromised on abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, or is a situation of rape/incest.

Pro-lifers have acknowledged and compromised on the debate of pro-choice, but where has the compromise from the Pro-Choice side come in? Instead it’s the argument from the extremist point of view. Since pro-lifers aren’t on the “5 o’clock FREE Abortion Giveaway” platform, then they’re against women’s rights. LMFAO, liberals. Yeah, it’s conservatives having compromised on the access to multiple methods of birth control really not being open minded in this debate (snickers). Doctor Zero makes another excellent point in his post:

The last thing anyone in the Democrat Party wants to do is have a genuine debate, with serious consequences, against the pro-life movement. The best liberals can bring themselves to do is offer tepid acknowledgment that another side to the debate exists, which you can barely hear over the sound of the liberal congratulating himself for the openness of his mind.

Exactly. Oh GREAT ONE OBAMA, please show me at least 1-2 examples of when the pro-choice side of the debate has been open-minded to the pro-life’s stance on the reproductive rights issue?

I double dog dare you! No, I triple dog dare you! Until you or one of your Obamabots can show a clear example of this, take a good tablespoon of  STFU medicine about pro-lifers needing to be more “open minded.”

The federal government plans to announce that it would allow the sale of the morning-after pill Plan B without a prescription to women as young as 17, making the controversial contraceptive available to minors for the first time without a doctor’s order, a federal official said.

First, I ain’t gonna lie – 10 years ago I probably would have been rallying around this announcement at the student union and then skipping class to get ready for that night’s raging kegger without a second thought into understanding what it really was I supported. Priorities for most 21 years olds are messed up – TRUST. (and before you ask, NO that is not me in this pic. I totally prefer hot pink thongs when I go out to be the drunken fool. Geez! LOL.)

But now after growing (and sobering) up a little, I’ve realized that there is no need for the government to intervene the way it tries to do when it comes to women and reproductive “rights.”

Here’s the deal on the morning after pill. Technically it’s not inducing an abortion like the RU486. The morning after bill, aka Plan B, is more like a heavier dosage of birth control pills, BUT you are supposed to administer a pregnancy test prior to taking it. If you are pregnant, taking Plan B would cause serious harm to the baby and possibly result in a miscarriage (aka an “assisted abortion” if you will).  Keeping more controversial reproductive measures under the care of physicians and parental controls for minors is a good thing. Because how many teenagers do you know would be the utmost responsible when facing a high stressful pregnancy scare???? OR, should the federal government start allowing minors to just do their own abortions without medical physician assistance??? Exactly.

Allowing for no parental notification or doctor input by defeating the prescription requirement, opens the door for more serious abuses among minors when it comes to these controversial reproductive methods. And Planned Parenthood, where minors would go now to get a non-prescription based Plan B, has always been so trustful (rolling eyes) when it comes to “family planning” with minors are on their own. This is just one, but there are thousands more out there….Rooooooooooll tape -

I mean this is a nation where parents will still attend Britney “I Swear I’m Off The Frap!” Spears concerts with their teenagers/minors, so the idea that the federal government is forcing parents not to be notified or a physician involved is ludicrous.  Why do liberal administrations have this crazy idea that kids should be allowed to do anything they want without the input of parents? I mean, parents could show support by GAAAAH! actually parenting!!!! ALERT! Sound the alarms – we’ve got parents starting to be responsible!!! ALERT! ALERT!

Just because you are a teenager doesn’t mean you have the maturity to handle these situations on your own. And technically the government shouldn’t be encroaching on parental rights to this degree.  Gee, what’s it gonna be next…

I don’t think the far left actually believes abortion is a woman’s right. I believe they have been programmed via the infamous LGC (Liberal Guilt Card) blindly convincing themselves and manipulating others onto the pro-abortion campaign because basically it’s against the right side of the issue. And now the DNC is too well connected financially to walk to the other side of decreasing abortion capabilities. So out go the morals of establishing boundaries, up goes the propping of the tip jar, and the screaming to the hills about women’s “rights” continues. I mean we’ve got fundraisers and limo liberal money to get to, people! We can’t be questioning things like moooooooorals when there are $$$ signs staring you IN DA FAAAAAAAAAAACE!

When it comes to abortion the far left mask their agenda as being pro-choice when really it’s just pro-ONE-choice. If making abortion legal and expanding its capabilities really decreased the number of abortions why then have more than 50 MILLION babies been denied the right to life since Roe v. Wade? Ummmm, just sayin.

Abortion is not a reproductive right – the reproduction has already occurred, people! There is a reason that many, many people who are pro-life ARE for the use of condoms or birth control (despite what liberals will tell you) but not for abortion because they feel life has been created. Pro-lifers are not against responsible contraception but it is that after reproduction has occurred it is not our inalienable right to then choose whether that baby lives or dies. I’m sorry, I’m just being honest. You may feel due to a life of being programmed that what a woman chooses to do with her body is her right but I disagree. If a woman were pregnant and did heroine, coke or even smoked cigarettes people would be in an uproar lining up to call her an unfit mother in court. Heck, I’m even considering the idea of getting pregnant and I’ve already been lectured 3 times on what I can/can’t eat for the “health” of my not-yet-reproduced baby. Why? Doesn’t the woman have the right to choose what she does with her body even if she’s pregnant???  You can’t cherry pick when its okay and then not okay for a person to violate another person’s civil rights, like a baby’s right to life.

I remember the quote by Justice Oliver Wendell-Holmes:

“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”