Planned parenthood?

[Jarhead]

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of overhauling the AFDC system and reforming it, but part of the problem is preventing births to unwed poor mothers.

How do you do that while simultaneously removing poor women's access to birth control.

I know that a lot of conservative religious types will say that these women should just keep their legs closed, but when did that ever work in the history of humanity?

You talk to any religious congregation and you'll find that a healthy percentage of members had premarital sex and a lot of (now) married couples experienced unplanned pregnancies.

no one is denyiong the right to use contraceptives...nor are they saying the state should not fund it.

Abortions is another situation all together. And there is a law against them being funded federally.

 

[Jarhead]

you are unufairly minimizing the importance or religious convictions of many.

I am not PERSOANLLY pro abortion...I consider it murder of an unboirn child...but I support the right for others to abort if they wish...as I am a conservative and I really dont care how others live their lives as it is none of my business....and my sebntiments should not be levied on them. Just dont ask me to pay for it.

Underestanding the REASONS why others feel as they do is the first step to honest debates without the rhetoric and insults.

I understand your reasoning, but it's illogical. As a society, we are not benefitted by unplanned pregnancies. There are multiple, expensive ramifications.

Birth control is actually the cheapest and most realistic option that I can see. And, no one is forcing anyone to use it...it's being provided, at free or low cost, to women who otherwise might not have access to it and if they became pregnant, would likely become a burden to society.

It is the least intrusive option that protects the interests of the most people.

And no one is debating that PP or anyone else should not offer birth control...

Some are claiming it is against their religious beliefs and dont want to be forced to offer it...and they should be allowed to NOT offer it.

 

[catzmeow]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood? This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

I think the government got into paying for this with the stated goal of reducing abortions and increasing the economic health of families.

Women who prevent a pregnancy are unlikely to obtain an abortion or apply for Aid for Dependent Children (welfare) benefits.

It's cheaper in the long run for us to provide condoms than to pay for a single poor woman without familial support to stay home on the government dole while she has small chidlren.

I agree providing low cost contraception and family planning to the poor is an important thing.

PP isn't the only place that does that. You can get free or low cost contraception at country health clinics as well. If states would rather expand their clinics and defund PP, that should be their decision to make, IMO.

I really wish that state and local agencies would partner with local healthcare companies to provide low-cost, prevention-oriented healthcare clinics to serve the needs of poor Americans, who often still don't have access to healthcare of any sort, and are currently clogging the emergency rooms of hospitals around the country (and increasing the price that we all pay for healthcare and insurance).

 

[catzmeow]

Some are claiming it is against their religious beliefs and dont want to be forced to offer it...and they should be allowed to NOT offer it.

Why? We operate as a constitutional republic in this country. The way that our federal tax dollars is spent is determined by representatives elected by us who enact the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Within our system, the possibility exists that the minority will often be unhappy with some decisions made by the majority. As long as their constitutional rights are not being violated, their wishes have been overruled by a larger number of other people with different views.

Shit happens.

I didn't want us to go to war with Iraq. I don't have a constitutional right to stop paying taxes because my tax dollars are supporting causes I don't agree with. There is no system of government, on earth, that works in that way.

Religious people who don't like their tax dollars subsidizing family planning activities can test the constitutionality of that law/funding by appealing that decision in court. There are numerous religious organizations whose sole purpose in life is to protect religious liberties, and most would be happy to test the constitutionality of these legislative and fiscal decisions by congress and the executive branch.

Providing funding to these organizations has not been found to be unconstitutional. Religious people aren't entitled to exert their particular dogmas over everyone else UNLESS they can persuade others to join with them and create a majority who supports their ideas.

I know they get butthurt, but maybe it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how a constitutional republic works, and the limitations of that form of government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

it's funny how conservatives hate and want to eliminate abortion, but don't want to spend money to reduce unplanned pregnancies.

Countries with the lowest abortion rates tend to have the greatest access to family planning, sex education, and birth control.

Give women the tools they need to prevent pregnancy, and you'll reduce abortion on demand.

But, according to some republicans, only skanks use government-funded birth control, and those skanks should be forced to carry pregnancies (that could have been prevented by education and access to birth control) to term.

It's irrational.

you are unufairly minimizing the importance or religious convictions of many.

I am not PERSOANLLY pro abortion...I consider it murder of an unboirn child...but I support the right for others to abort if they wish...as I am a conservative and I really dont care how others live their lives as it is none of my business....and my sebntiments should not be levied on them. Just dont ask me to pay for it.

Underestanding the REASONS why others feel as they do is the first step to honest debates without the rhetoric and insults.

But you do pay for it, the consequences of of not paying for family planning puts more people on TANF (temporary aid for needy families - which replaced AFDC during the Clinton Administration, also know as welfare reform) and more of the uninsured in county health care which is the largest tax eating department in your community. And as pointed out above more and more uninsured seek treatement in emergency rooms, a cost passed on to all of us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some are claiming it is against their religious beliefs and dont want to be forced to offer it...and they should be allowed to NOT offer it.

Why? We operate as a constitutional republic in this country. The way that our federal tax dollars is spent is determined by representatives elected by us who enact the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Within our system, the possibility exists that the minority will often be unhappy with some decisions made by the majority. As long as their constitutional rights are not being violated, their wishes have been overruled by a larger number of other people with different views.

Shit happens.

I didn't want us to go to war with Iraq. I don't have a constitutional right to stop paying taxes because my tax dollars are supporting causes I don't agree with. There is no system of government, on earth, that works in that way.

Religious people who don't like their tax dollars subsidizing family planning activities can test the constitutionality of that law/funding by appealing that decision in court. There are numerous religious organizations whose sole purpose in life is to protect religious liberties, and most would be happy to test the constitutionality of these legislative and fiscal decisions by congress and the executive branch.

Providing funding to these organizations has not been found to be unconstitutional. Religious people aren't entitled to exert their particular dogmas over everyone else UNLESS they can persuade others to join with them and create a majority who supports their ideas.

I know they get butthurt, but maybe it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how a constitutional republic works, and the limitations of that form of government.

Why are the churches granted a tax exemption? If they choose to undermine sound public policy based on their beliefs fine, but that puts them squarely into the political arena.

 

[catzmeow]

Are any college student's sex lives the responsibility of the tax payer?

At present, if a college student becomes pregnant, drops out of college, and has a child that she cannot afford to take care of, what are the ramifications for local, county, state and federal governments?

We are all connected, Beretta. You wish to impose your views on other people, regardless of the consequences for them, but you can still be affected by this.

Sandra Fluke becomes pregnant. She drops out of college. She is not educated, so can only find employment in a service-industry job at $9 an hour for 24 hours a week, without healthcare benefits (welcome to life as a Walmart employee). You don't want to provide government-supported healthcare or TANF (welfare), so how does she take care of her child? Her annual income is $11,232 ($936 per month).

Sandra Fluke can't afford a nice apartment in a low-crime area with good schools, so she lives in a crappy slum apartment for $400 a month. Her child is raised in a neighborhood with high poverty, high crime, failing schools, and multiple levels of societal dysfunction.

Her child is affected by these family, school, community and peer risk factors and does poorly in school, uses drugs and alcohol, engages in early premarital sex, and becomes involved in low-level delinquent acts. Her daughter beats up your child at the mall ($), causes disruptions at school ($), becomes involved in the criminal justice system ($), and becomes pregnant at 16 ($). To buy diapers, her boyfriend burglarizes your house ($).

The cycle repeats.

Spend a week in my job in low income community in America, and you will see that cycle playing out in front of you over and over and over and over again.

Over time, America becomes a country with lower educational attainment, higher rates of poverty, higher levels of healthcare problems (obesity, heart disease, cancer), and our competitive edge with other countries is gradually eroded until it is nonexistent. Your quality of life (and mine) are eroded by the existence of a permanent underclass without access to adequate education, housing, and skills to obtain greater economic success.

Welcome to America, 2012.

 

[thanatos144]

it's funny how conservatives hate and want to eliminate abortion, but don't want to spend money to reduce unplanned pregnancies.

Countries with the lowest abortion rates tend to have the greatest access to family planning, sex education, and birth control.

Give women the tools they need to prevent pregnancy, and you'll reduce abortion on demand.

But, according to some republicans, only skanks use government-funded birth control, and those skanks should be forced to carry pregnancies (that could have been prevented by education and access to birth control) to term.

It's irrational.

When do you realize what personal responsibility means? Also since we are at it when will you realize that it isnt none of your fucking business if a person uses a condom or not.

 

[Katzndogz]

While it is not altogether unpleasant that over 333,000 liberals were killed in the womb, paying for someone elses sexual enjoyment should not be a function of the government, which is why elected representatives passed a law against publicly funded abortions. The controversy could be resolved easily enough. There is a law against public funding for abortion. Planned Parenthood could just open their books for an audit to find out if they have been complying with the law.

 

[beretta304]

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.

 

[thanatos144]

To believe that none of the $500,000,000,000 tax dollars are used in any of the 333,000 abortions performed just last year by planned parenthood is mind boggling! Do any of you still believe in the tooth fairy?

 

[wavingrl]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

Didn't PP begin in the 19th century--the industrial age? Women were having more children than they could care for and/or dying from illegal abortions?

 

[eflatminor]

Why are the churches granted a tax exemption?

Why are any not-for-profit organizations?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Lets give the taxpayers the choice to stay out of the bedroom and put an end to this unholy war waged by the bloody profiteering abortion mill industry

 

[beretta304]

Are any college student's sex lives the responsibility of the tax payer?

At present, if a college student becomes pregnant, drops out of college, and has a child that she cannot afford to take care of, what are the ramifications for local, county, state and federal governments?

We are all connected, Beretta. You wish to impose your views on other people, regardless of the consequences for them, but you can still be affected by this.

Sandra Fluke becomes pregnant. She drops out of college. She is not educated, so can only find employment in a service-industry job at $9 an hour for 24 hours a week, without healthcare benefits. You don't want to prove government-supported healthcare, so how does she take care of her child? That's an annual income of $11,232 ($936 per month).

Sandra Fluke can't afford a nice apartment, so she lives in a crappy slum apartment for $400 a month. Her child is raised in a neighborhood with high poverty, high crime, failing schools, and multiple levels of societal dysfunction.

Her child is affected by these risk factors and does poorly in school, uses drugs and alcohol, engages in early premarital sex, and becomes involved in low-level delinquent acts. Her daughter beats up your child at the mall ($), casuses disruptions at school ($), becomes involved in the criminal justice system ($), and becomes pregnant at 16 ($). To buy diapers, her boyfriend burglarizes your house ($).

The cycle repeats.

Spend a week in my job in low income community in America, and you will see that cycle playing out in front of you over and over and over and over again.

Over time, America becomes a country with lower educational attainment, higher rates of poverty, higher levels of healthcare problems (obesity, heart disease, cancer), and our competitive edge with other countries is gradually eroded until it is nonexistent.

Welcome to America, 2012.

Let's see. Fluke decides to screw irresponsibly like a bunny. She gets pregnant and now she's the tax payers responsibility?

Another scenario she decides to have sex...the taxpayer should pay in advance for her protection?


Sorry but in Fluke's case, she can well afford to pay for her own.

No one is advocating not helping those truly in need in spite of the way that's it's being spun.

 

[bodecea]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

Bullshit. My health is none of the governments business.

Excellent...then sign some contracts promising to never use any emergency service without paying fully for it yourself or your own private insurance company. If you cannot pay up front, you understand that you will be kicked to the curb.

 

[Jarhead]

Are any college student's sex lives the responsibility of the tax payer?

At present, if a college student becomes pregnant, drops out of college, and has a child that she cannot afford to take care of, what are the ramifications for local, county, state and federal governments?

We are all connected, Beretta. You wish to impose your views on other people, regardless of the consequences for them, but you can still be affected by this.

Sandra Fluke becomes pregnant. She drops out of college. She is not educated, so can only find employment in a service-industry job at $9 an hour for 24 hours a week, without healthcare benefits. You don't want to prove government-supported healthcare, so how does she take care of her child? That's an annual income of $11,232 ($936 per month).

Sandra Fluke can't afford a nice apartment, so she lives in a crappy slum apartment for $400 a month. Her child is raised in a neighborhood with high poverty, high crime, failing schools, and multiple levels of societal dysfunction.

Her child is affected by these risk factors and does poorly in school, uses drugs and alcohol, engages in early premarital sex, and becomes involved in low-level delinquent acts. Her daughter beats up your child at the mall ($), casuses disruptions at school ($), becomes involved in the criminal justice system ($), and becomes pregnant at 16 ($). To buy diapers, her boyfriend burglarizes your house ($).

The cycle repeats.

Spend a week in my job in low income community in America, and you will see that cycle playing out in front of you over and over and over and over again.

Over time, America becomes a country with lower educational attainment, higher rates of poverty, higher levels of healthcare problems (obesity, heart disease, cancer), and our competitive edge with other countries is gradually eroded until it is nonexistent.

Welcome to America, 2012.

But based on that logic......if I decide to blow all of my money at Atlantic City, I will become a burden on America as well......so maybe I should be forbidden from gambling?

Or even better....

Many of us spent lots of money in the mid 2000's when times were proseprous...and the result was many foreclosed on their properties in 2010..and became burdens on society....

So should the government monitor our spending during properous times? Maybe FORCE people to save a certian precentage of their take home to be used when they become strapped for cash?

Your logic, although is exactly that, logical.....is really a trend towrad a socialistic environemnt.

 

[catzmeow]

When do you realize what personal responsibility means? Also since we are at it when will you realize that it isnt none of your fucking business if a person uses a condom or not.

See above post. Actually, the issue of unplanned pregnancies to poor/unwed mothers has a significant impact on the quality of life for everyone who lives in the U.S.

I am a great believer in personal responsibility. However, I am also realistic about horny 16-24 year olds, and their ability to provide a stable and adequate home for their offspring.

Forcing people to have children they cannot afford, aren't equipped to take care of, and can't adequately provide for benefits no one in this country, ever.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the public did not force a woman into pregnancy it has no responsibility for terminating it. Nor responsibility for the woman who chose to throw away her life like that. The public should pay for the abortions of any woman forced by the government to have sex with strangers. Why is it so out of the realm of reason to make men responsible for their whelps? Get the responsible men to start ponying up.

 

[catzmeow]

But based on that logic......if I decide to blow all of my money at Atlantic City, I will become a burden on America as well......so maybe I should be forbidden from gambling?

I'm completely in favor of refusing to take care of stupid adults, but when when relatively cheap and effective methods exist to prevent preventable problems with a long-lasting negative impact on society as a whole, it's shortsighted and stupid to avoid doing it.

It's sort of like the difference between encouraging children to brush their teeth and paying for a root canal down the road.

Some problems cause such a widespread and drastic impact on all levels of society, and hinder our success as a nation to such a degree, that the cost benefit is greater to engage in prevention activities.

It's like requiring schools to use proven teaching methodologies and test students for academic success. Sure, it puts an onus on teachers to restructure the way they teach and is annoying to everyone at the local school site, but we have a vested interest in having as many students in America successfully complete school as possible.