John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, that to be clear that the night of the Republican victory in midterm elections, America has seen you cry like a baby and, again, appeared with lucciconi in the eye during the speech on the State of 'Union when Obama recalled how he got there, wash the floor, starting from the bars of his father, the "softie", in short, he was able, for a moment, the Republicans seem to have a little' better than what are, in contrast, showed his true face.
And not alone. With him, even his "cronies" of the party, reminding the country, in their view that women have less of the popular Glock came up with one of the most vulgar bills that you could ever imagine. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, in effect, a measure to prohibit coverage of abortion costs with federal funds, would not in itself so surprising (disappointing but not surprising) given the enormous expenditure of energy and money that the Republicans are putting in place to remove the health care reform pushed through by Obama.
What, however, is not only surprising but shocking and disturbing is that the measure contains a paragraph that essentially "sees" where, for the current law, the costs are covered and abortion, that is, when the pregnancy results from a rape or incest. Now those jokers Republicans, who surpasses even Fred Flintstone as a modern and public spirit, have "strong" cases in which one can speak of "rape," virtually reduced to about 70%.
The only violence recognized as valid for the purposes of health coverage (if the victim is able to prove it and convince everyone to leave without doubt) is that exerted by force. That is to say, if a woman is drugged or forced sexual abuse because "psychologically", can not even complain because according to "John tear easy" it is not rape but a hobby like any other.
The other case in which the Speaker of the House and classmates recognize the coverage of abortion is that of a child victim of incest. Up to 17 years, 11 months and 29 days. Then, at 18, the victim of incest will automatically stop being a victim and becomes something else, something that certainly the Republicans do not care.
And please, do not be fooled by the tears that John Boehner will pay when trying to explain that they do not do it because they are devoid of any sense of civic duty and moral, but they do so because they are the champions of human life. Of human life created by an act of violence that many women could not succeed, rightly, to accept.
Of that life are defenders. Not those that are destroyed every day with a Glock. Those lives are "minor." As "minor" are the lives of children, the second after they are born, for the same Republicans are no better than 'nothing' cause are not entitled to health with such determination that assistance are trying to erase.
It is perhaps worth remembering, just as an example, that up to Obama before the adoption of reform, insurance (for those that we had) could refuse coverage to children even if sick from asthma. Today, thanks to that reform can not do that anymore. There 's hope that if the measure should never have been signed by Obama, opposed the president's veto and to clarify, perhaps even intervening on limiting gun ownership as we're waiting, that women are worth much more than a Glock , if only because life can only remove it.
The women create the life, but no one can and should force them to do so against their will. 
And not alone. With him, even his "cronies" of the party, reminding the country, in their view that women have less of the popular Glock came up with one of the most vulgar bills that you could ever imagine. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, in effect, a measure to prohibit coverage of abortion costs with federal funds, would not in itself so surprising (disappointing but not surprising) given the enormous expenditure of energy and money that the Republicans are putting in place to remove the health care reform pushed through by Obama.
What, however, is not only surprising but shocking and disturbing is that the measure contains a paragraph that essentially "sees" where, for the current law, the costs are covered and abortion, that is, when the pregnancy results from a rape or incest. Now those jokers Republicans, who surpasses even Fred Flintstone as a modern and public spirit, have "strong" cases in which one can speak of "rape," virtually reduced to about 70%.
The only violence recognized as valid for the purposes of health coverage (if the victim is able to prove it and convince everyone to leave without doubt) is that exerted by force. That is to say, if a woman is drugged or forced sexual abuse because "psychologically", can not even complain because according to "John tear easy" it is not rape but a hobby like any other.
The other case in which the Speaker of the House and classmates recognize the coverage of abortion is that of a child victim of incest. Up to 17 years, 11 months and 29 days. Then, at 18, the victim of incest will automatically stop being a victim and becomes something else, something that certainly the Republicans do not care.
And please, do not be fooled by the tears that John Boehner will pay when trying to explain that they do not do it because they are devoid of any sense of civic duty and moral, but they do so because they are the champions of human life. Of human life created by an act of violence that many women could not succeed, rightly, to accept.
Of that life are defenders. Not those that are destroyed every day with a Glock. Those lives are "minor." As "minor" are the lives of children, the second after they are born, for the same Republicans are no better than 'nothing' cause are not entitled to health with such determination that assistance are trying to erase.
It is perhaps worth remembering, just as an example, that up to Obama before the adoption of reform, insurance (for those that we had) could refuse coverage to children even if sick from asthma. Today, thanks to that reform can not do that anymore. There 's hope that if the measure should never have been signed by Obama, opposed the president's veto and to clarify, perhaps even intervening on limiting gun ownership as we're waiting, that women are worth much more than a Glock , if only because life can only remove it.
The women create the life, but no one can and should force them to do so against their will.
No comments:
Post a Comment