Defund Planned Parenthood?

[Ravi]

the pro-choice position is also one of playing morality cop.

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

 

[Valerie]

the pro-choice position is also one of playing morality cop.

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

Aaah, and it's because of them that people "fuck their brains out" ???

 

[Ravi]

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

Aaah, and it's because of them that people "fuck their brains out" ???

Yep...why back in the day when we had curfews no one fucked at all.

 

[Care4all]

birth control pills is what set women sexually free, not legal abortion....

the sexual revolution of the 60's!

Flower Power!

 

[Granny]

birth control pills is what set women sexually free, not legal abortion....

the sexual revolution of the 60's!

Flower Power!

Yep. And look where it's gotten us.

 

[HUGGY]

Should we go back to the good old days? Keep the state out of personal decisions that are hard enough without the moralizer who do nothing but preach what you should do, or what rights you have. The same people would vote to end child support - hypocrisy knows no limit.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson

Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion

Why Francis Beckwiths Case Against Abortion Fails

So what? They were godless little sluts and got what they deserved!!!!!!!

 

[Care4all]

birth control pills is what set women sexually free, not legal abortion....

the sexual revolution of the 60's!

Flower Power!

Yep. And look where it's gotten us.

There have been several negatives from this sexual revolution....I agree.

But there was many positives from it as well....one being...women poured in to the workforce...allowing this country to grow our economy at unheard of rates....because they could control or PLAN their pregnancies and motherhood.

 

[Madeline]

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood and similar organizations raises more questions than it answers about the nation's largest abortion chain.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America's (PPFA) audits show the organization spent just $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs, but the abortion behemoth's own annual reports show that it took in $2.3 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.

That's not pocket change. Why the discrepancy?

The report (the first of its kind since 2002) was released in response to a request from 31 U.S. senators and representatives and in an atmosphere increasingly hostile to abortion. Not surprisingly. then, its findings are fueling an escalating outcry to defund Planned Parenthood.

DILLER: Planned Parenthood's missing millions - Washington Times

Anyone surprised?

Both the Red Cross and United Way have had funding scandals in the recent past; shall we stop funding them as well? BTW, chanel, Planned Parenthood is not merely an abortion provider. It is a women's health provider and a source of birth control, and to my knowledge, no other organization stands ready to fill this void.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Abortion is a "hot" issue because it divides voters on an emotional issue; as an issue it is no different then guns, gays and god.
The fact is, there have always been abortions and no amount of legislation will prevent them. That said, if the anti-abortions forces REALLY cared, they would work with the choice crowd to make abortions rare and safe.
Anti-abortion pols don't because they know while the issue of abortion is in play, it garners votes from one issue voters. To solve the 'problem' of abortion is not in there best interest.
My post is not directed at those, such as Immie, whose personal values oppose abortion, but I would remind him that some men impregnant women as a means of power and control; and those who oppose abortions as well as universal healthcare (expecially pre-natal and childcare until age 21) are reprehensible.

 

[Immanuel]

ummmmmm, where did you get the money in your rest of your budget? From people DONATING their own money to planned parenthood, so NO you did not use federal money.

It is all slight of hand sweet heart. I was going to provide the testing one way or another out of my budget. Now you generously give me a million dollars. That means that I now have another million dollars and can provide another million dollars worth of abortions.

By the way, in this case, PP, much of the other funding also comes from the government in other grants.

Immie

I see this is developing into another conspiracy theory. When in doubt, they always come in handy.

Sorry, I am an accountant. I know how it works. If you give me X number of dollars and tell me not to spend it on Z, but I want to fund Z. I'm going to take the dollars you give me and spend it on a, but take the dollars I had planned on spending on a and fund Z.

That is just the way it works. No conspiracy to it. If there was a conspiracy, the government would have to tell PP, "we can't fund abortions, but if we give you this grant, you can take money from this fund and spend it on providing abortions. We'll look the other way while you do so."

I never said that happened. Only that PP (and any other organization that receives dedicated funds) has that option open to them.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

here is the GAO report...33 pages long....UGH....gonna take some time to analyze it but for those who are interested....

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10533r.pdf

I'm definitely not that concerned about it, since nothing I say or do will change anything at all.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Abortion is a "hot" issue because it divides voters on an emotional issue; as an issue it is no different then guns, gays and god.
The fact is, there have always been abortions and no amount of legislation will prevent them. That said, if the anti-abortions forces REALLY cared, they would work with the choice crowd to make abortions rare and safe.
Anti-abortion pols don't because they know while the issue of abortion is in play, it garners votes from one issue voters. To solve the 'problem' of abortion is not in there best interest.
My post is not directed at those, such as Immie, whose personal values oppose abortion, but I would remind him that some men impregnant women as a means of power and control; and those who oppose abortions as well as universal healthcare (expecially pre-natal and childcare until age 21) are reprehensible.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute there! I'm reprehensible simply because I oppose abortion and universal healthcare? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Now, if I opposed abortion and believed in or did something to prevent women from getting them, that would be one thing, but not simply because I oppose those two items.

I oppose Universal Healthcare as well. Not because I do not want everyone to have medical services but rather because I believe that the U.S. Government will only F' it up!

Opposing abortion and wanting to decrease the numbers of abortion is not wrong. In fact, many pro-choice people want to accomplish that same task. Are they "reprehensible"?

Opposing government run "universal healthcare" on grounds that our government is not capable of doing so without hundreds of thousands of miles of red tape and trillions of wasted dollars is not opposing making sure that everyone has adequate healthcare.

Immie

 

[dilloduck]

Abortion is a "hot" issue because it divides voters on an emotional issue; as an issue it is no different then guns, gays and god.
The fact is, there have always been abortions and no amount of legislation will prevent them. That said, if the anti-abortions forces REALLY cared, they would work with the choice crowd to make abortions rare and safe.
Anti-abortion pols don't because they know while the issue of abortion is in play, it garners votes from one issue voters. To solve the 'problem' of abortion is not in there best interest.
My post is not directed at those, such as Immie, whose personal values oppose abortion, but I would remind him that some men impregnant women as a means of power and control; and those who oppose abortions as well as universal healthcare (expecially pre-natal and childcare until age 21) are reprehensible.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute there! I'm reprehensible simply because I oppose abortion and universal healthcare? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Now, if I opposed abortion and believed in or did something to prevent women from getting them, that would be one thing, but not simply because I oppose those two items.

I oppose Universal Healthcare as well. Not because I do not want everyone to have medical services but rather because I believe that the U.S. Government will only F' it up!

Opposing abortion and wanting to decrease the numbers of abortion is not wrong. In fact, many pro-choice people want to accomplish that same task. Are they "reprehensible"?

Opposing government run "universal healthcare" on grounds that our government is not capable of doing so without hundreds of thousands of miles of red tape and trillions of wasted dollars is not opposing making sure that everyone has adequate healthcare.

Immie

yes---reprehensible--that's secular talk for "immoral".

 

[dilloduck]

the pro-choice position is also one of playing morality cop.

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

no---pro choice peeps think it is moral to kill babies. Try again.

 

[Valerie]

the pro-choice position is also one of playing morality cop.

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

no---pro choice peeps think it is moral to kill babies. Try again.

>


It's the anti-abortion people who try to play "morality cop"

What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion?

Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

Public Funding for Abortion | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Anguille]

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

no---pro choice peeps think it is moral to kill babies. Try again.

"Babies"?? Try again.

 

[pans trogladyta]

You do realize, don't you?, that if you give me a million dollars and tell me that I can use it for any purpose except for the purpose of providing abortions, I now have a million dollars from the remainder of my budget freed up to provide abortions. Nothing but a slight of hands, don't cha think?

Immie

ummmmmm, where did you get the money in your rest of your budget? From people DONATING their own money to planned parenthood, so NO you did not use federal money.

It is all slight of hand sweet heart. I was going to provide the testing one way or another out of my budget. Now you generously give me a million dollars. That means that I now have another million dollars and can provide another million dollars worth of abortions.

By the way, in this case, PP, much of the other funding also comes from the government in other grants.

Immie

And most of your arguement is nothing but semantics.

 

[jillian]

Don't you think the article is lacking in pertinent information immie and that it did such, PURPOSELY....otherwise they would have linked to their info and analysis imo?

and it's not like the nutters at the washtimes have an agenda or anything.

funny how the rightwingnuts listen to rev moon.

 

[jillian]

no---pro choice peeps think it is moral to kill babies. Try again.

an egg is not a chicken.

 

[pans trogladyta]

How so?

Pro-choice peeps force others to have abortions...don't you know?

no---pro choice peeps think it is moral to kill babies. Try again.

Ah yes, the so called "pro-life" position, that begins at conception and ends at birth.