Obama declares war on women

[Dick Tuck]

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.

It's not relativism. That's what wingnuts use to justify unjust wars. It's utilitiarianism, where you're smart enough to know that your values, attitudes, and beliefs are your own, and create moral standards for you. You're also intelligent enough to understand that you're not intelligent enough to want to shove your own morality on others, since life's decisions are more complex.

In your case, I guess you feel the lazy way of taking some doctrinaire dogma doo doo, and shoving it down everyone's throat is the way to go. I bet you believe the Earth is only 5,000 years old and homo sapiens coexisted with the t-rex.

 

[koshergrl]

Here ya go, Nazi:

 

[Dick Tuck]

Here ya go, Nazi:

Yeah, John Locke and John Stuart Mill were Nazis. Nope, Hitler was a doctrinaire, nativist piece of crap like yourself.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

??? Sorry but I thought Texas didn't need the Federal Government's help. Is that no longer true?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Did I ask what your position was?

Again, what is the political purpose in forcing Texas to give money to Planned Parenthood? Seems like a simple question, especially since I directly answered yours, doesn't it?

 

[Dick Tuck]

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?

Did I ask what your position was?

Again, what is the political purpose in forcing Texas to give money to Planned Parenthood? Seems like a simple question, especially since I directly answered yours, doesn't it?

Read your post, idiot. You called me pro abortion. Since you don't know what my position is, when you wrote that, I decided to make it clear.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

I don't think she is saying it's "odd"; what she's asking is how Perry plans on paying for the services. Given the fact that the federal gov't pays for approximately 80% of women's health services in TX, it's a legitimate point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Did I ask what your position was?

Again, what is the political purpose in forcing Texas to give money to Planned Parenthood? Seems like a simple question, especially since I directly answered yours, doesn't it?

Read your post, idiot. You called me pro abortion. Since you don't know what my position is, when you wrote that, I decided to make it clear.

Still no answer to the question, why is that? Your position is abundantly clear, you just don't understand it properly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I don't think she is saying it's "odd"; what she's asking is how Perry plans on paying for the services. Given the fact that the federal gov't pays for approximately 80% of women's health services in TX, it's a legitimate point.

The federal government does not pay for 80% of anything, including their own budget.

 

[The T]

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

??? Sorry but I thought Texas didn't need the Federal Government's help. Is that no longer true?

YOU need to yell louder and in a different colour...

 

[EriktheRed]

Obama declares war on women

Yeah, good luck with THAT one.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

I don't think she is saying it's "odd"; what she's asking is how Perry plans on paying for the services. Given the fact that the federal gov't pays for approximately 80% of women's health services in TX, it's a legitimate point.

The federal government does not pay for 80% of anything, including their own budget.

Sorry, my bad. The federal gov't pays for 90% in TX. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Feds to halt Texas Women's Health Program funding - BusinessWeek

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think she is saying it's "odd"; what she's asking is how Perry plans on paying for the services. Given the fact that the federal gov't pays for approximately 80% of women's health services in TX, it's a legitimate point.

The federal government does not pay for 80% of anything, including their own budget.

Sorry, my bad. The federal gov't pays for 90% in TX. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Feds to halt Texas Women's Health Program funding - BusinessWeek

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

Get a clue.

 

[The T]

The federal government does not pay for 80% of anything, including their own budget.

Sorry, my bad. The federal gov't pays for 90% in TX. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Feds to halt Texas Women's Health Program funding - BusinessWeek

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

Get a clue.

That...is funny!

 

[J.E.D]

The federal government does not pay for 80% of anything, including their own budget.

Sorry, my bad. The federal gov't pays for 90% in TX. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Feds to halt Texas Women's Health Program funding - BusinessWeek

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

Get a clue.

Hmmm....that's quite a mature retort you have there. However, you failed to prove me wrong. Would you like to counter my source with a legitimate source, and prove that the federal gov't DOESN'T provide 90% of funds to TX's health program, or would you prefer to just continue deflecting with childish responses? Come on, Windbag, show me that your name isn't the most fitting on this board and give me some substance instead of a bunch of wind.

 

[J.E.D]

Texas law blocks funding for care at Planned Parenthood

The $40 million program is at the center of a faceoff between conservative Republican lawmakers and the federal government, which provides 90% of the program's funding.

Feds pull funding for low-income women in response to new Texas law|WOAI: San Antonio News

The federal money, which covers 90 percent of the state's $40 million program, will be phased out between May and September because the law violates federal regulations requiring that women have a choice in medical care, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a trip to Houston.

Feds to stop funding Texas women's health program - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Friday that she plans to tell Texas that a waiver allowing the funding won't be extended. The money will be phased out between May and September.

Federal funds cover 90% of the $40 million program. Sebelius says a Texas law violates federal regulations that require women have a choice in medical care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, my bad. The federal gov't pays for 90% in TX. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Get a clue.

Hmmm....that's quite a mature retort you have there. However, you failed to prove me wrong. Would you like to counter my source with a legitimate source, and prove that the federal gov't DOESN'T provide 90% of funds to TX's health program, or would you prefer to just continue deflecting with childish responses? Come on, Windbag, show me that your name isn't the most fitting on this board and give me some substance instead of a bunch of wind.

You want proof that you are wrong? It is actually pretty simple, and I will do it assuming that your link is 100% correct.

Even though the federal government supplies 905 of that programs financing it is no where near to providing 80% of funds for all women's health care in Texas. The fund in question targets women in the extremely poor rural counties in Texas, and it makes up such a small part of Texas' budget that they can actually do without federal funding to carry it on by cutting other spending.

That, dear sir, makes you wrong. And the fact that you totally missed my joke makes you either stupid, or a person with no sense of humor.

 

[J.E.D]

Get a clue.

Hmmm....that's quite a mature retort you have there. However, you failed to prove me wrong. Would you like to counter my source with a legitimate source, and prove that the federal gov't DOESN'T provide 90% of funds to TX's health program, or would you prefer to just continue deflecting with childish responses? Come on, Windbag, show me that your name isn't the most fitting on this board and give me some substance instead of a bunch of wind.

You want proof that you are wrong? It is actually pretty simple, and I will do it assuming that your link is 100% correct.

Even though the federal government supplies 905 of that programs financing it is no where near to providing 80% of funds for all women's health care in Texas. The fund in question targets women in the extremely poor rural counties in Texas, and it makes up such a small part of Texas' budget that they can actually do without federal funding to carry it on by cutting other spending.

That, dear sir, makes you wrong. And the fact that you totally missed my joke makes you either stupid, or a person with no sense of humor.

In other words, you want it both ways. You can't admit that you're wrong, so you have to come up with some convoluted BS to try and weasel your way out of it. BTW, your joke? I got it. It was a childish attempt at deflection. The fact that you had to resort to it shows me that you're incapable of seriously debating anything. Thanks for proving that your name is quite fitting, Windbag. Carry on, clown.

 

[Stephanie]

Face it folks, the Obama and his comrades in arms admistation are EVIL..

Buck what they say OR WANT..and they come AFTER YOU..

so a few women will get hurt out of it, they don't give a shit

 

[The T]

Face it folks, the Obama and his comrades in arms admistation are EVIL..

Buck what they say OR WANT..and they come AFTER YOU..

so a few women will get hurt out of it, they don't give a shit

Not only that? They're worried, in panick mode...

False issues have to be trumped up to shore up his base...THIS issue is the most glaring.

Republicans haven't declared a war on anything/anyone but Obama...