Really? So he will represent atheist Americans? Agnostic Americans? Muslim Americans? Gay Americans, who he wants to deny not just the right marry, but to have sex in the privacy of their own homes? Liberal Christian Americans, who he's said he doesn't consider real Christians? Women, who he thinks shouldn't be working or in the military?

The phrases "right to property" and "right to privacy" aren't in the Constitution either, but it'd be stupid to say that they aren't as established rights as those explicitly enumerated in the Amendments.

Sensible people hate Mormonism, not Mormons. I love Mormon chicks when they're pre-BYU. They're wild! Then they get sent off to 'Land a Good Mormon Man University", become dedicated baby machines, lose all personality and ambition, and let themselves go. I've seen it happen to my friends,and it's depressing as hell.

Mormonism IS a cult. It's the Scientology of the 19th Century, founded by a demontrable charlatan who made up revelations on the fly to justify his behavior. His followers murdered non-Mormons. It took until 1896 for them to renounce polygamy (they say), and until the 1970's to admit blacks. Their members spy on each other to make sure they're on the up and up. They send their young men off on mission for the purpose of (A) gaining more converts and (B) separating them from their friends and family, leaving them with nothing familiar to cling to but the faith (classic cult stuff). They baptize, despite repeated requests not to and even law suits, dead Holocaust victims and their ancestors, people who died for being Jewish and, in many cases, were considered martyrs by themselves and their fellow Jews. And, of course, they pour money into referendums to deny civil rights to others based on innuendo and lies.

Oh, and of course, according to most Evangelicals and the Catholic Church, they aren't real Christians, and converts from Mormonism need new, proper baptisms.

So yeah, it's not just Mormons. Anyone not suffering from Stockholm Syndrome hates it.

Sex strike for reproductive rights! Lysistrata up in this shiz!

Oh, Heritage! How soon we forget...

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource....

Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”

The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier."

"Taranto points out that the Heritage mandate was less onerous than the Obamacare one, as it focused on coverage for catastrophic illness, rather than the comprehensive health plans that Obamacare requires. “On the other hand, Butler’s vague language—‘it might also include certain very specific services…and other items’—would seem to leave the door wide open for limitless expansion,” he writes. “Whatever the particular differences, the Heritage mandate was indistinguishable in principle from the ObamaCare one. In both cases, the federal government would force individuals to purchase a product from a private company—something that Congress has never done before.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a...
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la...

And, of course, the mandate the is a terrible idea, well-intentioned as it is. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n5/cpr29n5-1.html). So why support it, Heritage and GOP pols? And why is it bad now, because a Democrat is proposing it? Have you realized the error of your ways? Moved further right? Has the left moved to the middle to meet you on this, and are you just rebuffing them now to be obstinate? Did you not get what you asked for?

I'm sorry, but yes, "a legitimate medical procedure". It's a surgery which most doctors learn in medical school, one which has long been the established and effective treatment for certain conditions (severe fetal deformity, fetal mortality, ectopic pregnancy). Unless you have a better way to get rid of a a dead, horribly deformed fetus, or one growing in a fallopian tube, it's going to remain the accepted protocol. And it is legal in most developed nations. The only nations where it isn't legal are backwards third-world nations with high infant mortality rates, poverty, large numbers of deaths from illegal back-alley abortions, and tap water you have to boil before it's safe to drink. And Ireland, but seriously, they're Ireland, and women there can just hop in a car or boat and go to Belfast/London and get one

Also, the selective killing of what now?

ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies

A very young child; an infant. A recently born human.

fetus
n. pl. fetuses

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.

Sorry, yeah. Babies can do stuff like breath, respond to stimuli, and be distinguished from apes, rabbits, deer, and other mammals at the same stage of biological development. Fetuses can't.

And, fyi, the Third Reich BANNED abortions. In 1936 Himmler created a "Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion" (sounds like something President Rick Santorum would create!) and in 1943 they made it a capital offense for an "Aryan" woman to get an abortion!

As far as the law is concerned, it's not a human life. Some people believe it is, but that belief is, for the most part, on theology, not science or law. Ok, so you believe what makes a human is not consciousness, or appearance, but having an invisible, massless, and otherwise undetectable quanta of human-ness called a soul, and that God places a soul in a fertilized egg at the moment of conception, making that single-celled organism the moral equal of me, you, the president, and the Queen of England. That's your right. But as far as the law of the United States is concerned, it's not a human, and it isn't until it's outside of the womb. You can think that abortion is wrong, say so, and try to make it illegal, but short of getting a Constitutional Amendment overruling Roe v. Wade, or getting SCOTUS to overrule itself, it's not only legal, but constitutionally protected, and any law restricting access to or regulating abortion in the first trimester which is not based on the protecting the mother's health is a violation of the ruling in Roe v. Wade.

This is, theology and philosophy aside, a matter of law, and this law is unconstitutional and, on its face, made in bad faith. It is as patently a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court and restrict access to something constitutionally-protected as a law saying "yes, you can buy guns, but first you have to let me fire a gun next to your ears without any earplugs...you know, so you're properly informed about the dangers...". It is a law meant to discourage people from availing themselves of something legal and constitutionally protected, passed purely out of spite and ideology, and as such it should offend all Americans, male and female, pro-life and pro-choice.

Even taking your statement (from a person with a clear agenda) at face value, there are about three-quarters to half a million reported abortions in the U.S. per year. That means that, assuming a 100% adoption rate for those children, the those two million couples will each have a kid in under 4 years. And where will those children go then? Ban abortion, and we will very quickly find ourselves with more disabled children than there are people willing and able to care for them, which leads to society either turning them out on the street/into the wilderness to die, or keeping them in orphanages, state hospitals, or foster homes on the taxpayer's dime. Now, if you're willing to ban a legitimate medical procedure and pay higher taxes to pay for both the enforcement of the prohibition and the care of the unwanted and disabled children who will be produced by such prohibition (and/or else see cuts to other programs, like defense), then by all means, advocate the prohibition of legal abortion. But don't pretend you're doing a service to anyone or anything but your own sectarian programming.