Mick Mulvaney Anti-Abortion Monster – BLACKMAILER?

It just occurred to me five hours after I wrote this post, that the Christian-right is BLACKMAILING our President. Did they force him to run for office because Putin gave them a video? This would explain why Trump is so angry at McCain, because, he and Sarah Palin were supposed to win, and, do away with abortion! Did Mueller discover this truth, and is afraid it will destroy our nation? Is this why the Christian-right is so eager to get Obamacare wiped out – because they read Mueller’s report. They want a victory for Jesus before they get – LOCKED UP! The evangelicals colluded with Putin!

This is the Monster that has been trying to destroy Obamacare because he is against abortion. He went to a Catholic college.  This monster will do much harm to millions of mothers and children in order to impress his Catholic buddies and the Pope. Their church is full of predators who prey on, and rape children.

My Puritan ancestors, who brought the Anti-Catholic religion to the New World, hated the Pope and Catholics. Pro-life was invented by Paul Weyrich to negate the racism of Bob Jones who would not allow mixed-race couples on his campus. Donald Trump a.k.a. Doomsday Bobo, has crossed the line in regards to Separation of Church and State.

This geeky looking troll is a Pussy Grabber of Old. The Catholic church has been preoccupied with the human vagina – forever – they forever looking for ways to shame women – for power and money!

Mind your own fucking business – Geek! Keep your devious nose out of the vagina of women. Neither Jesus or God gives a rat’s ass about abortion. Got it? What you do with your penis, and your wife’s vagina – is your business!

The reason why my Puritan kin founded a Democracy the moment they came to Plymouth, was to keep RELIGIOUS FIENDS out of power by employing FAKE MORALITY.  These pussy fixators – hate democracy!

This is not a priest. Mic is a politician who wants people to be sinners. The more the merrier! He hides behind children and pounces like a predator.  I’m sure he and his wife prey their Killer Jesus will come and knock down tall building full of screaming people. I prey his children don’t get Raptured – because they grew up to be gay!

I want the names of the “others” in that room. I bet they are all evangelical leaders of the Fake Darby Cult. They saw the Mueller report as a victory for Jesus.

“Get the Democrats! Destroy the heathens! Lock her up! Baby killer!”

John Presco

https://rosamondpress.com/2018/03/04/the-anti-abortion-hegemony/

https://rosamondpress.com/2018/10/10/the-evil-pro-life-liars/

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s surprise decision to press for a court-ordered demolition of the Affordable Care Act came after a heated meeting in the Oval Office on Monday, where his acting chief of staff and others convinced President Trump that he could do through the courts what he could not do through Congress: Repeal his predecessor’s signature achievement.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff and former South Carolina congressman, had spent years in the House saying that the health law should be repealed, and his handpicked head of the Domestic Policy Council, Joe Grogan, supported the idea of joining a Republican attorneys general lawsuit to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act.

That suit, and the Justice Department, initially pressed to nullify only the part of the law that forces insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions as well as a suite of health benefits deemed “essential,” such as pregnancy and maternal health, mental health and prescription drugs.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

But a district judge in Texas ruled that the entire law was rendered unconstitutional when President Trump’s tax law brought the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero, and the administration faced a choice: Stick with its more limited intervention or back the judge’s decision.

Mr. Trump has touted that he has kept his promises, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Grogan argued, and as a candidate, they said, he campaigned on repealing the health law. His base of voters would love it. Besides, they argued, Democrats have been campaigning successfully on health care, and Republicans should try to take it over themselves. This could force the issue.

Mick Mulvaney on Abortion

Life begins at conceptionI believe that life begins at conception. For me, and my wife Pam, that is more than just a political theory or ideology. It is what we saw, first hand, with our own triplets. Once you see what we saw, and lived what we lived, being pro-life is not about politics it is about, well, life.

Source: 2010 House campaign website, mulvaneyforcongress.com , Nov 2, 2010

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.Congressional Summary:

    Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion.

  • Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
  • Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.
  • Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.

Proponent’s Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities–in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

Opponent’s Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women’s health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions–cancer, heart or whatever that may be–you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

Reference: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; Bill H.3 ; vote number 11-HV292 on May 4, 2011

Opposes federal abortion funding.Mulvaney opposes the CC survey question on funding abortion

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic:”Public funding of abortions, (such as govt. health benefits and Planned Parenthood)”

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q1b on Aug 11, 2010

Prohibit federal funding for abortion.Mulvaney signed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

    TITLE I: Prohibiting Federally-Funded Abortions and Providing for Conscience Protections

  • Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
  • Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or the woman would be place in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
    TITLE II: Elimination of Certain Tax Benefits Relating to Abortion

  • Disqualifies, for purposes of the tax deduction for medical expenses, any amounts paid for an abortion.
  • Excludes from the definition of “qualified health plan” after 2013, for purposes of the refundable tax credit for premium assistance for such plans, any plan that includes coverage for abortion.

Source: H.R.3 &S.906 11-HR0003 on May 5, 2011

Prohibiting forced abortions by UN Population Fund.Mulvaney signed Prohibition on Funding to United Nations Population Fund

A BILL: To prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

[Explanation from Wikipedia.com]: UNFPA has been accused of providing support for government programs which have promoted forced-abortions and coercive sterilizations. Controversies regarding these allegations have resulted in a sometimes shaky relationship between the organization and the US government, with three presidential administrations, that of Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush withholding funding from the UNFPA.

From 2002 through 2008, the Bush Administration denied funding to UNFPA that had already been allocated by the US Congress, partly on the grounds that the UNFPA supported Chinese government programs which include forced abortions and coercive sterilizations, thus violating the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.

UNFPA says it “does not provide support for abortion services”. Its charter includes a strong statement condemning coercion. UNFPA’s connection to China’s administration of forced abortions was disputed by investigations carried out by various US, UK, and UN teams sent to examine UNFPA activities in China. A three-person US State Department fact-finding team was sent on a two week tour throughout China, concluding that it found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China,” as has been charged by critics. However, according to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the UNFPA contributed vehicles and computers to the Chinese to carry out their population control policies.

The EU and Japan decided to fill the gap left behind by the US. In America, nonprofit organizations worked to compensate for the loss of US federal funding by raising private donations.

Source: H.R.2059 11-HR2059 on May 31, 2011

Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood.Mulvaney co-sponsored Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

Congressional Summary:Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Wikipedia Explanation:Title X of the Public Health Service Act, titled “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” is a US government program dedicated to providing family planning services for those in need. Title X provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority for services is given to persons of low-income.

Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence:It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.

OnTheIssues Explanation: Federal money is never explicitly provided for abortions. But Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, paid for via private funds. At issue is the “fungibility” of money: Planned Parenthood can use federal funds to supplement their budget and hence free up other funds for abortion. This bill would end that practice.

Source: H.R.217 11-HR217 on Jan 7, 2011
Paperback: Ron Paul
vs. Barack Obama
On The Issues

No family planning assistance that includes abortion.Mulvaney co-sponsored Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where:

  1. the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest; or
  2. a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.

Excludes hospitals from such requirement so long as the hospital does not provide funds to any non-hospital entity that performs an abortion.

Source: HR.217/S.135 13-HR0217 on Jan 4, 2013

No taxpayer funding of abortions via ObamaCare.Mulvaney voted YEA No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Heritage Action Summary: The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R.7) would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under ObamaCare.

ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (1/22/2015): We urge voting against H.R. 7. The legislation is broad and deeply troubling and the ACLU opposes it [because] H.R. 7 would make discriminatory restrictions that harm women’s health permanent law. The bill singles out and excludes abortion from a host of programs that fulfill the government’s obligation to provide health care to certain populations. Women who rely on the government for their health care do not have access to a health care service readily available to women of means and women with private insurance. The government should not discriminate in this way. It should not use its power of the purse to intrude on a woman’s decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (11/10/2009): President Obama’s approach to health care reform–forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans–cannot not change the status quo on abortion. Either those taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, or the restrictions necessary to prevent taxpayer funding will curtail access to private abortion coverage. There is no middle ground.

Thus both sides’ fears are justified. Both sides of the abortion debate are learning why government should not subsidize health care.

Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-179-12; never came to a vote in the Senate.

Source: Supreme Court case 15-H0007 argued on Jan 22, 2015

Ban abortion after 20 weeks, except for maternal life.Mulvaney voted YEA Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Heritage Action Summary: This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain.

ACLU recommendation to vote NO: (Letter to House of Representatives, 6/18/2013): The ACLU urges you to vote against the misleadingly-captioned “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which would ban abortion care starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy. H.R. 1797 [2013 version of H.R.36 in 2015] is part of a wave of ever-more extreme legislation attempting to restrict a woman’s right to make her own decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. We have seen state after state try to take these decisions away from women and their families; H.R. 1797 would do the same nationwide. We oppose H.R. 1797 because it interferes in a woman’s most personal, private medical decisions. H.R. 1797 bans abortions necessary to protect a woman’s health, no matter how severe the situation. H.R. 1797 would force a woman and her doctor to wait until her condition was terminal to finally act to protect her health, but by then it may be too late. This restriction is not only cruel, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Cato Institute recommendation to vote YES: (2/2/2011): Pro-lifers herald a breakthrough law passed by the Nebraska legislature on Oct. 15, 2010: the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother has a condition which so “complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” Versions of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are [being] introduced in a number of state legislatures.

Legislative outcome: Passed by the House 242-184-6; never came to a vote in the Senate.

Source: Supreme Court case 15-H0036 argued on May 13, 2015

Include pre-born human beings in 14th Amendment protection.Mulvaney co-sponsored H.R.816/S.2464

A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, to implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

In this Act, the terms `human person` and `human being` include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

Source: Life at Conception Act 16-HR816 on Feb 9, 2015

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.