Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: GOP OKs Platform Barring Abortions, Gay marriage

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 28, 2012, 8:39 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5854)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

GOP OKs platform barring abortions, gay marriage http://news.yahoo.com/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage-204947742.html

By ALAN FRAM and PHILIP ELLIOT | Associated Press – 2 hrs 30 mins ago.. .

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Republicans emphatically approved a toughly worded party platform at their national convention Tuesday that would ban all abortions and gay marriages, reshape Medicare into a voucher-like program and cut taxes to energize the economy and create jobs.

The document opens by warning that while the American Dream has long been of equal opportunity for everyone, "Today that American Dream is at risk." It pledges that the GOP will "begin anew, with profound changes in the way government operates; the way it budgets, taxes and regulates."

Both parties routinely approve platforms at their conventions every four years, meant to encapsulate their principles and goals. Much of their details are customarily ignored when it comes to actually governing.

Even so, a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found more people interested in the GOP platform than in the upcoming acceptance speeches by presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan. The survey found that 52 percent said they were interested in learning about the Republican platform, compared to 44 percent interested in Romney's speech and 46 percent interested in Ryan's.

"This ambitious blueprint projects a sea change in the way that government works," said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who led the party's platform committee. "It offers a solution for workers without jobs, families without savings and neighborhoods without hope."

Democrats lambasted the platform and immediately sought to tie it to Romney, who has differed from some of its details. For instance, he has said he would allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is threatened.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is among several Democrats in Tampa trying to get their party's views heard, called the platform's stances on abortion and immigration "draconian" and "extreme" and blamed Romney. "What you have seen from him is that he does one thing, he says another," Villaraigosa said. "He has taken one position after another, time and again you know, and you can't have it both ways."

Here are key elements of the Republican platform:

JOB CREATION:

It states that the best jobs program is economic growth. "We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs."


SMALL BUSINESS:

The GOP pledges to reform the tax code to make it easier for businesses to generate more capital and create more jobs.


TAXES:

"We reject the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund unnecessary or ineffective programs or foster the crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and corporations."

It says a Republican administration would extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, pending reform of the tax code. It says the party would strive to eliminate taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains altogether for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. It also would work to repeal the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax.

The party backs constitutional amendments to balance the federal budget and require a super majority for any tax increases.


MARRIAGE:

The platform affirms the rights of states and the federal government not to recognize same-sex marriage. It backs a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.


VOTER INTEGRITY:

"Voter fraud is a political poison," the platform says. It praises legislation to require photo identification for voting and to prevent election fraud.


GUN CONTROL:

The party says it opposes legislation intended to restrict Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton presidency.


ABORTION:

The party states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." It opposes using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage.


ENERGY:

The party is committed to domestic energy independence and an "all-of-the-above" energy policy, backing the exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. It criticizes the Obama administration for picking winners and losers in the energy sector and expresses support for new coal-fired plants that will be low-cost, environmentally responsible and efficient.

It adds: "We will end the EPA's war on coal and encourage the increased safe development in all regions of the nation's coal resources." It calls on Congress to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations "that will harm the nation's economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century."


MEDICARE and MEDICAID:

The platform pledges to move both Medicare and Medicaid away from "the current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model." It supports a Medicare transition to a premium-support model with an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan of the enrollee's choice. Age eligibility in Medicare must be made more realistic in light of longer life spans.

Medicaid services for low income people would be transformed into a block grant program in which the states would be given the flexibility to determine the best programs for their residents.


IMMIGRATION:

The platform makes clear that "we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it." It demands that the Justice Department halt lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama and other states that have enacted tough measures against illegal immigrants. It says federal funding should be denied to universities that provide in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants. It advocates making English the official national language.


HEALTH CARE:

It states that a Republican president on his first day in office would use his waiver authority to halt progress in carrying out the health care act pushed through by President Barack Obama and that Republican victories in November would guarantee that the act is never implemented. It proposes a Republican plan based on improving health care quality and lowering costs and a system that promotes the free market and gives consumers more choice.


EDUCATION:

Republicans support consumer choice, including home schooling, local innovations such as single-sex classes, full-day school hours and year-round schools. It says Republicans renew their call for replacing family planning programs for teens "with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior."


DEFENSE:

The platform says Republicans are "the party of peace through strength" and support the concept of American exceptionalism — "the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history." It criticizes the current administration for its weak positions toward such countries as North Korea, China and Iran and its reductions in military spending. The Republican national military strategy "restores as a principal objective the deterrence using the full spectrum of our military capabilities."


Alan Fram reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Peter Prengaman contributed to this report.

44 Comments

44 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Great platform -
and the spineless fools who are afraid to vote against this crap,
can get it by just not voting!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

Does your unborn child have any rights?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Assuming abortion is made illegal, What is the legal penalty for a woman who pays a doctor to abort her fetus?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why make it illegal? Don't you think that it is a good idea?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I believe a woman should control her own body

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are right. The platform abortion is all religious right based extremism.

Not the church, not the state. let the woman decide her fate.!

Keep your rosaries off their ovaries.

Man it's hard to believe we gotta pull those old chestnuts out. These people want to bring us back in time.

knuckledraggers?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

The vast majority of people who oppose abortion, oppose it on religious terms so for that reason alone a woman should have a right to chose. That is one thing I will agree with you on haha.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What about money out of politics.? Do you agree on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United? What about "Move to Amend" dis you sign that petition? Do you support public financing od campaigns?

Just trying to find some non partisan common ground.

You can suggest one also. Let's see how much we can agree on.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Yes to all of that.

And I am really not partisan, I hate both parties pretty equally. They are both awful. You just see more anti-Dem stuff here because there are more pro-Dem people. I save all of my anti-GOP hatred for my local newspaper's message board because most of the other posters are Republicans.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree. You see pro dem stuff because there is so much anti dem partisanship bashing. Sorry. 'sok. lets not get into the parties. I thought YOU didn't want to discuss the parties. I didn't bring 'em up.

How about expanding Pell grants so that it covers most of college costs. No interest student loans. Expanding student loan debt forgiveness programs for graduates who work in areas of need? How about refinancing at 0% the existing student loans, and making forgiceness available to even older student debt holders. How about getting banks to forgive some student loan debt for working class families?

Thats a lot. But please do you best.

Feel free to submit an issue to gauge our agreement.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I have mixed feelings on student loan issues. I definitely think expanding student loan forgiveness to encourage people to work in areas of need is a good idea. I worked in a FQHC when I graduated from dental school and got some loan repayment. It was a win-win - I got my loans paid off quicker and a lot of poor people who have not had dental care in years got some free dental care.

When there is no need for something though, not so much. I think students, parents, and banks should put more thought into loans and the amount of money they spend on school. Not all degrees are equal. Not even close. So the funding for them should not be equal. Society has a need for certain degrees more than others. There are obviously also huge differences in the cost of different schools.

For people already in a ton of debt, I agree that something needs to be done to help them get their heads above water. I believe there is currently an income based repayment program where you make payments based on your income and then after something like 20 years if you have any balance left it is forgiven. That is good idea for sure.

Long term though, banks and lenders need to be much more selective in giving out student loans, and students and their parents should not just jump at the chance to take as much "free money" as the banks will give them.

I am sure we would also find agreement in the need to stop global warming, allowing gay people to marry, women's rights like birth control in addition to abortion, a reform of the war on drugs, and protection of all civil rights.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Then why did you want to make abortion illegal? Don't you think that abortion is a good idea?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

when did I say I wanted abortion to be illegal ???????????????????????????????????????????????

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Well you asked what punishment would be appropriate for a woman that had an illegal abortion. Do you not agree that abortion is a good thing?

[-] -1 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

Why discuss a 40+ year old topic? Looks like smoke and mirrors, and I know mirrors.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The unanswerability of this question proves how bogus the anti-choice movement is

[-] 0 points by Archimedes (6) from Siracusa, Sicily 1 year ago

looks like you see reality just fine.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Do you mean rights granted by law or the quoted "fundamental" rights?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Human rights are not granted by governments, they are yours by the simple fact that you are a human being.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ABCannexesen.pdf

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

The simple fact of being human doesn't confer any more rights than the simple fact of being a chicken or being a tree. Rights require both a basis for recognition and a community to recognize them. There are what people may refer to as being natural rights such as a right to personal freedoms pertaining to yourself and what you can aquire for yourself without violation to others and there are rights that are granted by law pertaining to human created institutions such as eligibility for state recognized marriages.

Thus, humans have a natural right to having sex but no one has a natural right to marriage as marriage is a social institution determined by the rules of a society.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

This kind of reasoning causes genocides.

Human beings have human rights by the very fact that they are human beings. Don't allow governments (or communities) to undermine them.

On the subject of marriage, why would you allow the state to require their permission to make such a very personal decision like your choice of a spouse?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Simply asserting that human beings have human rights by the very fact that they are human beings doesn't establish anything. Such non-reasoned assertions causes genocides like the assertions that certain peoples didn't have souls and were therefore acceptable for slaughter and enslavement.

The state doesn't choose your spouse but the state does choose who is eligible to be your spouse. That's why there was an issue with the Mormons over polygamy and that's why there's an issue today over gay marriage. Anybody can 'shack-up' but anyone wanting a state recognition of their union for whatever reasons is naturally subject to state recognition.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why do you let the state choose who is eligible to be your spouse? Why should the government have control over your private decisions?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

The government shouldn't but the government does for everyone who wants legal recognition. Some people want tax benefits. Others want social security benefits upon the death of a spouse along with the recognition of community property.

I don't accept making the state a third party in my personal relationship with the one I love by having a marriage license nor do I recognize any religious authorities to declare me married or not. So I choose never to have state recognition for the things others may want from the state. It's simply a matter of legal recognition. Most people want it, others don't care for it.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So basically you let the Gov steal from you because you reject their imposition into your personal life?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Which government theft are you referring to?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your Gov.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

I'll rephrase. Which theft are you referring to?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Do you believe in equal protection under the law?

Then any benefit or tax break that saves money for a married couple is stolen from you because you object to Gov interference into your private life.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage/#comment-823219

Ethnicity and IQs aren't choices that anyone can choose to reject or participate in and would therefore constitute unrealistic issues of discrimination. Government benefits for how one votes is also unrealistically illegal.

If one wishes to have differential taxation eliminated, all involuntary direct taxation would have to be eliminated http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ with an amendment.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Laws that discriminate based on race are in fact legal and all to real for their victims. Can you identify any?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

A benefit that the government chooses to grant for a specific status that I choose not to have is not a theft. I can accept the status and all of its benefits or I can reject the status and all of its benefits. It only becomes a theft if I accept the status and am denied its benefits by the government.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Suppose the Gov chooses to grant a specific status if you are white but not if you are black? If you have an IQ of 130 but not if it is only 100?. If you vote Republican but not Democrat? Do you accept that?

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 1 year ago

Okay. So you want OWS to support Obamas reelection. Why go to such lengths? I'm willing to bet that a minimum of 95% of OWS will do just that. You are essentially preaching to the choir. Seems to happen a lot on this site. Why?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

I've posted the platforms of both parties. I haven't inferred support for anyone. The only thing I've advocated support for is FreeDA http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ .

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It is valuable for everyone to know what the 2 parties in control stand for. Well done.

Good post! Non partisan!

Perhaps to please the anti dem partisans you could have attached the Dem platform to the Rep platform you posted already.

Although I should say I don't prefer submitting to bullys.

[-] -1 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 1 year ago

Umm...all they say is that government won't fund abortions. Doesn't seem to interfere with your right to kill late term, or even babies that somehow survive an abortion only to be set aside to die on their own from the wounds the "doctors" inflicted on them. Why wouldn't killing children be able to continue without government funding?

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Abortion is settled law. Repubs should stop trying to control womens bodies

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

There is no such thing as settled law. If that were the case, deregulation wouldn't exist. All the gains made against the banking industry and Wall Street in the 1930's would not have been reversed.

We must always be vigilant.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

You are correct. The current efforts to restrict womens rights to abortions is the best illustration of that,

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Maybe they try to control women's bodies because that have sold control of their own minds to fascists

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Sold their souls more like it

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 1 year ago

Sigh...not one red cent of federal funding is/has/ or will be used to fund abortion. That is not the issue the statement covers, although the way it is worded is deceptive.

The issue is that the unborn will be granted complete human rights above the rights of the adult human which incubates it.

The issue also covers some forms of birth control, along with the 'morning after pill'. Making them illegal.

So to answer your less than fair question, no.

[Removed]