Indiana GOP Senator: Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding Will 'Increase Abortions'

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The solution is simple. didn't say it was easy.

Shame people want to think they can ignore the rules of nature without any consequence. It would save us alot of money otherwise.

Rules of nature? I think you're confusing the bible with nature. Big mistake.

I think you are the one who is confused. If you have unprotected sex, there are good odds somebody is going to get pregnant. That would be the "rules of nature." It was very obvious and clear to me.

Not sure what the Bible had to do with any of that other than you reflecting your own prejudice.

 

[Cal]

I have to disagree with Senator Becker.

Planned Parenthood is not going to "go away" simply because the government quits babying them. They will survive on their own. They just won't be able to do it on the taxpayer dollar and they should not be able to in the first place.

If Planned Parenthood believes in birth control by means other than abortion, then if and when the tax dollars are no longer funneled into their coffers, they will maintain the programs they have going now. I wonder which programs will suffer the most if this happens... If I were a betting man, I would bet it won't be abortions.
Immie

..

Of course it won't be abortions. Zero dollars.. Zero from the government go to funding abortions through Planned Parenthood.

I'll tell you who will suffer the most.. The low-income women that lean on PP for birth control, STD checks, cancer screenings.. and all the other services offered. That is who will suffer.

 

[gekaap]

Shame people want to think they can ignore the rules of nature without any consequence. It would save us alot of money otherwise.

Rules of nature say people are going to have sex. Lots of it, and they aren't going to wait for a man made institution like marriage.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

..

Of course it won't be abortions. Zero dollars.. Zero from the government go to funding abortions through Planned Parenthood.

Sure it doesn't. It just frees up all their other money for that purpose.

I'll tell you who will suffer the most.. The low-income women that lean on PP for birth control, STD checks, cancer screenings.. and all the other services offered. That is who will suffer.

It's not my responsibility to see to it that low-income women have birth control, STD checks, cancer screenings.. and all the other services offered. I have my own family to take care of. That's their responsibility and if for what ever reason they cannot meet it that's what charities and other advocacy agencies, including PP, who will still very much be around without govt funding, are for.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, the rules of nature dictate that our actions result in consequence. So if you want to control the consequences, the only logical solution is to make choices that result in different consequences.

Abortion is a result of selfish people trying to avoid the consequences their actions when they become pregnant. The logical way to end abortion is to avoid making choices that will result in pregnancy. In other words stop having sex.

You people act like it's written in stone that when we get horny we are obliged to have sex. Reality is that we are one of the few creations on this planet that can control when we mate. Simply because we have urges doesn't mean we don't have a choice whether to act on those urges.

We have the freedom whether to do so or not. Freedom to choose is a fundamental part of our nature. As long as you deny that and deny that their are consequences for your own actions, you will continue to run into problems and waste time and resources dealing with avoidable problems.

Why not just take responsibility for your actions? It's not that ridiculous to be adults is it?

 

[Immanuel]

I have to disagree with Senator Becker.

Planned Parenthood is not going to "go away" simply because the government quits babying them. They will survive on their own. They just won't be able to do it on the taxpayer dollar and they should not be able to in the first place.

If Planned Parenthood believes in birth control by means other than abortion, then if and when the tax dollars are no longer funneled into their coffers, they will maintain the programs they have going now. I wonder which programs will suffer the most if this happens... If I were a betting man, I would bet it won't be abortions.
Immie

..

Of course it won't be abortions. Zero dollars.. Zero from the government go to funding abortions through Planned Parenthood.

I'll tell you who will suffer the most.. The low-income women that lean on PP for birth control, STD checks, cancer screenings.. and all the other services offered. That is who will suffer.

Your statement that the government does not pay for abortions is a liberal lie. Medicaid does in fact pay for abortions. Look it up.

Beyond that, however, if you give me millions of dollars and tell me that I cannot use it for such and such a purpose then I can assure you that I won't use it for those purposes, however, it frees up millions of dollars that I received elsewhere that I can use for that particular purpose which I would have had to spend elsewhere.

I'll tell you who will suffer the most.. The low-income women that lean on PP for birth control, STD checks, cancer screenings.. and all the other services offered. That is who will suffer.

If that is correct, and you probably are correct, then what you are saying is that Planned Parenthood does not value those services. What you are saying is that Planned Parenthood's main purpose is abortion and that all those other "services" are just feeder industries to its main purpose.

At least someone finally admits it.

Immie

 

[Article 15]

No, the rules of nature dictate that our actions result in consequence. So if you want to control the consequences, the only logical solution is to make choices that result in different consequences.

Abortion is a result of selfish people trying to avoid the consequences their actions when they become pregnant. The logical way to end abortion is to avoid making choices that will result in pregnancy. In other words stop having sex.

You people act like it's written in stone that when we get horny we are obliged to have sex. Reality is that we are one of the few creations on this planet that can control when we mate. Simply because we have urges doesn't mean we don't have a choice whether to act on those urges.

We have the freedom whether to do so or not. Freedom to choose is a fundamental part of our nature. As long as you deny that and deny that their are consequences for your own actions, you will continue to run into problems and waste time and resources dealing with avoidable problems.

Why not just take responsibility for your actions? It's not that ridiculous to be adults is it?

You're in fuggin' lala land, dude.

 

[AllieBaba]

There are some sane people left in the Republican party..

I was beginning to wonder..

While the anti-Planned Parenthood amendment passed 36 to 13, one Republican state senator — Sen. Vaneta Becker — actually noted an all-too-common hypocrisy in Republican anti-choice efforts:

Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, said she didn’t understand why legislators would take a step of reducing women’s access to health service at [the same time] the state is cutting funding toward programs for mentally disabled children.

“If we are so concerned about pregnancy before children are born, why are we not as concerned after children are born?” Becker said.

In an interview with ThinkProgress this afternoon, Becker said that a lot of people share her view but are too intimidated by the political climate to voice their opposition. Noting the state and federal laws already banning abortion funding, she said the bill “is an attempt to politicize the issue.” In doing so, Republicans will deny thousands of Hoosier woman access to vital health services, she said. Indeed, Planned Parenthood of Indiana states that 85,000 low-income Hoosiers receive birth control, STD tests, Pap smears and breast exams at 28 health centers across the state. “In many areas that are rural, without these kind of services, women will be stripped of health care,” Becker added.

[...]

In her 24 years in the state house and five years in the Senate, Becker said she has never seen legislation that goes this far.

ThinkProgress » Indiana GOP Senator Slams Her Party For Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding: This

I agree with the Senator 100%. Can someone.. anyone.. explain how taking away funding from a group that provides birth control and many key health services to low-income women, will somehow lead to less abortions?..

Abortions are a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does. They also help prevent a large number of abortions, help stop the spread of STD's, give women breast exams and pap smears.. and the list goes on. Why do Republicans generally hate PP so much?

What a brainwashed lunatic.

Abortion increased exponentially when it was legalized and clinics started operating. What flight of fancy leads you and other pro-abortionists to believe that abortions will INCREASE if there are no legally operating clinics?

It's not logical, it doesn't follow, and therefore it's a crappy argument for abortion.

I think you all should return to the "horrible killer babies will take over the earth after eating their mothers from the inside out if abortion isn't legal" argument. It makes more sense.

 

[NoEconomist]

There are some sane people left in the Republican party..

I was beginning to wonder..

While the anti-Planned Parenthood amendment passed 36 to 13, one Republican state senator — Sen. Vaneta Becker — actually noted an all-too-common hypocrisy in Republican anti-choice efforts:

Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, said she didn’t understand why legislators would take a step of reducing women’s access to health service at [the same time] the state is cutting funding toward programs for mentally disabled children.

“If we are so concerned about pregnancy before children are born, why are we not as concerned after children are born?” Becker said.

In an interview with ThinkProgress this afternoon, Becker said that a lot of people share her view but are too intimidated by the political climate to voice their opposition. Noting the state and federal laws already banning abortion funding, she said the bill “is an attempt to politicize the issue.” In doing so, Republicans will deny thousands of Hoosier woman access to vital health services, she said. Indeed, Planned Parenthood of Indiana states that 85,000 low-income Hoosiers receive birth control, STD tests, Pap smears and breast exams at 28 health centers across the state. “In many areas that are rural, without these kind of services, women will be stripped of health care,” Becker added.

[...]

In her 24 years in the state house and five years in the Senate, Becker said she has never seen legislation that goes this far.

ThinkProgress » Indiana GOP Senator Slams Her Party For Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding: This

I agree with the Senator 100%. Can someone.. anyone.. explain how taking away funding from a group that provides birth control and many key health services to low-income women, will somehow lead to less abortions?..

Abortions are a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does. They also help prevent a large number of abortions, help stop the spread of STD's, give women breast exams and pap smears.. and the list goes on. Why do Republicans generally hate PP so much?

What a brainwashed lunatic.

Abortion increased exponentially when it was legalized and clinics started operating. What flight of fancy leads you and other pro-abortionists to believe that abortions will INCREASE if there are no legally operating clinics?

It's not logical, it doesn't follow, and therefore it's a crappy argument for abortion.

I think you all should return to the "horrible killer babies will take over the earth after eating their mothers from the inside out if abortion isn't legal" argument. It makes more sense.

No.

The number of reported abortions went up because they were not being preformed in the back ally once they where safe and legal. Take a way the clinics and I guess its back to the coat hangers for ladies. Women don't get abortions because they are fun and free. They get them because they aren't ready to have a baby. And spare me your Whoulda, Shoulda, Coulda argument because PP provides all the info people need to make good choices. People are human and they make mistakes

 

[RDD_1210]

The solution is simple. didn't say it was easy.

Shame people want to think they can ignore the rules of nature without any consequence. It would save us alot of money otherwise.

Rules of nature? I think you're confusing the bible with nature. Big mistake.

I think you are the one who is confused. If you have unprotected sex, there are good odds somebody is going to get pregnant. That would be the "rules of nature." It was very obvious and clear to me.

Not sure what the Bible had to do with any of that other than you reflecting your own prejudice.

Maybe you should read what she posted. She is suggesting that it's unnatural to have premarital or extramarital sex. Neither of those going against the "rules of nature" but perhaps do go against the rules of the bible. That is where she and obviously you are confused.

You are better than that. At least I thought so. But lately you are becoming more and more partisan. Shame.

 

[Granny]

No, the rules of nature dictate that our actions result in consequence. So if you want to control the consequences, the only logical solution is to make choices that result in different consequences.

Abortion is a result of selfish people trying to avoid the consequences their actions when they become pregnant. The logical way to end abortion is to avoid making choices that will result in pregnancy. In other words stop having sex.

You people act like it's written in stone that when we get horny we are obliged to have sex. Reality is that we are one of the few creations on this planet that can control when we mate. Simply because we have urges doesn't mean we don't have a choice whether to act on those urges.

We have the freedom whether to do so or not. Freedom to choose is a fundamental part of our nature. As long as you deny that and deny that their are consequences for your own actions, you will continue to run into problems and waste time and resources dealing with avoidable problems.

Why not just take responsibility for your actions? It's not that ridiculous to be adults is it?

I have to agree. For every action there is a reaction (consequence). "Wide open anything goes" sex and other behaviors feeds the problem - it doesn't solve it. Wanton behavior has become the norm rather than the exception and taxes shouldn't be used to fund the behavior.

Minor children should not have the "right" to skirt around parental involvement in their general medical welfare - what would happen if some 13-year-old were to die in an abortion procedure? What would YOU say if someone contacted you and announced, "Mr./Mrs. ______, we regret to inform you that your daughter died during a 'medical procedure.'"?

And unless women have absolutely no conscience whatsoever ... what about the future emotional/guilt trauma they could live with the rest of their lives? What about sometime in the future a woman really wants to have a child and finds out that is not possible because of multiple prior abortion procedures. This is not a game to be played for the sake of present day gratification. There are way too many things to be considered - not the least of which is a fetus' right to life.

 

[xsited1]

Indiana GOP Senator: Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding Will 'Increase Abortions'

If Americans are going to be forced to pay for women's health care, just give it to a non-profit company that doesn't perform abortions. Problem solved.

That's what they're basically doing..

Only 3% of what PP does is related to abortion (regardless of what Sen. Kyl wants you to believe).. and none of that recieves govt. funding.

.. truth.

False. If a company receives public money of any sort, it adds to the bottom line. There's no true way to separate it. The best way to handle it is to give the 3% to Planned Parenthood and the remaining 97% to a non-profit company that doesn't provide abortions.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, the rules of nature dictate that our actions result in consequence. So if you want to control the consequences, the only logical solution is to make choices that result in different consequences.

Abortion is a result of selfish people trying to avoid the consequences their actions when they become pregnant. The logical way to end abortion is to avoid making choices that will result in pregnancy. In other words stop having sex.

You people act like it's written in stone that when we get horny we are obliged to have sex. Reality is that we are one of the few creations on this planet that can control when we mate. Simply because we have urges doesn't mean we don't have a choice whether to act on those urges.

We have the freedom whether to do so or not. Freedom to choose is a fundamental part of our nature. As long as you deny that and deny that their are consequences for your own actions, you will continue to run into problems and waste time and resources dealing with avoidable problems.

Why not just take responsibility for your actions? It's not that ridiculous to be adults is it?

You're in fuggin' lala land, dude.

I guess I am. I'm surrounded by people who seem to think they have no choices in their life. That's extremely insane.

 

[Immanuel]

No, the rules of nature dictate that our actions result in consequence. So if you want to control the consequences, the only logical solution is to make choices that result in different consequences.

Abortion is a result of selfish people trying to avoid the consequences their actions when they become pregnant. The logical way to end abortion is to avoid making choices that will result in pregnancy. In other words stop having sex.

You people act like it's written in stone that when we get horny we are obliged to have sex. Reality is that we are one of the few creations on this planet that can control when we mate. Simply because we have urges doesn't mean we don't have a choice whether to act on those urges.

We have the freedom whether to do so or not. Freedom to choose is a fundamental part of our nature. As long as you deny that and deny that their are consequences for your own actions, you will continue to run into problems and waste time and resources dealing with avoidable problems.

Why not just take responsibility for your actions? It's not that ridiculous to be adults is it?

You're in fuggin' lala land, dude.

I guess I am. I'm surrounded by people who seem to think they have no choices in their life. That's extremely insane.

No, you are wrong. They think you have one choice... the choice to abort or not to abort. They will protect that choice (and only that choice) of yours by any means necessary.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it somehow significant that the senator's comment needed to be labeled GOP? Am I the only one who has a problem making a GOP comment somehow more significant than anybody else's comment? Most especially when the subject should have nothing to do with partisanship or ideology but should focus on whether the USA has the money to fund Planned Parenthood or any other worthy organization?

Who gets to decide what organizations are worthy to be funded and which ones are not?

Who does the measurement to determine which/what organizations do the most good with the money they receive?

How about we recognize that the treasury is bare and no matter how worthy an organization is, we do not have the money to fund it at this time?

And if Planned Parenthood is necessary to prevent abortion, God help us all.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is it somehow significant that the senator's comment needed to be labeled GOP? Am I the only one who has a problem making a GOP comment somehow more significant than anybody else's comment? Most especially when the subject should have nothing to do with partisanship or ideology but should focus on whether the USA has the money to fund Planned Parenthood or any other worthy organization?

Who gets to decide what organizations are worthy to be funded and which ones are not?

Who does the measurement to determine which/what organizations do the most good with the money they receive?

How about we recognize that the treasury is bare and no matter how worthy an organization is, we do not have the money to fund it at this time?

And if Planned Parenthood is necessary to prevent abortion, God help us all.

There is a clear standard to decide which organizations are worthy of being funded and which are not: Is it a Constitutional responsibility or otherwise authorized by the Constitution? If not, then stop funding it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it somehow significant that the senator's comment needed to be labeled GOP? Am I the only one who has a problem making a GOP comment somehow more significant than anybody else's comment? Most especially when the subject should have nothing to do with partisanship or ideology but should focus on whether the USA has the money to fund Planned Parenthood or any other worthy organization?

Who gets to decide what organizations are worthy to be funded and which ones are not?

Who does the measurement to determine which/what organizations do the most good with the money they receive?

How about we recognize that the treasury is bare and no matter how worthy an organization is, we do not have the money to fund it at this time?

And if Planned Parenthood is necessary to prevent abortion, God help us all.

There is a clear standard to decide which organizations are worthy of being funded and which are not: Is it a Constitutional responsibility or otherwise authorized by the Constitution? If not, then stop funding it.

Oh I agree, but the leftists/socialists can always find a 9th Circuit Judge or some such to corrupt the general welfare clause to justify constitutional payola which is what it is.

It would be wonderful if we could fund every worthy organization out there, but it simply cannot be done without corrupting both the benefactors and the beneficiaries of the people's money. And even if we could, there is no money. The U.S. government doesn't have enough money to fund a corner lemonade stand.

It's time to stop spending on EVERYTHING that does not absolutely have to be funded until the debt is paid off and the budget is balanced. And that I think is going to require a constitutional amendment to accomplish. I would very much like to write the wording of it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, the rules of nature dictate that our actions result in consequence. So if you want to control the consequences, the only logical solution is to make choices that result in different consequences.

Abortion is a result of selfish people trying to avoid the consequences their actions when they become pregnant. The logical way to end abortion is to avoid making choices that will result in pregnancy. In other words stop having sex.

You people act like it's written in stone that when we get horny we are obliged to have sex. Reality is that we are one of the few creations on this planet that can control when we mate. Simply because we have urges doesn't mean we don't have a choice whether to act on those urges.

We have the freedom whether to do so or not. Freedom to choose is a fundamental part of our nature. As long as you deny that and deny that their are consequences for your own actions, you will continue to run into problems and waste time and resources dealing with avoidable problems.

Why not just take responsibility for your actions? It's not that ridiculous to be adults is it?

You're in fuggin' lala land, dude.

Your response is not surprising. Expecting people to actually be responsible for their actions these days is becoming an extreme concept.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe you should read what she posted.

I did.

She is suggesting that it's unnatural to have premarital or extramarital sex.

She suggested no such thing.

You are better than that. At least I thought so. But lately you are becoming more and more partisan. Shame.

By the very definition of the word, it is not possible for me to be partisan as I belong to no political party.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is it somehow significant that the senator's comment needed to be labeled GOP? Am I the only one who has a problem making a GOP comment somehow more significant than anybody else's comment? Most especially when the subject should have nothing to do with partisanship or ideology but should focus on whether the USA has the money to fund Planned Parenthood or any other worthy organization?

Who gets to decide what organizations are worthy to be funded and which ones are not?

Who does the measurement to determine which/what organizations do the most good with the money they receive?

How about we recognize that the treasury is bare and no matter how worthy an organization is, we do not have the money to fund it at this time?

And if Planned Parenthood is necessary to prevent abortion, God help us all.

Please stop making sense. You're hurting their heads.