Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MorningGlory

24 Republicans voted for taxpayer funded sex change surgery

20 posts in this topic

This is a list of the Republicans who think WE should pay for gender reassignment surgery for mentally ill people.  Why not use that money for psychiatric care? Why not care for veterans?  My Senators and Reps. are not on this list; good thing.  I would be burning up the phone, internet and mail if they were.  

http://redherald.com/24-republicans-voted-taxpayers-transgender-surgeries/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

This is a list of the Republicans who think WE should pay for gender reassignment surgery for mentally ill people.  Why not use that money for psychiatric care? Why not care for veterans?  My Senators and Reps. are not on this list; good thing.  I would be burning up the phone, internet and mail if they were.  

http://redherald.com/24-republicans-voted-taxpayers-transgender-surgeries/

Is that a true news site? Or satire? Because in one of their side columns is a link to this article:

California Upholds ‘Right’ For Pedophiles To Marry 10 Year Old Kids

July 16, 2017

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

Is that a true news site? Or satire? Because in one of their side columns is a link to this article:

California Upholds ‘Right’ For Pedophiles To Marry 10 Year Old Kids

July 16, 2017

 

I will check it out to make sure.

Later:  I did check it out and the amendment to forbid the use of taxpayer funds for these surgeries and hormone treatments was defeated and yes, those 24 Republicans voted with the Democrats to defeat it.  See House Bill HR 2810

The Washington Post reported:

The Republican-led House narrowly rejected a measure on Thursday that sought to strike an Obama-era practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for gender transition surgeries and hormone therapy.

Democrats described the proposal as bigoted, unconstitutional and cowardly and they won support from 24 GOP lawmakers to scuttle the amendment to the annual defense policy bill, 214-209.

The amendment crafted by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., would have forbid money from being spent by the military’s health care system for medical treatment related to gender transition. Hartzler portrayed her proposal as a good government plan aimed at assuring military dollars are spent only on critical national defense needs.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I will check it out to make sure.

Later:  I did check it out and the amendment to forbid the use of taxpayer funds for these surgeries and hormone treatments was defeated and yes, those 24 Republicans voted with the Democrats to defeat it.  See House Bill HR 2810

The Washington Post reported:

The Republican-led House narrowly rejected a measure on Thursday that sought to strike an Obama-era practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for gender transition surgeries and hormone therapy.

Democrats described the proposal as bigoted, unconstitutional and cowardly and they won support from 24 GOP lawmakers to scuttle the amendment to the annual defense policy bill, 214-209.

The amendment crafted by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., would have forbid money from being spent by the military’s health care system for medical treatment related to gender transition. Hartzler portrayed her proposal as a good government plan aimed at assuring military dollars are spent only on critical national defense needs.

 

Thank you for checking on that.

:( That means their article about California is true and means Democrat California is going to Hell faster than I thought.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

Thank you for checking on that.

:( That means their article about California is true and means Democrat California is going to Hell faster than I thought.

 

I'm not sure about the California article.  These days we have to check everything because so many news sources post whatever fits their agenda, true or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I'm not sure about the California article.  These days we have to check everything because so many news sources post whatever fits their agenda, true or not.

Fair point.

I'll take a look. Hopefully it is fake news. Can you imagine if it is genuine though? :( 

 

Well, that was quick.

  1. LINKED: Today's Law as Amended
  2. Bill Status

 

Edited by WalkingMyFishLikeABoss
fixed todays' law link error
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

Fair point.

I'll take a look. Hopefully it is fake news. Can you imagine if it is genuine though? :( 

 

Well, that was quick.

  1. LINKED: Today's Law as Amended
  2. Bill Status

 

The bill actually doesn't specify an age though; I read the entire thing. This is the only change to the existing law: 

302.

 (a) An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage may be issued a marriage license upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry, in accordance with the requirements described in Section 304.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

The bill actually doesn't specify an age though; I read the entire thing. This is the only change to the existing law: 

302.

 (a) An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage may be issued a marriage license upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry, in accordance with the requirements described in Section 304.

 When I was in high school there were 2 girls I knew who were 16 and were allowed to marry(they got pregnant). And so this what they did with their parent's say so.  So I am not sure if this is a Bill that Okays a Ped to merry a child.  :confused:I

I'm going to go look up the law in my home state to see what it says  cause now I am wondering. :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I looked up my home state and this is what is says: 

  • Minimum Age: (16).

    • An applicant younger than 18 must first get the consent of his or her parents or guardian and also have proof that he or she has received marriage counseling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0