I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
For someone who has such stringent standards for other people's posts, your own knowledge base is woefully skimpy. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.
while it is true that the Hyde Amendment does prohibit federal funds for abortions (except in rare cases) it is not as simple as some make it out to be. This article is old so you can probably assume the figures are higher now but it explains it well.
From the article:
"Remember that most indirect taxpayer financing of abortions comes in the form of implicitly subsidized discounts on the cost of abortions that may range from 50 cents on the dollar (in the case of taxpayers with high marginal tax rates who use an employer-provided health plan to pay for their abortion) to only pennies on the dollar. But the magnitude of taxpayer subsidies can be perhaps better assessed by thinking in terms of abortion-equivalents. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, it is as if taxpayers pay the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers .
For anyone who previously supposed that federally financed abortions were limited to the 331 publicly reported for Medicaid, the contrast between reality and the far more limited view we've had of reality to date is likely to be staggering. The Hyde Amendment has actually achieved a very great deal in terms of limiting direct payment for abortions. But if we're really serious about the proposition that federal taxpayers should not be liable for any abortions except to save the life of the mother or cases of rape or incest, it should be obvious that there is plenty more work to be done.”
Many more states are restricting abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, or the life of the mother. Since the tax reform bill of 2017, many charitable contributions are no longer tax deductible, so speculation that tax payers are subsidizing abortion goes away. I find it laughable that the author thinks Medicare is paying for abortions. Very few people of child-bearing age receive Medicare.
I have trouble relying on an article that uses inflammatory terms like mendacious or histrionic. To quote another poster here, it reveals bias.
I did NOT claim that some people don't have bias... where did you get that?
Your question was interpreted as a suggestion... not that you were asking how PP was funded or why those funds couldn't be reallocated. It seemed unlikely that you didn't know about restrictions on funding for abortion through PP. I thought this was covered in nursing school.
I will apologize. I misunderstood your ignorance of the law and the way PP functions and is funded as an actual suggestion rather than as a question. Shame on me. I assumed that a health professional would know about the Hyde Amendment and that made the question appear as simply a manner of speaking.
No, I describe it as being unwilling to take responsibility for your deliberate ignorance.
The liberal condescending attitude in here today is unbelievable. As if you liberal Google PhDs have some great knowledge of everything discussed here. Which we have seen time and time again you don't.
Many more states are restricting abortions, even in cases of rape or incest, or the life of the mother. Since the tax reform bill of 2017, many charitable contributions are no longer tax deductible, so speculation that tax payers are subsidizing abortion goes away. I find it laughable that the author thinks Medicare is paying for abortions. Very few people of child-bearing age receive Medicare.
I have trouble relying on an article that uses inflammatory terms like mendacious or histrionic. To quote another poster here, it reveals bias.
The last year of record was 2020 and there were ~620,000 abortions in the US. It really doesn't sound like getting one is too much of a problem. You yourself stated you give PP money so I guess other people still do to. Total private donations were $510 million in 2019-20. I would agree that the only people getting abortions on Medicare are the disabled but that was not really the point of the article. If you disagree with anything in the article you are free to post what you think is not accurate.
Would you describe not providing education or information after attempting to insult a person's intelligence, lazy or disingenuous?
That is the MO for most liberals on these threads, they don't really want to have a conversation. If they know, or perceive that one might be a Republican/conservative they just what to argue and if you haven't said too much they can rebut they just either call you names, deflect, or put words in your mouth and then argue those words. Nothing changes here much.
This CDC report shows increasing incidence of sexual violence and forced sex among teenage girls. The report is titled "Youth Risk and Behavior Study" and is available on the CDC website.
Of particular interest are the data on forced sex and sexual violence.
The last year of record was 2020 and there were ~620,000 abortions in the US. It really doesn't sound like getting one is too much of a problem. You yourself stated you give PP money so I guess other people still do to. Total private donations were $510 million in 2019-20. I would agree that the only people getting abortions on Medicare are the disabled but that was not really the point of the article. If you disagree with anything in the article you are free to post what you think is not accurate.
Since the Dobbs decision, I believe getting an abortion has become more of a problem.
Thank you for allowing me to disagree with the article you posted, I guess. I think much of the info is out of date, as I said in a previous post. I think the author throws around a lot of figures, and makes a lot of suppositions and then presents his hypothesis as fact. No thanks.
Roitrn
618 Posts
I asked for a quote, not an explanation. Did you not understand? It's progress that you are asking and not assuming.