Dec 7, 2019
D7 between Osijek and Beli Manastir, Osijek-Baranja County, Croatia by Gabrijela Jauch
Loading...
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Argentina
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United Kingdom
seen from New Zealand
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from New Zealand
D7 between Osijek and Beli Manastir, Osijek-Baranja County, Croatia by Gabrijela Jauch
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
I just called my Congressman and asked that he vote against HR 7, an anti-abortion bill that would make it harder for low-income people to safely end an unwanted pregnancy.Â
We saw literally millions of people stand up last weekend for women's rights, and we have to make sure Congress knows how serious we are and that we cannot be ignored. We are not going away. We will march, protest, write letters, make phone calls, until our demands for justice are met.
Join me by calling your Representative today! You can find their contact info at house.gov and read more about HR 7 here.Â
Pro-birth, not pro-life. That's what it is. If you haven't heard, the House passed HR 7, which bars women from using health insurance to pay for abortions. This obviously prohibits many women from being able to get an abortion. These Republicans do not care about life or livelihood. They don't care about the women who will suffer, or their family members and friends who will need to help. They especially don't care about the children they are forcing into the world. If a woman wants an abortion, it is for a reason. If a woman can't afford raising a child, so they want an abortion, now they can't have one. This family will most likely rely on government services, which, as we know, the Republicans want to make harder to get/lessen them. Weird that they don't mind government regulation and stepping in for women's bodies, but helping people is an issue. Anyway. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she may want an abortion. If she can't have one, she may resent the child and/or herself. This can lead to horrible consequences for them both. If a woman is left by the father, and doesn't have family or friends to help, she may not feel like she can raise the child. If a woman may not live through giving birth, she may understandably not want to give birth. Not being able to afford it should not stop her. Religious views should not stop her. Regardless of the reason a woman has, no one can tell her that she has to bring a person into the world. This will mostly hurt poorer women. Growing up in poverty leaves children disadvantaged, more likely to commit crimes, less likely to have higher paying salaries, and less likely to get higher education. Perhaps the mother is young and wanted to get an education, but now can't because she has to care for her child. This will also affect the child's chances of success. This can also lead to higher crime rates, unemployment rates, and poverty rates nationwide, all of which are issues. Let's say the mother puts the child up for adoption. The orphanage and foster system has huge impacts on children's development, especially their stress responses. Children in these systems usually have heightened stress responses (google cortisol response foster care or orphanage). These systems are abused and also lead to abuse, children moving houses constantly, and children developing serious and lifelong problems. This also would have adverse psychological consequences for the mother who had to give up their child. Republicans are not pro-life; they don't care about the lives of those affected. They don't care that an unwanted child will most likely face adversity throughout their life. They aren't willing to help the mothers who they are forcing to give birth raise the child they are forcing into the world. In fact, they want to cut government assistance and make access to programs harder. They are pro-push a baby out, and absolutely do not care what happens to that baby after.
Sent this to a friend. Please find those links and read those texts down to the smallest and finest print and then hold onto your whetstone with white knuckles and steel yourself for a fucking RRRIOT
House Passes Bill Reducing Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
House Passes Bill Reducing Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
on 8 February, 2017 at 07:00
Faith and Freedom with Liberty Counselâs Holly Meade and BarbWire Founder Matt Barber⌠An 11-minute weekday radio program discussing hot topics in the area of religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the family.
http://barbwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ff_02-08-17_final.mp3
The House recently passed HR 7, which is known as âNo taxpayer Funding forâŚ
View On WordPress
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
New Post has been published on https://www.wittybitches.com/2017/01/federal-abortion-funding-ban-hr-7/
Defunding abortion providers won't save babies. But it will kill women
.Congress moves to pass HR 7, which will permanently ban federal funding for abortion providers. Hereâs what you need to know.
Story No. 5: Dr. Diane from Maryland
Today the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 7, the âNo Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017.â If passed, the bill would permanently deny abortion coverage to anyone reliant on health care coverage through the federal government (military and military dependents, incarcerated women, indigenous communities, Medicaid recipients, and employees of the federal government among others).Â
--
Jackie* and her husband Brad* were excited about being pregnant with their third child, so they were devastated to learn on a 20-week ultrasound that their baby had a significant brain abnormality that would have resulted in nearly constant seizures, profound disability, and likely very early death. Because they wanted to spare their child a brief lifetime of pain, they decided on abortion. They were completely shocked to learn that their insurance would not cover Jackieâs procedure because she is a federal employee. I remember holding her hand as she cried about how cruel it was to have to birth a baby that would suffer and die, all because the insurance that covered the rest of her medical care would not cover abortion in cases of fetal anomaly.
Jackie and Brad struggled to come up with the thousands of dollars needed to have the procedure in the hospital, and after three weeks of trying to collect the money, they gave up. Dejected, they decided to just wait for their baby to be born or to die in utero. Many weeks later, Jackie stopped feeling fetal movement, and an ultrasound confirmed that her baby had died. Her only option at that point was to labor and deliver her dead daughter. Had she been able to receive an abortion when she needed one, she could have had a brief outpatient procedure and been spared the grief of going through a delivery, knowing she wouldnât be taking a baby home afterwards.
Itâs a special kind of cruelty to force loving parents into a situation in which they must wait for a baby to die in utero, then spend days in the hospital to deliver. HR 7 would guarantee that more loving parents like Jackie and Brad must do exactly that.
*Names changed
Expectant Mom Argues New Abortion Legislation Hurts Families
Yesterday, my op-ed on HR 7 â the anti-choice bill that would further limit insurance coverage for abortion â was published on Affect Magazine. In the piece, I briefly mention my financial concerns as an expectant mom and what this pregnancy would have meant for me and Dick five years ago. Here's an excerpt:
While reproductive rights advocates were celebrating the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives decided last Thursday to pass a bill that would further limit insurance coverage for abortion care.
As an expectant mother, I am stressed daily over the impending costs of raising a family my partner and I honestly didnât intend. While our unborn child is a welcomed blessing, we are also teetering on financial security and living under one solid salaryâand a fluctuating freelance one at that. But I was able to make the decision to carry this pregnancy to term because my partner and I are privileged to have secure housing, secure food and a strong support system. If we were faced with this pregnancy five years ago, it would be a completely different situation. I would have instead chosen abortion because we in no way could afford the astronomical costs raising a family demands. We would have plunged further into economic instability.
Itâs clear that the Republicans who voted this bill through donât really care about family planning, or family welfare, for that matter. All House Republicans need to do is take even the slightest look at the large number of women and children struggling with finding food, clothing, shelter, stable housing, education and more for the children they do have.
Head over to Affect to read the rest.