Discussion: Planned Parenthood

[Marx]

GOVERNOR WALKER SET TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_881504.html

It really is a shame when elected officials play politics with organizations like Planned Parenthood. Wisconsin would become the fourth state to go this route.

[Matt]

I don't support Walker on much, but I will on this. Planned Parenthood is a private organization. Its time it starts finding private funding. It is not up to the tax payers to help someone get an abortion. And yes, I know the argument, "they do more than abortion." The fact is paying for abortion and abortion related services make up over 1/3 of their total budget.

The rest, providing sex education, providing birth control, etc....what about parents? What about individual responsibility? Buy your own damn condoms/pills or don't have sex. It is that simple. Planned Parenthood provides services to fight "epidemics," that can easily be prevented. Its not up to the tax payers to supply money for this.

Wisconsin is cutting education funding. They are cutting all kinds of NECESSARY programs. Planned Parenthood isn't one of them. Good for Walker.

[mrvlknight21]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't support Walker on much, but I will on this. Planned Parenthood is a private organization. Its time it starts finding private funding. It is not up to the tax payers to help someone get an abortion. And yes, I know the argument, "they do more than abortion." The fact is paying for abortion and abortion related services make up over 1/3 of their total budget.

The rest, providing sex education, providing birth control, etc....what about parents? What about individual responsibility? Buy your own damn condoms/pills or don't have sex. It is that simple. Planned Parenthood provides services to fight "epidemics," that can easily be prevented. Its not up to the tax payers to supply money for this.

Wisconsin is cutting education funding. They are cutting all kinds of NECESSARY programs. Planned Parenthood isn't one of them. Good for Walker.

^^ 2nd all this.

[hippie_hunter]

3rded.

[StorminNorman]

Favred.

[Matt]

So you're going to retire the post then bring it out of retirement ten times?

[Handsome Rob]

Originally Posted by Matt

So you're going to retire the post then bring it out of retirement ten times?

Not to mention have it send pictures of itself over the phone to another post that isn't its wife.

Oh, and fifthed.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Matt

So you're going to retire the post then bring it out of retirement ten times?

UPDATE: Eh, Handsome Rob covered the material already.

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by Marx

GOVERNOR WALKER SET TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_881504.html

It really is a shame when elected officials play politics with organizations like Planned Parenthood. Wisconsin would become the fourth state to go this route.

Why do we need our tax dollars going to a non-profit organization that offends a large plurality of Americans? The left can increase their donations since they support PP's agenda.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

Why do we need our tax dollars going to a non-profit organization that offends a large plurality of REPUBLICAN Americans? The left can increase their donations since they support PP's agenda.

Fixed.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Marx

Fixed.

What an incredibly biased post. I'm a Democrat and I am offended with my tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood. There are far better, less biased family planning organizations out there that operate without tax dollars. Planned Parenthood has a very clear agenda and no problem pushing it.

Oh, and polls have consistently shown that Americans oppose public funding of abortion (such as THIS Quinnipac poll which shows 67 % of Americans oppose it). Clearly its not only Republicans who oppose publicly funded abortion.

[Lighthouse]

I'll support this if the Republicans will support the defunding of the useless Abstinence Only programs.

[Marx]

Actually, federal funds CANNOT be used for abortion procedures at Planned Parenthood by law. Furthermore, less than five percent of services at Planned Parenthood are for abortions. The majority of services provided are for contraception, cancer screeenings, and STD testing. So...

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I'll support this if the Republicans will support the defunding of the useless Abstinence Only programs.

I have a very hard time seeing that happen Lighthouse.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Marx

Actually, federal funds CANNOT be used for abortion procedures at Planned Parenthood by law. Furthermore, less than five percent of services at Planned Parenthood are for abortions. The majority of services provided are for contraception, cancer screeenings, and STD testing. So...

Both are misleading facts.

While federal funds cannot be used for the actual abortion, they are used for the procedures leading up to and following the abortion (psychological counseling, pre and post-abortion doctor appointments, etc).

Beyond that, the idea of only 5 % of funding being used for abortion is misleading. While only 5 % of funds are used for the actual abortion, again, funds are used for pre and post-abortion procedures. 1/3 of Planned Parenthood funds are used for the process of abortion (even if only 5 % are used for the actual act of abortion).

Planned Parenthood publishes the 5 % statistic and "No federal funds," comment a lot, but both are misleading.

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by Marx

Actually, federal funds CANNOT be used for abortion procedures at Planned Parenthood by law. Furthermore, less than five percent of services at Planned Parenthood are for abortions. The majority of services provided are for contraception, cancer screeenings, and STD testing. So...

You have to take into consideration how much marketing and legal expenses is used to facilitate the abortion industry. PP handle 1 out of every 4 abortions in this country.

Why should my tax dollars be used to fund abortions and birth control pills? Why should my tax dollars facilitate somebody else's lifestyle choices?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/...pphu-container

Originally Posted by article

A state law that took effect May 10 denied Planned Parenthood the Medicaid funds it uses to pay for general health services it provides to low-income women at its 28 Indiana clinics. The group is seeking a preliminary injunction to block Indiana's law, and a ruling is expected by July 1.
As Planned Parenthood awaits that ruling, the group said about 9,300 Medicaid patients — both women and men enrolled in the state-federal health insurance program for low-income and disabled people — are now facing "disrupted" medical services under the state's law.
Nicole Robbins, a 31-year-old single mother who has been a Planned Parenthood client for six years, said she had intended to visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in Indianapolis on Tuesday to pick up a 2-month supply of birth control pills. Then, the Medicaid recipient learned that the more than $100,000 in private donations the group had raised since May 10 had dried up.

-----------

[Schlosser85]

If PP shouldn't get government funding, then neither should abstinence-only sex education. Both offer a slanted view, and I don't want my tax dollars going to abstinence only programs because I think abstinence only sex ed is a bunch of ineffectual unrealistic crap.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

If PP shouldn't get government funding, then neither should abstinence-only sex education. Both offer a slanted view.

I support that too. Abstinence only sex education is just unrealistic in the 21st century. And as Matt says, let it be up to the parents.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I support that too. Abstinence only sex education is just unrealistic in the 21st century. And as Matt says, let it be up to the parents.

At the end of the day I don't want publically funded education of any type, so I essentially agree with the jist - but we have to get over the idea of "abstinence only sex education is unrealistic", because it implies that it is an antique concept that is less correct today than it was last century.

I am not a Christian, but I have come to believe that the lack of abstience - especially at the teen level - is a real issue for the country. I don't favor "social engineering" to fix it, but I do worry about how accepted the "sex is awesome" culture of our generation.

[Matt]

I agree entirely. Let parents teach their children when to have sex and how to avoid pregnancy. Not the government's place. Just more wasteful spending on behalf of the government in an attempt to tell us what is best for us.

[Schlosser85]

I'd agree with this.

[Franklin Richards]

It's clear that a lot of you don't want your tax dollars to go to anything other than a standing army. And that's a shame.


Corporate Welfare? Yes.
Pap smears? No.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

It's clear that a lot of you don't want your tax dollars to go to anything other than a standing army. And that's a shame.


Corporate Welfare? Yes.
Pap smears? No.

I disagree with corporate welfare as well. That said, I am fine with social security, and Medicare. I am fine with the welfare system (though I believe that there should be tougher standards and that the reciepents should be showing some signs of getting their lives on track). I am a huge supporter of the public education system (the idea of all education being privatized is beyond ridiculous and would only result in the wealthy getting the best education and everyone else getting shafted).

I am not okay with Planned Parenthood getting my tax dollars. You make it sound like PP is some pure organization that helps pregnant women in need. Its not. It has a very clear agenda and no problem using our tax dollars to push their agenda. Like I've said: there are far better, less biased family planning charities out there who should be getting money.

[SentinelMind]

There's plenty of conservative posters here that have criticized corporate welfare (bailouts).

Medicaid patients can get their birth control pills numerous other places outside of PP (if Medicaid should really be funding somebody's sexual lifestyle to begin with, but that's another discussion). The PP advocates in that article couldn't even find anybody but birth control users who will impacted by the Medicaid cut. If they want to provide these medically necessary procedures, stop providing and advocating abortions...otherwise, our tax dollars can go to your more humane competitors.

[Franklin Richards]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

There's plenty of conservative posters here that have criticized corporate welfare (bailouts).

Medicaid patients can get their birth control pills numerous other places outside of PP (if Medicaid should really be funding somebody's sexual lifestyle to begin with, but that's another discussion). The PP advocates in that article couldn't even find anybody but birth control users who will impacted by the Medicaid cut. If they want to provide these medically necessary procedures, stop providing and advocating abortions...otherwise, our tax dollars can go to your more humane competitors.

So you want more low income babies? Or is it that you want those low income mothers to be indebted to an organization like The Church or some other private charity?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

It seems like you have no experience with PP at all. I know several low income women who use PP for general maintenance. It's a worthwhile organization that adheres to the law.

Just like prisons that use my tax dollars to execute criminals all the time. This is an organization that uses my tax dollars to carry out their agenda. However because it's within the law, I can't really expect the government not to help carry out these agendas.

Planned Parenthood is a great boon to low income women all over our country and to cut our government's involvement with them only weakens our integrity as a country.

Its not my problem. Like I said, low income "pregnancy epidemics," are a result of a woman's failure to keep her legs closed and a man's failure to keep his dick in his pants. There are far better and more deserving charities that can prevent true epidemics.

If you can't afford birth control then you certainly can't afford a kid so there is a very easy solution, DON'T HAVE SEX, CERTAINLY NOT UNPROTECTED SEX! These "low income women," are hardly the victims that you make them out to be.

But, mistakes happen. And there are countless government and private organizations in place to help them out that do not push for abortion.

Furthermore, your comparison to the death penalty is faulty. Prisons are public institutions, Planned Parenthood is not.

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

So you want more low income babies? Or is it that you want those low income mothers to be indebted to an organization like The Church or some other private charity?

Oh Franky, now you're just trying to stir the pot.