Planned Parenthood Target Of New Undercover Sting?

See: "The Right-to-Life/Anti-Abortion thread.." in the Ring...

Whether you like it or not, it's LEGAL. Women still have the right to choose.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it's not your fetus, it's none of your business.

What part of that don't you understand?

And for good measure...

Texas Planned Parenthood Defunding Halted By Federal Judge

A federal court in Texas ruled to stop a new law on Monday that excluded Planned Parenthood from the Texas Women's Health Program, which serves about 130,000 low-income women in the state. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it bars eight Planned Parenthood clinics that don't provide abortions from participating in the program based on their affiliation with legally and financially separate entities that offer abortions.

Yeakel also cited the fact that the Department of Health and Human Services cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to Texas because of the new law, which could jeopardize the entire program.

"The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women," Yeakel wrote in his ruling. "The record before the court at this juncture reflects uncertainty as to the continued viability of the Texas Women's Health Program."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/3 ... 65161.html

PrintSmith, an investigation would only be appropriate if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed. What crime do you believe has been committed? What reason do you have to believe that? None?...case closed. I expect you will call off this particular crusade unless you have evidence of wrong doing, right? Baiting PP into saying something that. O'keefe and his ilk (YOU) can manipulate and twist into something else for political/religious reasons is terribly dishonest. What does YOUR religion teach about dishonesty?

The Supreme Court, when it created the right to choose, also said that the State had a legitimate interest in protecting prenatal life. Is protecting prenatal life from being destroyed on the basis of sex an exercise of that legitimate State interest in protecting prenatal life?

You can copy and paste the same drivel to your heart's desire LJ, it doesn't answer the question that is being offered for consideration which pertains to the subject you raised.

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, an investigation would only be appropriate if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed. What crime do you believe has been committed?

Our Constitution protects one from being discriminated against on the basis of sex, does it not? Is destroying one's offspring on the basis of sex not an example of discrimination based on sex? The offspring would not be destroyed if it were the right sex, it only faces destruction because it happens to be the wrong one. How is that not discrimination based on sex?

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, an investigation would only be appropriate if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed. What crime do you believe has been committed?

Our Constitution protects one from being discriminated against on the basis of sex, does it not? Is destroying one's offspring on the basis of sex not an example of discrimination based on sex? The offspring would not be destroyed if it were the right sex, it only faces destruction because it happens to be the wrong one. How is that not discrimination based on sex?

:Snooze

Since you apparently have no proof that the alleged misogyny is taking place, and specifically at PP clinics, you're farting in the wind. If you have such a link to prove this misogyny, post it. Otherwise, you're on one of your b.s. fishing expeditions.

See: "The Right-to-Life/Anti-Abortion thread.." in the Ring...

Whether you like it or not, it's LEGAL. Women still have the right to choose.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it's not your fetus, it's none of your business.

What part of that don't you understand?

Nobody that matters wrote: If a person is in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, her motivation doesn't matter at all. If she chooses to have an abortion because of gene mutations, the baby's gender, the father's identity (or lack thereof), or the fact that her due date is two weeks after her non-refundable week in a singles resort in Cabo, it's her right to choose.

Last time I checked, women do still have the right to choose.

Well said.

I do not understand why so many on the right object to abortions. After all it is how God limits liberal overpopulation.

Not to mention Republican Youth Groups, and future Log-Cabin Republicans....

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, an investigation would only be appropriate if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed. What crime do you believe has been committed?

Our Constitution protects one from being discriminated against on the basis of sex, does it not? Is destroying one's offspring on the basis of sex not an example of discrimination based on sex? The offspring would not be destroyed if it were the right sex, it only faces destruction because it happens to be the wrong one. How is that not discrimination based on sex?

Ridiculous and absurd. You're unraveling. Show a shred of grace for once and drop your argument. If any investigation should be done, it should be into the church's involvement with this set-up. Your support of dishonest tactics to reach your political/religious goals exposes you as the true scoundrel.

No doubt the head of Operation Rescue was one of the "Founding Fathers"...

plaidvillain wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, an investigation would only be appropriate if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed. What crime do you believe has been committed?

Our Constitution protects one from being discriminated against on the basis of sex, does it not? Is destroying one's offspring on the basis of sex not an example of discrimination based on sex? The offspring would not be destroyed if it were the right sex, it only faces destruction because it happens to be the wrong one. How is that not discrimination based on sex?

Ridiculous and absurd. You're unraveling. Show a shred of grace for once and drop your argument. If any investigation should be done, it should be into the church's involvement with this set-up. Your support of dishonest tactics to reach your political/religious goals exposes you as the true scoundrel.

It is neither ridiculous nor absurd. My position is, and always has been, that abortion to effect post-conception birth control violates the unalienable rights that each of us was created with, the very foundation of our laws and our society.

We hold as a self evident truth that these rights are rights that we were created with - they are not endowed upon us by man. Whether one believes in a Divine Creator or not has no relevance to the argument. Are we all equal upon our creation or are we not? If not, then simply say that you do not believe we are all created equal in direct opposition to the argument presented by our founders and framers as to why they were justified in declaring themselves independent from their sovereign. If not by our very creation are we endowed with these unalienable rights, then our rights are endowed upon us by whomever, or whatever, rules us.

I reject that position, as did the founding generation of this union. They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to establish that we are created with unalienable rights, that our rights are not dependent upon those which a government deigns to bestow upon its subjects. If our rights are not ours as a product of our very creation, then our rights are bestowed upon us by our government and are subject to being changed or revoked at its pleasure. That in turn would mean that the very foundation upon which the founders claimed to have the right to resort to arms against their sovereign was flawed; that their King did have the right to decide how they would be governed because they only held the rights that he decided to bestow on them and that they were only allowed to exercise those rights in ways which the King deemed appropriate.

Are we all created equal or are we not? We are certainly not all born equal - Bill Gates' children will have privileges and opportunities that others will not have, as did Joe Kennedy's, as did John Rockefellers, as will Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's and George W Bush's. But we are created with the same unalienable rights that the children of these men were regardless of whether or not we are born into circumstances equal to theirs. That we are not as privileged as they were when they were born does not diminish the rights that we were created with. Those rights are the same regardless of our parents' station in life because we were created with the same rights that they had.

That is not a political, nor a religious argument - it is a philosophical one.