MI veto-proof ‘rape insurance’ close to becoming law w/ 4.2% voter approval

You go to the state and ask if you can have your extra small cockcozy removed so you can have sex.


in triplicate please
 
it sure would decrease abortion like you pretend to be so concerned about.

You see a women doesn't get pregnant by herself
 
to protect these poor zygotes from being aborted all you have to do is COMPLETELY control sperm and where it goes.


hell your dick is just hanging our there asking to be manipulated huh
 
Cave Johnson said:
Libertarians don't hold a unified stance on abortion. It's not part of the platform one way or another.
Click to expand...

This is what I read from the Libertarian platform:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Yet STY seems to think it's stupid not to pay for this so-called insurance because the govt. won't protect you if you become a crime victim, i.e. "...bitch about the government not protecting her if she should ever become one. then probably has the temerity to suggest that people who DO anticipate being a victim and prepare for it 'live in all consuming fear' ..."

So it sounds to me like he's pro-rape insurance.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...I'm in neither.....
Click to expand...

Bingo. It passed without being voted on by the people of MI. A special-interest group pushed it through by getting signatures. "...the group Michigan Right to Life had enough signature for the legislature to take up the measure."

Explain how this isn't the tyranny of the minority cons are always sobbing about.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes you are, so you may fire when ready, Mr. Gridley, and I'll eviscerate you after you answer.
Click to expand...
i realize that 'i told you so' and other remarks are tough to take when you've had your own shit used against you, but for decades we've had to endure the idiocy of the left and the right talk about how all rights are regulated, so bitching about another 'right' being regulated is hypocritical. now eviscerate that shit, k?
 
christiefan915 said:
Bingo. It passed without being voted on by the people of MI. A special-interest group pushed it through by getting signatures. "...the group Michigan Right to Life had enough signature for the legislature to take up the measure."

Explain how this isn't the tyranny of the minority cons are always sobbing about.
Click to expand...


oh they fight for the tyranny of the minority.

its the will of the majority they hate
 
NOVA said:
The difference is insurance paid for by the taxpayers and private insurance which is what they sound like they are trying to control...

"The initiative would require that all health plans — not just plans under the Affordable Care Act — be stripped of any abortion coverage"

Its a little ambiguous in the article....taxpayers should have a right to dictate coverage THEY pay for....but to control private coverage is likely un-constitutional.
Click to expand...

You don't often get a thanks from me, bravs. Savor this victory. :D
 
christiefan915 said:
Bingo. It passed without being voted on by the people of MI. A special-interest group pushed it through by getting signatures. "...the group Michigan Right to Life had enough signature for the legislature to take up the measure."

Explain how this isn't the tyranny of the minority cons are always sobbing about.
Click to expand...

1) it was passed by a procedure established in our constitution
2) it was passed by a majority of our democratically elected congressmen in both houses.....it is only prevented that the veto of one man cannot keep it from becoming law....
3) it was the 24th state to pass the same law

just exactly how are you defining "tyranny of the minority"
 
christiefan915 said:
And what you have isn't taking away your rights.
Click to expand...

is there a right to have a pool of insurance purchasers pay for your abortion even if they find it objectionable?.......isn't that sort of a "tyranny of the minority"?........I suppose you might argue a parallel if you found a pool of insurance purchasers who found it objectionable to patch up someone who had been beaten.....is that your argument?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top