Obama declares war on women

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Texas doesn't require board certification, and Planned Parenthood generally only does screening and referrals, especially in rural areas of Texas. Personally, I doubt they got much money even before Texas cut them off.

 

[The T]

There is zero 'Republican War On Women'.

It is a mysonginistic attempt by Obama and the left to bait the Republicans as Obama has lost the demographic.

Another attempt by Obama to divide further.

It failed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

no i wouldn't because your comparison you are using is moronic. Pray out the gay? Its not even the same thing as woman's health.
It would be more like Bachman cut off funding for police and firemen because California didn't go after pot smokers anymore.

Hey if texas wants to stop using federal funding and use their own period too cover what needs to be covered? More power to them, But thats not the federal governments fault. You know like you tried to paint in the Op and title.

Context matters and it seems you failed to paint a proper picture of whats going on. Once again you decided to leave out info for partisan reasons.

Fuck texas, cut off all their federal funding. See how long that lasts.

It is strings on federal money, and is wrong. If more states told the feds to stuff their money this country would be better off. For one thing, No Child Left Behind would never had happened.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Texas doesn't require board certification, and Planned Parenthood generally only does screening and referrals, especially in rural areas of Texas. Personally, I doubt they got much money even before Texas cut them off.

Since this is an issue of public health law, what public purpose did it serve to exclude them? Were they found to have committed fraud? Have they failed to follow best practice medicine? The amount of money they got from medicaid funding is irrelevant. And your point of them serving rural areas supports my contention that this will in fact limit women's choice, and make receiving basic obgyn services more difficult.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

no i wouldn't because your comparison you are using is moronic. Pray out the gay? Its not even the same thing as woman's health.
It would be more like Bachman cut off funding for police and firemen because California didn't go after pot smokers anymore.

Hey if texas wants to stop using federal funding and use their own period too cover what needs to be covered? More power to them, But thats not the federal governments fault. You know like you tried to paint in the Op and title.

Context matters and it seems you failed to paint a proper picture of whats going on. Once again you decided to leave out info for partisan reasons.

Fuck texas, cut off all their federal funding. See how long that lasts.

It is strings on federal money, and is wrong. If more states told the feds to stuff their money this country would be better off. For one thing, No Child Left Behind would never had happened.

So federal grant money shouldn't have strings attached?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure, and Planned Parenthood clinics are legally licensed in the state of Texas. Their physicians are board certified.

Texas doesn't require board certification, and Planned Parenthood generally only does screening and referrals, especially in rural areas of Texas. Personally, I doubt they got much money even before Texas cut them off.

Since this is an issue of public health law, what public purpose did it serve to exclude them? Were they found to have committed fraud? Have they failed to follow best practice medicine? The amount of money they got from medicaid funding is irrelevant. And your point of them serving rural areas supports my contention that this will in fact limit women's choice, and make receiving basic obgyn services more difficult.

The political purpose is perfectly clear, Texas doesn't want any public money going to any organization that facilitates abortions. What political purpose is there in trying to force Texas to give money to them?

Let's see if you can be as honest as Texas.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no i wouldn't because your comparison you are using is moronic. Pray out the gay? Its not even the same thing as woman's health.
It would be more like Bachman cut off funding for police and firemen because California didn't go after pot smokers anymore.

Hey if texas wants to stop using federal funding and use their own period too cover what needs to be covered? More power to them, But thats not the federal governments fault. You know like you tried to paint in the Op and title.

Context matters and it seems you failed to paint a proper picture of whats going on. Once again you decided to leave out info for partisan reasons.

Fuck texas, cut off all their federal funding. See how long that lasts.

It is strings on federal money, and is wrong. If more states told the feds to stuff their money this country would be better off. For one thing, No Child Left Behind would never had happened.

So federal grant money shouldn't have strings attached?

It isn't grant money, it is money that is tied to funding a federally required program.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Texas doesn't require board certification, and Planned Parenthood generally only does screening and referrals, especially in rural areas of Texas. Personally, I doubt they got much money even before Texas cut them off.

Since this is an issue of public health law, what public purpose did it serve to exclude them? Were they found to have committed fraud? Have they failed to follow best practice medicine? The amount of money they got from medicaid funding is irrelevant. And your point of them serving rural areas supports my contention that this will in fact limit women's choice, and make receiving basic obgyn services more difficult.

The political purpose is perfectly clear, Texas doesn't want any public money going to any organization that facilitates abortions. What political purpose is there in trying to force Texas to give money to them?

Let's see if you can be as honest as Texas.

I can see no public reason to deny them, because they perform or refer for a legal medical procedure. You're absolutely right, it's pure politics and has no public good, or public health basis. As for the Federal regulations. They've essentially been the same for years regarding Medicare. The public purpose, and public health purpose, is to give people the maximum amount of choice when selecting a provider.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since this is an issue of public health law, what public purpose did it serve to exclude them? Were they found to have committed fraud? Have they failed to follow best practice medicine? The amount of money they got from medicaid funding is irrelevant. And your point of them serving rural areas supports my contention that this will in fact limit women's choice, and make receiving basic obgyn services more difficult.

The political purpose is perfectly clear, Texas doesn't want any public money going to any organization that facilitates abortions. What political purpose is there in trying to force Texas to give money to them?

Let's see if you can be as honest as Texas.

I can see no public reason to deny them, because they perform or refer for a legal medical procedure. You're absolutely right, it's pure politics and has no public good, or public health basis. As for the Federal regulations. They've essentially been the same for years regarding Medicare. The public purpose, and public health purpose, is to give people the maximum amount of choice when selecting a provider.

You can't be as honest as the GOP in Texas, good to know.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The political purpose is perfectly clear, Texas doesn't want any public money going to any organization that facilitates abortions. What political purpose is there in trying to force Texas to give money to them?

Let's see if you can be as honest as Texas.

I can see no public reason to deny them, because they perform or refer for a legal medical procedure. You're absolutely right, it's pure politics and has no public good, or public health basis. As for the Federal regulations. They've essentially been the same for years regarding Medicare. The public purpose, and public health purpose, is to give people the maximum amount of choice when selecting a provider.

You can't be as honest as the GOP in Texas, good to know.

In what way did I not answer your question? The political purpose of having rules, like giving people choice is to serve the public interest of giving them the maximum amount of choice in picking their medical service provider. Texas didn't want to do so, and could provide no valid explanation, based on public health or public good, for this essentially capricious rule. So the administration followed the law.

The funny thing is this is going to really bite them in their ass. The law is so pitifully crafted, that someone is going to up and force them to cut off hospitals who do any medically necessary abortions, or even provides plan B contraception. I'm sure that someone will demand that they stop funding any institution that does invitro fertilization, if they discard any fertilized eggs. Perry is just proving what people thought in the campaign (not us lefties, but Republicans), that he's dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no i wouldn't because your comparison you are using is moronic. Pray out the gay? Its not even the same thing as woman's health.
It would be more like Bachman cut off funding for police and firemen because California didn't go after pot smokers anymore.

Hey if texas wants to stop using federal funding and use their own period too cover what needs to be covered? More power to them, But thats not the federal governments fault. You know like you tried to paint in the Op and title.

Context matters and it seems you failed to paint a proper picture of whats going on. Once again you decided to leave out info for partisan reasons.

Fuck texas, cut off all their federal funding. See how long that lasts.

It is strings on federal money, and is wrong. If more states told the feds to stuff their money this country would be better off. For one thing, No Child Left Behind would never had happened.

Go for it and watch what happens....It will be amusing.

The country certainly fell apart before Congress started adding strings to the money in the 60s didn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can see no public reason to deny them, because they perform or refer for a legal medical procedure. You're absolutely right, it's pure politics and has no public good, or public health basis. As for the Federal regulations. They've essentially been the same for years regarding Medicare. The public purpose, and public health purpose, is to give people the maximum amount of choice when selecting a provider.

You can't be as honest as the GOP in Texas, good to know.

In what way did I not answer your question? The political purpose of having rules, like giving people choice is to serve the public interest of giving them the maximum amount of choice in picking their medical service provider. Texas didn't want to do so, and could provide no valid explanation, based on public health or public good, for this essentially capricious rule. So the administration followed the law.

The funny thing is this is going to really bite them in their ass. The law is so pitifully crafted, that someone is going to up and force them to cut off hospitals who do any medically necessary abortions, or even provides plan B contraception. I'm sure that someone will demand that they stop funding any institution that does invitro fertilization, if they discard any fertilized eggs. Perry is just proving what people thought in the campaign (not us lefties, but Republicans), that he's dumber than a box of rocks.

I asked specifically about the political purpose in forcing Texas to subsidize Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers. You blathered on about not seeing a reason not to give them money. Let me ask, how is that, in any way, shape, or form, an answer to my question?

By the way, I am not defending the law itself, and have no intention to do so. I am just pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of pro abortion people, like you.

 

[Flopper]

Gotta love it when the shoe is on the other foot.

The federal government on Thursday began making good on its promise to cut off all funding for the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program amid an escalating fight over the state's ban on funding for clinics affiliated with abortion providers. In a letter to state officials, Cindy Mann, director of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said her agency regretted the move. "We had hoped not to be at this point. But, unfortunately, as we've made clear to the state at all points in this process, we don't have a choice," Mann said on a conference call with reporters after sending the letter...
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. Gov. Rick Perry counters that states have the right, under federal law, to determine qualified providers in the program. The program provides care to about 130,000 women between the ages of 18 and 44 earning less than $20,000 a year or less than $41,000 for a family of four — with federal funds paying 90 percent of its cost and Texas covering the rest. Mann said that last year it cost about $41 million, and about $34 million of that came from Washington...Planned Parenthood issued a statement criticizing the actions taken by Perry and the Texas Legislature.

War On Women: Feds Cut Off Women's Health Funding to Texas - Guy Benson

Medicaid is a state program with matching federal dollars. If the state stops the funding, then the feds must also stop. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the issue.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You can't be as honest as the GOP in Texas, good to know.

In what way did I not answer your question? The political purpose of having rules, like giving people choice is to serve the public interest of giving them the maximum amount of choice in picking their medical service provider. Texas didn't want to do so, and could provide no valid explanation, based on public health or public good, for this essentially capricious rule. So the administration followed the law.

The funny thing is this is going to really bite them in their ass. The law is so pitifully crafted, that someone is going to up and force them to cut off hospitals who do any medically necessary abortions, or even provides plan B contraception. I'm sure that someone will demand that they stop funding any institution that does invitro fertilization, if they discard any fertilized eggs. Perry is just proving what people thought in the campaign (not us lefties, but Republicans), that he's dumber than a box of rocks.

I asked specifically about the political purpose in forcing Texas to subsidize Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers. You blathered on about not seeing a reason not to give them money. Let me ask, how is that, in any way, shape, or form, an answer to my question?

By the way, I am not defending the law itself, and have no intention to do so. I am just pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of pro abortion people, like you.

I'm personally anti-abortion with reasonable exceptions, but pro-choice. Is that clear enough?

 

[koshergrl]

Yup, you're pro abortion.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yup, you're pro abortion.

I guess I'm too nuanced for such a doctrinaire brownshirt like yourself.

If I were to knock someone up, I would do all in my power to bring the child to term, even if the conception were with a piece of garbage like yourself, following last call. That's personal responsibility. I would even provide child support, as long as you put a bag over your head during visitation.

I don't want to, however, make that same decision for others. It's a hell of a lot more complex than those Girl Scout Cookie box slogans the whacko fundies like yourself toss around. Whether to choose to terminate pregnancies is complex, and ought to be the final say of the woman, at least during the first trimester (sort along the lines of St. Augustine's concept of "quickening")

If you use abortion services as a substitute for birth control, you're probably blond, and late term procedures ought to be denied except for medical necessity.

Only a total fucking idiot would not see that position as both anti-abortion and pro-choice.

Since you post like some inbred shallow-end-of-the-gene pool idiot, I gather you don't understand the genetic issues of incest, so I'll spare you the intricacy of my saying I don't give a rats ass about zygotes and the stuff they flush away at invitro fertilization clinics. Their lack of sentience bores me in any moral sense. All I'll say is head out for Plan B, and send me the tab.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no nuance to baby killing. You either support it, or you don't. You can't support it, and claim you don't. That's just asinine.

 

[koshergrl]

And it's only complex because relativists like yourself tie yourselves in knots because you KNOW you support it..but you also know in supporting it, you're supporting the killing of babies, and you know that's wrong...so you slap together this elaborate labrinyth of lies, semi truths, and artificial constructs to make it look like something other than what it is....the slaughter of innocents and the degradation of women in order to eliminate a hated population.

 

[Dick Tuck]

There's no nuance to baby killing. You either support it, or you don't. You can't support it, and claim you don't. That's just asinine.

So don't hit on me at closing time, and we won't have a problem.

Funny how right wing scum like you want to grant free scholarships and voting rights for zygotes, and want to deprive children being helped by WIC and school lunches. Is that because you've been told what to think, or did your stupidity come through your own decisions.

 

[koshergrl]

See, you can't argue to the point, so you have to drag in unrelated topics.

Please link me saying I want to deprive children of WIC and school lunches.