Abortions

In the First Congress, the committee proposal read, “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” Tami will protect this declaration; and she will caution those that want to use religious beliefs to repeal or ratify Constitutional statues, thereby depriving others of “equal rights of conscience.” E. Meese III: 303

Tami defends the Constitution and “equal rights of conscience”, therefore she supports a person’s right to not have an abortion and she supports a person’s right to have an abortion. Roe v. Wade regulated abortion rights based on the trimester principle, thereby granting a person the right to terminate a fetus before brain and respiratory systems develop. That decision was scientific and medical; where opposition to abortions has been religious. Tami supports the Supreme Court decision on Constitutional terms and believes a woman has the right to choose during the acceptably-defined period.

Furthermore, living wills and advance directives have utilized science to establish the medical determinants for death. Tami believes individuals should have the right to use their own moral, religious and financial nature, when determining end-of-life care. Conversely, medical advancements have also allowed those who suffer from emphysema and similar conditions the option of utilizing portable oxygen devices. Neither, situation has provoked religious activism; however, the Bible has no provision for oxygen, life support, or incubators. Posted on 9/5/11

The USA Party collective leadership has abortions now legalized out to 25 weeks, due to the viability standard the Republican Supreme Court established in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

----------------------------------------------------

Now its 2021 and now all americans must learn this game played by both sides "I am Pro-life" or "I am Pro-choice; these two phrases no longer MEAN ANYTHING. Pro-life is no abortions up to five months abortions; Pro-choice is 3 month abortions up to 9 months. This tactic to mislead voters must end, if it is not going to end then VOTERS learn the truth.

RAND says he is PRO LIFE; however, he voted YES to legislate 5 month abortions in the S.2311 Bill in 2018.

FOCUS S. 2311 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was to stop abortions AFTER 5 months, thus that means abortions would of been legal UP TO 5 months. Tami would of voted NO for its not for the public good. How is Rand Paul and others PRO Life when they voted for FIVE MONTH abortions. READ about the S.2311 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act where so called Pro-life senators voted for 5 month abortions.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists

S.2311 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act TEXT

The question remains is there behavior due to incompetence or they just violent elected officials. Below we have a leading democrat implying the filibuster was the problem with abortion rights, when in actuality a group of democrats voted against S.2311, a 2018 bill that DID come to the floor for a vote, they the democrats voted 'NO' for they wanted to legalize abortion past 5 months, this is violent people.

From Tami's global experience she wants you to know she have NEVER met a democrat that wanted abortions out past 5 months and up to 9 months. How did Harris become the first women vice president when she believes a women should have the right to abort up to delivery and if a child is born alive that child should be denied medical care for the mother’s intent was to abort, however, when a person is born they are a citizen thus legally deserve medical care.

After you read the content in this photo, you will also conclude the tag Pro-Life or Pro-Choice is no longer a legitimate method to evaluate candidates’ views. Rand Paul voted on a bill to legislate abortions out to 5 months - that is not what the lay person thinks is Pro-Life. Tami would of voted "NO" to S. 2311 for she think 5 months is to late in the pregnacy and it is not for the PUBLIC GOOD.

The abortion game in 2021 - https://flic.kr/p/2mndqyw

Tami's legal argument, which is the point when debating abortions at the Federal level is; she believes abortions after 4 months should not be allowed for it is not for the public good to have pregnant women abort after 15 weeks in public view. Law says one can not wear porn on a t-shirt, law says you cant wear hate on a t-shirt; schools can create dress codes based on a visual standard; so why can a VISUALLY pregnant women be able to create the same emotion of repulsive reaction that the Supreme Court recognized when a person SEE's porn or hate on a t-shirt?

Remember Rand and other Republicans voted YES to legalize FIVE MONTH abortions. Tami said NO.

-------------------------------------------

Media does not cover the abortion debates well, so Tami will try to explain, Roe v Wade was a case that determined that abortions in the first trimester (3 months) were FEDERALLY legal, thus STATES no longer controlled abortions. Then came Casey v Planned Parenthood a case that said Roe v Wade trimester no longer determines the ACCEPTABLE time period of 3 months, now understand another Republican Court created and decided for VIABILITY STANDARD defined in Casey. Slow motion both cases decided by Republican Supreme Court - get that point and question why the media is so caught up on making people think there is some concern with having a Republican Court, for Roe and Casey cases were both decided by a Republican Court, odd.

Casey allowed abortions based on a viability standard and it was up to STATES to determine what does viability mean - GET CRISIS.  Slow motion in ROE v WADE only first trimester a set period of time, then CASEY viability was not a set time, was a strategy that allowed STATE's to determine when the unborn was viable to live. Tami hates viability for the psychology and historical reason of human behavior, such as one can speed from 30 to 100 mph, one can  drink .08 to 2.0 alcohol does not work (prohibition) and one can abort 6 weeks to 9 months. NOT GOOD form of governance.

So the Supreme Court will rule on STATES authority over abortions, and hopefully the court will set a set time for abortions.

NUCLEAR POINT of misunderstanding - The Supreme Court Republicans have ruled that abortions are protected by privacy rights as in Griswold case and abortions are allowed based on Liberty which is defined in the 14th amendment. SLOW MOTION point Liberty is contained within the 14th amendment, thus if the right is protected under the 14th then one would NOT want states to take over a persons right to liberty and then try to choose which rights the citizens living in their state receives - very bad game PARTY.  Means States could then say a citizen does not deserve these rights which are granted in the 14th amendment of the FEDERAL Constitution, for today the STATE must protect and guarantee those rights for that is the Guarantee Clause of the USA Constitution. Yet get they play some game today on enforcement and Tami wants to stop that GAME. 14th grants citizens the right to life, liberty, property, law and happiness.

BE CAREFUL what you fight for and listen too.

ONE MORE POINT of hate on Harris ignorant policy opinions.

Biden and Harris have the NERVE to bash China on HUMAN RIGHTS and you have a VP who wants to kill BORN ALIVE babies who are CITIZENS and she advocates for NINE month abortions. - Slow motion BORN ALIVE is the phrase, so if you BORN then your a citizen and in moral thought even if the paper work has not been filed yet the child is still a citizen in moral thought and ethics for BORN. IF YOUR born alive - FOCUS - Harris argument is MOTHERS INTENT, so his intent was to kill his wife and he missed, he thought well if we let her bleed out she should be dead in 6 hours - so EMS would you like a soda while we wait for her to die for my INTENT was to kill her. Harris is insane and unqualified for such an important and special position of leadership.

Laws are to be replicated to all and law should have concepts that can be applied to all. Add +, Harris ok with saving men on death row that actually by FACT killed people for it will save tax payers money; yet she wants to kill a child that was BORN ALIVE. Definition of insane to Tami.

Views on homosexuality

Homosexuality was defined as a religious sin; therefore we can look to the Constitution to determine a precedent. Amendment I stated, Congress, shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; and the First Congress, stated “nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”

Tami supposes that Americans now recognize, opposition to gay rights has been religious in nature, thus unconstitutional.

Conversely, Tami continues to be disappointed with gay rights activism, which defines a homosexual person different then a heterosexual person. She does not support gay rights legislation; she supports an approach that protects the right of an individual; who may be heterosexual or homosexual. The Constitution stated, Americans have the right to liberty and the Supreme Court defined liberty as:

“the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

Tami reasons, individuals have the right to marry, and the licensing of marriages remains with the States. 

Above Posted on 9/5/11

Establishment Clause - Church retains its right to set membership and whom they marry in their faith irrespective of sex/gender. Person retains their conscious choice to choose where to marry based on membership requirements and their religious beliefs.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Below Posted 2022; however, Tami has been fighting to get this corrected for years, since other Republicans accept ignorant conclusions for law. Please read.

Tami is strongly AGAINST redefining SEX to include indentity and sexual intercourse as the determinants in LAW.

Tami strongly opposes SCOTUS and USA Congress decision and rulings on redefining the word SEX in law, the following language is the CRISIS (1) in the section header, by striking “sex,” and inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),”;

Tami supports the right of all student to try to participate on a sports team; however, to make the leap in thought that the definition of SEX (a male or female) can now be based on sexual intercourse or a person’s identity is illogical. Women for centuries have been trying to get the stigma’s associated with ONE view of what constitutes the socially constructed norms that identity what is women like or women in nature is now void. Tami has written a lengthy post on why a person’s sexual intercourse decisions and their belief their interests and life choices should determine their SEX in law is a flawed and a wrong standard for defining ones SEX, a male or female. To think being women-like or female in nature justifies why one can get woman’s rights is WRONG and therefor argued in this link below.

Many men in 21^st century stay at home and they are heterosexual not gay or transgender, thus the legal argument for getting women scholarships, grants, medical care etc. would apply to them too if they identity their life as female in nature; who defines what is female in nature?

 READ more on redefining the word of SEX legally.

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/tamistainfield/51981793858/in/dateposted/



Freedom of Speech and the Press 

Posted on 9/5/11

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 

Today, we have 24-hour news and entertainment shaping and forming World perspectives and actions, they have the power to effect individuals, corporations, and countries, in the most negative or positive manner. Many or most of these Global News Organizations have become similar, even though they have unique ownership. Tami has become concerned with their similarity, because the likeness of coverage creates a form of power, giving an illusion of correctness and generalizability. Furthermore, the globalization of media; has permitted many to operate without checks or restraints.

Tami believes World Peace and advancement depends on reliable, accurate, and defendable information, a condition which should be admired. During the 1700’s and since, propaganda was distributed through print in a slow and methodical manner. Since, then we have witnessed a Holocaust, Hiroshima, Rwanda Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, Iraq War and recently we have seen social technologies affect Middle East peace. Print, radio, television and social technologies can have a devastating effect on Local and World events; however, Tami recognizes, the tools themselves, do little harm, it’s the words which form the content; the status of the person delivering the message and their power to influence; the reputation of the network; the distribution and repetitiveness of the message; the state of a country; and the impact the message has on World Leaders.

International cable, internet and satellite networks must be regulated and individuals, corporations and governments shall be protected from those that abuse their power. Tami would like the legacy principles of copyright protection, intellectual property, authorization, defamation, and consent incorporated into cable, internet and satellite networks.

The following quotes from Supreme Court rulings establish a precedent where Local and State authorities have the right to protect the public good; however it must be uniform and reasonable. Tami believes these principles should be incorporated into internet and media legislation. 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not designed to interfere with the exercise of the police power by the State for the protection of health, the prevention of fraud, and the preservation of the public morals.

In Crowley v. Christensen, the Supreme Court said: 

It is undoubtedly true that it is the right of every citizen of the United States to pursue any lawful trade or business, under such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of the same age, sex, and condition. But the possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to be equal enjoyment of the same right by others. (1890)