Planned parenthood?

[hazlnut]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

Another great post!!

Thank you.

 

[koshergrl]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

No, it doesn't.

See, another lie. When do you open your mouth and NOT lie? Has it ever happened?

Rarely! Caught him in one yesterday. Highlighted it for him...never heard a word. He's a slick New Yorker.

If you check much of what he claims to be true, you'll likely find otherwise.

I know it's otherwise. I don't check any of his garbage any more than I'd check rtard's, jake's or tdm's. It's a given that it's garbage. He's nothing but a vile, spouting dembot workig hard for the culture of death.

 

[beretta304]

Speaking of the devil herself. Posts and is gone in 60 seconds. Give her 90 more seconds and she'll log back in. Do a drive-by and log out just as quickly.

Some of us have to post that way, as we are in the many stages of preparing for work, e.g., bathing, shampooing, posting, dental hygiene practices, posting, dressing, posting, taking care of the cat's needs, posting, breakfast, posting. It is a "time" issue. I've logged back in and out, too, as sometimes I lose the tab to this site, while searching other sites....

And other times, not caring enough about a response to our posts to go back and notice.

You get the picture. We're all here for different reasons, and do what it takes to enjoy the journey.

You don't do it to be slick. There are few here who stir the pot, get cornered, pretend to leave and then slide in with the hope that the response might get by. Besides, why are we talking about a post from August? 08-19-2012, 12:35 PM

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats really do believe that the health of individuals is a matter of government concern. Justice Scalia mentioned this when he asked if the government could make sure everyone eats their broccoli. Of course the government could make sure everyone eats broccoli if it so chooses and finds that it's a matter of national concern. Singapore made a governmental decision that chewing gum caused tooth decay and banned it.

The government should not be funding the murder of its own people. It should not be requiring people who don't want to murder innocent people to pay for such killings. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, it's her body, she can do what she wants but it should not be publicly funded. The government needs to get out of these vaginas too.

 

[Jarhead]

Democrats really do believe that the health of individuals is a matter of government concern. Justice Scalia mentioned this when he asked if the government could make sure everyone eats their broccoli. Of course the government could make sure everyone eats broccoli if it so chooses and finds that it's a matter of national concern. Singapore made a governmental decision that chewing gum caused tooth decay and banned it.

The government should not be funding the murder of its own people. It should not be requiring people who don't want to murder innocent people to pay for such killings. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, it's her body, she can do what she wants but it should not be publicly funded. The government needs to get out of these vaginas too.

It doesnt. There is a law that forbids it.

The problem we have now is that an orgainizationthat conducts 350,000 abortions a year gets half a billion a year in tax payer money...and whereas it claims that none of that mnoney funds abortion, there is reason to think they may...seeing as abortions is their most expensive activity, and their most common activity....

 

[beretta304]

Democrats really do believe that the health of individuals is a matter of government concern. Justice Scalia mentioned this when he asked if the government could make sure everyone eats their broccoli. Of course the government could make sure everyone eats broccoli if it so chooses and finds that it's a matter of national concern. Singapore made a governmental decision that chewing gum caused tooth decay and banned it.

The government should not be funding the murder of its own people. It should not be requiring people who don't want to murder innocent people to pay for such killings. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, it's her body, she can do what she wants but it should not be publicly funded. The government needs to get out of these vaginas too.

It doesnt. There is a law that forbids it.

The problem we have now is that an orgainizationthat conducts 350,000 abortions a year gets half a billion a year in tax payer money...and whereas it claims that none of that mnoney funds abortion, there is reason to think they may...seeing as abortions is their most expensive activity, and their most common activity....

Stated differently...we all know about "creative accounting".

 

[AmyNation]

A lot of people don't like armored tanks. Should we stop funding them?
Even more people don't like Congress. Should we disband your representatives?

Not one cent of tax money goes to performing abortions. It was true yesterday. It was true today. It will be true tomorrow. Despite your spin.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying for a law to be passed that says that tax money should not be used to fund tanks.

And if that law is passed, would you not want to audit the military to make sure they are not using tax payer money to fund the making of tanks?....especially if you see that the military is still making tanks?

why do I think I will not get an answer to this question (above)?

PP is very very careful about where the money goes. If they used taxpayer money to fund abortions they would lose their government funding.

 

[catzmeow]

it's funny how conservatives hate and want to eliminate abortion, but don't want to spend money to reduce unplanned pregnancies.

Countries with the lowest abortion rates tend to have the greatest access to family planning, sex education, and birth control.

Give women the tools they need to prevent pregnancy, and you'll reduce abortion on demand.

But, according to some republicans, only skanks use government-funded birth control, and those skanks should be forced to carry pregnancies (that could have been prevented by education and access to birth control) to term.

It's irrational.

 

[beretta304]

How much are a box of condoms.? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[AmyNation]

I don't think federal funding for PP is the answer. In fact, I'd bet the best thing for PP would be if they were dropped by the fed. Give the money to the states and allow them to decide if they want to fund PP or if they want to put that money into their county health clinics.

I support PP, I think they do great things for poor Americans. I simply don't think federally funding them is the right way to go.

 

[beretta304]

I don't think federal funding for PP is the answer. In fact, I'd bet the best thing for PP would be if they were dropped by the fed. Give the money to the states and allow them to decide if they want to fund PP or if they want to put that money into their county health clinics.

I support PP, I think they do great things for poor Americans. I simply don't think federally funding them is the right way to go.

Now there's something we can agree on.

 

[catzmeow]

Here's some interesting information:

CDC Yearly abortion data

Abortions increased during the "Just Say No" Years (1983-1990), but decreased during the Clinton administration (1990-1995), when availability to family planning and birth control was expanded in the U.S.

If you really hate abortion, you really should support family planning. There is a correlation.

Increased access to birth control and sexual education decreases abortion.

 

[catzmeow]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood? This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

I think the government got into paying for this with the stated goal of reducing abortions and increasing the economic health of families.

Women who prevent a pregnancy are unlikely to obtain an abortion or apply for Aid for Dependent Children (welfare) benefits.

It's cheaper in the long run for us to provide condoms than to pay for a single poor woman without familial support to stay home on the government dole while she has small chidlren.

That's what's so twisted about some of these dichotomies.

A lot of republicans are anti-welfare. They're also anti-abortion. And, they're anti-pregnancy prevention.

How does an unplanned pregancy to a woman who can't afford to support a child and doesn't want one benefit anyone in our society?

How is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term and cutting welfare benefits to unwed mothers going to improve our society?

 

[Jarhead]

it's funny how conservatives hate and want to eliminate abortion, but don't want to spend money to reduce unplanned pregnancies.

Countries with the lowest abortion rates tend to have the greatest access to family planning, sex education, and birth control.

Give women the tools they need to prevent pregnancy, and you'll reduce abortion on demand.

But, according to some republicans, only skanks use government-funded birth control, and those skanks should be forced to carry pregnancies (that could have been prevented by education and access to birth control) to term.

It's irrational.

you are unufairly minimizing the importance or religious convictions of many.

I am not PERSOANLLY pro abortion...I consider it murder of an unboirn child...but I support the right for others to abort if they wish...as I am a conservative and I really dont care how others live their lives as it is none of my business....and my sebntiments should not be levied on them. Just dont ask me to pay for it.

Underestanding the REASONS why others feel as they do is the first step to honest debates without the rhetoric and insults.

 

[eflatminor]

Here's some interesting information:

CDC Yearly abortion data

Abortions increased during the "Just Say No" Years (1983-1990), but decreased during the Clinton administration (1990-1995), when availability to family planning and birth control was expanded in the U.S.

If you really hate abortion, you really should support family planning. There is a correlation.

Increased access to birth control and sexual education decreases abortion.

All fine. I support no law that restricts access to birth control or sexual education. I support your right to provide sex ed to your kids and/or to advocate for that in your school system. Just don't force me to pay for it. Ask me for a donation and I very well may write a check but using federal tax dollars for what should be charitable outreach is theft and it's wrong.

 

[Jarhead]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood? This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

I think the government got into paying for this with the stated goal of reducing abortions and increasing the economic health of families.

Women who prevent a pregnancy are unlikely to obtain an abortion or apply for Aid for Dependent Children (welfare) benefits.

It's cheaper in the long run for us to provide condoms than to pay for a single poor woman without familial support to stay home on the government dole while she has small chidlren.

That's what's so twisted about some of these dichotomies.

A lot of republicans are anti-welfare. They're also anti-abortion. And, they're anti-pregnancy prevention.

How does an unplanned pregancy to a woman who can't afford to support a child and doesn't want one benefit anyone in our society?

How is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term and cutting welfare benefits to unwed mothers going to improve our society?

How is forcing one to pay for an abortion when they believe it is mureder and against their religious convictions a fair thing to do?

 

[catzmeow]

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm totally in favor of overhauling the AFDC system and reforming it, but part of the problem is preventing births to unwed poor mothers.

How do you do that while simultaneously removing poor women's access to birth control.

I know that a lot of conservative religious types will say that these women should just keep their legs closed, but when did that ever work in the history of humanity?

You talk to any religious congregation and you'll find that a healthy percentage of members had premarital sex and a lot of (now) married couples experienced unplanned pregnancies.

 

[AmyNation]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood? This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

I think the government got into paying for this with the stated goal of reducing abortions and increasing the economic health of families.

Women who prevent a pregnancy are unlikely to obtain an abortion or apply for Aid for Dependent Children (welfare) benefits.

It's cheaper in the long run for us to provide condoms than to pay for a single poor woman without familial support to stay home on the government dole while she has small chidlren.

I agree providing low cost contraception and family planning to the poor is an important thing.

PP isn't the only place that does that. You can get free or low cost contraception at country health clinics as well. If states would rather expand their clinics and defund PP, that should be their decision to make, IMO.

 

[catzmeow]

you are unufairly minimizing the importance or religious convictions of many.

I am not PERSOANLLY pro abortion...I consider it murder of an unboirn child...but I support the right for others to abort if they wish...as I am a conservative and I really dont care how others live their lives as it is none of my business....and my sebntiments should not be levied on them. Just dont ask me to pay for it.

Underestanding the REASONS why others feel as they do is the first step to honest debates without the rhetoric and insults.

I understand your reasoning, but it's illogical. As a society, we are not benefitted by unplanned pregnancies. There are multiple, expensive ramifications to any unplanned pregnancy, whether the mother then becomes a welfare recipient, is forced to drop out of school and is economically handicapped (and handicaps her child, in turn), raises the child in many cases without a male parent in the home, or has an abortion.

All of these outcomes are individually far more expensive than providing birth control to prevent the problem.

Providing access to birth control is actually the cheapest, least intrusive, and most realistic option that I can see. And, no one is forcing anyone to use it...it's being provided, at free or low cost, to women who otherwise might not have access to it and if they became pregnant, would likely become a burden to society.

And, unplanned pregnancies, particularly to young or teen moms, have a dramatic impact on our society. Spend a little time in the inner city with teen mothers and their offspring, and you will see that we pay the pricetag for this outcome in a hundred different ways...increased juvenile court/youth correction costs. Increased police costs. Loss of safety. Lack of school and economic success and higher offending rates for the children involved.

We will pay for this stuff, one way or another.

It is the least intrusive option that protects the interests of the most people.

 

[beretta304]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood? This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

I think the government got into paying for this with the stated goal of reducing abortions and increasing the economic health of families.

Women who prevent a pregnancy are unlikely to obtain an abortion or apply for Aid for Dependent Children (welfare) benefits.

It's cheaper in the long run for us to provide condoms than to pay for a single poor woman without familial support to stay home on the government dole while she has small chidlren.

That's what's so twisted about some of these dichotomies.

A lot of republicans are anti-welfare. They're also anti-abortion. And, they're anti-pregnancy prevention.

How does an unplanned pregancy to a woman who can't afford to support a child and doesn't want one benefit anyone in our society?

How is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term and cutting welfare benefits to unwed mothers going to improve our society?

You raise some excellent points. Was Sandra Fluke one of the below:

"It's cheaper in the long run for us to provide condoms than to pay for a single poor woman without familial support to stay home on the government dole while she has small chidlren."


Are any college student's sex lives the responsibility of the tax payer?