I read the bill, Freeman. My questions are:

What are the emergency contraceptives? RU486, or mifepristone is something that can cause an abortion after contraception.

Does the bill allow any devices or medicines that can cause a post conception abortion? (Yes, I know that is double spoken, but I hope you can understand what I mean.)

If there are no such meds or devices, it is FOOLISH to have the Republicans contest this bill.

Emergency contraceptives block fertilization or ovulation (not implantation if that concerns you); RU-486 is an abortion pill.

Why would they not support contraceptives that don't end pregnancies?

Answer: because their agenda is much more social than concern about the fetus ...

I think that is called "asked and answered" in legal circles...

bbauska wrote:That is the great thing of the repeal of Roe v Wade. The states can make their own decisions on what is allowed, and what is not. The medical profession (which is state regulated) would have the regulations setting it forth from the state for requirements.

So you think State should be decided the definition of danger to health? Surely that is a medical judgement and would be universal?

bbauska wrote:I read the bill, Freeman. My questions are:

What are the emergency contraceptives? RU486, or mifepristone is something that can cause an abortion after contraception.

Does the bill allow any devices or medicines that can cause a post conception abortion? (Yes, I know that is double spoken, but I hope you can understand what I mean.)

If there are no such meds or devices, it is FOOLISH to have the Republicans contest this bill.

The "morning after pill" is not an abortifacient. It is a heavy dose of the same kids of active ingredients as the contraceptive pill.

This is because conception doesn't usually happen at the same time as the sex. It can take several days for sperm to reach an egg.

As long as contraception has not occurred, I am fine with anything device that prevents contraception. After that it is an entirely different situation.

That being said, I, being a morally conservative Libertarian, think that the Government should NOT be involved financially, legally or any other way. It is an issue between the man, woman and their God or lack thereof.

If Government would be out of the issue, I would have no issue with them.

bbauska wrote:As long as contraception has not occurred, I am fine with anything device that prevents contraception. After that it is an entirely different situation.

That being said, I, being a morally conservative Libertarian, think that the Government should NOT be involved financially, legally or any other way. It is an issue between the man, woman and their God or lack thereof.

If Government would be out of the issue, I would have no issue with them.

So on that basis, abortion should be legal, but not paid for out of public money?

If they choose the willful death of their child, that is on the mother. I just think the Government should not condone such infanticide.

As much as it pains me to see babies killed for the convenience of the mother (and that is MOST of abortions, as I have said before), people need to answer to God for their actions. It is something that I will be doing, along with everyone else.

There is only one way to be blameless in the sight of the Lord.