Planned Parenthood Target Of New Undercover Sting?

FredHayek wrote: An entire political party? More hyperbole?
I haven't seen Mitt Romney supporting the eradication of Planned Parenthood. Their is a law that says abortion can not be paid for with federal funds. I think some Republicans want to make sure this law isn't broken.

Really? Perhaps he changed his position later in the day... But at the time the cameras were turned on he said:

[youtube:clcoxxxb][/youtube:clcoxxxb]

But I'm sure if you wait a few hours it could change again.

archer wrote: Really? You're comparing the investigation of one sheriff to the concerted effort of an entire political party to bring down an organization simply because that party dislikes one of the services they provide, even though it is legal? The conservatives are on a witch hunt here, and they don't care who gets hurt in the process.......the GOP war on women continues unabated.

Ensuring that misogyny isn't taking place under the current abortion laws is a war on women? Really? One would have thought that ensuring misogyny isn't taking place under the current laws, which certainly would allow for the practice under the sentiments expressed by LJ that if it isn't your fetus it isn't your business, would be viewed as protecting those of the female gender from being targeted for having their lives destroyed simply because they happened to be female rather than waging a war on the fairer sex.

Should a woman be allowed to obtain an abortion because they don't want a child of the sex they are carrying archer? Should the practice of aborting females specifically because they are female be protected? We all agree that the current laws would allow for the practice, don't we? Should that be, or is that, acceptable in this society?

You have 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...

And you're right... If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it isn't your fetus, it's none of your business.

The topic of the thread is the probe to find out whether or not PP actively supports/advocates/provides abortion services when they are made aware that the abortion is being sought because the sex of the child in the womb is female - which by any definition is misogyny. You seem to have a problem with someone doing that and I'm trying to figure out why making sure that PP isn't knowingly engaging in misogyny is a bad thing in your mind. It is akin to running a sting to find out if an elected official will accept a bribe if one is offered to them, or to see if some members of the police department in a specific area of town would be willing to overlook criminal activities in exchange for receiving protection money.

The laws as they currently stand wouldn't stop misogynistic abortions and everything I am seeing at the moment tells me that "progressives" seem willing to look past the potential abuse along this line to rabidly protect their theology driven agenda that the destruction of human life for any reason is a good enough reason if the woman decides she wants to destroy the human life she is carrying. I don't think that this is a vision that the majority of the populace in this union agrees with. I think the story points to a hole in the law as it exists. I think that even if the "progressives" wish to see no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, that it is important for the discussion to take place about whether or not this union is willing to allow misogyny as even a remote possibility to appease that agenda.

Address the point. Why is a probe intended to find out if PP is performing/promoting/advocating their abortion services knowing that the abortion is being sought for misogynistic reasons a bad thing in your "progressive" minds?

:Snooze

You have a link to prove this misogyny? Post it. Otherwise, you're on one of your b.s. fishing expeditions.

And you're right... If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it isn't your fetus, it's none of your business.

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

If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves.
If it's not your slave, it's none of your business.

Just goes to show how much progress has actually been made over the last century and a half with Democrats and their tboughts on human rights. They've ""progressed" all the way to if it's not your little girl in the womb, it's none of your business if she's destroyed on the basis of her sex alone.

PrintSmith wrote: If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves.
If it's not your slave, it's none of your business.

Just goes to show how much progress has actually been made over the last century and a half with Democrats and their tboughts on human rights. They've ""progressed" all the way to if it's not your little girl in the womb, it's none of your business if she's destroyed on the basis of her sex alone.

Evidently Printsmith you just keep repeating the same thing over and over without even listening to what Lady Jazzer is say. It's very simple, I understand her, Archer understands her... just about everyone on this f'king thread understands her... now if you won't listen to them, listen to me, real carefully and real slowly. If a woman wants to abort her fetus because that fetus is a female, then she has every right under the law to do just that. [/b][/i]

And all of your twisted moralizing won't change that fact one bit. Did I make it simple enough for you?

Wow...you all keep posting that you fear a woman will have an abortion because her fetus is female. Really? You should be more concerned about women selecting to keep female babies and abort the males...why bring more males into this world if all they want to do is make laws that tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies?

archer wrote: Wow...you all keep posting that you fear a woman will have an abortion because her fetus is female. Really? You should be more concerned about women selecting to keep female babies and abort the males...why bring more males into this world if all they want to do is make laws that tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies?

I think it's simpler that that. A woman can legally abort her fetus for any reason she wants... because it's female, because it's male... what ever. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Evidently Printsmith you just keep repeating the same thing over and over without even listening to what Lady Jazzer is say. It's very simple, I understand her, Archer understands her... just about everyone on this f'king thread understands her... now if you won't listen to them, listen to me, real carefully and real slowly. If a woman wants to abort her fetus because that fetus is a female, then she has every right under the law to do just that. [/b][/i]

And all of your twisted moralizing won't change that fact one bit. Did I make it simple enough for you?

I have been listening Twin - very carefully in fact. Neither LJ, nor archer, has the courage of their conviction which you just evidenced. They, unlike you, are not willing to say that abortion in pursuit of misogyny is the price that must be paid to remain wedded to unfettered access to the destruction of human life in utero. I understand the current law allows for this incarnation of misogyny to be practiced in this society, the question raised is should our laws protect this practice? Should abortion in pursuit of misogyny be allowed by the laws of this society? Does society have an interest in eliminating misogyny from being practiced by those who provide abortion services? Is the sex of the child a reason that this society finds it acceptable to destroy it while it is in the womb? Those are all questions raised by the probe into whether or not PP will provide abortions services once they are aware that the abortion is being sought because the offspring happens to be the opposite sex from the one the woman was hoping to have. It is different from a woman seeking to destroy her offspring because it is unwanted by her as she doesn't wish to be pregnant at all. What was being investigated was whether or not PP would continue to provide abortion services to a woman once they became aware that she didn't want to be pregnant with a girl.