What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

House GOP Targeting Title X, Pushing Abstinence Only Programs

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,229
Points
280
House Republicans are once again showing that they are far more interested in far-right ideology than anything else. Apparently, eliminating Planned Parenthood, Title X, and teen pregnancy prevention programs is a priority over the economy. Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?

House GOP Targeting Title X In Push To Axe Family Planning Programs

WASHINGTON -- Title X, the federal family planning grant that funds birth control and preventative health services for more than five million low-income people annually, saves U.S. taxpayers massive amounts of money in Medicaid costs, but GOP lawmakers are trying to axe the program for the second time this year in the name of slashing the deficit.

The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year.

Crunching the numbers, every dollar the U.S. government spends on family planning services to help people plan how many children to have and when to have them saves taxpayers about $3.74 in Medicaid birth-related costs. The government spends about $300 million a year on the Title X program, but in 2008 alone, it saved the country $3.4 billion dollars in return.

Nevertheless, House Republicans seeking to cut spending have repeatedly targeted the program. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, proposed a budget bill for fiscal year 2012 last week that "eliminates 79 wasteful programs," including Title X. The budget would also defund Planned Parenthood, cut funding for teen pregnancy prevention initiatives and redirect it toward "abstinence only" education programs, and prevent abortions from being covered by insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
 

Conservative

Type 40
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
17,082
Reaction score
2,053
Points
48
Location
Pennsylvania
Here's the part of the Washington Post piece the HuffPo nimrod 'forgot' to mention...
House Republicans jockey to influence the next budget - The Washington Post
But this bill doesn’t necessarily represent what the GOP leadership — or all of the members of the Republican caucus — will end up pushing for in the budget negotiations. The House GOP leadership has yet to sign off on Rehberg’s bill, which isn’t scheduled as of now to come to the floor for a vote. And neither has the full House Appropriations committee nor the subcommittee on labor, health and education approved it. Both panels would normally have to mark up and pass the bill for it to reach the House floor.
yeah... sounds like the GOP is all hands on deck to support this bill :rofl:
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
House Republicans are once again showing that they are far more interested in far-right ideology than anything else. Apparently, eliminating Planned Parenthood, Title X, and teen pregnancy prevention programs is a priority over the economy. Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?

Remind me why the Federal gov't needs to be funding this again.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,124
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
House Republicans are once again showing that they are far more interested in far-right ideology than anything else. Apparently, eliminating Planned Parenthood, Title X, and teen pregnancy prevention programs is a priority over the economy. Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?

Remind me why the Federal gov't needs to be funding this again.

because democrats are too cheap to donate their own money for their causes. They want to donate yours.
 
OP
J.E.D

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,229
Points
280
House Republicans are once again showing that they are far more interested in far-right ideology than anything else. Apparently, eliminating Planned Parenthood, Title X, and teen pregnancy prevention programs is a priority over the economy. Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?

Remind me why the Federal gov't needs to be funding this again.

"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
House Republicans are once again showing that they are far more interested in far-right ideology than anything else. Apparently, eliminating Planned Parenthood, Title X, and teen pregnancy prevention programs is a priority over the economy. Where are the jobs, Speaker Boehner?

Remind me why the Federal gov't needs to be funding this again.

"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.

That isn't a reason.
Maybe we should cut funding for out of wedlock births so as to discourage them?
 
OP
J.E.D

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,229
Points
280
Remind me why the Federal gov't needs to be funding this again.

"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.

That isn't a reason.
Maybe we should cut funding for out of wedlock births so as to discourage them?

Yes, it is a reason. It's more expensive to provide prenatal and postpartum care than to provide affordable birth control and other services.
 

Conservative

Type 40
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
17,082
Reaction score
2,053
Points
48
Location
Pennsylvania
Here's the part of the Washington Post piece the HuffPo nimrod 'forgot' to mention...
House Republicans jockey to influence the next budget - The Washington Post
But this bill doesn’t necessarily represent what the GOP leadership — or all of the members of the Republican caucus — will end up pushing for in the budget negotiations. The House GOP leadership has yet to sign off on Rehberg’s bill, which isn’t scheduled as of now to come to the floor for a vote. And neither has the full House Appropriations committee nor the subcommittee on labor, health and education approved it. Both panels would normally have to mark up and pass the bill for it to reach the House floor.
yeah... sounds like the GOP is all hands on deck to support this bill :rofl:

crickets...

yeah, I thought you'd ignore facts that contradict your partisan hackery, you little liberal pussbot.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,124
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.

That isn't a reason.
Maybe we should cut funding for out of wedlock births so as to discourage them?

Yes, it is a reason. It's more expensive to provide prenatal and postpartum care than to provide affordable birth control and other services.

And why is the federal government providing any of that?
 
OP
J.E.D

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,229
Points
280
Here's the part of the Washington Post piece the HuffPo nimrod 'forgot' to mention...
House Republicans jockey to influence the next budget - The Washington Post
But this bill doesn’t necessarily represent what the GOP leadership — or all of the members of the Republican caucus — will end up pushing for in the budget negotiations. The House GOP leadership has yet to sign off on Rehberg’s bill, which isn’t scheduled as of now to come to the floor for a vote. And neither has the full House Appropriations committee nor the subcommittee on labor, health and education approved it. Both panels would normally have to mark up and pass the bill for it to reach the House floor.
yeah... sounds like the GOP is all hands on deck to support this bill :rofl:

crickets...

yeah, I thought you'd ignore facts that contradict your partisan hackery, you little liberal pussbot.

I have you on ignore you fucking moron. So what? Are you going to pretend that the GOP actually supports PP? The same GOP who was willing to shut down the gov't over funding for PP? :lol::lol::lol:
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
54,461
Reaction score
19,340
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.

That isn't a reason.
Maybe we should cut funding for out of wedlock births so as to discourage them?

Yes, it is a reason. It's more expensive to provide prenatal and postpartum care than to provide affordable birth control and other services.

False dichotomy. You speak as if we have only two choices, either fund preventative care, or fund the bastard children they produce. There is an option C. Don't fund any of it at all! If you can't afford to be a parent, don't get pregnant.
 

Conservative

Type 40
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
17,082
Reaction score
2,053
Points
48
Location
Pennsylvania
Here's the part of the Washington Post piece the HuffPo nimrod 'forgot' to mention...
House Republicans jockey to influence the next budget - The Washington Post

yeah... sounds like the GOP is all hands on deck to support this bill :rofl:

crickets...

yeah, I thought you'd ignore facts that contradict your partisan hackery, you little liberal pussbot.

I have you on ignore you fucking moron. So what? Are you going to pretend that the GOP actually supports PP? The same GOP who was willing to shut down the gov't over funding for PP? :lol::lol::lol:

You seem to respond to a lot of my posts, including this one, for having me on ignore... :rofl: @ you.

Way to deflect. You whine that the GOP is doing stuff, you're own sources source contradicts you, and when presented with that little factiod, you promptly ignore it.

Way to be a little pussbot.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,479
Points
1,830
"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.

That isn't a reason.
Maybe we should cut funding for out of wedlock births so as to discourage them?

Yes, it is a reason. It's more expensive to provide prenatal and postpartum care than to provide affordable birth control and other services.

Not if we stop providing prenatal and postpartum care too! Where is the authority to pay for these things? If the low income people can afford to buy beer and pot they can buy a pack of condoms.
 
OP
J.E.D

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,229
Points
280
crickets...

yeah, I thought you'd ignore facts that contradict your partisan hackery, you little liberal pussbot.

I have you on ignore you fucking moron. So what? Are you going to pretend that the GOP actually supports PP? The same GOP who was willing to shut down the gov't over funding for PP? :lol::lol::lol:

You seem to respond to a lot of my posts, including this one, for having me on ignore... :rofl: @ you.

Way to deflect. You whine that the GOP is doing stuff, you're own sources source contradicts you, and when presented with that little factiod, you promptly ignore it.

Way to be a little pussbot.

Jesus Christ you are a fucking idiot. I didn't ignore your little "factoid", did I? I responded to it, didn't I? And the only reason I saw your post was because I was signed out, but still had the page up; therefore, since I was not signed in, I saw your post. Once I saw that you were addressing me, I decided to respond. Since you've been told repeatedly that I have you on ignore, but continue to address me, I'd say that you are the one who can't get enough of me. :lol::lol::lol: Dumb. Ass.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
248
Points
48
Location
California
Remind me why the Federal gov't needs to be funding this again.

"The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year."

That's why.

That isn't a reason.
Maybe we should cut funding for out of wedlock births so as to discourage them?

For a party that supposedly cares about children, it sure as hell doesn't show.

All this partisan bullshit is being lumped onto the children in this one.

I guess the care for children ends at birth.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
60,491
Reaction score
18,473
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
yeah... sounds like the GOP is all hands on deck to support this bill

You miss the point – the issue isn’t how many republicans agree with the legislation or its likelihood of passage; rather, that the GOP is infested with radical extremists who have no interest in sound governance or addressing the real needs of the Nation. And considering their undue influence in the GOP, the possibility of serious issues being address is highly unlikely, to the determent of the Nation as a whole.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,124
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Please explain what is extreme about:

1) Not wanting to buy another person's birth control, and
2) Suggesting that people who don't want to have children shouldn't have sex.
 
OP
J.E.D

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,229
Points
280
Please explain what is extreme about:

1) Not wanting to buy another person's birth control, and
2) Suggesting that people who don't want to have children shouldn't have sex.

You're going to pay for something either way. There are poor people in this country who require assistance. i know, you don't like it. They're lazy bums, yadayadayada. Sorry. That's just the way it is. The question is, which would you prefer to support: a poor lady's 3 children, or contraception for poor people and programs that provide sex education for teens?
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,734
Reaction score
7,917
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
Please explain what is extreme about:

1) Not wanting to buy another person's birth control, and
2) Suggesting that people who don't want to have children shouldn't have sex.

You're going to pay for something either way. There are poor people in this country who require assistance. i know, you don't like it. They're lazy bums, yadayadayada. Sorry. That's just the way it is. The question is, which would you prefer to support: a poor lady's 3 children, or contraception for poor people and programs that provide sex education for teens?

How about c) None of the Above?
If you subsidize behavior you will get more of it. If we subsidize out of wedlock births, we'll get more of them. Poor people certainly have some resources. It isn't like they are all destitute on the street. ANd maybe if one or two of them were the rest would take notice.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,124
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Please explain what is extreme about:

1) Not wanting to buy another person's birth control, and
2) Suggesting that people who don't want to have children shouldn't have sex.

You're going to pay for something either way. There are poor people in this country who require assistance. i know, you don't like it. They're lazy bums, yadayadayada. Sorry. That's just the way it is. The question is, which would you prefer to support: a poor lady's 3 children, or contraception for poor people and programs that provide sex education for teens?

No. Im not going to pay for it either way. Your whole premise is based on a lie.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top