PDA

View Full Version : Miss Nancy goes shark jumping ...



LWW
10-14-2011, 03:56 PM
WHAT A MORON! (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/pay-abortion-or-women-die-floor)

Sid_Vicious
10-14-2011, 05:03 PM
I am only agreeing with you for one reason...Pelosi is a puppy entering a pit bull fight, and she has always been one. She won't do anything but embarrass herself with attempts to get meaner, just like Obama will do also. Their times and chances have passed. One thing for everyone else who reads my reply to LWW(first for me I think), is that I am hard left, and sad is the best word to find now, over the destruction to our country due to uncontrolled political maneuvers, AND for mindless mind control being accepted by rather smart people over all. Fact is, the Democrats really have the best interest of the country, while the Republicans have the only interest being feed big money, beat Obama at any cost including killing out people, and damned everything else. You rights are giving yourselves as easy pawns...don't you realize that at all?

I am sad because there is no super power to fix this crap, and let's face it...everyone besides the top 1-5% money people here in this mess after the "next depression's dust" settles, will all be in the same boat. That sucks. martin

Soflasnapper
10-14-2011, 06:50 PM
It's a little hard to pick up, but she is quoting something said on the floor debate by her deputy, Steny Hoyer, as she says in the clip.

Now, why is it that Hoyer's remarks aren't cited and criticized, but Pelosi's repeating them are?

Guessing that Hoyer hasn't been puffed up to boogie man status, so reporting this statement coming out of his mouth wouldn't carry the water that this is intended to carry.

And don't forget, it creates the excellent opportunity to attack her on her looks again. One of the links had its first comment on her botox job needing an update, surely an entirely issue-based criticism! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I especially liked how some of the reporting editorialized in their headline, that Pelosi said, REPUBLICANS WANT TO have women die on the floor. Of course, that was not said, but it does make for even more vicious commentary about Pelosi.

Beyond what she said, quoting Hoyer's comments, Obama himself has enough problem with this proposed bill that he's had Carney pass on a veto threat from his press room podium. Why isn't Carney, or Obama, the focus of discussion, rather than Pelosi? Especially considering that Pelosi can do nothing about this bill's passing in the House, whereas the POTUS can indeed veto it as he's signaled he will.

eg8r
10-14-2011, 07:52 PM
Darn, I thought after reading your brain dump you would have at least commented on what she said. Why are you all of a sudden in 100% defense mode for the Dems?

eg8r

LWW
10-15-2011, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Darn, I thought after reading your brain dump you would have at least commented on what she said. Why are you all of a sudden in 100% defense mode for the Dems?

eg8r </div></div>

When has he not been?

LWW
10-15-2011, 08:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I especially liked how some of the reporting editorialized in their headline, that Pelosi said, REPUBLICANS WANT TO have women die on the floor.</div></div>

True, it was paraphrased to fit a headline length requirement. I doubt you actually listened to clip however, because if you had I don't think you would have posted that as the entire quote is far more damning than the paraphrased version:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"When the republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and healthcare providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It's just appalling."</span>

Do you honestly contend that the entire quote portrays Miss Nancy in a more favorable light?

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 12:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Darn, I thought after reading your brain dump you would have at least commented on what she said. Why are you all of a sudden in 100% defense mode for the Dems?

eg8r </div></div>

I was making the point that this isn't a case of where she put her foot into her mouth, making an accidental slip of language, being Miss Nancy.

Far from it. What she said was a quote from Steny Hoyer, a man not especially noted for malapropisms or verbal gaffes like she is or Biden is. And the sentiment is backed up by a veto threat to that bill from the WH.

In other words, this is an entirely mainstream Democratic Party position and opinion she states. It's nothing about her, in particular, except that she shares the mainstream position of all the pro-choice parts of the Congressional Democratic caucus.

The description of women dying on the floor is what they claim will happen should that law be enacted. It's not particularly different from their similar constant claim that restricting abortion rights further will result in women dying in back rooms and alleyways, from botched black market procedures.

I agree with those positions, but they may not be correct, and feel free to discuss why you may disagree.

But it isn't about Pelosi. She's simply a more convenient person to say is crazy and jumping the shark than Steny Hoyer or the WH. In my view, none of them are doing that, and rather, they all are actually stating the truth of what would happen.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I especially liked how some of the reporting editorialized in their headline, that Pelosi said, REPUBLICANS WANT TO have women die on the floor.</div></div>

True, it was paraphrased to fit a headline length requirement. I doubt you actually listened to clip however, because if you had I don't think you would have posted that as the entire quote is far more damning than the paraphrased version:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"When the republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and healthcare providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It's just appalling."</span>

Do you honestly contend that the entire quote portrays Miss Nancy in a more favorable light? </div></div>

Of course I listened to it, and several times, to actually hear whose remarks on the floor just before her remarks she was quoting (Steny Hoyer, which is hard to hear, but she says the name).

And yes, obviously, the corrected quote line is far less an egregious attack on Republicans. Not that they necessarily WANT this result, but that it WOULD BE the result of passing the bill, in her opinion and the opinion of the pro-choice caucus.

LWW
10-15-2011, 12:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I especially liked how some of the reporting editorialized in their headline, that Pelosi said, REPUBLICANS WANT TO have women die on the floor.</div></div>

True, it was paraphrased to fit a headline length requirement. I doubt you actually listened to clip however, because if you had I don't think you would have posted that as the entire quote is far more damning than the paraphrased version:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"When the republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and healthcare providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It's just appalling."</span>

Do you honestly contend that the entire quote portrays Miss Nancy in a more favorable light? </div></div>

Of course I listened to it, and several times, to actually hear whose remarks on the floor just before her remarks she was quoting (Steny Hoyer, which is hard to hear, but she says the name).

And yes, obviously, the corrected quote line is far less an egregious attack on Republicans. Not that they necessarily WANT this result, but that it WOULD BE the result of passing the bill, in her opinion and the opinion of the pro-choice caucus.



</div></div>

Have you no shame?

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 07:10 PM
This proposal by the GOP is a shame, yes.

Look, there is a serious position that says exactly what Pelosi says will happen would happen if this passed (although it won't, thank God).

It is a measure of the outrage against her comment how stinging a charge it is, I'm sure, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Here's an explanation of the reason for her and THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S opposition. (It's not just her, as I've explained. They all are of the same opinion.) Unless this following article is somehow incorrect, what she has stated is entirely correct. (Except for the part about dying on the floor. Probably they'd let them die in an ER waiting room chair, or comfy ER bed, instead.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Congress Contemplates Brutal Anti-Abortion Law

—By Rick Ungar
| Wed Oct. 12, 2011 5:49 PM PDT

In what would be a major and potentially deadly change in American healthcare policy, The House of Representatives will take up H.R. 358 —The Protect Life Act—this week. The bill would permit federally funded hospitals to refuse abortion services even to women who would likely die without the procedure.

As the law currently stands, hospitals are required by EMTALA to provide emergency care to anyone who walks through their doors. If a hospital is unable or unwilling to perform a necessary procedure, it is obligated to stabilize the patient and then transfer the individual to a facility that can perform the procedure and agrees to do so. As a result of the EMTALA requirements, the 600 plus Catholic hospitals in the nation who are unwilling to perform abortions on religious grounds, even in life-threatening circumstances to the mother, are obligated to transfer that patient in need of such a procedure to a hospital that agrees to perform the required operation.

If The Protect Life Act were to pass, this would no longer be the case. Hospitals that do not care to perform abortions, for whatever reason and even when the procedure is required to save the life of the mother, would be legally permitted to simply do nothing.

While one might anticipate that hospitals refusing to perform abortions would transfer a patient in life-threatening circumstances to a facility willing to perform the abortion, I wouldn't be so sure.

In 2009, a Phoenix-based Catholic bishop excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital, for authorizing an abortion in the case of a woman who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension and was likely to die without the procedure. In stating his reasons for this extreme act, the Archdiocese issued a statement saying, in part:

An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic.

Given this line of thought, should The Protect Life Act become the law, it seems unlikely that such a Catholic institution would voluntarily send a patient over to another facility knowing that an abortion was going to take place.

And the bill doesn't stop at allowing hospitals to let mothers face death. It would also deny federal funding to a health care plan that offers to pay for abortion services even in life-threatening circumstances.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice-president for communications at Planned Parenthood, summed it up quite nicely:

This is just a demolition derby for women's health care. To first say, 'We won't even treat you if you show up needing a life-saving abortion,' and then to eliminate health insurance that might have saved your family from bankruptcy is a real one-two gut punch to women in these tough economic times.

So, how is it that the sponsors and backers of this bill happen to be the same people who constantly rail against government intruding in our lives yet would now empower medical facilities to allow a woman to die if their respective religious beliefs do not match up?

Demolition derby, indeed.</div></div>

eg8r
10-15-2011, 09:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But it isn't about Pelosi. </div></div>I bet you wouldn't have the guts to say that to her face. She would attempt to kill you. Everything is about her which is why she went on that rant.

LOL, in even more current news I think it is funny that she was left out of an important finance meeting on purpose and then in her one on one with Reid afterwards he lied to make her feel better. Upon closer evaluation he actually was present and knew she was not notified. Hilarious.

eg8r

LWW
10-16-2011, 03:54 AM
Is it true that she resides in Maryland when congress is in session?

LWW
10-16-2011, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This proposal by the GOP is a shame, yes.

Look, there is a serious position that says exactly what Pelosi says will happen would happen if this passed (although it won't, thank God).

It is a measure of the outrage against her comment how stinging a charge it is, I'm sure, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Here's an explanation of the reason for her and THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S opposition. (It's not just her, as I've explained. They all are of the same opinion.) Unless this following article is somehow incorrect, what she has stated is entirely correct. (Except for the part about dying on the floor. Probably they'd let them die in an ER waiting room chair, or comfy ER bed, instead.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Congress Contemplates Brutal Anti-Abortion Law

—By Rick Ungar
| Wed Oct. 12, 2011 5:49 PM PDT

In what would be a major and potentially deadly change in American healthcare policy, The House of Representatives will take up H.R. 358 —The Protect Life Act—this week. The bill would permit federally funded hospitals to refuse abortion services even to women who would likely die without the procedure.

As the law currently stands, hospitals are required by EMTALA to provide emergency care to anyone who walks through their doors. If a hospital is unable or unwilling to perform a necessary procedure, it is obligated to stabilize the patient and then transfer the individual to a facility that can perform the procedure and agrees to do so. As a result of the EMTALA requirements, the 600 plus Catholic hospitals in the nation who are unwilling to perform abortions on religious grounds, even in life-threatening circumstances to the mother, are obligated to transfer that patient in need of such a procedure to a hospital that agrees to perform the required operation.

If The Protect Life Act were to pass, this would no longer be the case. Hospitals that do not care to perform abortions, for whatever reason and even when the procedure is required to save the life of the mother, would be legally permitted to simply do nothing.

While one might anticipate that hospitals refusing to perform abortions would transfer a patient in life-threatening circumstances to a facility willing to perform the abortion, I wouldn't be so sure.

In 2009, a Phoenix-based Catholic bishop excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital, for authorizing an abortion in the case of a woman who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension and was likely to die without the procedure. In stating his reasons for this extreme act, the Archdiocese issued a statement saying, in part:

An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic.

Given this line of thought, should The Protect Life Act become the law, it seems unlikely that such a Catholic institution would voluntarily send a patient over to another facility knowing that an abortion was going to take place.

And the bill doesn't stop at allowing hospitals to let mothers face death. It would also deny federal funding to a health care plan that offers to pay for abortion services even in life-threatening circumstances.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice-president for communications at Planned Parenthood, summed it up quite nicely:

This is just a demolition derby for women's health care. To first say, 'We won't even treat you if you show up needing a life-saving abortion,' and then to eliminate health insurance that might have saved your family from bankruptcy is a real one-two gut punch to women in these tough economic times.

So, how is it that the sponsors and backers of this bill happen to be the same people who constantly rail against government intruding in our lives yet would now empower medical facilities to allow a woman to die if their respective religious beliefs do not match up?

Demolition derby, indeed.</div></div>

</div></div>

Speaking of posting stuff that doesn't support your conclusion ... that slays your conclusion.

But, you already knew that.

Soflasnapper
10-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Not at all.

The only reason a doctor would be REQUIRED in any case to provide an abortion would be in the case that the life of the mother was at stake.

The ONLY reason, therefore, to make new law stating that a doctor was not required to provide an abortion WOULD BE WHEN THE MOTHER'S LIFE WAS AT STAKE.

So passing this law would allow doctors or hospitals NOT to be required to perform an abortion that was necessary to save the mother's life. And not only not to do the abortion, but to take any action that would result in an abortion (such as transfer the dying mother to where that abortion could be performed).

QED