Federal funding is already separated from abortions. There is no reason to cut off organizations like Planned Parenthood, which provides about 97% of its services to non-abortion issues, because the brain-dead right is fucked in the head.
Faun I see no reason to make anyone fund Planned Parenthood against their will.
If people disagree with the ethics of Wal-Mart, don't they have the right to boycott, protest,
and refuse to give their money to Wal-Mart?
Why can't this be treated similarly?
Now, if PP is the ONLY source of help for certain women or certain services, then why not
settle this dispute by having
A. The Democrats and liberal prochoice supporters of PP channel all their funding into separate
health systems run on this philosophy of prochoice but mandated control through federal govt.
B. The Republicans and conservative prolife supporters of free market direct their taxes
into separate health and medical systems run on this philosophy of prolife and free market.
Then let taxpayers decide which groups to pay for which services or approach to services.
We need as many people as possible setting up more facilities, programs and provisions to meet the diverse needs out there. Why not reward citizens with tax breaks for setting up and investing in their own programs?
Why not have all of these, to cover all populations,
instead of competing to fund or defund different groups through the federal level.
If the answer is NO, not everyone agrees to fund it, then that program is funded privately.
I guess you're new to this country; but here, it the U.S., there are many things funded with tax dollars and virtually everyone pays for something they'd rather not; and very few things everyone agrees to fund.
Faun don't know if you meant to be sarcastic or insulting,
but I am referring to the traditions that started the Constitutional govt,
where anti-federalist arguments still continue to this day:
the idea of rights belonging to the States or People
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY authorized by the Constitution for the central govt to have those duties.
I was born in Texas and lived here all my life.
Maybe it is my TEXAS culture that speaks to this idea
of running your businesses, churches, schools and community/charity programs YOURSELF
and only use Govt for things like national security that can't be done by state or by local volunteers.
I'm sorry that idea is FOREIGN TO YOU.
Hence the stereotype that Texans see the world
as either Texas or Not Texas. The State of Texas
has been its own nation before. So maybe the
mentality and traditions will always be on the side
of independence, and only working with federal govt
on issues that are UNIQUE and DESIGNED to be managed on that national level.
Health care is definitely not designed to be managed through Washington DC
for every state's populations. That's why these conflicts keep coming up
because of trying to mandate one public policy nationally on something as sensitive and personal
as health care, and especially reproductive decisions that are meant to stay private.
It just makes sense to me why these decisions ought to stay local, private and up to individuals.
Then there wouldn't be any fighting over federal funding --
and YES
Faun what you said about "very little would be funded through govt"
is CORRECT -- that is the POINT -- to localize as much management so there is accountability directly among the people affected, and to minimalize how much is mandated at the top,
that has to be universal since it has to be applied and enforced for everyone -- that SHOULD be less so that our govt is NOT overburdened and backlogged with local issues that
belong to local govt. EXACTLY!
If you look up CONSTITUTIONALISM as a BELIEF IN LIMITED GOVT
this is an age old American tradition. That is part of the key core framework
of my beliefs. I am also a prochoice Democrat, so I am sympathetic with
all the issues of including diversity and minority interests; but by Constitutional
principles, this cannot be imposed on people against their will, consent or beliefs.
Ideally, people by our free will embedded in our human nature by design,
should be able to FREELY CHOOSE and CONSENT to laws and contracts.
I believe in Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence that
the JUST POWERS OF GOVT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
So that is why I am opposed to abusing either church or state authority,
or any other collective influence of corporations, media, parties, etc.
to BULLY people by either coercion, exclusion, or other discrimination.
If we really have formed good solutions that are effective sustainable and ethical,
I believe people will choose those freely and not have to be forced into them.
The best solutions I have found, I find that people CHOOSE to fund, participate and follow freely.
As for people with mental and criminal illness who reject and rebel out of self-destructive
or addictive/abusive tendencies, I found that the methods of CURING these conditions
ESPECIALLY rely on free choice to participate in order for the healing to work.
Only if people are already using coercion as a dangerous force, such as violence
and threatening others, then of course force is necessary to contain or arrest such threats, harms or dangers.
But in the case of things like health care choices, there is no such criminal
threat that justifies depriving citizens of liberty who have done nothing wrong yet!
So that is where I reject abuses of federal govt, to the point of pushing political propaganda
that the compelling interest of govt is enough to justify imposing legislation that is far from the "least restrictive."
Given the votes for the ACA were biased as Democrats/liberals who favor the belief in right
to health care as opposed to faith in free market solutions,
this shows it was politically biased and motivated, and is not from a threat only the federal govt can answer
by "imposing mandates on all citizens requiring purchase of private insurance"
Since that isn't even covering all costs or all people, that cannot be the solution to the threat.
If we don't stop this abuse of govt to push political agenda,
we will continue to see the subsequent conflicts and battles spring from that ongoing war of ideologies,
including the Hobby Lobby case and this Planned Parenthood debacle.
Instead of blaming people for each individual incident that comes up,
why not nip the whole problem in the bud by NOT pushing prolife OR prochoice
programs on taxpayers, but let all people and all parties choose to put their taxes and funding
into programs that respect their beliefs.
This isn't like other areas of legislation that are arbitrary!
These prochoice and prolife beliefs are SACRED and not subject for govt regulation much less forced funding.
Why not recognize that, and quit forcing people on both sides to defend their BELIEFS.
Why not protect beliefs equally by letting people fund their own, and keeping those out of govt mandates.
