Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 865
    MEMBERS
  • 51143
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Get your bible out of my uterus!   Religion

Started 2/21/18 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 8285 views.
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

2/21/18

Pressure mounts on Catholic-run family planning clinics in Papua New Guinea

Pressure is mounting on Papua New Guinea's Government to reconsider its contracts with health clinics run by the Catholic Church, amid concerns some are deliberately failing to meet their obligations of providing a full family planning service.

Key points:

  • Religious bodies maintain artificial means should not be used to prevent birth
  • Reports the Catholic Church is destroying family planning divisions
  • Disagreement remains as to how widespread these occurrences are

PNG's considered to be one of the world's most religious countries — 96 per cent of the country identify as Christian, and about a quarter of the population are Catholic.

While advocating natural methods of contraception, the Church insists it also provides counselling and a patient referral system, which is a requirement of its contract with the PNG Health Department.

But family planning advocates claim items being provided to Catholic clinics by the Government go unused and are being destroyed, while others report spot checks are being carried out by senior church officials.

The Catholic Church officially promotes the natural "ovulation method", but the outspoken views of people like Rolando Santos, the Bishop of Alotau, point to a much harder line which is causing considerable anger among health professionals.

"They should not use artificial means in order to prevent the natural process from taking place," he told the ABC's Pacific Beat program.

"They have to respect the plan of God, of nature."

Family planning advocate Wendy Stein, who set up the NGO Spacim Pikinini — which translates as "space your children" — to provide implants to women living in remote PNG, has raised her concerns about the Catholic Church.

"They're out of touch and I feel like they're oppressing the indigenous people in PNG," she said.

"We've had instances where the bishops send teams out to villages with propaganda and discourage people, whether they're Catholic or not, about the implant."

She has had her own run-ins with Father Santos, who questioned the work of her NGO.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 1
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

5/19/18

Donald Trump to ban federally funded clinics from referring women for abortions

The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule banning federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions, or sharing space with abortion providers, according to a White House official.

Key points:

  • The Reagan administration barred family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women
  • The family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year
  • Abortion is legal in the US but family planning funds cannot be used to pay for it

The Department of Health and Human Services will announce its proposal on Friday, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the release.

The policy has been derided as a "gag rule" by abortion rights supporters and medical groups, and it is likely to trigger lawsuits that could keep it from taking effect.

However, it's guaranteed to galvanize activists on both sides of the abortion debate going into the congressional midterm elections.

The announcement comes as President Donald Trump is scheduled to speak at the Susan B Anthony List's "campaign for life" gala on Tuesday night.

The group works to elect candidates who want to reduce and ultimately end abortion, spending more than $18 million in the 2016 election cycle to defeat Hillary Clinton and promote a "pro-life Senate".

The Reagan-era rule barred family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women.

It never went into effect as written, although the Supreme Court ruled that it was an appropriate use of executive power.

The policy was rescinded under president Bill Clinton, and a new rule went into effect that required "nondirective" counselling to include a full range of options for women.

According to a Trump administration summary, the new proposal would roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion should be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption.

Known as Title X, the nation's family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year through clinics, at a cost to taxpayers of about $260 million.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure, but by law federal family planning funds cannot be used to pay for abortion procedures.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 2
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

5/27/18

Ireland abortion referendum returns huge majority for Yes campaign

Ireland has voted by a landslide to liberalise some of the world's most restrictive abortion laws, in what its Prime Minister described as the culmination of a "quiet revolution" in what was one of Europe's most socially conservative countries.

Voters in the once deeply Catholic nation backed the change by more than two-to-one.

Final provisional results show that 66.4 per cent of voters opted to repeal a constitutional amendment that in effect banned abortion in a vast majority of cases.

The Government plans to bring in legislation by the end of the year.

"This is a monumental day for women in Ireland," Orla O'Connor, co-director of the Together for Yes group, said.

"This is about women taking their rightful place in Irish society, finally."

Obstetrician and Together For Yes campaigner Mary Higgins described the result as "incredible".

"For all the years and years and years we've been trying to look after women and not been able to look after women, this means everything," she said.

The outcome was the latest milestone on a path of change for a country which only legalised divorce by a razor-thin majority in 1995 before becoming the first in the world to adopt same-sex marriage by popular vote three years ago.

Opponents of the repeal movement conceded defeat on Saturday morning after exit polls from the night before suggested more than two-thirds of voters had backed repeal.

Spokesman for the Save the 8th group John McGuirk said many Irish citizens would not recognize the country in which they were waking up.

The group said on its website that the referendum's outcome was a "tragedy of historic proportions", but McGuirk said the vote must be respected.

"You can still passionately believe that the decision of the people is wrong, as I happen to do, and accept it," he said.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

5/29/18

"Property Rights" really does fly in the face of "it is a human life".

I don't know much about Pruitt, other than he's an insufferable fuckwit.

Msg 394.8 deleted
In reply toRe: msg 7
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

7/17/18

So who are Roe and Wade anyway?

What is Roe v Wade?

Roe v Wade was the landmark Supreme Court case that legalised abortion nationwide in the United States in 1973.

It was brought by Texas woman Norma McCorvey, using the pseudonym Jane Roe, who was unmarried, pregnant and wanted an abortion, but was unable to legally procure one within the state at the time.

Forty-five years ago, states were able to set their own abortion laws and it was only legal to terminate a pregnancy in Texas if it presented a serious risk to the mother's life.

But Ms McCorvey was healthy and could not afford to travel to another state for the procedure.

She argued against the defendant, Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, that Texas laws were unconstitutional because they were vague and violated her right to privacy.

The Supreme Court found in her favour, seven to two, and established a new national framework for abortion that all states would have to adhere to.

What was the new framework?

The court ruled that:

  • In the first trimester: All women in the US should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, as abortions are relatively safe during the first three months and the foetus is still underdeveloped
  • In the second trimester: The government has the right to regulate but not ban abortions, as the risks associated with terminating a pregnancy become much greater after 12 weeks. However, the laws must be aimed at protecting the mother
  • In the third trimester: The government has the right to prohibit abortions, as the risks are greatest during the final three months and the foetus is more likely to be able to survive on its own outside the womb. However, a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy if it poses a risk to her life

Continued

In reply toRe: msg 9
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

7/17/18

So what does this have to do with Brett Kavanaugh?

If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh will replace Justice Kennedy, who was often the swing vote on key issues such as abortion and gay rights.

So if he's less receptive to abortion, experts say there will be enough conservative support within the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v Wade decision and once again allow individual states to ban abortions outright.

Does Donald Trump know about this?

Yes, and it was likely one of the key reasons he named Judge Kavanaugh in the first place.

During his election campaign, Mr Trump said abortion should be largely banned in the United States, and he would appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court who would help overturn the decision.

So how likely is all this to happen?

Immediately after Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin appearedpretty certain Roe v Wade would be overturned.

And Elizabeth Ingleson, an honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre, agreed it was becoming very likely. She said the real question was how it would all play out.

"Any chance at blocking Mr Trump's nominee would require support from all Senate Democrats and two Republicans," she said.

"There is speculation that Republican senator Susan Collins may be one such senator to block his nominee, but even this is unlikely."

Continued

TOP