Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

483 replies

IwantToRetire · 01/01/2023 19:10

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to.

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists.

kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/

This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence.

But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

OP posts:
Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:03

You don’t even know how wrong you are about Paul Rand.

ioncongress.com/index.php?page=Vote&member_id=P000603&first_name=Rand&last_name=Paul&state=KY

Introduced in Senate (01/16/2018)
S.2311 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
Voted Yes Jan 29 2018 - 5:50 pm
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This bill amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for any person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more.
A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion: (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Introduced in Senate (02/11/2020)
S.3275 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 3:31 pm
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019)
S.311 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 4:06 pm
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

  • prescribe certain drugs,
  • offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
  • immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health. Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
  • perform unnecessary medical procedures,
  • provide medically inaccurate information,
  • comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
  • carry out all services connected to an abortion. In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health. The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, meaning he would vote YES if it made it that far…

www.congress.gov/member/rand-paul/P000603?q=%7B%22type%22%3A%5B%22bills%22%5D%2C%22subject%22%3A%22Health%22%7D

Introduced in Senate (04/22/2021)
S.1325 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Woman's Right To Know Act
This bill specifies requirements for informed consent that health care providers must obtain before performing an abortion procedure.
Providers must present a woman seeking an abortion with an authorization form at least 24 hours before performing the procedure. The form must (1) include specified information concerning gestational age, associated developmental characteristics, and medical risks; (2) disclose penalties that providers may face for failing to obtain the requisite informed consent; and (3) include an affirmation that the individual signing the form understands the information. The form must be signed and witnessed in person and retained in the medical file.
Providers do not have to obtain such consent if, in reasonable medical judgment, obtaining it would pose a greater risk of death or substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.
The bill also establishes civil penalties for providers who do not comply with these requirements.

Introduced in Senate (04/15/2021)
S.1144 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act
This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics.

Introduced in Senate (02/08/2021)
S.294 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Parental Notification and Intervention Act
This bill restricts the performance of an abortion on an unemancipated minor under 18 years of age.
Specifically, it prohibits a person or organization from performing, facilitating, or assisting with an abortion on an unemancipated minor without first complying with certain requirements, including parental notification and a 96-hour waiting period.
It establishes penalties—a fine, up to one year in prison, or both—for each willful violation.
A parent who is required to be notified of an abortion of an unemancipated minor may sue in federal court to prohibit the abortion.
Parental notification requirements may be waived in a medical emergency or in a case of physical abuse.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.139 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Defund Planned Parenthood Act
This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.137 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act
This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for purposes outside the United States related to abortion.
Specifically, the bill prohibits funding to certain foreign or domestic organizations that perform or promote abortions, furnish or develop items intended to procure abortions, or provide financial support for an entity that conducts such activities.
Current U.S. policy prohibits the provision of federal funds to a foreign nongovernmental organization unless it agrees to not perform or actively promote abortions.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.123 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.109 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
This bill creates new federal crimes related to transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion.
Specifically, the bill makes it a crime to knowingly transport a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion without satisfying the requirements of a parental involvement law in the minor's resident state. A parental involvement law requires parental consent or notification, or judicial authorization, for a minor to obtain an abortion.
The bill prohibits an individual who has committed incest with a minor from knowingly transporting the minor across a state line to receive an abortion.
Finally, the bill makes it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform or induce an abortion on an out-of-state minor without first notifying the minor's parent.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions.
Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions. Such restrictions extend to the use of funds in the budget of the District of Columbia. Additionally, abortions may not be provided in a federal health care facility or by a federal employee.
Historically, language has been included in annual appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions—such language is commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment. Similar language is also frequently included in appropriations bills for other federal agencies and the District of Columbia. The bill makes these restrictions permanent and extends the restrictions to all federal funds (rather than specific agencies).
The bill's restrictions regarding the use of federal funds do not apply in cases of rape, incest, or where a physical disorder, injury, or illness endangers a woman's life unless an abortion is performed. The Hyde Amendment provides the same exceptions.
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.88 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from awarding family planning grants to entities that perform abortions or provide funding to other entities that perform abortions. To receive a grant, an entity must certify it will refrain from those activities during the grant period.
The bill provides exceptions for abortions (1) in cases of rape or incest; or (2) when the life of the woman is in danger due to a physical disorder, injury, or illness. It also exempts hospitals unless they provide funds to non-hospital entities that provide abortions.
HHS must report annually on this prohibition.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.87 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protecting Life in Crisis Act
This bill specifies that federal funds allocated for COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) response efforts may not, in general, be used for abortions. Current law generally prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions through language included in appropriations bills, such as the Hyde Amendment.
The bill also restricts the use of federal tax credits or other federal funding for health insurance coverage if the coverage includes abortions.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.78 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Support And Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act of 2021 or the SAVE Moms and Babies Act of 2021
This bill prohibits the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving any new drug (either as a brand-name drug or a generic) intended to terminate a pregnancy and imposes additional restrictions on such drugs that are already approved.
Under the bill, an already-approved drug intended to terminate a pregnancy may be dispensed to a patient only with a prescription. Furthermore, the FDA may not approve any labeling change that would authorize (1) using the drug after 70 days of gestation, or (2) dispensing the drug by any means other than in-person administration by the prescribing health care practitioner.
The FDA must also impose additional restrictions on such already-approved drugs, including by (1) requiring the prescribing health care practitioner to receive a special certification, (2) prohibiting the practitioner to also act as the dispensing pharmacist, and (3) requiring the practitioner to have the ability to provide surgical intervention to the patient.
The bill also rescinds any investigational use exemption already granted to such a drug if the bill would have prohibited the FDA from granting the exemption. (Currently, the FDA may grant an exemption to certain market approval requirements if a drug is intended solely for use in safety and effectiveness investigations.)

Introduced in Senate (01/27/2021)
S.61 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more.
A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both.
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:09

AlisonDonut · 06/01/2023 11:13

As opposed to...you posting proof of someone stood next to someone else as evidence of their wrongdoing.

No I haven’t. I have posted the fact Riley voted for and did election campaign work for pro-lifer Rand. That’s a lot more than ‘standing next to someone’.

It’s rather like trying to claim that Nigel Farage is (secretly) a Remainer and all his campaign work on Brexit and his vote to Leave meant nothing.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:23

“You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence."

You mean this one?
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

No, not that one. 🙄 you definitely haven’t done any research and yet presume to lecture me on absolutism and abortion being nuanced to try and portray a 100% pro-life politician as some sort of moderate.

No I was specifically referring to these bills:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

And these two bills which by prohibiting federal funds means all female federal employees and all low income women on Medicaid can get no abortions, plus, for all other US women, their private health insurance can’t cover abortions either

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions….
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 14:30

American taxpayer here.

"And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother."

IRS says "In 2022, the IRS allows all taxpayers to deduct their qualified unreimbursed medical care expenses that exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. You must itemize your deductions on IRS Schedule A in order to deduct your medical expenses instead of taking the standard deduction."

In this sentence reimbursed means what your insurance company hasn't paid. Abortion isn't such an expensive procedure (and most regular insurance covers it, including low-cost Obamacare policies) that many would be affected. People on that low a wage probably don't pay tax so it would be irrelevant anyway.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:45

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 12:25

Sorry, just to clarify, are you saying you did not say this:

Onnabugeisha · 04/01/2023 19:50

"Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above."

Or are you saying that this statement is NOT attempting to detach equality from a movement?

Do you disagree that equality and sometimes equity for women and girls is integral to fighting to prioritise sex over gender where sex matter?

Please clarify rather than resorting to further personal attacks.

It was not an attempt to detach anything as well you know. It was me protesting @BernardBlacksMolluscs Pretending that GC has fuck all to do with the definition of woman being based on biological sex or campaigning for womens spaces:

I posted a video of Whitlock criticising the inability of a Supreme Court nominee Jackson who told Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., that she was unable to define what a woman was because she is "not a biologist."

He stated: “We’re naming Supreme Court justices who aren’t committed to truth, but they are political activists and so a simple question like ‘what’s a woman,' she can’t answer because the goal is to create chaos and disorder by dismantling the truth. If there is no agreed-upon truth as simple as men and women, you can’t have an organized, properly functioning society,"

This was said in response to my post:
BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:29
”where does he say stereotypes on the basis of sex are wrong? that's what gender critical means

do you know what

gender
critical

mean?

cos it's starting to look like you don't”

to which I responded
”Im afraid you are mistaken. Yes GC activists claim that gender stereotypes based on sex should be abolished, but that is not what they are campaigning for, is it? They are campaigning for the definition of woman to be based purely on biological sex, ergo transwomen are not women because they are male. And of course everything that goes along with that, as in transwomen cannot access womens single sex spaces or services or toilets/changing rooms or sports, or awards or diversity hires because they are not women.

But in case you think I’m wrong, here’s what Wikipedia says…

“Feminists who describe themselves as "gender-critical" say that biological sex is "real, important, and immutable" and is "not to be conflated with gender identity", and that feminism should organize with emphasis on the basis of sex rather than gender.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Gender-critical_feminism_and_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism

So Whitlocks discussion on the definition of woman and criticism of transgenderism as an absurdity is 100% GC.”

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:45 Then said
oh you're so confused and also you're not respecting my lived experience
so now i'm confused. I thought you were kind?

GC feminists don't want women to be defined on the basis of sexist stereotypes. The reason women are oppressed is because of the type of body we have, not because some of us wear lipstick. GC feminists also seek equality of opportunity for women. that's the 'feminist' bit

yer chappy doesn't give a shit about sexist stereotypes. he knows who buys all the christmas presents and earns 10% less than whom, and it's entirely possible that he's completely cool with that and thinks it's the natural order of things. that isn't addressed in the clip or article you posted

so based on that he is neither

gender critical
a feminist (which we knew because he's a bloke)

which is when I stated
Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above.

Theres nothing wrong in what I said, and a lot wrong with Bernard contending that gender critical doesn’t at all mean activism regarding the definition of a woman being based on biological sex and doesn’t mean defending womens single sex spaces- why else say that I don’t know what gender critical means and it really means sexist stereotypes are wrong and then later on refuse my statement as to the fact GC feminists are fighting for the definition of woman and to defend womens single sex spaces by saying, no they’re fighting for “equality of opportunity”?

If Bernard agreed even a tiny bit with me, why say I am wrong? And I don’t know what GC means? Why not say, oh, and the GC activists who are also feminists are also fighting feminist issues like sex based stereotypes and for equality of opportunity?

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:50

Britinme · 06/01/2023 14:30

American taxpayer here.

"And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother."

IRS says "In 2022, the IRS allows all taxpayers to deduct their qualified unreimbursed medical care expenses that exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income. You must itemize your deductions on IRS Schedule A in order to deduct your medical expenses instead of taking the standard deduction."

In this sentence reimbursed means what your insurance company hasn't paid. Abortion isn't such an expensive procedure (and most regular insurance covers it, including low-cost Obamacare policies) that many would be affected. People on that low a wage probably don't pay tax so it would be irrelevant anyway.

Most regular health insurance covers abortion now, but it wouldn’t if Rand’s other bill had been passed prohibiting healthcare insurance coverage of abortion.

And every few thousand $s towards the 7.5% so you can deduct it helps.

People on that low a wage probably don't pay tax so it would be irrelevant anyway.. Well women on that low of wage wouldn’t be able to get an abortion at all because federal funds fund Medicaid.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 14:56

Given the outrage after the SCOTUS rolled back Roe v Wade, and the visible backing-off of the states from legislation restricting access after the results of the midterms, especially in Paul's home state, Kentucky, I think we're unlikely to see further restrictions. Poor women at the bottom of the economic pile are going to have problems until access is codified into law, but the majority of states preserve legal access. The system here is so different from the British system that it's hard to wrap your head around the ramifications.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 14:59

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:03

You don’t even know how wrong you are about Paul Rand.

ioncongress.com/index.php?page=Vote&member_id=P000603&first_name=Rand&last_name=Paul&state=KY

Introduced in Senate (01/16/2018)
S.2311 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)
Voted Yes Jan 29 2018 - 5:50 pm
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This bill amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for any person to perform or attempt to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more.
A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion: (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Introduced in Senate (02/11/2020)
S.3275 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 3:31 pm
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019)
S.311 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
Voted Yes Feb 25 2020 - 4:06 pm
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.
A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)
S.4132 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Voted No May 11 2022 - 3:33 pm
Women's Health Protection Act of 2022
This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.
Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

  • prescribe certain drugs,
  • offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
  • immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health. Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to
  • perform unnecessary medical procedures,
  • provide medically inaccurate information,
  • comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
  • carry out all services connected to an abortion. In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health. The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means. The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations. The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

Bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, meaning he would vote YES if it made it that far…

www.congress.gov/member/rand-paul/P000603?q=%7B%22type%22%3A%5B%22bills%22%5D%2C%22subject%22%3A%22Health%22%7D

Introduced in Senate (04/22/2021)
S.1325 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Woman's Right To Know Act
This bill specifies requirements for informed consent that health care providers must obtain before performing an abortion procedure.
Providers must present a woman seeking an abortion with an authorization form at least 24 hours before performing the procedure. The form must (1) include specified information concerning gestational age, associated developmental characteristics, and medical risks; (2) disclose penalties that providers may face for failing to obtain the requisite informed consent; and (3) include an affirmation that the individual signing the form understands the information. The form must be signed and witnessed in person and retained in the medical file.
Providers do not have to obtain such consent if, in reasonable medical judgment, obtaining it would pose a greater risk of death or substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.
The bill also establishes civil penalties for providers who do not comply with these requirements.

Introduced in Senate (04/15/2021)
S.1144 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act
This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics.

Introduced in Senate (02/08/2021)
S.294 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Parental Notification and Intervention Act
This bill restricts the performance of an abortion on an unemancipated minor under 18 years of age.
Specifically, it prohibits a person or organization from performing, facilitating, or assisting with an abortion on an unemancipated minor without first complying with certain requirements, including parental notification and a 96-hour waiting period.
It establishes penalties—a fine, up to one year in prison, or both—for each willful violation.
A parent who is required to be notified of an abortion of an unemancipated minor may sue in federal court to prohibit the abortion.
Parental notification requirements may be waived in a medical emergency or in a case of physical abuse.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.139 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Defund Planned Parenthood Act
This bill prohibits federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.137 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act
This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for purposes outside the United States related to abortion.
Specifically, the bill prohibits funding to certain foreign or domestic organizations that perform or promote abortions, furnish or develop items intended to procure abortions, or provide financial support for an entity that conducts such activities.
Current U.S. policy prohibits the provision of federal funds to a foreign nongovernmental organization unless it agrees to not perform or actively promote abortions.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.123 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.109 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
This bill creates new federal crimes related to transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion.
Specifically, the bill makes it a crime to knowingly transport a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion without satisfying the requirements of a parental involvement law in the minor's resident state. A parental involvement law requires parental consent or notification, or judicial authorization, for a minor to obtain an abortion.
The bill prohibits an individual who has committed incest with a minor from knowingly transporting the minor across a state line to receive an abortion.
Finally, the bill makes it a crime for a physician to knowingly perform or induce an abortion on an out-of-state minor without first notifying the minor's parent.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions.
Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions. Such restrictions extend to the use of funds in the budget of the District of Columbia. Additionally, abortions may not be provided in a federal health care facility or by a federal employee.
Historically, language has been included in annual appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions—such language is commonly referred to as the Hyde Amendment. Similar language is also frequently included in appropriations bills for other federal agencies and the District of Columbia. The bill makes these restrictions permanent and extends the restrictions to all federal funds (rather than specific agencies).
The bill's restrictions regarding the use of federal funds do not apply in cases of rape, incest, or where a physical disorder, injury, or illness endangers a woman's life unless an abortion is performed. The Hyde Amendment provides the same exceptions.
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.88 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from awarding family planning grants to entities that perform abortions or provide funding to other entities that perform abortions. To receive a grant, an entity must certify it will refrain from those activities during the grant period.
The bill provides exceptions for abortions (1) in cases of rape or incest; or (2) when the life of the woman is in danger due to a physical disorder, injury, or illness. It also exempts hospitals unless they provide funds to non-hospital entities that provide abortions.
HHS must report annually on this prohibition.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.87 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Protecting Life in Crisis Act
This bill specifies that federal funds allocated for COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) response efforts may not, in general, be used for abortions. Current law generally prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions through language included in appropriations bills, such as the Hyde Amendment.
The bill also restricts the use of federal tax credits or other federal funding for health insurance coverage if the coverage includes abortions.

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.78 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Support And Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act of 2021 or the SAVE Moms and Babies Act of 2021
This bill prohibits the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving any new drug (either as a brand-name drug or a generic) intended to terminate a pregnancy and imposes additional restrictions on such drugs that are already approved.
Under the bill, an already-approved drug intended to terminate a pregnancy may be dispensed to a patient only with a prescription. Furthermore, the FDA may not approve any labeling change that would authorize (1) using the drug after 70 days of gestation, or (2) dispensing the drug by any means other than in-person administration by the prescribing health care practitioner.
The FDA must also impose additional restrictions on such already-approved drugs, including by (1) requiring the prescribing health care practitioner to receive a special certification, (2) prohibiting the practitioner to also act as the dispensing pharmacist, and (3) requiring the practitioner to have the ability to provide surgical intervention to the patient.
The bill also rescinds any investigational use exemption already granted to such a drug if the bill would have prohibited the FDA from granting the exemption. (Currently, the FDA may grant an exemption to certain market approval requirements if a drug is intended solely for use in safety and effectiveness investigations.)

Introduced in Senate (01/27/2021)
S.61 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This bill establishes a new criminal offense for performing or attempting to perform an abortion if the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is 20 weeks or more.
A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both.
The bill provides exceptions for an abortion (1) that is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, or (2) when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception must comply with specified requirements.
A woman who undergoes a prohibited abortion may not be prosecuted for violating or conspiring to violate the provisions of this bill.

Do you actually think any of this is relevant to the topic of this thread?

And do you actually think that this has not been covered in the posts about him?

Please be very clear.

What context does this add to whether or not Riley Gaines is pro choice or not?

Riley Gaines was the topics of the posts. I was just pointing out that you have taken a very polarised view of the senator that she did some campaigning around female sports categories so as to discredit Riley Gaines as a 'feminist' and to attribute to her views that YOU believe she has. Yet have not yet provided evidence of.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:03

Britinme · 06/01/2023 14:56

Given the outrage after the SCOTUS rolled back Roe v Wade, and the visible backing-off of the states from legislation restricting access after the results of the midterms, especially in Paul's home state, Kentucky, I think we're unlikely to see further restrictions. Poor women at the bottom of the economic pile are going to have problems until access is codified into law, but the majority of states preserve legal access. The system here is so different from the British system that it's hard to wrap your head around the ramifications.

Outrage has done nothing in Kentucky.

Abortion has been illegal in Kentucky since 1 Aug 2022.

On June 24, 2022, the 2019 trigger law took effect after the ruling for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was delivered, which overturned Roe v. Wade. It made all abortions illegal except when medically mandatory to prevent the patient from dying or getting a "life-sustaining organ" permanently impaired. Both clinics in the state temporarily stopped providing abortions.[34][35] On June 30, 2022, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Kentucky's trigger law pending further hearings to determine if the ban violates the Kentucky Constitution. This order temporarily allows both of Kentucky's elective abortion providers, which are both located in Louisville, to temporarily resume elective abortions.[2]

Abortion in Kentucky is illegal. As of August 1, 2022, the order blocking enforcement of the state's trigger-law ban has been blocked itself.[1]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Kentucky

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:03

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:23

“You haven’t even looked up the laws he is supporting/advocating including a constitutional amendment that would give personhood to an unborn child from conception, thereby meaning they have the right to life and banning abortion from conception. Or the law he voted on that would mean American women would have to pay the full costs of abortions as a private procedure, effectively denying access to abortion for most women. Which are listed on his pages that I have linked to. What have you for evidence? Nothing but “I’m well aware of….blah blah blah” with no links and no evidence."

You mean this one?
www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

No, not that one. 🙄 you definitely haven’t done any research and yet presume to lecture me on absolutism and abortion being nuanced to try and portray a 100% pro-life politician as some sort of moderate.

No I was specifically referring to these bills:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.99 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Life at Conception Act of 2021
This bill declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Nothing in this bill shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

And these two bills which by prohibiting federal funds means all female federal employees and all low income women on Medicaid can get no abortions, plus, for all other US women, their private health insurance can’t cover abortions either

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.92 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021
This bill modifies provisions relating to federal funding for, and health insurance coverage of, abortions. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions or for health coverage that includes abortions….
The bill also prohibits qualified health plans from including coverage for abortions. Currently, qualified health plans may cover abortion, but the portion of the premium attributable to abortion coverage is not eligible for subsidies.

And then for the few women who can afford to pay for an abortion can’t even deduct the expenses paid 100% out of pocket from their tax returns as is usual with healthcare expenses on a 1040 Income Tax return:

Introduced in Senate (01/28/2021)
S.124 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 2021
This bill prohibits a tax deduction for medical expenses relating to an abortion, with specified exceptions for rape or incest, or to protect the life or health of the mother.

And again.

I was very clear about the fact that he was supporting the government not providing state sponsored abortion.

What is it that you think you are proving here?

What relevance is this to YOU theorising that Riley Gaines is supporting abortion or not?

Where is that evidence of her believes NOT Rand Paul's beliefs.

This is 'guilt by association!'

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:18

Abortion will continue to be highly restricted except in those exceptional circumstances in Ky until abortion access is codified. That's state's rights for you. You can't compare it to UK. The mills of legislation grind exceedingly slowly and the court system even slower. But anybody in Ky can cross the border into Illinois, where it is legal, or currently into Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia where an attempted ban has been blocked, or into Virginia where it is legal but threatened. You're out of luck going to Missouri or Tennessee.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:19

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 14:45

It was not an attempt to detach anything as well you know. It was me protesting @BernardBlacksMolluscs Pretending that GC has fuck all to do with the definition of woman being based on biological sex or campaigning for womens spaces:

I posted a video of Whitlock criticising the inability of a Supreme Court nominee Jackson who told Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., that she was unable to define what a woman was because she is "not a biologist."

He stated: “We’re naming Supreme Court justices who aren’t committed to truth, but they are political activists and so a simple question like ‘what’s a woman,' she can’t answer because the goal is to create chaos and disorder by dismantling the truth. If there is no agreed-upon truth as simple as men and women, you can’t have an organized, properly functioning society,"

This was said in response to my post:
BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:29
”where does he say stereotypes on the basis of sex are wrong? that's what gender critical means

do you know what

gender
critical

mean?

cos it's starting to look like you don't”

to which I responded
”Im afraid you are mistaken. Yes GC activists claim that gender stereotypes based on sex should be abolished, but that is not what they are campaigning for, is it? They are campaigning for the definition of woman to be based purely on biological sex, ergo transwomen are not women because they are male. And of course everything that goes along with that, as in transwomen cannot access womens single sex spaces or services or toilets/changing rooms or sports, or awards or diversity hires because they are not women.

But in case you think I’m wrong, here’s what Wikipedia says…

“Feminists who describe themselves as "gender-critical" say that biological sex is "real, important, and immutable" and is "not to be conflated with gender identity", and that feminism should organize with emphasis on the basis of sex rather than gender.”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics#Gender-critical_feminism_and_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism

So Whitlocks discussion on the definition of woman and criticism of transgenderism as an absurdity is 100% GC.”

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 04/01/2023 19:45 Then said
oh you're so confused and also you're not respecting my lived experience
so now i'm confused. I thought you were kind?

GC feminists don't want women to be defined on the basis of sexist stereotypes. The reason women are oppressed is because of the type of body we have, not because some of us wear lipstick. GC feminists also seek equality of opportunity for women. that's the 'feminist' bit

yer chappy doesn't give a shit about sexist stereotypes. he knows who buys all the christmas presents and earns 10% less than whom, and it's entirely possible that he's completely cool with that and thinks it's the natural order of things. that isn't addressed in the clip or article you posted

so based on that he is neither

gender critical
a feminist (which we knew because he's a bloke)

which is when I stated
Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above.

Theres nothing wrong in what I said, and a lot wrong with Bernard contending that gender critical doesn’t at all mean activism regarding the definition of a woman being based on biological sex and doesn’t mean defending womens single sex spaces- why else say that I don’t know what gender critical means and it really means sexist stereotypes are wrong and then later on refuse my statement as to the fact GC feminists are fighting for the definition of woman and to defend womens single sex spaces by saying, no they’re fighting for “equality of opportunity”?

If Bernard agreed even a tiny bit with me, why say I am wrong? And I don’t know what GC means? Why not say, oh, and the GC activists who are also feminists are also fighting feminist issues like sex based stereotypes and for equality of opportunity?

Do you or do you not agree that feminists who are prioritising sex over gender are integrally also fighting for equality and equity for females?

Because that is not my interpretation of :

"Im sorry but the vast majority of GC feminists are not campaigning for “equality of opportunity” they are campaigning for the definition of woman and single sex spaces as I listed above."

Which you could easily have clarified previously.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:20

He's not interested in clarifying.

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:20

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:18

Abortion will continue to be highly restricted except in those exceptional circumstances in Ky until abortion access is codified. That's state's rights for you. You can't compare it to UK. The mills of legislation grind exceedingly slowly and the court system even slower. But anybody in Ky can cross the border into Illinois, where it is legal, or currently into Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia where an attempted ban has been blocked, or into Virginia where it is legal but threatened. You're out of luck going to Missouri or Tennessee.

I think this is a horrific mess and is incredibly complex.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:21

I agree.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:28

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 14:59

Do you actually think any of this is relevant to the topic of this thread?

And do you actually think that this has not been covered in the posts about him?

Please be very clear.

What context does this add to whether or not Riley Gaines is pro choice or not?

Riley Gaines was the topics of the posts. I was just pointing out that you have taken a very polarised view of the senator that she did some campaigning around female sports categories so as to discredit Riley Gaines as a 'feminist' and to attribute to her views that YOU believe she has. Yet have not yet provided evidence of.

Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You post all this stuff below about Paul Rand and now you have been shown to do exactly what you were accusing me of, you’re going to try and just sweep it under the carpet….with a meh it’s not even relevant….You said he’s not trying to ban abortions which is now proven false and you repeatedly accused me of being polarised, absolutist, exaggerating his views, intent on discrediting, peddling half truths.

But instead of saying ooops I was wrong about Paul Rand and wrong to levy all those accusations at me, you decide to pivot and say it’s all irrelevant anyway…everything you posted.

You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?

Helleofabore · Yesterday 19:21
”While much has been made of her ‘campaigning’ with Rand Paul, let us be very clear what that involves.…” “And very clear about what he has said. Yes. He is upfront about being pro-life with exceptions. I am not excusing him. But he has also been upfront about not ‘banning’ all abortions.

“The senator, who co-sponsors a bill that would largely ban abortions at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy, indicated he thinks it's best, at least for now, to let state governments decide if (and how) to restrict abortion.”

Currently law in the UK is abortion is legal til around 24 weeks.

He has also expressed he supports abortion when either child or mother are at risk.”…
”I think it is very important to be very clear about who believes what and supports who.

Sometimes posters seem intent on discrediting women for being single issue. And for not being ‘left wing’.

This seems to be another example of that. Feel free to post links to the contrary.”

Helleofabore · Yesterday 20:06
“And I think it is also quite clear that some posters have exaggerated Rand Paul's position on abortion as well, or it is simply a continued reflection on their very own absolutist positions.”

Helleofabore · Today 08:16
How dare you even try and portray him as some sort of moderate pro-choice politician. This is what Paul Rand published as a campaign promise (me)

”Abortion is a very complex issue. And you seem to have an absolutist view on the topic. I am aware of what he has posted.
I am also well aware he declared he wasn’t advocating to ‘ban’ abortion in his state in quite the manner your posts suggests.”…
”Do you consider the current English abortion laws pro-life? They are within 4 weeks of the laws that Paul was supporting. He was against state funding, I don’t agree with him. But you seem to be keen to use the word ‘ban’ to imply he is ‘banning’ abortion fully.”

Helleofabore · Today 11:33
”You can keep cycling around and around here. You have made the discussion about a man. You have peddled half truths in your pursuit of polarisation.”

Helleofabore · Today 11:34
“www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61

eu.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/28/rand-paul-vs-charles-booker-how-race-could-affect-abortion-in-the-us/10014264002/

Don't let facts and evidence stand in the way of whatever you think you are achieving here!”

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:28

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:03

And again.

I was very clear about the fact that he was supporting the government not providing state sponsored abortion.

What is it that you think you are proving here?

What relevance is this to YOU theorising that Riley Gaines is supporting abortion or not?

Where is that evidence of her believes NOT Rand Paul's beliefs.

This is 'guilt by association!'

In fact, don't even bother.

Because you cannot acknowledge this is coming from your very own need to have Riley Gaines, who is campaigning on a single issue, portrayed as someone to be dismissed because of who she did an ad for and spoke at rallies for.

The end result is you want Riley Gaines to be dismissed as having any credibility for your own agenda. You want no one to listen to Riley and for no one to consider her experiences.

That is the end result of your posts on this issue whether it was intentional on not.

You can continue, but I think readers can make up their minds.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:31

@Onnabugeisha - but Paul's views are irrelevant. Support for a politician on one issue doesn't ipso facto mean support on all. I've never voted for anything right wing in my life, but I can see that the Tories are right on this one issue. Doesn't mean I support anything else they stand for.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/01/2023 15:31

"You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?"

Methinks there's only one poster that gets overheated with Helleofabore Grin

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:31

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:03

And again.

I was very clear about the fact that he was supporting the government not providing state sponsored abortion.

What is it that you think you are proving here?

What relevance is this to YOU theorising that Riley Gaines is supporting abortion or not?

Where is that evidence of her believes NOT Rand Paul's beliefs.

This is 'guilt by association!'

But you were also very clear in claiming the Rand was not trying to ban abortions and you accused me of exaggeration and peddling hard truth. I have posted all the bills he has sponsored PROVING you were WRONG. You really should fucking check your facts before you witter on for post after post accusing someone of being a liar.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:31

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/01/2023 15:31

"You’re priceless. Absolutely priceless. And you wonder why people get heated with you?"

Methinks there's only one poster that gets overheated with Helleofabore Grin

There’s another on this thread.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:32

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:31

@Onnabugeisha - but Paul's views are irrelevant. Support for a politician on one issue doesn't ipso facto mean support on all. I've never voted for anything right wing in my life, but I can see that the Tories are right on this one issue. Doesn't mean I support anything else they stand for.

@Helleofabore started this whole thing by claiming repeatedly that I was lying about Rand. When I wasn’t.

Britinme · 06/01/2023 15:32

@Onnabugeisha I'm sure this is very satisfying for you. Such a shame it's irrelevant to the point at issue.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 06/01/2023 15:32

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:31

There’s another on this thread.

Faints.

Onnabugeisha · 06/01/2023 15:35

Helleofabore · 06/01/2023 15:28

In fact, don't even bother.

Because you cannot acknowledge this is coming from your very own need to have Riley Gaines, who is campaigning on a single issue, portrayed as someone to be dismissed because of who she did an ad for and spoke at rallies for.

The end result is you want Riley Gaines to be dismissed as having any credibility for your own agenda. You want no one to listen to Riley and for no one to consider her experiences.

That is the end result of your posts on this issue whether it was intentional on not.

You can continue, but I think readers can make up their minds.

What agenda? I have no agenda. Shame on me for thinking you actually draw conclusions from facts and evidence, when you do nothing of the sort. You dismiss whatever facts and evidence do not suit your prejudices. And you repeatedly attack anyone who insists on posting the actual facts and evidence that shows you to be wrong.