Harris is Against Religious Exemptions Regarding Abortions
In other words, Catholic hospitals would have to perform abortions.
I hate hyperbole.
I am not being hyperbolic when I say our religious freedoms are in danger if VP Kamala Harris takes the White House.
Harris doesn’t want religious exemptions for abortions.
In other words, Catholic hospitals would have to perform abortions.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Abortion is not a fundamental right.
What a ghoul. Seriously. This woman makes me sick. Somehow, her tongue doesn’t get twisted when she’s talking about abortion:
REPORTER: What concessions would be on the table? Religious exemptions, for example? Is that something that you would consider?
HARRIS: I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.
REPORTER: To Republicans like, for example, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, who would back something like this on a democratic agenda if, in fact, Republicans control Congress. Would you offer them an olive branch or is that off the table? Is that not an option for you.
HARRIS: I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals because we can go on with a variety of scenarios. Let’s start with the fundamental fact. A basic freedom has been taken from the women of America, the freedom to make decisions about their own body. And that cannot be negotiable, which is that we need to put back in the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that is it.
Q: What concessions would you be willing to make on abortion?
Vice President Harris: More than 20 states now have Trump Abortion Bans, some with no exception for rape or incest. A basic freedom has been taken from the women of America. We need to put back in the protections of… pic.twitter.com/FsuXdfmnAG
— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) October 22, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
When I started working a co-worker was careful to avoid Catholic hospitals for maternity. If it’s the woman or the baby, they save the baby. “What would I do with a baby and no wife?”
Sorry, but this was NEVER true, but is a persistent anti-Catholic myth.
This isn’t the 1890s or the 1930s; there are virtually no instances where its an either/or situation at childbirth. A Catholic hospital WILL attempt to deliver the baby, even if its non-viable rather than chop it up like dogfood, but never ever would they kill the mother to protect the baby.
1960s
Either you or your imaginary friend were/are full of crap. Simple as that.
They would both be full of mierda! Nearly every Catholic hospital has always made exceptions for the health and safety of the mother, and especially for rape/incest. I can think of only a few exceptions, and most of those are were situations where OB/GYN were not in the hospital’s service lines and the patients referred out appropriately.
A faithful Catholic hospital would not allow it just for the mother’s “health and safety”. “Health and safety” is a wide-open door through which one can drive the proverbial Mack truck. There is almost no situation that a determined woman can’t find a doctor to define as endangering her “health and safety”.
Also a faithful Catholic hospital would not take the child’s legitimacy into account. A child conceived in unfortunate circumstances such as rape deserves to live no less than one conceived in a holy and loving marital relationship.
But a faithful Catholic hospital would also have no problem giving a mother whatever treatment she needs to save her life, even if it unfortunately puts her child’s life in extreme danger, and even if it’s sure to kill the child.
I worked for a Catholic hospital, twice, for extended periods of years and had a baby in one
Never happened
This is why Republicans might loose this election,
Republicans will lose because Kamala wants to force Catholic hospitals to perform baby murders? Weird take.
Not for Jr and his brother
Clown comment, bro.
“HARRIS: I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.”
Also Harris: I think we should force certain free citizens to work against their convictions to satisfy the desires of other citizens, and prosecute and jail them if they refuse to work for them, even though they could find other folks willing to do it elsewhere. Involuntary servitude.
Oh and what about the genetically unique human growing in the mother in question? They have no rights? Mom F’d around and found out. Give it up for adoption and stop being a moral idiot.
Also ” A basic freedom has been taken from the women of America, the freedom to make decisions about their own body. And that cannot be negotiable, which is that we need to put back in the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that is it.”
Wrong. RvW was bad law and a very bad precedent, one the Left wants to keep intact – that the courts can make law – it created law from the bench. Even notorious RBG said so. The Fed has no authority to make such law. This resides in the several States.
It is a brazen lie to claim: “A basic freedom has been taken from the women of America, the freedom to make decisions about their own body.” The baby’s genetic makeup is different from the mother’s, hence it is not “their own body”. This is one of the verbal tricks Leftists use ALL THE TIME, for just about EVERYTHING — because Leftists trust that their audience is ignorant. And in many cases they are right!
“… RvW was bad law and a very bad precedent, one the Left wants to keep intact…”
Actually no, they don’t want to keep RvW intact. they want to expand it by eliminating the “third trimester” limitation of RvW and make abortion available up to birth.
Murderer.
🤡
That may have been what your retarded co-worker thought but it’s total bullshit.
I keep wondering why Leftists are so gung-ho with destroying an unborn child, and doing so in a most barbaric way, by essentially pulling the limbs off the unborn child.
Accepting consequences for their behavior is anathema to leftists, and yes, they are happy to commit murder to avoid it.
And they will murder an innocent who has exhibited no behavior for which there could even be consequences. Babies in the womb are the most innocent, but the Democrats want to persecute them.
Because they get off on power. And butchering something innocent is the ultimate high for them.
It is often a literal child sacrifice.
Read Sally Field describe her illegal abortion in Tijuana.
She describes herself as poor with no choices or family support. She found out she was pregnant.
With assistance of a Doctor who was a family friend and her own mother she got the abortion.
Then she recounts “And fate, you know, something glorious outside of ourselves, whatever you believe, reached in, “…
“And a few months after that, I began auditions. I didn’t have an agent; I wasn’t really an actor. I’d been doing it in high school constantly. And I began auditioning. And by the end of that year, I was Gidget. I was the quintessential, all-American girl next door.”
Like Kamala accidentally said once, population control.
During the procedure, the doctor must also design and bake a cake.
After which, the OB will announce “You have a lovely, healthy non-binary individual!”
No religious exemptions? Does that apply elsewhere; drugs for a religious ceremony, exemptions from military service? Tough luck to the Amish and other religious minorities with similar views?
…’not when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom above what to do with your own body’. What if the so called ‘Father’ doesn’t wish to send the fruit of his labor to the Mother or ‘his’ children? Surely we don’t wish to burden this person with an 18 obligation under a form of forced servitude? Does ‘his’ bodily autonomy not count?
Note that ‘Father’ and ‘his’ are 95% just presumptions not proven with DNA. Surely Harris would at least be in favor of mandatory DNA test to confirm paternity BEFORE we issue a birth certificate or a CT seeks to order support? Since we seem to care so much about bodily autonomy.
“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.”
I can’t be forced to supply you a free bullhorn because you have freedom of speech, or give you a gun because you have the right to own one. You have no right to make me a slave. But that’s the Democrats go-to move, every time.
What if a Father wants to control his own body and not comply with the Draft?
Indeed.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Scalia, said there is no constitutional right to such exemptions. Congress is free to create such exemptions from federal laws, if it so chooses, and states are free to do the same with state laws if they choose, but Congress can’t force a state to make such exemptions from state law if it chooses not to.
Catholic hospitals will simply shut down and leave lots of urban areas without adequate medical care. Great idea Harris.
Catholic hospitals are about 15% of the total in the US. Something like 1 in 6 hospital beds are in Catholic Hospitals.
Abortion is a line not crossed.
This is only one way, one thought, one voice for this new world.
That’s the problem with someone having a “right” that requires delivery of that right by someone else.
What if every medical doctor in a region, regardless of his or her religious beliefs, believes that a birth control abortion of a fetus of 12 or more weeks is murder? Does the pregnant XX person in that region get to select which doctor or doctors have to weigh conscience vs. continued license to practice?
Correct. We don’t do this with any other constitutional right. For instance, buying a firearm is a constitutional right…as in, it’s an enumerated right. But, the government does not compel gun dealers to sell guns to everyone. In fact, in every state in the Union, gun dealers are given WIDE latitude to refuse service to people.
If it requires someone else to give something to you, it’s not a right. Under democrats, abortion would be an entitlement, or privilege, with others forced to provide it.
If I were a doctor and forced to give someone an abortion, I would then do a hysterectomy to prevent ever having to give that person an abortion again.
Women could then be prevented from making me a murderer more than once.
Which is why I am glad that I am not a doctor.
Technically, this is the difference between negative rights and positive rights. The Constitution enumerates (almost*) only negative rights. “You have the right to free speech in that the government cannot stop you when you are voluntarily making the speech.” Socialism “creates” positive rights: “You have a right to a job and a living wage, and if you can’t get one on your own, someone is required to give one to you.” “You have a right to health care, and if you have no money, health care workers must give it to you for free.” This is what kills societies, socialist governments, and (when the object becomes rationed because the government has promised way more than it can possibly deliver) ultimately kills the citizens themselves.
*(There is at least one positive right we haven’t been able to wash our hands of, and that’s the right to subpoena an unwilling third-party witness to testify,)
Would someone please explain to me how any Federal legislation could be legal, given SCOTUS says abortion is a state matter (other than a Constitutional amendment). I must be wrong, or the Republicans should have been pointing this out night-and-day since Roe v Wade was overturned, so this would be a much-reduced election issue now.
Nice federal funding & Medicaid certification your hospital has. Be a shame if anything happened to them.
IMO there’s not much above a zero chance of Congress passing Federal abortion statutes to set a particular timeline. If the legislation says 15 weeks then the delegations from States with more restrictive State statutes AND the delegations from States with far less restrictive State statutes will unite to oppose it.
That said Congress could do it and under our current understanding/interpretation of the limits of Federal ‘police power’ it would be Constitutional. FWIW the Dobbs decision did not declare that abortion was a purely State issue or that the Federal gov’t could not create a statute. Instead they overturned their prior decisions including Roe which overrode State statutes. By removing the impediment of Roe the State statutes went back into force.
“That said Congress could do it and under our current understanding/interpretation of the limits of Federal ‘police power’ it would be Constitutional.”
And that is the root cause of most of our problems today. An unconstrained, post-constitutional Federal
GovernmentLeviathan.You are preaching to the choir on this point. The Fed govt is way past anything the Founders intended in terms of size and scope. We got a good W in overturning Chevron ‘deference’ to agency rule making/interpretation. We got Bruen the year before that. Hopefully it won’t be long until Wickard goes down and with it a good deal of the progressive overreach.
There is no federal police power. States have a police power, the USA does not. But no police power is required here. There is a national abortion industry, people routinely cross state lines to purchase abortions, providers routinely provide abortions to customers from other states, so Congress can regulate that industry.
Simple. That never happened. SCOTUS never said any such thing. No matter how many times people here repeat it, it remains a lie.
Federal legislation regulating the national abortion industry would be constitutional, and would override any state law that contradicted it. And that works both ways; such federal law could protect a “right” to abortion despite state laws against it, or it could ban it despite state laws protecting it as a “right”.
The Ds are hell-bent on murdering innocents.
Monsters.
She is such a liar and moron. Continuing the “put back in the protections of Roe” line when SCOTUS never removed them. They just sent the abortion thing back to the states for them to decide which is quite correct. How she thinks they are going to do it at the federal level when SCOTUS said nope is a mystery. As for the sudden women’s bodies thing, she didn’t care much for body autonomy when she was trying to force everyone to get an untested experimental gene therapy. Very selective in this stuff.
“How she thinks they are going to do it at the federal level when SCOTUS said nope is a mystery.”
“But Joe did it all the time!”
Yes it did. That is why states can now ban abortions that Roe and Casey said they couldn’t.
That is not true. SCOTUS never said “nope”, and anyone who claims it did is not telling the truth.
This whole thing about federal abortion legislation is moot.
Dobbs said that there is nowhere in the Constitution to attach abortion. This would apply to an abortion ban as well as a general liberalization of abortion. The only place in the Constitution for abortion lies in the 10th amendment or a new amendment to the Constitution.
No, it didn’t say that at all. All it said is that the constitution doesn’t protect a purported right to abortion. It said not one word that would rule out federal legislation, either protecting abortion or banning it.