Obama declares war on women

Really? Then what is?

The LAW regarding this...

As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times

- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.

- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.

- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.

- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).

So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.

Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.
 
Actually, sounds like the state is to blame on this one. Why do they think they don't have to follow Federal law?

The federal law that allows states to determine who is, and is not, qualified for state funds?

And the feds don't have too support what the state is doing. Cause and affect.You all scream. For state rights and when you get it and the feds pull funding you whine for political,partisan reasons.

How sad and transparent you cons are.

FYI, mocking is not screaming. The feds cutting the funds because Texas is refusing to fund Planned Parenthood is no more a war on woman than Texas not funding planned Parenthood is. But you, in your zeal for all things Obama, prefer to see this as a partisan issue. Just remember, sooner or later the other side is going to be in power and making up the rules. My guess is you would scream louder than anyone who is defending Texas right now if President Bachmann cut off federal funding for California because they refused to spend any money on Pray out the Gay.
 
Then explain to us all how the 9th and 10th Amendments apply to this discussion.
YOU need to go read them first.

I assume The T's argument (with which I would not entirely agree) goes something like this:

The tenth amendment to the US constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This could be interpreted to mean that the federal government has no right to provide health care to its citizens, or at least that it has no right to dictate to a state how it may provide health care.

If we accept this point, then the only power the federal government has in directing Texas in how to spend its funds is by threatening to withhold federal funds from Texas. Thus, if Texas declines to accept any federal funds they are free, under the tenth amendment, to provide healthcare however they want. If they accept federal funds, they effectively lose this putative right.

The ninth amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm not sure how this applies. The matter at hand seems to be entirely a dispute between a state government and the federal government, so I don't see how a vague reference to the rights of the people applies.

Oh man, I was hoping The T would actually try responding. Yeah, I wasn't holding my breath ;)

I agree, that's how I would see this as well. Problem is, I think the "conservatives" here are saying that Texas should get the money and Texas should decide how to spend it, with no influence from the Federal Government. Obviously, that's not how this works.
 
Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.
****************************************
Thus T's 9 & 10th amendment argument.
 
The LAW regarding this...

As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times

- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.

- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.

- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.

- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).

So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.

Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.

One size fits all Statist groupthink...that's what it is. Statists first have to acknowledge the existence of the Individual...they refuse.
 
As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times

- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.

- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.

- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.

- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).

So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.

Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.

One size fits all Statist groupthink...that's what it is. Statists first have to acknowledge the existence of the Individual...they refuse.

I don't entirely understand your reference here, or your reference to the ninth amendment earlier. It seems to me that the individuals here are the Texas women seeking healthcare, not Rick Perry or the Texas state legislators. I suspect that those individuals would generally incline more towards the federal government's thinking (that they should be able to get breast cancer screening at any qualified facility) than to Rick Perry's thinking (that you can't get subsidized cancer screening in the same building where an abortion has been performed).
 
Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.

One size fits all Statist groupthink...that's what it is. Statists first have to acknowledge the existence of the Individual...they refuse.

I don't entirely understand your reference here, or your reference to the ninth amendment earlier. It seems to me that the individuals here are the Texas women seeking healthcare, not Rick Perry or the Texas state legislators. I suspect that those individuals would generally incline more towards the federal government's thinking (that they should be able to get breast cancer screening at any qualified facility) than to Rick Perry's thinking (that you can't get subsidized cancer screening in the same building where an abortion has been performed).

Go read the Declaration, and get back to me shall you?
 
Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.

The part I find odd is not that a state would opt out of accepting federal funds with strings attached. The part I find odd is that Perry pledged to provide the same services as were previously offered. I find this odd because:

- He would have to pay for them somehow (and he refuses to raise revenues to do it).

- He would be paying ten times as much to do the exact same thing as he would have done if Texas had just complied with federal provisions.

- He would be providing funds in a way that would violate a law he recently signed.

The simple explanation is that he made his pledge in order to seem concerned with women's health, with no intention on fully paying for it or reneging on his prior political commitments. So I guess you could say that it's not odd at all that he said it, it's just that the sequence of events it would imply if true is quite odd.
 
One size fits all Statist groupthink...that's what it is. Statists first have to acknowledge the existence of the Individual...they refuse.

I don't entirely understand your reference here, or your reference to the ninth amendment earlier. It seems to me that the individuals here are the Texas women seeking healthcare, not Rick Perry or the Texas state legislators. I suspect that those individuals would generally incline more towards the federal government's thinking (that they should be able to get breast cancer screening at any qualified facility) than to Rick Perry's thinking (that you can't get subsidized cancer screening in the same building where an abortion has been performed).

Go read the Declaration, and get back to me shall you?

I have read the declaration of independence, and it has failed to enlighten me entirely as to your thinking. Is your point:

- Women (who go unmentioned in the declaration) did not have full rights then?

- The right to life applies to embryos and so strongly that abortion clinics must be segregated from breast cancer clinics?

- Texas should declare independence from the US?

- "Individuals" really means "people" which really means "states" so that individuals don't actually have any protection from state rather than from federal power?
 
I don't entirely understand your reference here, or your reference to the ninth amendment earlier. It seems to me that the individuals here are the Texas women seeking healthcare, not Rick Perry or the Texas state legislators. I suspect that those individuals would generally incline more towards the federal government's thinking (that they should be able to get breast cancer screening at any qualified facility) than to Rick Perry's thinking (that you can't get subsidized cancer screening in the same building where an abortion has been performed).

Go read the Declaration, and get back to me shall you?

I have read the declaration of independence, and it has failed to enlighten me entirely as to your thinking. Is your point:

- Women (who go unmentioned in the declaration) did not have full rights then?

- The right to life applies to embryos and so strongly that abortion clinics must be segregated from breast cancer clinics?

- Texas should declare independence from the US?

- "Individuals" really means "people" which really means "states" so that individuals don't actually have any protection from state rather than from federal power?

What The T is trying to say is .... he has no clue what he's talking about.
 
So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.
Correct:

The standoff stems from a law passed by the Legislature last summer and took effect Wednesday. It bars state funding for clinics affiliated with abortion providers. The Obama administration had pledged to stop funding the Women’s Health Program because federal law requires women to be able to choose any qualified clinic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ortion-fight/2012/03/15/gIQAnkyAFS_story.html
Consequently, Texas is responsible for the funds being cut, not the Obama Administration, which is merely following Federal law.

This also has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, as the Constitution affords Congress un-enumerated powers with regard to legislative acts (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, United States v. Darby, 1941); Federal laws trump state and local laws (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, Cooper v. Aaron, 1958); and Congress has the authority to regulate the health insurance industry (United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 1944).

Therefore, Texas has neither the authority nor ‘right’ to dictate to Washington how Federal legislation will be implemented, or demand that legislation be changed to suit the governor’s political agenda.
 
I don't entirely understand your reference here, or your reference to the ninth amendment earlier. It seems to me that the individuals here are the Texas women seeking healthcare, not Rick Perry or the Texas state legislators. I suspect that those individuals would generally incline more towards the federal government's thinking (that they should be able to get breast cancer screening at any qualified facility) than to Rick Perry's thinking (that you can't get subsidized cancer screening in the same building where an abortion has been performed).

Go read the Declaration, and get back to me shall you?

I have read the declaration of independence, and it has failed to enlighten me entirely as to your thinking. Is your point:

- Women (who go unmentioned in the declaration) did not have full rights then?

- The right to life applies to embryos and so strongly that abortion clinics must be segregated from breast cancer clinics?

- Texas should declare independence from the US?

- "Individuals" really means "people" which really means "states" so that individuals don't actually have any protection from state rather than from federal power?
YOU listed what has YOU distracted, and WHY you choose the moniker you do.

'Nuff said.
 
Really? Then what is?

The LAW regarding this...

As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times

- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.

- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.

- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.

- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).

So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.

The only thing I take issue with is the last sentence. Perry essentially took the choice of who the individual would be able to see out of the hands women. Texas is huge, and a good part of it is rural. This could mean an extra 100 miles in some areas to get a mammogram or cervical cancer screening. For some women, this could be a major hinderence to getting adequate health care. Then there's the issue of what other services might be cut, so Texas could afford to go it alone. You only get a mammogram every five years?
 
You seem a bit slow on the uptake...so let me explain the post.

It is designed to poke fun at the made-up words that Left uses to castigate opponents.

Get it now?

It would be funny if it made sense. It's against the law for a state to tell someone on Medicaid, which licensed provider they can't use. So the joke is on those who bought into the tortured logic of that Town Hall opinion. It's just another case of the right wing taking away women's choices.

Are you saying the state has no say in who is qualified?

Sure, and Planned Parenthood clinics are legally licensed in the state of Texas. Their physicians are board certified.
 
Why does Obama hate women???

Is he a femmephobe????

On the contrary. He has two daughters and while you may not like him, he is still a father. And he doesn't want the fringe fuckups in this country to deprive them of their rights. Make sense? Hello...???? (Thumping on empty skull) Hmmm...sounds empty in there.

So, is it just Democrats who are fathers that cannot hate women, not Republicans?

(Thumps on empty skull) Hello? McFly? Anyone in there?????
 
The LAW regarding this...

As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times

- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.

- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.

- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.

- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).

So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.

Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.

The regs provide for exemptions if a good medical reason can be given. There is no good medical reason for this bill. It's just a cynical attempt to turn back the clock on women's reproductive rights.
 
The federal law that allows states to determine who is, and is not, qualified for state funds?

And the feds don't have too support what the state is doing. Cause and affect.You all scream. For state rights and when you get it and the feds pull funding you whine for political,partisan reasons.

How sad and transparent you cons are.

FYI, mocking is not screaming. The feds cutting the funds because Texas is refusing to fund Planned Parenthood is no more a war on woman than Texas not funding planned Parenthood is. But you, in your zeal for all things Obama, prefer to see this as a partisan issue. Just remember, sooner or later the other side is going to be in power and making up the rules. My guess is you would scream louder than anyone who is defending Texas right now if President Bachmann cut off federal funding for California because they refused to spend any money on Pray out the Gay.

Taking away a women's right to choose her own physician, who meets certification criteria, is part of the rights war on women.
 
So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.
Correct:

The standoff stems from a law passed by the Legislature last summer and took effect Wednesday. It bars state funding for clinics affiliated with abortion providers. The Obama administration had pledged to stop funding the Women’s Health Program because federal law requires women to be able to choose any qualified clinic.

Federal government to begin halting funding for Texas Women’s Health Program in abortion fight - The Washington Post
Consequently, Texas is responsible for the funds being cut, not the Obama Administration, which is merely following Federal law.

This also has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, as the Constitution affords Congress un-enumerated powers with regard to legislative acts (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, United States v. Darby, 1941); Federal laws trump state and local laws (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, Cooper v. Aaron, 1958); and Congress has the authority to regulate the health insurance industry (United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 1944).

Therefore, Texas has neither the authority nor ‘right’ to dictate to Washington how Federal legislation will be implemented, or demand that legislation be changed to suit the governor’s political agenda.

You shouldn't have any trouble linking to the actual law, being a lawyer type.
 
The LAW regarding this...

As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times

- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.

- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.

- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.

- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).

So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.

The only thing I take issue with is the last sentence. Perry essentially took the choice of who the individual would be able to see out of the hands women. Texas is huge, and a good part of it is rural. This could mean an extra 100 miles in some areas to get a mammogram or cervical cancer screening. For some women, this could be a major hinderence to getting adequate health care. Then there's the issue of what other services might be cut, so Texas could afford to go it alone. You only get a mammogram every five years?

The women can see whoever they want, the state will only pay for qualified providers, the same way it works in every other state.
 
The Rs are just amazing in their ability to deny their own culpability.

They also don't seem to be able to open thr mouths without lying about President Obama.

Damn lying scum.
 

Forum List

Back
Top