Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
other than passing out condoms at junior high schools, what good does it do?
Actually, Sandra Fluke wasn't in Junior High and she could have gotten free birth control at a variety of Planned Parenthood locations within a few miles of Georgetown
Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Actually, Sandra Fluke wasn't in Junior High and she could have gotten free birth control at a variety of Planned Parenthood locations within a few miles of Georgetown
Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Education is the best program for preventing unintended pregnancy. Teaching morality and personal responisbility is much better for society that passing out condoms and telling kids "go to it, just put the rubber on first".
Both should be done but of course it's Repubs all around the nation pulling funding for both sex ed and contraception. Your ideal of inspiring morality as a cure to pregnancy is never going to overcome human nature. You are a perfect example of the coveluded con thinking on this subject.
The idea of funding the causes you support just isn't part of your world. BTW, I'm in with contributing to planned parenthood rather than tax dollars doing it, but that's because like you I support their cause and unlike you I believe I should do something, not someone should do something
You refer to the GOP field as the "clown car" then ATTEMPT to talk to someone else about being in an ideological box?Actually, Sandra Fluke wasn't in Junior High and she could have gotten free birth control at a variety of Planned Parenthood locations within a few miles of Georgetown
Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
As noted, it's really quite simple, at least to those not stuck in an ideological box. The only sure thing is death and taxes; a cliche, but true. Libertarians are not pragmatic and this is why they will never win elections.
PP is a non-profit organization.
Please provide a credible non-partisan source for those alleged "profits".
PP is a non-profit organization.
so what
ceo cecile richards of plan parenthood makes over 500 grand a year
doesnt sound like non profit to me
Your opinion and a couple of dollars will get you a cup of coffee.
The fact remains that PP is a non-profit organization and no amount of lying on your part will alter that fact.
almost six hundred thousand dollar income
and they cater to the "poor"
after life and limb of the unborn
Thank you for admitting that you have nothing but inane deflections from the OP topic and have disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation.
Have a nice day.
typical non sense coming from a libtard
You refer to the GOP field as the "clown car" then ATTEMPT to talk to someone else about being in an ideological box?Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
As noted, it's really quite simple, at least to those not stuck in an ideological box. The only sure thing is death and taxes; a cliche, but true. Libertarians are not pragmatic and this is why they will never win elections.
That is fucking hysterical
Bring back some form of negative feedback that can balance the scales
Well, you are here and so is the
vigilante clown.
Isn't that enough?
LOW 2 digit IQ is present in this scumbag!... More ranting... please,... you entertain with your HATE of anything moral, ethical and principled!
Planned Parenthood does far more good than bad, but there is no way Federal money should be given to them or any other charity. People should decide where their own money goes
They aren't a "charity", they are a health care services provider.
The Federal government subsidizing charities would be the "Faith Based Initiatives" that Bush II put in place.
Interesting, that got under your skin, I wonder why...
And you make "charity" and "health care services provider" sound contradictory, they are not. Charity is how it's funded. You want people to pay for their own "health care" and it's not a charity. You want PP to distribute it for free or at least subsidized, it is a charity
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Health care services provider
- the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
synonyms: financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief;- an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
synonyms: nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution;
Types of health care providers MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
They are not contradictory, but not the same.
Liberals crack me up. PP gives away birth control and provides other no fee services. What about that being a charity confuses you? Those things while not being money cost money, note the word "typically" in the definition. Rather than getting the money from donors, money is confiscated by government and given to them. If we cut the government out of it, I would be glad to give more than my share to them, they provide valuable services. But people like you and me who support them should fund them.
The problem you have is being an extremist, you can't separate their funding and their services. To you, to want to cut their government funding means you want to eliminate their service. I want to cut their government funding, but I support their service and I'm willing to pay for them to provide it to others. Is that a mind fuck or what? Not being a Republican and not being a Democrat ... at the same time. It's all very complicated you know
Charities do not provide the service, PP does. It's really that simple.
Actually, Sandra Fluke wasn't in Junior High and she could have gotten free birth control at a variety of Planned Parenthood locations within a few miles of Georgetown
Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
As noted, it's really quite simple, at least to those not stuck in an ideological box. The only sure thing is death and taxes; a cliche, but true. Libertarians are not pragmatic and this is why they will never win elections.
Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Education is the best program for preventing unintended pregnancy. Teaching morality and personal responisbility is much better for society that passing out condoms and telling kids "go to it, just put the rubber on first".
Both should be done but of course it's Repubs all around the nation pulling funding for both sex ed and contraception. Your ideal of inspiring morality as a cure to pregnancy is never going to overcome human nature. You are a perfect example of the coveluded con thinking on this subject.
The idea of funding the causes you support just isn't part of your world. BTW, I'm in with contributing to planned parenthood rather than tax dollars doing it, but that's because like you I support their cause and unlike you I believe I should do something, not someone should do something
Good on you. It is still a public health concern.
You refer to the GOP field as the "clown car" then ATTEMPT to talk to someone else about being in an ideological box?Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
As noted, it's really quite simple, at least to those not stuck in an ideological box. The only sure thing is death and taxes; a cliche, but true. Libertarians are not pragmatic and this is why they will never win elections.
That is fucking hysterical
They aren't a "charity", they are a health care services provider.
The Federal government subsidizing charities would be the "Faith Based Initiatives" that Bush II put in place.
Interesting, that got under your skin, I wonder why...
And you make "charity" and "health care services provider" sound contradictory, they are not. Charity is how it's funded. You want people to pay for their own "health care" and it's not a charity. You want PP to distribute it for free or at least subsidized, it is a charity
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Health care services provider
- the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
synonyms: financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief;- an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
synonyms: nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution;
Types of health care providers MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
They are not contradictory, but not the same.
Liberals crack me up. PP gives away birth control and provides other no fee services. What about that being a charity confuses you? Those things while not being money cost money, note the word "typically" in the definition. Rather than getting the money from donors, money is confiscated by government and given to them. If we cut the government out of it, I would be glad to give more than my share to them, they provide valuable services. But people like you and me who support them should fund them.
The problem you have is being an extremist, you can't separate their funding and their services. To you, to want to cut their government funding means you want to eliminate their service. I want to cut their government funding, but I support their service and I'm willing to pay for them to provide it to others. Is that a mind fuck or what? Not being a Republican and not being a Democrat ... at the same time. It's all very complicated you know
Charities do not provide the service, PP does. It's really that simple.
PP is the charity. What point do you think you're making? PP should not operate off money confiscated by force, it should operate off money freely given
From Factcheck.org
"The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues."
"In a statement made to CNN, another presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, called the practice discussed in the video a “clear violation of federal law.” The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law.
"Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee"
"Rick Perry, July 14: The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life."
"Rand Paul, July 14: … a video showing [Planned Parenthood]’s top doctor describing how she performs late-term abortions to sell body parts for profit!"
"Carly Fiorina, July 14: This latest news is tragic and outrageous. This isn’t about “choice.” It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment."
Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
-- Planned Parenthood Baby Body Parts Video Was That Crack the Little Bits of the Skull -- Here s the HeartBuyer: “How confident are you with your attorneys’ work that you’ve seen, they are building many layers and making it difficult—”
Dr. Ginde: “We’ve got it figured out, that he knows that—because we talked to him in the beginning, we were like, we don’t want to get called on, you know, selling fetal parts across states.”
Buyer: “Mhm. Neither do we.”
Dr. Ginde: You know what I mean? No one wants to get—”
Interesting, that got under your skin, I wonder why...
And you make "charity" and "health care services provider" sound contradictory, they are not. Charity is how it's funded. You want people to pay for their own "health care" and it's not a charity. You want PP to distribute it for free or at least subsidized, it is a charity
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Health care services provider
- the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
synonyms: financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief;- an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
synonyms: nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution;
Types of health care providers MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
They are not contradictory, but not the same.
Liberals crack me up. PP gives away birth control and provides other no fee services. What about that being a charity confuses you? Those things while not being money cost money, note the word "typically" in the definition. Rather than getting the money from donors, money is confiscated by government and given to them. If we cut the government out of it, I would be glad to give more than my share to them, they provide valuable services. But people like you and me who support them should fund them.
The problem you have is being an extremist, you can't separate their funding and their services. To you, to want to cut their government funding means you want to eliminate their service. I want to cut their government funding, but I support their service and I'm willing to pay for them to provide it to others. Is that a mind fuck or what? Not being a Republican and not being a Democrat ... at the same time. It's all very complicated you know
Charities do not provide the service, PP does. It's really that simple.
PP is the charity. What point do you think you're making? PP should not operate off money confiscated by force, it should operate off money freely given
You also like to should on people.
That said, see:
Five myths about Planned Parenthood - The Washington Post
Interesting, that got under your skin, I wonder why...
And you make "charity" and "health care services provider" sound contradictory, they are not. Charity is how it's funded. You want people to pay for their own "health care" and it's not a charity. You want PP to distribute it for free or at least subsidized, it is a charity
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Health care services provider
- the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
synonyms: financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief;- an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
synonyms: nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution;
Types of health care providers MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
They are not contradictory, but not the same.
Liberals crack me up. PP gives away birth control and provides other no fee services. What about that being a charity confuses you? Those things while not being money cost money, note the word "typically" in the definition. Rather than getting the money from donors, money is confiscated by government and given to them. If we cut the government out of it, I would be glad to give more than my share to them, they provide valuable services. But people like you and me who support them should fund them.
The problem you have is being an extremist, you can't separate their funding and their services. To you, to want to cut their government funding means you want to eliminate their service. I want to cut their government funding, but I support their service and I'm willing to pay for them to provide it to others. Is that a mind fuck or what? Not being a Republican and not being a Democrat ... at the same time. It's all very complicated you know
Charities do not provide the service, PP does. It's really that simple.
PP is the charity. What point do you think you're making? PP should not operate off money confiscated by force, it should operate off money freely given
You also like to should on people.
That said, see:
Five myths about Planned Parenthood - The Washington Post
And it's why 'libertarianism' will never be taken seriously as an actual political philosophy – it's in essence naïve, reactionary, anachronistic, and utopian.Actually, Sandra Fluke wasn't in Junior High and she could have gotten free birth control at a variety of Planned Parenthood locations within a few miles of Georgetown
Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
As noted, it's really quite simple, at least to those not stuck in an ideological box. The only sure thing is death and taxes; a cliche, but true. Libertarians are not pragmatic and this is why they will never win elections.
char·i·ty
ˈCHerədē/
noun
Health care services provider
- the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
synonyms: financial assistance, aid, welfare, relief, financial relief;- an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
synonyms: nonprofit organization, voluntary organization, charitable institution;
Types of health care providers MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
They are not contradictory, but not the same.
Liberals crack me up. PP gives away birth control and provides other no fee services. What about that being a charity confuses you? Those things while not being money cost money, note the word "typically" in the definition. Rather than getting the money from donors, money is confiscated by government and given to them. If we cut the government out of it, I would be glad to give more than my share to them, they provide valuable services. But people like you and me who support them should fund them.
The problem you have is being an extremist, you can't separate their funding and their services. To you, to want to cut their government funding means you want to eliminate their service. I want to cut their government funding, but I support their service and I'm willing to pay for them to provide it to others. Is that a mind fuck or what? Not being a Republican and not being a Democrat ... at the same time. It's all very complicated you know
Charities do not provide the service, PP does. It's really that simple.
PP is the charity. What point do you think you're making? PP should not operate off money confiscated by force, it should operate off money freely given
You also like to should on people.
That said, see:
Five myths about Planned Parenthood - The Washington Post
"Planned Parenthood’s abortion care represents 3 percent of its medical services — 332,000 terminations out of a total of 11.4 million services provided in 2009. Nearly all the care offered at Planned Parenthood health centers is preventive services and screenings, including contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, pap smears and breast exams. Title X funds cannot be used for abortion care at any time, for any reason. Federal Medicaid funds can be used to reimburse a provider for an abortion when the pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman or resulted from rape or incest."
Thanks for the link, it destroys outright cons lying verbal vomitose of Planned Parenthood.
And it's why 'libertarianism' will never be taken seriously as an actual political philosophy – it's in essence naïve, reactionary, anachronistic, and utopian.Why is it the government's role to provide free birth control to anyone? What's next, mandatory sterilization of those deemed unworthy by the government? Wasn't that tried once in a european country named Germany?
If you cared at all about eliminating abortion, you should be endorsing any program that helps to mitigate unintended pregnancy.
Spot on. The fact is, if they really wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of disease they would support all efforts to reduce abortions and STD's; that they don't suggests a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism.
Government not confiscating money from people to pay for other people's sex is "a desire to control others and is an example of authoritarianism."
M'kay. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
As noted, it's really quite simple, at least to those not stuck in an ideological box. The only sure thing is death and taxes; a cliche, but true. Libertarians are not pragmatic and this is why they will never win elections.
It seeks to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with; and it is fundamentally in conflict with the intent of the Framing Generation to create a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, as determined by the Federal courts, to be the supreme law of the land.
It was not the Founder's intent to create a 'loose confederation' of 'sovereign neighborhoods,' or 'sovereign individuals,' for that matter – that was already tried and failed, hence our Constitutional Republic.
From Factcheck.org
"The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues."
"In a statement made to CNN, another presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, called the practice discussed in the video a “clear violation of federal law.” The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law.
"Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee"
"Rick Perry, July 14: The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life."
"Rand Paul, July 14: … a video showing [Planned Parenthood]’s top doctor describing how she performs late-term abortions to sell body parts for profit!"
"Carly Fiorina, July 14: This latest news is tragic and outrageous. This isn’t about “choice.” It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment."
Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
-- Planned Parenthood Baby Body Parts Video Was That Crack the Little Bits of the Skull -- Here s the HeartBuyer: “How confident are you with your attorneys’ work that you’ve seen, they are building many layers and making it difficult—”
Dr. Ginde: “We’ve got it figured out, that he knows that—because we talked to him in the beginning, we were like, we don’t want to get called on, you know, selling fetal parts across states.”
Buyer: “Mhm. Neither do we.”
Dr. Ginde: You know what I mean? No one wants to get—”
From Factcheck.org
"The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues."
"In a statement made to CNN, another presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, called the practice discussed in the video a “clear violation of federal law.” The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law.
"Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee"
"Rick Perry, July 14: The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life."
"Rand Paul, July 14: … a video showing [Planned Parenthood]’s top doctor describing how she performs late-term abortions to sell body parts for profit!"
"Carly Fiorina, July 14: This latest news is tragic and outrageous. This isn’t about “choice.” It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment."
Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
-- Planned Parenthood Baby Body Parts Video Was That Crack the Little Bits of the Skull -- Here s the HeartBuyer: “How confident are you with your attorneys’ work that you’ve seen, they are building many layers and making it difficult—”
Dr. Ginde: “We’ve got it figured out, that he knows that—because we talked to him in the beginning, we were like, we don’t want to get called on, you know, selling fetal parts across states.”
Buyer: “Mhm. Neither do we.”
Dr. Ginde: You know what I mean? No one wants to get—”
One data point suggests one criminal, do you find that probative of PP's culpability?
Bring back some form of negative feedback that can balance the scales
Well, you are here and so is the
vigilante clown.
Isn't that enough?
LOW 2 digit IQ is present in this scumbag!... More ranting... please,... you entertain with your HATE of anything moral, ethical and principled!
Oh the irony from probably the biggest hater on USMB.
The only person you are convincing is yourself. Of course it's easy to see why, you are so easily manipulated.
