She's back! Katie Britt introduces the Scarlet Letter bill
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
Anyone want to guess where Scarlet Johansson will be tomorrow night?
We can control the stupid if we threaten to take SEC football off tv
Katie Britt is a monster. She can seriously F the hell off
So, it was never about returning women’s reproductive health to the states and it was always about national restrictions? No way!!
She seems like a peach. I bet she takes her donkey punches with pride.
She’s a Bozo - who says what her constituents apparently want to hear.
Actually you can. Ever heard of Meidas News? When the first sentence reads “creepy Katie Britt”, one would think to research the bill a bit more. But nah, that’s not the clickbait headline world we live in. I read the MTN report. No real mention of a national database of pregnant women in the opinion piece. As of this afternoon, it’s difficult to even find a copy of the bill online that isn’t a pain in the ass to read due to all the ads.
If somehow this bill creates some weird national database of pregnant women, then I’ll gladly come back and change my opinion.
Here’s the list of horrible things the bill would do. Which again, it’s rather difficult to find much info via Google search.
The MOMS Act would:
- Establish Pregnancy.gov – a federal clearinghouse of resources available to expecting and postpartum moms, as well as those with young children.
- This clearinghouse would increase access to adoption agencies, pregnancy resource centers, and other relevant public and private resources available to pregnant women within their zip code and surrounding areas.
- As part of Pregnancy.gov, HHS would be required to include and maintain a national list of federal funding opportunities available to non-profit and healthcare entities for pregnancy support.
- Improve access to pre- and post-natal resources.
- This legislation would establish a grant program for non-profit entities to support, encourage, and assist women in carrying their pregnancies to term; and to care for their babies after birth.
- It would also provide tools for pre-natal and post-natal telehealth appointments by instituting a grant program to purchase necessary medical equipment and technology in rural areas and other medically underserved areas.
- Require states to apply child support obligations to the time period during pregnancy, if so requested by the mother.
I’m curious as to which part of this bill, with the limited information provided, all of those who posted above, are against? Or, is it another case of all Republicans are bad?
By the way, I approve of a national database of gun owners. I oppose a national database of pregnant women, if that’s really what this bill will establish.
Oh, here is a link to the bill.
https://www.britt.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MOMS-Act_FINAL-Britt_Rubio_Cramer1.pdf
https://www.britt.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MOMS-Act_FINAL-Britt_Rubio_Cramer1.pdf
Huh? The entire bill was linked in the story you're bitching about. Not hard at all to know what's in the bill. 23 pages.
The bill sounds just like the saying “we’re from the government and we’re here to help”. Just harmless, only good intentions…Sorry but if I’m of childbearing age it’s no regulatory agency’s business.
1. I’m high.
2. I linked the bill in my next post. Didn’t bother editing my first post.
3. Nothing in this bill states it will create a national database of pregnant women.
No one in this thread read the actual bill. I skimmed it, but my attention span is meh.
For the record. I am pro MFin Choice. 100%. My reason posting was due to the BS headline and how everyone one just trusted it.
I would agree. My guess is, we have all these govt paid resources for planned parenthood and abortion. So why wouldn’t we have similar services available for those who choose to keep the baby?
I’m opposed to both. Govt stay out.
I read the bill… so basically this site we are posting on is a registry of Iowa fans… and rivals in whole can possibly identify college sports fans nationwide
I knew they were out to get us
Hell of a reach the author came up with for clickbait
I knew they were out to get us
Hell of a reach the author came up with for clickbait
Why does this idea that planned parenthood is primarily about providing abortions persist?
Get Care
Planned Parenthood providers specialize in sexual and reproductive health, including birth control, annual exams STD testing and treatment, and more.
Britt is an average Republican. That's what is messed up about all this.
If a woman is seeking an abortion, I would imagine they would start at Planned Parenthood.Why does this idea that planned parenthood is primarily about providing abortions persist?
Get Care
Planned Parenthood providers specialize in sexual and reproductive health, including birth control, annual exams STD testing and treatment, and more.www.plannedparenthood.org
possibly - i tried a quick google search for that and couldn't find anything more recent than 2015 that they stated <5% of their services are for abortions. Admittedly a 30 second search so i'm not swearing by that.
Just pointing out that they do alot more than abortions - whereas crisis pregnancy centers don't provide any abortion services at all.
I have a friend who was an RN that worked at planned parenthood. I get it. Keep in mind where I’ve come from. Hard core Republican who is evolving into a more moderate person. I still have some deprogramming to do. Even now reflecting on my “Govt Out” post above. I’m not a total ass who doesn’t think planned parenthood shouldn’t be provided to our citizens who need it. I might have thought that 30 years ago, but I’ve softened.
You can’t even remember the last time anyone in the Republican Party didn’t make you say “WTF.”
She can F the hell off and back on, off and back on, off and on, off, on, off, on, off, on, etc…my cack n’ ballz though.
Trump’s interview first makes clear that his idea of states’ rights is a kind of no-holds barred reality in conservative states. When pressed about whether states could surveil every pregnancy within its borders, he responded in the affirmative. When asked whether states could choose to punish women, he saw no reason that they couldn’t.
in a wide-ranging recent interview with Time magazine
in a wide-ranging recent interview with Time magazine
I mean, everyone with clear eyes KNEW what they meant at the time. Regardless of the words used, we knew the end goal in the multi-stepped plan.
Some of you people are so stupid.
It stuns me how easy people swallow propaganda.
Embarrassing.
It stuns me how easy people swallow propaganda.
Embarrassing.
The same can be said about every single one of your posts.
That’s an intentionally deceptive statistic that Planned Parenthood likes to tout in order to downplay their role in providing abortions.
3% is the number PP officials like to toss around. PP performs about 11.4 million individual services per year for about 3 million different people. About 330,000 of those 11.4 million services are abortions.
So about 3% of the total number of services they provide are abortions, but about 11% of the patients they service are there for an abortion.
Here's an example of how they massage the numbers:
A woman enters a PP clinic and says she thinks she is pregnant and doesn’t want to keep the baby. Naturally, the first thing clinic workers do is give her a pregnancy test to confirm. That's one service. They also screen her for STDs. That’s a separate, second service. The pregnancy test is positive so the next thing they do is sit down with her to counsel her and outline her options. That's the third service. After mulling it over, the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy. Finally, the actual abortion is performed. That's the fourth service.
One woman went to PP for the singular purpose of having an abortion. But, for statistical purposes, abortion only counted as 25% of what the clinic did in her case.
1. Reported
2. Honestly, I don’t know why you bother with us. But, as long as you are here, did you ever decide which Confederates you admire the most, and wish would have a school named after them?
Which is why I said I wasn't going to swear by that; couldn't find anything recent and what i saw in that brief search had that info i saw direct from them; saw a couple articles that made some of the same points you did, etc.
