Comments - Sanctity of Life - Arapahoe Tea Party2024-03-29T14:53:40Zhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=3186561%3ABlogPost%3A34724&xn_auth=noReform: Let us look at what…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-03-02:3186561:Comment:348932012-03-02T19:58:33.205ZFredrick Lindnerhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/FredrickDLindner
<p>Reform: Let us look at what the Constitution Sais about these issues. In the first amendment people are allowed the freedom from religious actions. Also the 14<sup>th</sup> amendment allows for personal privacy. Ron Paul, if I understand it is against Abortion. That is his belief and he stands by it. Yes, that makes him pro-life. Yet he is very cautious about the force/action/ability of the federal government to regulate these actions. Congress has no authority to write law…</p>
<p>Reform: Let us look at what the Constitution Sais about these issues. In the first amendment people are allowed the freedom from religious actions. Also the 14<sup>th</sup> amendment allows for personal privacy. Ron Paul, if I understand it is against Abortion. That is his belief and he stands by it. Yes, that makes him pro-life. Yet he is very cautious about the force/action/ability of the federal government to regulate these actions. Congress has no authority to write law demostrating personal actions of women to be illegal. I have attached the court case and the other cases being discussed at the time below. As I understand it Dr. Paul believes that this is a 14<sup>th</sup> amendment personal privacy issue, liberty issue, freedom issue and thus the federal government has no authority to impose a religious moral authority rule of law over individuals. The Roe v Wade case does allow for State’s regulation to balance terms of pregnancy with the health of women.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now can we please discuss the issues of the economic stability and spending backgrounds of the candidates?</p> Fredrick Lindner, You made t…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-02-28:3186561:Comment:347862012-02-28T22:11:39.218Zreformhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/reform
<p>Fredrick Lindner, You made the statement that Ron Paul was pro-freedom of choice. I was demonstrating that this was not true.</p>
<p>I think you forgot what you posted earlier. Ron Paul is pro-life!!!!!</p>
<p>The propaganda needs to stop stating that he is not pro-life. He has never voted for funding of Planned Parenthood. He has never voted for funding of birth control, contraception or abortion. He has never aborted a child.Ron Paul is the only current candidate that can say…</p>
<p>Fredrick Lindner, You made the statement that Ron Paul was pro-freedom of choice. I was demonstrating that this was not true.</p>
<p>I think you forgot what you posted earlier. Ron Paul is pro-life!!!!!</p>
<p>The propaganda needs to stop stating that he is not pro-life. He has never voted for funding of Planned Parenthood. He has never voted for funding of birth control, contraception or abortion. He has never aborted a child.Ron Paul is the only current candidate that can say this.</p>
<p>And like his interview with Piers Morgan when Ron Paul was interrupted in the case of a women at the hospital after a rape. (Morgan rudely interrupted Paul when he was trying to explain this.) Ron Paul was trying to explain about the chemical and hormonal balance of a woman. If a woman has not ovulated and is not pregnant the woman should have the right to prevent conception through hormones. These hormones would prevent ovulation and thus prevent conception. This can and should be used in the case of rape, if the woman has been tested to see if she has not ovulated or is not pregnant. I personally, don't see anything wrong in the case of rape or incest prevention ovulation through injection or hormonal pills. None of the others running for office have this knowledge and don't seem to be able to speak of it. </p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean when you talk of debating at a federal level. Is not the presidency a federal level office? Roe vs Wade and the funding of Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, etc... are a federal issue!! Which I know Ron Paul won't take for the team and will vote according to his principles. This is very much a federal issue.</p> Second, the use of federal mo…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-02-28:3186561:Comment:347852012-02-28T21:58:46.950ZFredrick Lindnerhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/FredrickDLindner
<p>Second, the use of federal money to fund birth control, contraception, and abortion is also against the freedoms set aside in the first amendment. That has no bearing on weather the acts should be made illegal. Your confusing the debate.</p>
<p>Second, the use of federal money to fund birth control, contraception, and abortion is also against the freedoms set aside in the first amendment. That has no bearing on weather the acts should be made illegal. Your confusing the debate.</p> I agree with Ron Paul, social…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-02-28:3186561:Comment:344522012-02-28T21:56:01.658ZFredrick Lindnerhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/FredrickDLindner
<p>I agree with Ron Paul, social issues shouldn't be a federal issue. They are against the first amendment. So why are we debating this at a federal level?</p>
<p>I agree with Ron Paul, social issues shouldn't be a federal issue. They are against the first amendment. So why are we debating this at a federal level?</p> Fredrick Lindner - How can yo…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-02-28:3186561:Comment:347562012-02-28T21:20:51.042Zreformhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/reform
<p>Fredrick Lindner - How can you say Ron Paul is pro-freedom of choice on this issue?</p>
<p>Have you actually read any of his pro-life bills including the one listed above. These are the most pro-life bills ever written in D.C..</p>
<p>Ron Paul states that it should not be a federal issue. And I agree, it should not be a federal issue.</p>
<p>They only way to remove Planned Parenthood and abortion from the pages of time is to bring it back to the states.</p>
<p>When lobbyists are in control…</p>
<p>Fredrick Lindner - How can you say Ron Paul is pro-freedom of choice on this issue?</p>
<p>Have you actually read any of his pro-life bills including the one listed above. These are the most pro-life bills ever written in D.C..</p>
<p>Ron Paul states that it should not be a federal issue. And I agree, it should not be a federal issue.</p>
<p>They only way to remove Planned Parenthood and abortion from the pages of time is to bring it back to the states.</p>
<p>When lobbyists are in control of the nation there is only one battle ground, Washington D.C..</p>
<p>If there are 50+ battle grounds and people like Santorum don't "take one for the team" and continue voting to fund Planned Parenthood at a national level, we in each of our individual states can overcome the lobbying and media money and do what is right. </p>
<p>We cannot win the war if every democrat and republican in D.C. is willing to take one for the team. (team? he was stating that all republicans at the time were for funding of Planned Parenthood!!!)</p>
<p>Ron Paul wants to bring it back to the individual states, which is Constitutional. Smaller battles can be won at the state level. </p>
<p>Here is a great example of the pro-life movement in Ron Paul's Texas:</p>
<p><font style="background-color: #ffff00;">Texas</font> is going ahead with its secession plan--from Planned Parenthood. Late last year, the state <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">quit its partnership with the abortion tycoons,</font> <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">dropping Planned Parenthood from its lucrative contract under Texas's Women's Health Program.</font> Attorney General Greg Abbott and state legislators were adamant that health providers who offered abortions had no business participating in the program. <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">With $16 million up for</font> <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">grabs, leaders passed an outright ban on Planned Parenthood, ending its eligibility for the state's Medicaid funding.</font>That didn't sit well with the Obama administration, which swooped into Texas and demanded the state reconsider. When it wouldn't, officials with Health and Human Services (HHS) threatened to cut off federal Medicaid funding completely.</p>
<p>But <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">Texas didn't blink.</font> <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT83" class="Object"><font color="#00008B"><span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT173">Last Thursday</span></font></span>, state Commissioner Tom Suehs signed the rule into law--calling HHS's bluff and putting Planned Parenthood clinics on the road to extinction in the Lone Star State. "Under federal law, states administer Medicaid and have the right to set the criteria for providers in the program. That is what Texas is doing," <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT84" class="Object"><span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT174"><a href="http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2012/feb/23/planned-parenthood-banned-texas-women-health/?framing=print&refscroll=0" target="_blank"><font color="#00008B">said spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman</font></a></span></span>. <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">"We have a state law that</font> [Attorney General Abbott] <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">says is constitutional, and it clearly bans abortion providers from taking part in the Women's Health Program. We can't violate a perfectly valid state law just to appease Washington."</font></p>
<p>Already, the policy is having a domino effect on the state's network of Planned Parenthood offices. <font style="background-color: #ffff00;">So far, 12 clinics have closed and others--</font><span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT85" class="Object"><span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT175"><a href="http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=32792" target="_blank"><font color="#00008B">like this Odessa branch</font></a></span></span>--<font style="background-color: #ffff00;">waited</font> for <span id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT86" class="Object"></span></p> Just an FYI. Ron Paul is pro…tag:arapahoeteaparty.ning.com,2012-02-28:3186561:Comment:348712012-02-28T18:51:41.274ZFredrick Lindnerhttp://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profile/FredrickDLindner
<p>Just an FYI. Ron Paul is pro-freedom of choice on this issue. Sorry.</p>
<p>Just an FYI. Ron Paul is pro-freedom of choice on this issue. Sorry.</p>