Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
- Thread starter
- #41
Really? Then what is?
The LAW regarding this...
As I understand the sequence of events (Obama Administration Shuts Down Texas Women's Health Program - International Business Times
- Texas passed a law saying that no government funds, including those given by the federal government to Texas, could be spent at any clinic where abortions were performed, even on services unrelated to abortion.
- Pursuant to federal law, the federal government was obligated to stop providing funds for this program, since Texas had stopped spending the money on what the federal government required them to.
- The Obama administration could have granted Texas a waiver, but chose not to.
- Oddly, Texas governor Rick Perry pledged to fully fund "these services" even though the cost to Texas will be ten times greater without the federal aid. As far as I can tell, this was a lie and what he meant was that Texas might fund some of the services that they aren't ideologically opposed to, rather than all of the services that used to be offered (some of which Texas has just made it illegal to fund).
So it appears that the Obama administration has cut off funds to Texas because Texas refuses to spend them on the services for which they are intended in a practical way (for example, to perform breast cancer screening in an existing facility, rather than building a dedicated facility that doesn't offer certain unrelated medical procedures). If Rick Perry is telling the truth, Texas women don't have anything to worry about anyway because he will somehow fund the services anyway.
Why is it odd that a state would decide to forgo federal funds with all the conditions involved and still provide the services? Personally, I think it is odd that the federal government is allowed to get away with telling people it gives money to that they have to do things that might make sense in New York City but rarely make sense in Albany.