Do you think this is as disturbing as I think it is???

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

↑ View this comment's parent

← View full post
Comments ( 17 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • Anonymous Post Author
    11 years ago | pl

    Everyone seems to be missing the point here. I didn't point it out because I wanted to see how many would get it. Sterilizations WILL be available for girls as young as 15, without parental consent. There's a pdf form called "Oregon Health Authority: Ages 15-20 Consent to Sterilization". I have it printed and in my hand. It reads:

    "I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children."

    Now you tell me how a 15yo could possibly know if they actually want this or not? AND, under Oregon's state law, if the parent refuses the will of the child, the state can get a court order with its power of "Parens Patriae"

    here.doh.wa.gov/materials/age-of-consent/

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    Report
    0
    0
      -
    • howaminotmyself
      11 years ago | pl

      And you missed mine. This law was in effect before Obamacare.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      Report
      0
      0
        -
      • MissyLeyneous
        11 years ago | pl

        I don't believe so. Have you read the entirety of Obamacare?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        Report
        0
        0
          -
        • howaminotmyself
          11 years ago | pl

          I haven't read the new Act word for word, nor have I read the entirety of the Oregon Health code but it cannot effect laws that are determined by state. Oregon is very progressive in its laws and this threatens some people.

          A 15 year old still needs to prove it is the best option and have a doctor agree. They have to prove they understand the procedure and a judge must agree. That is Oregon law.

          It will not change the availability of the medical procedure in the state, only who pays for it. And insurance companies don't want to pay for anything so they try encourage false information to be spread.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          Report
          2
          2
            -
          • MissyLeyneous
            11 years ago | pl

            You really should read the important parts of it anyway. There's even a part that mandates RFID chips, which have been referred to as the "mark of the beast". :/

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            Report
            0
            0
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago | pl

            A federal mandate is STILL UNconstitutional, no matter how you want to see it. Our dear "constitutional scholar" needs to go back to school.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            Report
            0
            0
              -
            • howaminotmyself
              11 years ago | pl

              Oh, I get it. The issue at hand is not your concern. You're mad about a federal mandate that requires insurance companies to pay for healthcare.

              How dare the government regulate insurance companies. They should be the ones determining my health care.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              Report
              0
              0
                -
              • Anonymous Post Author
                11 years ago | pl

                I never SAID anything about insurance companies, dammit.

                But now that you mention it, YES, NO type of company or business should be regulated by the government. If you don't like the way a company is treating you, SWITCH FUCKING COMPANIES.

                Simple.

                Government makes it complicated, and they fuck up everything they touch. It's PRICE FIXING, basically. Let the FREE MARKET do it's own thing, for better or worse.

                Your sarcasm is not amusing.

                Comment Hidden ( show )
                Report
                -1
                -1