House GOP Targeting Title X, Pushing Abstinence Only Programs

[del]

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?

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

failing....

 

[Photonic]

Why should poor people not be able to get birth control prescriptions. These things aren't expensive.

Well, if they are poor, and rely on Medicare, but you take that away from them, they aren't going to have insurance to pay for a doctor's visit. And even though birth control might not be very expensive (to you) it might still be outside any reasonable budgetary measures they can make.

If people took responsibility for their actions this wouldn't be an issue. As it is, we are giving people a pass on adulthood and letting them act irresponsible because they know we will pay for it.
Screw that.

Again more blanket accusations. You seem to think that you know everything. And that's the kind of mentality that plays right into the hands of the left wingers. All they have to do is hold up this kind of stuff up as an example of extremist right wing ideals, and centrists, moderates, and progressives suddenly think that Nancy Pelosi is at least the lesser of two evils. That's right, I'll say it again. The stuff you're spewing makes even Nancy Pelosi look like the lesser of two evils for a great majority of people.

And you accuse me of making blanket statements! Hah!
There are free clinics supported by contributions. There are free services offered by doctors etc. Quit believing that "poor" people are destitute. It is simply not true. "Poor people" in this country have their own apartments, televisions, cell phones, automobiles etc etc etc. There is plenty of disposable income out there for things they really need.
Nancy Pelosi probably looks like a wet dream for an idiot of your stripe.

If this was true there wouldn't be homeless people.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, No i simply suggested they use self control. Something that isnt as difficult as youd like to pretend.

You know, that's too bad. I actually thought there was hope of a reasonable discussion here. But you don't seem very honest when you speak. You make extreme demands, and then try to water it down by saying "I'm just saying people should have self control." If you really think that, then you're quite ignorant of biology, and reality.

Nothing is going to be accomplished by people calling for the incredibly unrealistic, like telling people to stop having sex if you're poor. You can waste your time trying to beat this war drum. Or you could maybe help get something done, by focusing on something more reasonable.

There is nothing extreme about expecting people to be responsible when they engage in activities that will create life.

You may refuse to do so. But that doesn't mean it's impossible or unreasonable for all americans, rich or poor, to do.

 

[oreo]

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

THANK YOU for READING this LIBERALS Link and pointing this out. They always pick and choose what paragraphs they like---

 

[Inthemiddle]

99.9999999% of all human sexual activity is for other purposes than creating life.

Sex is a powerful biological imperative. Evolutionarily speaking, this powerful imperative was designed for to bolster the potential for new life to be continually created. That is certainly true. But the result (which is not unique to humans) is sexual practices and behaviors that are rarely about creating life. Like several other speices, humans have sex for a wide variety of reasons. Some of them are physical pleasure, social status, persuasion, stress relief and emotional coping, and emotional bonding.

The point is that sex is a part of our nature. Do we have faculties to weight decisions? Sure. But expecting people to just not have sex anymore is completely unreasonable. You may as well expect a lion to stop hunting. So what's the alternatives open to us? Extreme demands that would hope in vain to stop human nature in its tracks? That's not going to get anywhere. Trying to boil it down to something as simple as "exercise self control" does not make your suggestion reasonable. I would think that in this day an age we need to only look at the widespread occurrence of sexual violence at the hands of lifelong abstinent priests to realize that the biological drive for sex cannot be dismissed so simply.

So the result of your laments is that you won't get anywhere. You bring an end to social programs by calling for poor people to stop having sex. But at least by having funding available to assist in preventative measures we can reduce the amount of total money that is spent on Medicare, and prevent even more children being brought into Medicare using homes and thus lessening the demand for Medicare funding needs.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Again, why is this the government's job to fund births?

This is the problem with you libs, you think this should all be the government's job.

Frankly, I think that banning abortion is a practical impossibility, but the government shouldn't be funding them, or births, or anything else.

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Well of course it MUCH CHEAPER to just ABORT those "COSTLY" little children.
And US taxpayers should just sit down and shut the hell up over HAVING TO FUND THEM.
What's wrong with you heartless people..?

 

[Stephanie]

Us tax payers dont fund abortions through federal dollars. This is a common lie pushed by the right.
The right wants control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Plenty of married people use title x and PP, but they ignore this.
You would think people who are so prolife would be so willing to see babies be heathly.
Its the great joke of the right.

Really, does planned parenthood do Abortions?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Again, why is this the government's job to fund births?

This is the problem with you libs, you think this should all be the government's job.

Frankly, I think that banning abortion is a practical impossibility, but the government shouldn't be funding them, or births, or anything else.

True one should not get a tax deduction for children.
and parents should pay the full cost of their education.

 

[JoeB131]

Us tax payers dont fund abortions through federal dollars. This is a common lie pushed by the right.
The right wants control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Plenty of married people use title x and PP, but they ignore this.
You would think people who are so prolife would be so willing to see babies be heathly.
Its the great joke of the right.

So what you are saying is that there are no organizations OTHER than Planned Parenthood that can do this?

The fact is, PP is in the abortion business. That's what they were set up to do. Now, yeah, the government doesn't pay for the abortions, but they subsidize the organization, which is effectively the same thing.

The fact is that 1) We're broke and 2) the government shouldn't be in this business to start with. If you libs want to see PP perform more abortions and pass out more rubbers, then pass the hat and take up a collection, just like every other cause does.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Again, why is this the government's job to fund births?

This is the problem with you libs, you think this should all be the government's job.

Frankly, I think that banning abortion is a practical impossibility, but the government shouldn't be funding them, or births, or anything else.

And people without health insurance are supposed to do what, squat, drop the kid and get back to work in the fields?

 

[Seawytch]

Time to play "Guess the Quote"...

What "far left loon" said:

"It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do."

 

[JoeB131]

True one should not get a tax deduction for children.
and parents should pay the full cost of their education.

I have no problem getting government out of the education business. They suck at it. My parents paid to send me to Catholic Schools, except the last two years where I paid my own tuition through min wage jobs.

As for tax deductions for kids, half the country doesn't pay income taxes to start with...

So please don't think you are going to somehow rationalize government paying for abortion by going against things I like, I don't think the government should be doing those things, either.

 

[Stephanie]

"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.

Again, why is this the government's job to fund births?

This is the problem with you libs, you think this should all be the government's job.

Frankly, I think that banning abortion is a practical impossibility, but the government shouldn't be funding them, or births, or anything else.

And people without health insurance are supposed to do what, squat, drop the kid and get back to work in the fields?

How bout they keep their legs closed and keep their pecker in their pants and STAY in the fields.

 

[JoeB131]

And people without health insurance are supposed to do what, squat, drop the kid and get back to work in the fields?

I know this might come as a horrific shock to you, but through most of history, that's how people had kids.

People without health insurance should keep their legs together if they can't afford kids.

But hells bells, family planning is for people who work for a living. If you are living in the "Safety Hammock", someone else will pick up the tab.

"He suffers from the socialist disease in its worst form, the belief the world owes him a living" - Robert Heinlein.

 

[JoeB131]

Time to play "Guess the Quote"...

What "far left loon" said:

"It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do."

let me guess. Nixon.

I think you are missing the point. Back in those days, it wasn't clear that the welfare state would turn the safety net into a hammock, that you'd have people who would spend three generations on welfare because the world owed them. Back then, you had a work ethic, and welfare was for people who hit a string of bad luck.

What we really need to do is stop calling them "entitlements" and start calling them what htey are - "Charity".

You are being helped by the charity of others. It is not an infinite resource.

(PS, SW, I liked your old AVI better.)

 

[uscitizen]

True one should not get a tax deduction for children.
and parents should pay the full cost of their education.

I have no problem getting government out of the education business. They suck at it. My parents paid to send me to Catholic Schools, except the last two years where I paid my own tuition through min wage jobs.

As for tax deductions for kids, half the country doesn't pay income taxes to start with...

So please don't think you are going to somehow rationalize government paying for abortion by going against things I like, I don't think the government should be doing those things, either.

1/2 the people in the USA do not even work.

 

[Full-Auto]

Us tax payers dont fund abortions through federal dollars. This is a common lie pushed by the right.
The right wants control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Plenty of married people use title x and PP, but they ignore this.
You would think people who are so prolife would be so willing to see babies be heathly.
Its the great joke of the right.

Really, does planned parenthood do Abortions?

LOL Is that what they mean by someone exerting ownership.

Nice job!

 

[JoeB131]

True one should not get a tax deduction for children.
and parents should pay the full cost of their education.

I have no problem getting government out of the education business. They suck at it. My parents paid to send me to Catholic Schools, except the last two years where I paid my own tuition through min wage jobs.

As for tax deductions for kids, half the country doesn't pay income taxes to start with...

So please don't think you are going to somehow rationalize government paying for abortion by going against things I like, I don't think the government should be doing those things, either.

1/2 the people in the USA do not even work.

and that's the problem. We have lost the notion that work is a virtue. So we have more people riding in the wagon than pulling it.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are free clinics supported by contributions.

Some places. Not everywhere, probably not even accessible to half the impoverished population.

There are free services offered by doctors etc.

Same as above.



Okay, so poor people aren't poor. Well that makes sense. Also, have you seen these apartments? TVs, automobiles, etc? How do you know they have them? How do you suppose they got them? It's alot more common to find a thrift store where you can buy a crappy but functional TV for $25, than a doctor who will see you for free, or to have a free clinic that will offer you doctor's services (especially one that isn't being funded by the government). Not to mention that those things still don't account for paying for the actual prescription. Nor account for those individuals for whom birth control is not a medically acceptable option.

There is plenty of disposable income out there for things they really need.

Again, you say this. But you're just saying it. It's an assumption you're making that you're blanketly laying out there.

Nancy Pelosi probably looks like a wet dream for an idiot of your stripe.

This is a good one and shows how far your blanket accusations get you. Anyone who disagrees with your extremist stance must be an idiot, pervert, and/or extreme leftist. Just for the record, I despise Nancy Pelosi. And my bodily functions are none of your business. Are you not capable of having some class and dignity in your discussion?

I'm not just laying it out there. These are facts:
American Poverty Statistics | Welfare and Welfare Spending.

THe programs you want to push will pay for people who are perfectly capable of paying for some things themselves. But we have relieved them of making choices, and thus condemned them to a life in the underclass. I realize Democrats like that because it insures future voting blocks. But only a heartless and cruel person wants to perpetuate poverty. Republicans want to end poverty. And ending programs that incentivize poverty is the first step.