# Defunding of Planned Parenthood



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Not today:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...nd-planned-parenthood/ar-BBlmIBv?ocid=u305dhp



> Senate shoots down measure to defund Planned Parenthood
> 
> The Senate on Monday rejected a measure to defund Planned Parenthood in a 53-46 vote, likely punting the issue into the fall debate over preventing a government shutdown.
> 
> Republicans fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the legislation, which was fast-tracked to the floor after the release of undercover videos that show Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue from abortions.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

It's to be expected. The democrats make their bones (pun intended) supporting abortion. It may surprise many of them that their constituents don't agree come the next election.


----------



## ajaxlucy (Jul 18, 2004)

I'm so glad. It may be that the only good thing to come out of the terrible HIV outbreak in southern Indiana is a better understanding of how Planned Parenthood has contributed to public health.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> It's to be expected. The democrats make their bones (pun intended) supporting abortion. It may surprise many of them that their constituents don't agree come the next election.


By then this will be long forgotten


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

PP supporters seem to state the importance of how women's health would suffer if they lost funding. Aside from the abortion services, they supposedly do all this good for general health.

Now why would that be the case since obamacare's implementation? Weren't we told obamacare is for all the people to have access to their health care needs? and that nobody would be without access to good basic health care?

People are forced to buy insurance coverage that accounts for all sorts of female health needs whether they occur or not.

Seems everyone who wants gov bucks claims that people will suffer and even die if they don't have funding. 

So ... everyone who gets a paycheck is contributing money to the gov. And the gov uses that money to make sure some female's medical needs are taken care of by the imposed tyranny of obamacare. 

And if that's not enough, there's medicaid.

And just in case.. if that's not enough, make sure there's a PP?




:hrm:




:stars:

Yeah, that is just freakin stupid.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> *Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has canceled a contract that provides Planned Parenthood with state Medicaid funds.*
> 
> Medicaid, the joint federal and state health insurance program for the poor, represents a major source of the groupâs government funding, at about 75 percent nationwide.
> 
> ...


http://www.weaselzippers.us/230761-jindal-cuts-off-medicaid-funds-for-planned-parenthood-in-louisiana/


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

People of good intent fought the battle against slavery. They had some wins and some losses. It is my belief that, one day, abortion will be looked back upon as the barbaric act that it is and those, who find abortion supporters, in their family tree, will hang their heads in shame.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> People of good intent fought the battle against slavery. They had some wins and some losses. It is my belief that, one day, abortion will be looked back upon as the barbaric act that it is and those, who find abortion supporters, in their family tree, will hang their heads in shame.


When the only arguments one can come up with are comparing this to slavery or Nazis, it should tell you something about their validity.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When the only arguments one can come up with are comparing this to slavery or Nazis, it should tell you something about their validity.


What? we can't compare one barbaric act to another? The history of the US is full of shameful acts that were once accepted, or, even popular. Is it not valid to compare the slaughter of the unborn to the bondage of another group, who were thought to be less than human? 

~60 million of the unborn have been destroyed since 1973, in the U.S. Is that not like another group, that one could mention, who were exterminated after having their humanity questioned? 

Could it be that those comparisons strike a nerve because the events are more similar that the supporters of abortion want to admit?

Oh, and BTW, those are not the only arguments that I have come up with, but, you know that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Could it be that those comparisons strike a nerve because the events are more similar that the supporters of abortion want to admit?


No, it's because they are all based on emotion rather than logic. 

Abortions are legal because that is what the majority wants, and it's not likely to ever change


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's because they are all based on emotion rather than logic.
> 
> Abortions are legal because that is what the majority wants, and it's not likely to ever change


 The majority once wanted the Native Americans exterminated/removed from the "civilized" world. They largely got it. That is one of those shameful acts in history that is not dissimilar from the abortion debate.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

This country is more barbaric than any third world country
I remember when this country was great, when we stood up for the underdog, protected the weak, and tried to do the right thing.
Now we have a government that spreads hatred, promotes racism, mocks patriotism and has turned our society into separate packs of animals fighting over imaginary bones.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The majority once wanted the Native Americans exterminated/removed from the "civilized" world. They largely got it. That is one of those shameful acts in history that is not dissimilar from the abortion debate.


No, it's just one more unrelated argument which has nothing to do with a person's right to make their own decisions.

I don't feel any shame or guilt over what happened in the past, and I don't try to dictate what anyone else does.

People need to just mind their own business and stop trying to control everything


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's just one more unrelated argument which has nothing to do with a person's right to make their own decisions.
> 
> I don't feel any shame or guilt over what happened in the past, and I don't try to dictate what anyone else does.
> 
> People need to just mind their own business and stop trying to control everything


 I, nor any other pro-life advocate who I know, want to control everything. We see abortion as an abhorrent practice that results in the death of a human child. We cannot sit by and let that happen. I am all for choice, when the choice only affects the one doing the choosing. 
As I have said before, I am for assisted suicide, drug legalization, property rights, School choice, and absolutely anything you want to do that does no direct harm to another. Abortion doesn't fit that bill. The measure of success, with abortion, is the death of an unborn child. That is a simple fact. That is why I fight, and will continue to fight to end that barbaric practice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I, nor any other pro-life advocate who I know, want to control everything


You want to control everything that relates to abortion.
Context is everything, so none of the other issues mean anything here.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

So why exactly do we even need PP anymore? We have Obama care now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You want to control everything that relates to abortion.
> Context is everything, so none of the other issues mean anything here.


 So you change the argument. Ok, I'll bite. We want to end the practice of killing viable unborn children. That is a fact. That is not "controlling everything" no more than abolitionists wanted to control everything when they fought for the freedom of American slaves. They wished to expand freedom to a group from whom freedom had been denied. We wish to do the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> So you change the argument. Ok, I'll bite. We want to end the practice of killing viable unborn children. That is a fact. That is not "controlling everything" no more than abolitionists wanted to control everything when they fought for the* freedom of American slaves*. They wished to expand freedom to a group from whom freedom had been denied. We wish to do the same.


You're still just repeating the same rhetorical lines

I'll come back if you get new material


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> So why exactly do we even need PP anymore? We have Obama care now.


That's not for you to decide

If you don't need them, you don't have to use them

Others obviously feel they are needed


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> So you change the argument. Ok, I'll bite. We want to end the practice of killing viable unborn children. That is a fact. That is not "controlling everything" no more than abolitionists wanted to control everything when they fought for the freedom of American slaves. They wished to expand freedom to a group from whom freedom had been denied. We wish to do the same.


I agree with you that the abolitionists didnt want to control everything..... they certainly backed away from the multitude of problems that arose once those slaves were "free". I have a feeling the same situation will show its face if abortion ever becomes illegal again.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

That's not what I asked. Obama care is suppose to make sure everyone has the health care they need. PP should now be obsolete. It shouldn't be needed. Unless it's only purpose is to do abortions and if that is its only purpose why not just admit it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's just one more unrelated argument which has nothing to do with a person's right to make their own decisions.
> 
> I don't feel any shame or guilt over what happened in the past, and I don't try to dictate what anyone else does.
> *
> People need to just mind their own business and stop trying to control everything*


Anarchist statements like this coming from a devout Statist seem a odd, or maybe you really did not mean it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not for you to decide
> 
> If you don't need them, you don't have to use them
> 
> Others obviously feel they are needed


 
If she is, as I am, a tax payer and our tax money is being used to fund this slaughter house, it is for us to decide. And please don't come back with the whole "the money isn't used for abortions" fallacy. Because if someone else paid my mortgage, I could go to Disney every month.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not for you to decide
> 
> If you don't need them, you don't have to use them
> 
> Others obviously feel they are needed


How does that make sense?

Isn't this thread about FUNDING of pp? with OUR money? That eliminates the simplicity of "if you don't need them, don't have to use them" 

Most people consider their money funding something a pretty significant involvement, whether they use it or not.

I can pass by the ABC store if I don't need it, but they get gov money.

I can pass by the county health dept if I don't want to use it, but they get gov money.

Tons of examples. When taxpayers don't like where gov spends their money, they get to voice that. So yeah, we DO get to decide. It's all a process.

When there are people with balls in office to change some things, it will happen.

When the represented people take the false attitude that they don't get to decide, then the whole wod evolves to not have a choice. It's a battle that's been going on for a really long time, and some have not given up.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

partndn said:


> How does that make sense?
> 
> Isn't this thread about FUNDING of pp? with OUR money? That eliminates the simplicity of "if you don't need them, don't have to use them"
> 
> ...


Post of the century!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Anarchist statements like this coming from a devout Statist seem a odd, or maybe you really did not mean it.


You like to apply labels, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> That's not what I asked. Obama care is suppose to make sure everyone has the health care they need. PP should now be obsolete. It shouldn't be needed. Unless it's only purpose is to do abortions and if that is its only purpose why not just admit it.


Yeah, you would think PP wouldn't be necessary with Obamacare. But I thought the same about ordering meds from overseas, yet here I am still ordering meds from India.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You like to apply labels, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.


You are funny, if the shoe fits wear it, stand up and admit your status. 

Labels are great to apply when describing a generalized attitude concerning political and social leanings. Sometimes it allows a quick confirmation if the bottle you reached for is catsup or hot sauce. It gives a basis of understanding of that person's motives. My perception remains, unless you can somehow convince me that the faithful following of laws and the state's desires without question or discernment is not accurate within the label.


Added note. Just to be fair I could be be labeled a Volunteerist or Laissez faire capitalist.


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

> No, it's just one more unrelated argument which has nothing to do with a person's right to make their own decisions.


 "Hey, mind your own business! Oh, and while you're at it PAY the check for my business."


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

> You're still just repeating the same rhetorical lines
> 
> I'll come back if you get new material


 2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4

A fact is a fact is a fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> You are funny, if the shoe fits wear it, stand up and admit your status.
> 
> Labels are great to apply when describing a generalized attitude concerning political and social leanings. Sometimes it allows a quick confirmation if the bottle you reached for is catsup or hot sauce. It gives a basis of understanding of that person's motives. *My perception remains,* unless you can somehow convince me that the faithful following of laws and the state's desires without question or discernment is not accurate within the label.


It wouldn't be the first time your perception was in error, and I feel certain it won't be the last.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wouldn't be the first time your perception was in error, and I feel certain it won't be the last.


That's convincing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

preparing said:


> "Hey, mind your own business! Oh, and while you're at it PAY the check for my business."


I'm not attempting to force anyone to comply with my wishes.

Is your business a non-profit, providing useful services?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

words are.... labels...labels aid in communication as they convey a common understanding.

So in an effort to be kind to those who dislike labels.
Cu tee Bqhyv in cuz dopcdrh vd


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> That's not what I asked. Obama care is suppose to make sure everyone has the health care they need. PP should now be obsolete. It shouldn't be needed. Unless it's only purpose is to do abortions and if that is its only purpose why not just admit it.


Except that Obamacare allowed states to opt out of abortion coverage, and about half of them did. So your premise is flawed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> That's convincing.


You're mistakenly thinking it was an attempt at convincing you when it was merely an observation.

It would be pointless to try and convince you of anything, and it really makes no difference to me

You just like tossing out labels and diverting the conversation from the actual topic.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Except that Obamacare allowed states to opt out of abortion coverage, and about half of them did. So your premise is flawed.


So PP only needed service is abortion? That's what I thought.


----------



## preparing (Aug 4, 2011)

Why did I engage in this thread? 

Planned Parenthood is EVIL.

I have to go make a salad...over and out.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

If you're wondering why we still need PP:

http://time.com/3983266/elizabeth-warren-planned-parenthood-speech/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by partndn View Post
> How does that make sense?
> 
> Isn't this thread about FUNDING of pp? with OUR money? That eliminates the simplicity of "if you don't need them, don't have to use them"
> ...


97% of what they do has nothing to do with abortion
You should be happy that money is being spent on something better than welfare checks


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> So PP only needed service is abortion? That's what I thought.


And again, what you think would be wrong.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Raeven said:


> And again, what you think would be wrong.


What services do they offer that wouldn't be covered by Obama care?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> 97% of what they do has nothing to do with abortion
> You should be happy that money is being spent on something better than welfare checks


No. Now, would be a case where your statement of "you don't get to decide" applies. 

You don't get to decide what I'm happy with concerning dollars spent on one corner of the block vs. another. 

I call bull on the 97%, and even if it is fairly accurate, you can't explain why it's needed when o'not-care is supposed to cover health for all. What are they doing? cancer screenings? nursing mother training? diaper folding?

Whatever it is, it's supposed to be covered by the now USA wide forced consumer purchase. So pp is obsolete, except for abortions.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> What services do they offer that wouldn't be covered by Obama care?


You're welcome to explore this and expand your knowledge all on your own. I suggest the search term, "What services are offered by Planned Parenthood that aren't covered by Obamacare?"


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Raeven said:


> You're welcome to explore this and expand your knowledge all on your own. I suggest the search term, "What services are offered by Planned Parenthood that aren't covered by Obamacare?"


I did, I went right to their site. I saw no services I couldn't get anywhere else. Except abortions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

preparing said:


> 2 + 2 = 4
> 2 + 2 = 4
> 2 + 2 = 4
> 2 + 2 = 4
> ...


You can never measure accurately enough to say it's 4 with any confidence, but the answer almost certainly lies somewhere between 3 and 5.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> I did, I went right to their site. I saw no services I couldn't get anywhere else. Except abortions.


Not everyone has Obamacare.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> I did, I went right to their site. I saw no services I couldn't get anywhere else. Except abortions.


They work to provide those services for less than you can get at a normal doctors office. My local clinic does the same thing. Like the program that provides blood test once a year at a greatly reduce costs even cheaper than I can get with my insurance. 

And you can get abortions other places.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Raeven said:


> You're welcome to explore this and expand your knowledge all on your own. I suggest the search term, "What services are offered by Planned Parenthood that aren't covered by Obamacare?"


Are we to seek and consider in house services or the services they outsource?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Raeven said:


> Not everyone has Obamacare.


Since everyone around here seems to be keeping track, I'm no longer on Obamacare. I've been on a Medicare Advantage HMO for 4 days now.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/07/23/do-we-still-need-planned-parenthood/


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Since everyone around here seems to be keeping track, I'm no longer on Obamacare. I've been on a Medicare Advantage HMO for 4 days now.


:cute: Happy birthday, and I hate you.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Since everyone around here seems to be keeping track, I'm no longer on Obamacare. I've been on a Medicare Advantage HMO for 4 days now.


I gotta read through better, I thought this was about planned parenthood :gaptooth:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

You can go to your local clinic and get the exact same services which tax payers are providing no need for them to provide it twice with PP.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Are we to seek and consider in house services or the services they outsource?


When the question makes sense, I'll be happy to respond.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Again you can get your abortion elsewhere no need for PP


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> You can go to your local clinic and get the exact same services which tax payers are providing no need for them to provide it twice with PP.


They don't provide it twice and Planned parenthood is their local clinic more often than not. I personally would rather go to a clinic who's entire focus is women's; reproductive medicine then the one that does a bit of everything.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Again you can get your abortion elsewhere no need for PP


Well you chose where you want to go. You don't get to choose for others.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> They don't provide it twice and Planned parenthood is their local clinic more often than not. I personally would rather go to a clinic who's entire focus is women's; reproductive medicine then the one that does a bit of everything.


According to thier site they have 700 offices for the whole country
So I doubt everyone has one in thier town or close enough to use


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> According to thier site they have 700 offices for the whole country
> So I doubt everyone has one in thier town or close enough to use


Dis anyone say that?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> They don't provide it twice and Planned parenthood is their local clinic more often than not.


You just said it lol


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Planned Parenthood offers all their services on a sliding fee scale, so for some, choosing to use their services makes more financial sense than going to a local clinic. This applies to all the services they offer -- not just abortion.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Planned Parenthood offers all their services on a sliding fee scale, so for some, choosing to use their services makes more financial sense than going to a local clinic. This applies to all the services they offer -- not just abortion.


So do other health clinics.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> So do other health clinics.


Some do, some don't. Depends on where you live.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> So do other health clinics.


Which ones? And really who cares? If the others are receiving government funding too, what's your problem? 
Planned parenthood is a trusted name and they are going to be around for a long time.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Simple, take the funding from PP and give it to county health departments where abortions are not offered, but, everything else is. Or, PP can just get out of the abortion game and continue to get Federal funding. If they are there to help women, what is the problem? They can continue to provide all medical services except for sucking out the unborn with a vacuum. It is a win-win. Women win, the unborn win.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Simple, take the funding from PP and give it to county health departments where abortions are not offered, but, everything else is.


You're advocating government healthcare?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Simple, take the funding from PP and give it to county health departments where abortions are not offered, but, everything else is. Or, PP can just get out of the abortion game and continue to get Federal funding. If they are there to help women, what is the problem? They can continue to provide all medical services except for sucking out the unborn with a vacuum. It is a win-win. Women win, the unborn win.


Why would they do that? Public funds are not used for abortions and abortions are needed and wanted services, regardless of your opinion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Simple, take the funding from PP and give it to county health departments where abortions are not offered, but, everything else is.


You're advocating government gynecology care? Kind of reminds me of the creepy anti-Obamacare TV ads republicans used to run.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Why would they do that? Public funds are not used for abortions and abortions are needed and wanted services, regardless of your opinion.


 
Don't try to sell that mess here. You know? If you would pay my mortgage, I could go to Disney Land every month. Come one, why not? It is not like you are subsidizing my trip to Disney, is it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You're advocating government gynecology care? Kind of reminds me of the creepy anti-Obamacare TV ads republicans used to run.


The Federal funding is already there. I didn't say to increase it, just move it away from the slaughter house.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Don't try to sell that mess here. You know? If you would pay my mortgage, I could go to Disney Land every month. Come one, why not? It is not like you are subsidizing my trip to Disney, is it?


I'm not selling anything, Champ. It's done. Abortion is legal and Planned Parenthood is remaining funded by tax dollars. Don't like it? Not my problem.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The Federal funding is already there. I didn't say to increase it, just move it away from the slaughter house.


The difference is that Obamacare covers healthcare expenses, while you advocate government provided healthcare. That qualifies as a socialistic takeover of the healthcare system.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> I'm not selling anything, Champ. It's done. Abortion is legal and Planned Parenthood is remaining funded by tax dollars. Don't like it? Not my problem.


 
We will not tire from the fight. The murder will stop. It may take decades, but, this shameful practice will be made illegal.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Ozarks Tom said:


> It's to be expected. The democrats make their bones (pun intended) supporting abortion. It may surprise many of them that their constituents don't agree come the next election.





Bearfootfarm said:


> By then this will be long forgotten


With the disgust & outrage growing, and the number of videos set to be released, something tells me that this won't be going away anytime soon.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The difference is that Obamacare covers healthcare expenses, while you advocate government provided healthcare. That qualifies as a socialistic takeover of the healthcare system.


 Oh, don't get me wrong. I would love to see government get out of all funding of healthcare, and that would include regulation of the funding, but, until that day comes, my tax money is going to pay the animals who suck the unborn out with a vacuum. I would rather see it set on fire than see it go to that.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

basketti said:


> Why would they do that? *Public funds are not used for abortions* and abortions are needed and wanted services, regardless of your opinion.


That is NOT true. Do your research.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> We will not tire from the fight. The murder will stop. It may take decades, but, this shameful practice will be made illegal.


Even if it means a socialistic takeover of the healthcare system?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> With the disgust & outrage growing, and the number of videos set to be released, something tells me that this won't be going away anytime soon.


There have always been loons and troglodytes and always will be. But luckily our society is far more science driven than ever and will continue to be more so.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

From Wikipedia regarding the Hyde Amendment (emphasis mine):



> The version in force from 1981 until 1993 prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions &#8220;_*except*_ where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.&#8221;[7]
> 
> On October 22, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994.[8]&#8194; *The Act contained a new version of the Hyde Amendment that expanded the category of abortions for which federal funds are available under Medicaid to include cases of rape and incest.*[9]


&#8194;


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

*********


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> With the disgust & outrage growing, and the number of videos set to be released, something tells me that this won't be going away anytime soon.


You can keep on banging your head against the wall but you're wrong. Abortion rights are here to stay.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Even if it means a socialistic takeover of the healthcare system?


One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The Federal funding is already there. I didn't say to increase it, just move it away from the slaughter house.


My post wasn't about funding, it was about the government actually providing healthcare services.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

basketti said:


> There have always been loons and troglodytes and always will be. But luckily our society is far more science driven than ever and will continue to be more so.


Not when it comes to babies.....born or unborn.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> There have always been loons and troglodytes and always will be. But luckily our society is far more science driven than ever and will continue to be more so.


 The question is: who are the loons and troglodytes?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> My post wasn't about funding, it was about the government actually providing healthcare services.


 I actually don't have much of a problem with it on a state and local level. Not ideal to be sure, but, at least it is not unconstitutional.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> From Wikipedia regarding the Hyde Amendment (emphasis mine):
> 
> &#8194;


Read down a little further.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Though efforts have been made to turn this away from the o.p. posted decision, nobody has been able to answer the question

why is gov money in pp if ocare is to cover everyone?

If states have defunded pp, then it is also possible for the fed to eventually do the same. 

As long as abortion is legal, let pp operate on their own finances.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Defunding PP doesn't mean no health care for women. It means the money goes to other sliding scale clinics.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

partndn said:


> Though efforts have been made to turn this away from the o.p. posted decision, nobody has been able to answer the question
> 
> why is gov money in pp if ocare is to cover everyone?
> 
> ...


Much of the federal funds are research grants 
No states have "defunded" PP since they don't "fund" them to begin with

What they have done is dictate where Medicaid patients can get their needed treatments

It keeps coming back to control


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's because they are all based on emotion rather than logic.
> 
> Abortions are legal because that is what the majority wants, and it's not likely to ever change


Abortions are legal because the Supreme Court said they were legal. The American people are split right down the middle on whether abortions should be allowed or not.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

If Planned Parenthood needs $550 million a year from the government, why not hold a telethon instead. Just go on TV and tell everyone what you need the money for. I'm sure liberals will donate the money.

All the Democrat Congressmen and women could have a couple of minutes to appeal to their constituents to donate. Maybe Hillary and Barbara Boxer could co-host. What a fun night it would be. All the black Congressmen and women could explain why so many PP centers are located in black neighborhoods. Just think of all the great publicity they could get.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Abortions are legal because the Supreme Court said they were legal. The American people are split right down the middle on whether abortions should be allowed or not.


There is generally a majority in favor of allowing them, and I suspect that majority will continue to grow as the average age of the population gets younger


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is generally a majority in favor of allowing them, and I suspect that majority will continue to grow as the average age of the population gets younger



now there's a sad thought...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> If Planned Parenthood needs $550 million a year from the government, why not hold a telethon instead. Just go on TV and tell everyone what you need the money for. I'm sure liberals will donate the money.
> 
> All the Democrat Congressmen and women could have a couple of minutes to appeal to their constituents to donate. Maybe Hillary and Barbara Boxer could co-host. What a fun night it would be. All the black Congressmen and women could explain *why so many PP centers are located in black neighborhoods*. Just think of all the great publicity they could get.


Maybe you should get a group together and tell everyone why you think all those healthcare providers in poor neighborhoods should be closed, forcing those people to have to find alternative providers


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is generally a majority in favor of allowing them, and I suspect that majority will continue to grow as the average age of the population gets younger


Look it up. Over the last few years it has going back and forth, but it is close to a 50/50 split.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Much of the federal funds are research grants
> No states have "defunded" PP since they don't "fund" them to begin with
> 
> What they have done is dictate where Medicaid patients can get their needed treatments
> ...



No states? Several have. And often sued by pp and have to go to court and sometimes win, sometimes not.

State by State Scoreboard - 2011
Susan B. Anthony List grassroots activists are on the front lines in the battle to defund America's abortion giant -- Planned Parenthood. Our efforts during the federal budget fight gave Planned Parenthood a black eye and exposed the truth: it is a business centered around abortion, and a willing ally of those that wish to harm young girls in the sex trafficking business. 

After Washington failed to defund Planned Parenthood because of special protection from President Obama, states across the country are picking up the fight and working to defund Planned Parenthood themselves.

Updated PP Scoreboard
http://www.sba-list.org/PPScoreboard



I think we are all aware that both federal and state funds are fed to pp, different amounts depending on states. Calling money a grant doesn't change it from being money that came from taxpayers. 


"Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have Medicaid programs that will pay for abortions, although those health plans are barred from using federal dollars â and have to use the state's share of funding to pay for the procedure."
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/22/9013565/planned-parenthood-government-funding


Coming back to control? Is that directed at me? The control problem is in politics. 

We have been collectively stupid, weak, and irresponsible in letting government take more and more control of our living, dying, and everything in between.

I have completely stayed away from debating the opinion of abortion. All my posts have been about gov taking our dollars, and what we have to say about it. 

I see how many have forgotten that, and are comfortable with evolving further into having NO control over anything. Has nothing to do with opinion on abortion.

Still... no answer on why the need when ocare should solve it all.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Posts 37 and 49 give some good answers if you click on the link. 
One reason might be that republicans have tried over 50 times to repeal Obamacare.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

basketti said:


> Read down a little further.


I stand corrected. I didn't realize it had changed last year.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Still... no answer on why the need when ocare should solve it all.


"Ocare" is insurance.
It provides nothing at all without Drs and facilities



> I think we are all aware that both federal and state funds are fed to pp, different amounts depending on states. Calling money a grant doesn't change it from being money that came from taxpayers.


Saying it's all funding abortions when 97% of their services are other things doesn't change that reality either.



> Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have *Medicaid* programs that will pay for abortions, although those health plans are barred from using federal dollars &#8212; and have to use the state's share of funding to pay for the procedure."


It's Medicaid, which is for all practical purposes, "Ocare" for the poorest segment of the population.
That's not money given to PP to use as they wish


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Ocare" is insurance.
> It provides nothing at all without Drs and facilities
> 
> *So what. Drs can't work at other places?*
> ...


Your post continues to avoid the real issue of taxpayer money and misuse of it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Are we to seek and consider in house services or the services they outsource?



http://dailysignal.com/2013/01/09/p...-record-for-abortions-and-government-funding/


With in this link
.
Which is a short read are the services that plan parenthood wants credit for providing but they only provide a referral..
Susan G koman... of the breast and cervical cancer fame... should be the one getting the credit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your post continues to avoid *the real issue *of taxpayer money and misuse of it.


It's your opinion it's "misused" 

I don't see it as an "issue"

Cutting funding for PP won't reduce your taxes at all and at least it's going to a good cause



> There's a medicaid gap, remember? Since ocare was so pathetically orchestrated, *NOT everyone is covered*.


Then there is a need for PP to help cover those people. 

You can't claim Ocare does away with the need for them, and then turn around and say it doesn't cover everyone.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Plan parenthood acts as a middle man..as a referral service ..reduction in cost when the middle man does not need a check.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Plan parenthood acts as a middle man..as a referral service ..reduction in cost when the middle man does not need a check.


They also provide many other services to lower income women.
Is it that hard for you to admit the truth?




> Planned Parenthood is the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services, with 97 % of its services focused on breast and cervical cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and *3 % on abortion*.[4][5][6][7]
> 
> Contraception accounts for 34% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3 %.
> 
> PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions annually, among the 3 million people the organization serves.[8][9][10] Federal money is not used to fund abortion services.[11


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

3 + 97= 100
97-35 (contraception)= 62. Obama care
62- 35 (std testing) = 23. Obama care
23-16 ( cancer screening only) =7 Obama care

7 ? Dissecting, packaging and taking lunch? Satan?

They do not do mamagrams..out source...bad pap smears.. out source
Std..prevent and test.. outsource for treatment


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html


With Planned Parenthood being either the major obstacle to a budget deal or one of the major obstacles to a budget deal, it&#8217;s worth taking a minute explaining what they do &#8212; and what they don&#8217;t do.

As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s activities. That&#8217;s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It&#8217;s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d-parenthood/2012/02/02/gIQAkTnklQ_story.html
On Thursday, Komen President Elizabeth Thompson told reporters that the funding decision was unrelated to the investigation into whether Planned Parenthood was illegally using federal funds to pay for abortions.

Komen founder Nancy Brinker said the organization wants to support groups that directly provide breast health services, such as mammograms. She noted that Planned Parenthood was providing only mammogram referrals.

The controversy raged across social media, with thousands of messages posted to Komen and Planned Parenthood Facebook pages and advocates on both sides rallying support on Twitter


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The controversy *raged across social media*, with thousands of messages posted to Komen and Planned Parenthood Facebook pages and advocates on both sides rallying support on Twitter


Of course it did, based on hype and innuendo, just like this current issue, which was also done in the past with no results

It's just more of the usual:



> In *2006*, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, a strongly anti-abortion advocate, released some sealed patient records obtained from Planned Parenthood to the public. His actions were described as "troubling" by the state Supreme Court, but Planned Parenthood was compelled to turn over the medical records, albeit with more stringent court-mandated privacy safeguards for the patients involved.[89]
> 
> In *2007*, Kline's successor, Paul J. Morrison, notified the clinic that no criminal charges would be filed after a *three-year investigation,* as "an objective, unbiased and thorough examination" *showed no wrongdoing. *
> 
> ...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Something is shifting.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Something is shifting.....


That happens to me when I eat too many prunes.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course it did, based on hype and innuendo, just like this current issue, which was also done in the past with no results
> 
> It's just more of the usual:


So a Democrat AG dismissed charges brought by the previous Republican AG and you cite that as unbiased support for PP?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> So a Democrat AG dismissed charges brought by the previous Republican AG and you cite that as unbiased support for PP?


I believe it said "lack of evidence" in all those cases, much like the current case.

If people were to be truly "unbiased" there wouldn't be any undercover videos full of innuendo and false allegations


----------

