Best
317 Comments
Post
  • #8
    !
    This won't happen. He is just currying favor with the conservative base, as he has begun to and plans to sell em down the river on economic policy and immigration and needs to shore up as much support as possible if he wants re-election in his conservative district.
  • #91
    !
    Guess he made it very clear what he thinks of all the the up and coming conservative governors who agreed the party should eliminate the word abortion from their dictionary. A big F/u to Jindal, Scott Walker and of course Christie Love the way they're tackling the demographic 70% favor abortion, women's Heath. Maybe Boehner will support abortion for Latino's to cut their #'s lol.
  • #159
    !
    @Fishbone345 AMEN the Relic need to become a Relic.....or should i have said the Orange Relic????.
  • #238
    !
    @martydotcom they ran on jobs, jobs, jobs in 2010 and we got abortion, rape, personhood and 2012 was jobs, jobs, jobs and now we got rape, abortion, default. I am looking forward to 2014 theme to result in abortion, rape, irrelevance
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    He wants (like all the other republicans) to make abortions for poor females a relic because rich females have always been able to get safe clean convenient abortions all through history. They could leave for a trip pregnant and come back 1 week later fetus free! Because they were rich.

    Its the poor females that die in back alleys and back rooms from dirty tools and non doctor abortions.

    People that truly care about human life should be pounding their fists daily to fight for low cost accessible healthcare for ALL…. Vocal on no wars…..vocal on gun regulations…..vocal on fair pay and protection for workers rights……. The republicans have picked something that is silly to focus on……that’s pretty much what they do.

    They dont care where it matters.
  • #212
    !
    So you value a mother's life, who's already lived for a good couple decades, and has probably messed up her life, over the life of a child who hasn't had a shot at doing any good or enjoying life at all?
  • #239
    !
    @Politicskid So what would you do to help that poor mother other than shame her for being a drain on society or a dirty whore for getting pregnant in the first place. These are usually the standard responses from the pro life crowd. You should call it what it is, the pro fetus movement. Because as soon as the child is born he is forgotten and then the cycle begins again as "another welfare baby" wanting a handout.
  • #255
    !
    @Politicskid
    Since one is a human being and the other is a fetus with the potential to be a human being, yes I do value the mother's life more.
  • #281
    !
    @Cheenoguy Okay, so how about we make it so you can only have an abortion after the fourth month if it has a significant (over 25%) chance of killing the mother, as deemed by multiple doctors?
  • #284
    !
    @wild_turkey6 The idea behind shame is not to help the person who's doing the shameful act. It's to prevent other people from doing the shameful act. Sure, it'll hurt some people, but it'll help a lot more!
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    See what I mean? He wants you to worry about that and pay no attention to what else hw might want to do leading the nation down to endless wars and destruction. Oh, but save those foetuses so they can suffer and die under the yoke that he and his pals will fashion.
  • #100
    !
    Yes, I was under the impression at this time the budget was our priority and not social issues meant to drive wedges. I suppose this is his response to Obama's innaugural address to consolidate his base. It won't happen, they won't pass it, they'll stick it inside a bill they're pretending to be bipartisan with but really want to fail and then blame the democrats for whatever it is they killed with it. Possibly lets add it as an earmark to job training for the troops. OMG the democrats voted down job training for the troops (forget the abortion earmark) They've been playing the same hand for so long it's time to call their bluff. Nationwide state level recall elections.
  • #156
    !
    @frigginhell Yawn. That's just a fancy version of "Well the Democrats did it." You got nothing. Republicans absolutely refuse to take any responsibility for anything they ever did, just blaming the Democrats. My kids used to do that but they grew up.
  • #166
    !
    @frigginhell This tactic your describing has been in the professional politicians play book since the '50's. This isn't a Republican thing, It's pro politics 101. But don't get me wrong, you still have the right to engage in partisan politics all you like. That's why this country is in the toilet, blindly following one of the power parties or believing TV pundits, but it is your right.
  • #175
    !
    @FollowTheMoney allow me to respond to both of you gentlemen. we're talking about boehner, he's the speaker of the house and a member of the GOP, correct? that's why i'm talking about the GOP on this topic. You want to bring up a bill killer tactic for the democrats I'll happily support you on it. I'm certain both sides of the aisle do it. I'm calling this what it is. A shameless attempt at pandering to a group he has no intention of actually fullfilling when push comes to shove. The abortion issue and Roe V Wade has been the dangling carrot for 40 years. With a democrat president and senate he has ZERO chance of making good on this promise. He knows it. He's playing for the mid-terms and shoring up support following Obama's base pleasing inaugural. Which, as I recall, I mentioned in my original post.

    Silly bastards, thinking just because I don't like Boehner and the GOP I must like democrats. If you feel I unfairly target them more often it's probably just because as of late they just make it so darn easy.
  • #190
    !
    @frigginhell After re-reading your comment it would appear, I jumped the gun. But in my defense, I see so many people blindly supporting one power party over the other based on political rhetoric and regurgitated comments by pundits. When the ideology of the parties aren't really the problem because they're so closely aligned. The problem is the nature of the politician it self. I stand corrected.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    I'm glad to see that Boehner is in full support of the known tactics we have for getting rid of abortions, such as real sex education and birth control education and funding.

    it may not play well with the whackjob far right evangelicals that don't seem to care about ending abortions, but he seems to be standing up for what is right and best for our country...

    (he's a little misguided if he thinks it will happen in a year, though...)
  • #244
    !
    The Hyde amendment is doable. We are all for lowering our taxes. Ridding the nation of providing abortions with our federal taxes would be a big reduction in spending. In this day and age, a woman knows how to not get pregnant! We actually do pay for birth control through the health department, but that cost is much less and usually is payed for by each state. Don't you think the number of abortions would be drastically reduced if these women had to pay for it themselves? They would be much more responsible using birth control rather than trying to come up with $500. or more. The only ones provided by us should be rape, incest and not just the health of the mother, but if it were a life or death situation. Women who have a problem that getting pregnant could kill them should consider a permanent solution. You can also get that paid for through the health department that will send you to an OBGYN and hospital to get the procedure done. No money out of your own pocket. I'm not saying to force this on women, but educating them. If a pregnancy equals death for that individual, I don't see why she would not get this done for free and quit risking her life. Abortion is an invasive procedure with the same risk as getting your tubes tied.
  • #247
    !
    "Far right evangelicals that don't seem to care about ending abortions"
    I think you got a little mixed up there. They are the ones that oppose all abortions.
  • #256
    !
    woodtick your name says a lot. As a whack job that you call me I do believe it is a women's right to choose for it is her body not some heavy set white man in congress to tell her what to do with it. But then you would be against me as a person because I am a gay man (and it is not a choice) who believes that all of us men and women are created equal under our constitution and under the eyes of God.
  • #19
    !
    Abortion goes back thousands of years in human history. Only an idiot would think that it could be done away with. The advent of medical abortion is rapidly making the procedure a non-issue, and putting it where it belongs: between a woman and her doctor.
  • #129
    !
    You know, I would argue with you.....BUT, I can't. You're right! What I do find amazing is some of these rubes believe it all started in '73. Schools sure have failed in teaching history!
  • #158
    !
    @stepped_in_it Schools haven't so much failed in teaching history as much as religion has perfected brain washing mind control.
  • #82
    !
    Hey, why do my tax dollars have to go toward paying for wars I disagree we need be involved in? Talk about blood money. Why do my tax dollars go toward anything I disagree with? If I have to pay the government for things I don't agree with, why do anti-abortionists receive treatment denied to me?
  • #75
    !
    I believe that it is a matter of personal responsibility and being realisic about todays society. You can not win favor by guilt tripping Americans over abortion. However, emphasis on the fact that abortion is NOT an appropriate form of birth control may help our nation. Wear condoms, take the pill, get shots/implants/ whatever. Do what it takes not to have a child before you are ready. Dont just try to hit the "undo" button because of carelessness. Abortion should always be legal, however there should be limitations on the amount you can recieve and it should not be cheap. This will be an effective deterrent. BOOM. Problem solved.
  • #116
    !
    Sounded good til the end. Why do you want to make it expensive as a deterrent when the government subsidizes it?
  • #125
    !
    @AlexMIA Ive never heard of the govt paying for abortions...but then again I've never had one so I wouldnt know the process...assuming the fee for abortions comes out of pocket, I would think an increasing fee is a good idea
  • #141
    !
    @Chanel They do, some cities have free clinics that provide that. Planned Parenthood does also, and the are subsidized.
  • #215
    !
    So you honestly think it should be legal to kill a child the day before they would be born? You've got to think that their should at least be some deadline to make the decision!
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    Good for him. At least one politician is taking a stand for babies and I don't care what his motivation is.
  • #43
    !
    but , in fact, he isn't. making abvortions illegal, or even hard to get, will not stop them. proven failed tactic. why would any sane person back proven failed tactics?
  • #30
    !
    BLAH!!!! Boehner! You wonder why you drive away people from the GOP? You talk like that!

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!
  • #214
    !
    Yeah, saving a million lives a year sure drives people away from voting for you (sarcasm)

    Everybody who's pro abortion has already been born!
  • #81
    !
    And stop paying for it.
    Federally funded abortions seems to be the only birth control known to liberals.
  • #246
    !
    Didn't the GOP say they were going to "train" their candidates not to put act like one legged men in an ass kicking contest concerning abortion comments? Why don't they start with incumbents? Set an example.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #232
    !
    @WattheTyler I don't care how much a wedding costs, unless being married increases the couples income/productivity, the net effect on the economy is going to be minimal. They would have spent the money in other ways if they didn't end up marrying.
  • #235
    !
    @Politicskid The average, gay or straight, wedding in the United States cost 27,000 dollars. That's not cheep. You have to get wedding gowns, wedding food, fly in their families, church service, etc. As for income/productivity why is it most of the big corporations support equal marriage rights for everyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supporte... As a conservative why do you think the government should have a marriage police and tell people who can and can not get married? I thought you were for smaller government?
  • #286
    !
    @WattheTyler When did I say I was against gay marriage? All I was getting at was it's hypocritical for you to act like "oh it's so off track for the republicans to focus on social issues at a time like this" when the Democrats are doing even more of it?

    And just because big corporations support it doesn't mean anything.
  • R Load more replies

  • #161
    !
    There you have it. The GOP ideas of "becoming more palatable" to women and minorities. You know, i say of those who do have abortions that about 70% of them are minorities and I'm will to go out on a limb here and guess that 100% who abortions are women. This kind of nonsense is why I left the GOP. Those people can't frigging stop from tying a noose around their necks and jumping off chairs regardless of how many other people are hanging from the rafters deader than a mackerel right beside them.
  • #220
    !
    Maybe the GOP is just thinking in the long term. I'm sure it would attract votes from the babies that would have been otherwise aborted!
  • #155
    !
    Wow, the Republican party is truly off-the-rails. Congress a) has so many more important things to do (economy, jobs, budget, fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, long term fiscal solvency, etc), and B) the party of supposedly smaller government with less intrusion into the lives of individual citizens wants to remove access to women's health services (planned parenthood, which they want to defund on the basis that it provides abortions, only spends 3% of its budget on abortion services). This is a choice between a woman and her doctor, and no person or group should be able to use the law to force others to conform to their religious moral views. To do so is a direct violation of the establishment clause, and a violation of the individual's religious freedom.

    What makes their position even more absurdis that many of the Republicans, although they would like to classify the fetus as a person with rights, also support exceptions to anti abortion laws in cases of rape and incest. How would those fetuses be any less a person than any other?
  • #217
    !
    I find it odd that you think it's odd that the party of small government would be against a government subsidy to an organization.
  • #259
    !
    @Politicskid It's a party that is conflicted and wants to get into the decisions people make regarding their own health. Preventative healthcare can actually save money in the long term, and 97% of the services provided by planned parenthood actually save the government money. Cutting off funding is to cut off one's nose to spite their face.
  • #291
    !
    @Politicskid Of course, planned parenthood is not a government bureaucracy, it is a not for profit corporation, which provides a variety of women's health services and counseling, and receives only 1/3 of their budget from the government. What is more the lion's share of it's activities have to do with women's health, and preventing unwanted pregnancy (largely in a preventative manner).

    Defunding Planned Parenthood would be like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Ultimately, much more would be spent on public assistance for unplanned children without their services.
  • #148
    !
    How many times must it be repeated till the Repubs get it? It's no the social issues, it's the economy stupid! Spending, taxes, unnecessary wars/conflicts, K street cronyism, a real budget, affordable/sustainable energy, real energy plan, real issues for real people.

    And the Dems don't have one either, all they have is lies and promises so far along with their wacko progressism.
  • #142
    !
    If by making abortion "a relic of the past", he means educating women, including letting them know they can always say, "No!", and making sure they have access to birth control, then I'm all for it. If he means making abortion illegal, then I'm against it.
  • #279
    !
    @Jet_Silverman So even though there's only a very very minor difference in the development of the baby after it's born and one day before, you think that mothers who kill it before it's born should not be punished, but mothers who do it after should become felons and face decades in prison?
  • #302
    !
    @Politicskid there is a major difference between one day before and one day after the baby is born. Ask any woman who has given birth. As long as it is inside the woman's body and living off of her system, it should be her choice.
  • #307
    !
    @Jet_Silverman Why? We're talking about a baby here. Any woman who waits that long is just plain cruel, and I don't understand how you can defend them.
  • #132
    !
    I know that we will be unable to completely rid our nation of a abortion. I do think that there needs to be strict regulations of abortions. Hard and fast rules, no way to get around them. Abortion has become a way of birthcontrol for a lot of women. No more! I believe there should be a strict rule on the number of a abortions a woman can have. Actually not abortions, abortion. Meaning only one. A woman should learn her lesson the first time. I believe that they should be finger printed. Having to provide a fingerprint would get rid of the chance for a woman to use another identity to get around the law. If this were to not be put in place, we all know that there would be many, many cases of using another's identity. If the one allowed was used and there were extenuating circumstances like incest or rape there should also be rules put in place. In the claim of incest, a police report must be filed against they male family member. There is also a test that can be done at ten weeks that could quickly tell if the woman and the baby share DNA with the father. They don't even need the fathers DNA, though it could help. In the case of rape, the woman should be required to go to the Emergency room. There they can do the rape kit. The woman can be checked out for injuries and given the morning after pill and a cocktail of medication to prevent contracting HIV. They also can put you on antibiotics to take care of other STD's and an antiviral to help keep you from contracting herpes. Women that just go to the police are only given the rape kit. The ER gives their rape kit to the police plus all the other things I have listed. If you still get pregnant despite the morning after pill, then abortion may be allowed. Just know the aborted baby's DNA must match the DNA extracted from the rape kit.
    In the case of the mothers life being in jeopardy, she would be in the hospital and a doctor would be responsible for that decision. She would also maintain the right to refuse the abortion. This type of case is extremely rare. With birth control so widely available; the pills and condoms for free from the health department and the morning after pill costing about a tenth of the price of an abortion; there should be barely any reason for an abortion, but these ignorant women keep using abortion as birth control instead of using actual birth control! I am not for abortion. There are other ways to deal with what you have gotten yourself into. But I did list one abortion! That is all it should take to learn your lesson.
    Someone getting a child pregnant is a whole different story. I am talking about 10 to 14 years old. No older unless it was incest or rape.
  • #140
    !
    And why do you think this will work this time when it failed miserably the first time? because you want it to work?
  • #150
    !
    @woodtick57
    Because there is the technology now to make it work. When have they ever tried to limit abortions? If a woman wants to cry rape to get an abortion, she would have the paper work to prove her position. I know how horrible rape is and that you don't want to go straight to the hospital, but it should be mandated if she wishes to have an abortion should she become pregnant. It is also better for her physical and emotional health to go to the ER. The ER will call the police for her. It also is the only way to get the rapist off the street so another woman would not have to go through the same thing.
    With our technology, finger printing would stop the use of abortion as birth control. There would be a national data base. What I listed would also stop women from falsely crying rape. It's just mainly the technology we now have that could stop the abuse of the system.
  • #164
    !
    @jessejaymes
    This is nothing like Animal Farm. I am personally against abortions, but know that I don't want women having back alley abortions. One abortion should be enough for a woman to be more in control of her body. This is a very serious topic! With the advances in birth control, including the morning after pill; there should not be the need for so many abortions. This system is abused. If you are choosing to have sex, but do not want to get pregnant, I can tell you how. It's a combination of three different birth controls.
    The birth control pill. Taken everyday at the same time of day. This is you taking control of your body. Use a condom everytime also. This one not only helps you not to get pregnant, but offers you some protection from HIV and other STD's. These first two you can get for free at the health department. The third is called C-film. It is a small square piece of film made of spermacide that you place directly over your cervix. It can be bought Walmart, Walgreens ect. It is inexpensive to buy. Each alone may have the usual 98.9% effective rate, but used together is 100%. If you forget a pill, don't trust that packet insert that tells you to take two the next day! If the condom breaks at this time, or any other get the morning after pill. I know many women using this method and it has never failed. I used it after my last child until I got my tubes tied. We would have rather had my husband get a vasectomy, but our insurance would only pay for the more expensive, intrusive and painful option of me tying my tubes. Pretty stupid, huh?
  • #174
    !
    I think your way makes sense, but I would like to add that I do not want to pay for a woman to get an abortion with my tax dollars. I may not make much yet, but I will! I'm not going around getting anyone pregnant!
  • R Load more replies

  • #123
    !
    its great to see House Speaker John Boehner stand up for whats right.
    Liberals have killed 5.5 million children.
    Sandy Hook was nothing compaired to liberal policy.
  • #126
    !
    all the abortions were had by liberals? i know for a fact that isn't true.

    but you'bve never been to concerned about the tuth, have you vinnie...
  • #105
    !
    it is a woman's body! she can do with it as she pleases, government funded or not, a politician, man, or woman should not be able to tell her what she can do with her body, its her right to decide
  • #117
    !
    So...just ot play devil's advocate...and stir up debate...and risk fgetting castrated over the interweb...

    should hte father of that child have absolutely no say in deal?
  • #145
    !
    I completely agree with it being your body and doing what you want with it. Getting others to pay for it, not so much.
  • #149
    !
    So if a young couple get pregnant and they don't have a pot to piss in but the woman DOESN'T want an abortion, the man has to shut up, take it, and pay it, and quite possibley never reach their full potential particularly if they are both uneducated? Or can she waive the guys responsibilty if he wants an abortion? Flipside, guy can afford to raise baby, wants it even if mother doesn't, she can still kill it?
  • #154
    !
    Just for fun. In Roe vrs Wade, under the thirteenth amendmant. When women are compelled to carry and bear children they are subjected to involuntary servitude which is in voilation of the thirteenth amendment. I wonder if this can also be applied when it comes to Joe Shmoe NOT wanting baby while Jane DOES?
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post