Featured Editorial in Christianity Today says: "Trump Should Be Removed from Office"

Here is the link you asked for for one of your earlier misrepresentations.

You make a habit of it, jumping from one extreme to another while ignoring what is ACTUALLY said.

You may have to click back in the conversation using the post links. But it is there.

you choose a certain way to live and your intended is all for it as she makes obvious

your beliefs make sense to you but they do not equate with responsibility

you will find out that you cannot opt out of the country you came from or the one you wish to live in

remember that I said that when it happens

no threat

just common sense

How many babies have the GOP saved so far?

Just a lazy tactic Susanna. Also very silly to want a number. Wouldn't ONE living baby saved be enough for you?

Planned Parenthood Sues Arizona Because Its Pro-Life Laws Have Saved Too Many Babies From Abortion
STATE MICAIAH BILGER APR 12, 2019 | 4:58PM PHOENIX, ARIZONA




The abortion giant Planned Parenthood just filed a massive new lawsuit against a series of pro-life Arizona laws that are saving unborn babies from abortion.

KJZZ Radio News reports Planned Parenthood Arizona filed the lawsuit Thursday, arguing that the abortion restrictions are unconstitutional.
The state laws that Planned Parenthood is challenging protect women’s safety as well as unborn babies’ lives.
One law requires that doctors perform abortions rather than less qualified medical staff, and another requires that a doctor meets with the patient in-person at least 24 hours prior to the abortion to receive information about the abortion, including risks and alternatives, assess any possible medical problems and answer questions. The third law requires that abortion facilities give women abortion drugs in-person rather than via a webcam.
Bryan Howard, president of the Arizona branch of Planned Parenthood, claimed the laws are “intrusive” and “medically unnecessary,” according to the Arizona Republic.
“For more than a decade, Arizona women have suffered a sustained, multi-front attack on their constitutional right to reproductive health care, led by anti-choice activist groups and their allies in Arizona state government,” the lawsuit states.
But pro-life advocates contend that the laws do not hurt women, they just hurt the abortion industry. Cathi Herrod, president of the pro-life Center for Arizona Policy, told the local news that the lawsuit shows how the abortion industry puts “abortion over women’s health and safety.”
“All three laws are vital to ensuring women considering an abortion are able to make an informed choice,” Herrod told the Republic in an email. “We anticipate the state will mount a vigorous defense of these laws.”
These laws help protect unborn babies from abortion, and the abortion industry knows it. Studies have found that when women receive informed consent, such as the ability to see the ultrasound images of their unborn baby, they are more likely to choose life.
About half of all states have a waiting period of some kind, ranging from 24 hours to 72 hours between informed consent and the abortion. These waiting periods help ensure that women have time to consider the information and that they are not pressured into aborting their unborn babies.

Digest some more Susanna:Studies Show Pro-Life Laws are Effective in Saving Babies From Abortion
NATIONAL MICHAEL NEW, PH.D. APR 17, 2019 | 3:11PM WASHINGTON, DC


On NRO yesterday, Kyle Blanchette and Robert VerBruggen both made strong arguments that abortion restrictions can reduce abortion rates.

I have noted on NRO in the past that pro-life gains in the court of public opinion have forced our ideological opponents to change their strategy. Instead of arguing that pro-lifers are philosophically wrong, supporters of legal abortion often argue that our policies are ineffective. They frequently cite studies claiming to show that pro-life laws are ineffective and suggest that pro-lifers should support more-generous spending on welfare, health care, or contraception as a strategy to reduce abortion rates.
In reality, there is a substantial body of academic research demonstrating that the incidence of abortion is sensitive to its legal status. The best study on this subject was published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2004, specifically analyzing Eastern-European countries after the fall of Communism. Some countries, such as Romania, liberalized their abortion laws while others, such as Poland, instituted legal protections for the unborn. The study held constant a range of economic and demographic variables and found that modest abortion restrictions reduced abortion rates by 25 percent. Stronger limits had an even larger effect.
That said, the new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study, which purports to show that pro-life parental-involvement laws are having a diminished impact in recent years, is interesting. I have a few thoughts about the findings. First, the overall abortion rate has fallen by 50 percent since 1980, but the abortion rate among minors (ages 15-17) has fallen by more than 80 percent over the same time period. It is reasonable to think that parental-involvement laws might have less of an effect as the incidence of abortion among minors goes down.

There are other factors as well. A preliminary reading of the study finds that the authors may have not considered the impact of other types of state-level pro-life laws. Additionally, greater availability of the morning-after pill might be reducing the effect of parental-involvement laws. Also, the only three states where parental-involvement laws took effect after 2010 are Illinois, Alaska, and New Hampshire. These states are not socially conservative, and it is possible that judges in these states might be more willing to approve judicial-bypass requests from minors seeking abortions. Finally, these three most recent laws are parental-notice laws, not parental-consent laws. Even though the NBER study did not find that parental-consent laws had a larger impact than parental-notice laws, this is still a topic worthy of further analysis.
This new study opens up some interesting avenues for future research, but it should not detract from the substantial body of peer-reviewed research indicating that pro-life laws reduce abortion rates. In fact, the NBER study cites 16 studies analyzing data from a range of states and years, showing that parental-involvement laws reduce the incidence of abortion among minors. There is a consensus that the federal Hyde Amendment saves thousands of lives each year, and a 2009 Guttmacher literature review noted that the vast majority of studies analyzing state-level public-funding limits found that these laws also lower abortion rates. The evidence is clear that protective laws will continue to save unborn children.
LifeNews Note: Michael J. New is an Associate Professor of Economics at Ave Maria University and an Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He is a former political science professor at the University of Michigan–Dearborn and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is a fellow at Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

More....

States Have Passed 51 Pro-Life Laws This Year Saving Babies From Abortions
NATIONAL STEVEN ERTELT JUL 1, 2015 | 10:34AM WASHINGTON, DC


States across the United States have already passed 51 pro-life laws saving unborn babies from abortion — which is more than all of the pro-life laws all states passed throughout the entirety of 2014.

This information comes from a new report from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization formerly affiliated with the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
“So far this year, states have enacted 51 new abortion restrictions; this brings the number of restrictions enacted since 2010 to 282. Although only about a dozen states remain in session as of July 1, these states may well enact additional restrictions before the end of the year,’ Guttmacher said. “Following the recent pattern of increased restrictions in odd-numbered years (largely because not all legislatures are in session in even-numbered years), states have enacted more restrictions during the first half of this year than during all of last year.
The trend of the number of new pro-life laws on abortion is down over the last few years — not because of lack of support for such laws in state legislatures but because some states have passed most all of the pro-life laws allowed under Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court that few potential pro-life laws remain until the high court either allows additional laws or overturns Roe.
Guttmacher acknowledges that the Supreme Court will likely hear one or two abortion cases in the next year or so that could open the floodgates for new laws — such as requiring abortion practitioners to have admitting privileges, new regulations that have shut down abortion clinics that can’t protect women’s health, or bans on abortions like the 20-week abortion ban or the dismemberment abortion ban.

“Even as states continue to pass new abortion restrictions, the Supreme Court is poised to hear one, and maybe two, major abortion cases in the coming year. The Court might take a case challenging a 2013 Texas law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital,” Guttmacher said. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law in May. In June, the Supreme Court granted a request for an emergency stay, blocking enforcement of the provisions. Abortion rights supporters are widely expected to file a full appeal to the Supreme Court in the coming months.”
“Although states have adopted a wide range of restrictions so far this year, much of the attention has focused on four areas: waiting periods, abortions after the first trimester, medication abortion and TRAP provisions. Even though most action on these issues follows recent trends, some states have charted some new directions that may well serve as models for other states going forward,” the pro-abortion group added.
One of the types of new laws states are passing involve longer waiting periods before an abortion so women have a chance to find abortion alternatives. The 72-hour waiting period in Missouri, for example, has already saved 200 babies from abortion.

More....

662 Babies Saved From Abortions in Wisconsin After Planned Parenthood Funding Cut, Pro-Life Laws
STATE STEVEN ERTELT AUG 26, 2015 | 10:34AM WASHINGTON, DC



The Wisconsin health department released new abortion numbers today and they provide additional evidence that cutting taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood and enacting additional pro-life laws saves unborn babies from abortion. Specifically, 662 babies were saved from abortions in the latest year for which abortion data is available compared with the year before.

The newly released Department of Health Services Reported Induced Abortions in Wisconsin report shows there were 6,462 abortions performed in 2013 and 5,800 in 2014.
Those numbers come three years after pro-life Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill to cut taxpayer funding to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
In 2013, Gov. Walker signed an ultrasound bill (Senate Bill 206, also known as Sonya’s Law) that ensures that women seeking abortions are given the opportunity to see their unborn children through ultrasound. The legislation also requires abortionists to have admitting privileges within thirty miles of their facility. This is the kind of pro-woman, pro-life bill that not only has proven to save the lives of unborn babies, but it has closed down abortion clinics that can’t comply with basic health and safety requirements. Sure enough, abortion centers in Wisconsin closed down after Walker signed the bill into law.
Wisconsin Right to Life officials tell LifeNews.com that those pro-life laws have had a direct impact on reducing abortions and saving lives.
“As the trend of the steep abortion decline in Wisconsin continues, Wisconsin Right to Life is again taking the lead in ensuring women and children have a chance at celebrating the gift of life,” shared Heather Weininger, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “The 2014 released abortion numbers reveal there were 662 fewer abortions in 2014 than in 2013. This represents a 10% decrease in one year, and many lives saved from the pain of abortion!”
She said another pro-life law Walker signed will further reduce abortions because it bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because unborn babies are capable of feeling intense pain from the abortions. The pro-life advocate said the new state figures show 83 abortions were performed after the fifth month of pregnancy (when an unborn child is capable of feeling pain)

“Each woman who spares herself and her unborn baby from the pain of abortion is bringing great joy to those of us who work to change hearts and minds on the right to life,” continued Weininger. “We are proud that during this legislative session, Wisconsin Right to Life took the lead in promoting the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and as we can see from the numbers from 2014, another 83 babies could have been saved. Wisconsin Right to Life will continue its multi-faceted programs to fuel the abortion decline so that even more unborn babies will have a chance at life.”
According to the new report, the number of abortions performed on unmarried women dropped to 77% from 88.7% in 2013 while the number of abortions on black babies climbed to 26 percent of all abortions and abortions on Hispanic babies rose 2 percent to 11 percent of all abortions.
Some 19 percent of all abortions involved the dangerous RU 486 abortion pill that has killed dozens of women worldwide and injured thousands.

I can go on and on. Maybe you should get your facts from other than the MSM or Google results that would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

I never said or implied that the rich should pay for everything. There is no chance that would work. I am however in favor of a tiered tax system. Let me explain. I hope that you have the attention span because as an only child I have spent far more time reading encyclopedias and history books than playing with other children. Thus I never got interested in any sport that didn't have wheels or an engine.

Throughout history the internal decline of a society has mainly been due to the top 5 causes.
The first, we nearly have conquered for the time being. Since the original topic was economics I'll start there. The wall street crash of 1929 was the worst, avoidable internal problem ever since the American Civil War. The crash was followed by the Dust Bowl. The only solution to put America back to work quickly was the New Deal. which was admittedly a comprise between Capitolism and Socialism. I put America back on it's feet and the taxes collected from the New Deal had a positive effect on the overall economy. People started spending money again. The manufacturers sold more durable goods like radios and cars and unforeseen by most it saved us from the worst evil ever seen Nazi Fascism. If not for the New Deal factories would have floundered. We would not have had a skilled enough upwardly mobile work force to build the Ships, tanks. guns, clothing, canned food and everything that the free world in crisis needed to win. It took more tha boots on the ground to defeat the coalitions we were up against and western Europe was in dire trouble.

After the war prosperity rose for the average working class person to levels never seen before. So did the national debt. I think that as a nation we are now devolving as automakers, ship builders and high paying factory are declining and the cost of living increases faster than pay. Do you think that Americans over all will accept this decline much longer without a fight? While the rich continue getting richer at staggering rates? We expect public works like roads, schools, sewage and water treatment plants as public services. Privatized franchises are the brain child of economic fascists'. We need to make a sharp turn around in the national debt as well. The general population is up to it's neck in debt. Unless we go back to raising the taxes of those who can afford to have the raised, right or wrong you have the makings of another revolution brewing. Don't take this as a threat, it's a warning do you think that American will ever settle for master/servant roles again. If you want to stop the liberals take care of the working class better. They expect better and don't forget they have guns too!

Well, you know how it is, I’m just a lazy, silly bum. Thanks for starting your reply with an ad hominem attack.

Every life saved is a good thing.

But my question was as to what the GOP has done.

Your posts are describing several contributors to the important, child saving work, and saving children isn’t just something the GOP can claim ownership to.

It’s not honest when GOP politicians are trying to make it look like that the GOP is the only ones caring for children’s lives.

It’s the churches, the congregations, the non governmental organizations, activists, etc who’s the ones to honor for the anti abortion movement and the ongoing ban of abortion. The GOP trying to take credit for this is speaking volumes about the pickpocketing politics of the GOP.

The GOP really knows how to skim the cream of other people’s labor.

Unfortunately this scam works well because of the left leaning idiots in the Democratic Party who has stolen the Democratic party.

Both parties are now so flawed that we need something new.

Yes, forgetting the working class is the recipe for destabilizing society. You can see how that works on the streets.

Putting God first, family values, decent income, education, treating veterans better, now this would for a start work much better for a prospering society.

Please stop playing the poor victim in political threads. It’s unbecoming.

And yes. Every one of those lifesaving measures are because of Republican legislation. Not a SINGLE one was from Democrats. In fact, on a state, and federal level, Democrats have many times blocked “born alive” bills, which state that if a baby survives the attempted murder by abortion, she must be granted medical attention.

That’s what you are voting against when you abstain, vote 3rd party, or vote Democrat.
Human baby lives are literally at stake.

How can you, a veteran, be ignorant of the fact that President Trump has been awesome for vets, and cleaning up how atrocious Obama and the Democrats treated vets!?

I guess it should be pointed out that the context of the 1984 Party is to reject what the eyes are actually seeing, and what the ears are actually hearing. The context of Donald Trump's statement is to mistrust what the press are telling you, whether on TV or in paper. It today's world, the press have largely been hijacked by the 1984 Party.

There is no vote against there is only a vote for. That's the flaw in the system. How can we vote against unregulated capitolism, privatization of public works, political divisiveness, Socialism, abortion and homoism at the same time? That choice is not on the ballot!

He has not been awesome for vets. Vets are treated as poorly as before. There’s nothing new under the sun. Are you living under some rock?

Calling you out on your dubious debate technique is not playing the victim. Stop slinging mud when you’re responding and you might will end up in debates with better quality.

1984 party, Reagan & Bush? Is there an honest, unbiassed, Nationally syndicated news media still in business?