"Marriage Vow" signed by Bachmannn

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
"Marriage Vow" signed by Bachmannn
115
Fri, 07-08-2011 - 2:51pm

This is crazy stuff.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 8:29pm
((Can't have it both ways. You don't want them having babies, but you don't want them having abortions. ))

Why not? Do you think young women are incapable of learning how to use birth control correctly? Do you have a problem with trying to educate young girls that they don't have to have unprotected sex at 14 or that's it's perfectly acceptable to not have sex at all at that age? Too bad liberals can't fight to prevent these unwanted babies with just half the effort they do on their right to abort them.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 8:32pm
KauaiTurtle wrote:
From your own link:

" Obama voted against the legislation"

I already knew that Obama voted against the legislation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 8:34pm
Isn't it the conservatives who have a problem with educating young people about the above, stating that it is the parents' responsibility? You can't have it both ways.
Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:24pm

I am a bit confused.

"

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:27pm
((Isn't it the conservatives who have a problem with educating young people about the above, stating that it is the parents' responsibility? You can't have it both ways.))

Why can't we? Clearly, with the gross decline of family values in America, the young generation today thinks it's a-okay to have babies at sixteen...hey maybe they will even star on MTV's "Sixteen and pregnant"...right? We have made it okay to have children without two parents....because who really needs a father anyhow, right? We can thank Hollywood for that one. We have made it okay to have sex as a tween or young teen.

Liberals don't want to fix these social issues for some reason....they just think that other people should be obligated to pay for them. You know....those greedy rich people who don't pay any taxes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:34pm
yep, completely consistent with what I said, he didn't want the child to be identified as living because it would mess with Roe v Wade.
As far as that law, nope, doesn't happen, because if they provided life saving treatment it is no longer a fetus and a human being that requires a birth certificate.
I've seen it with my own eyes.
I found the law, and it gives the Dr. a lot of leeway in determining if the baby can survive. Only if the Dr. determines that is the case do they intervene and care for the baby. Otherwise the baby gets no care, not even end of life care. That was what the born alive legislation was about.
"(720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81‑26)
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. " http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:41pm
From your link: "(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony."

It doesn't sound like that's giving physicians a lot of leeway.

Thanks for providing the link.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:42pm
Oh, just another rant against liberals based on fantasy. Moving on...
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:43pm
((Right now many cannot afford birth control.))

Planned Parenthood gives out free birth control so......
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-07-2011
Wed, 07-20-2011 - 9:46pm
((Oh, just another rant against liberals based on fantasy. Moving on...))

Lol. Nope. Perhaps you could enlighten me on exactly how the liberal politicians are working on getting these young poor mothers out of the poverty cycle then.

Pages