Republicans Defunding Planned Parenthood

SS109 wrote: Planned Parenthood is good preventive debt reduction. Spending a few hundred of goverment money on a abortion or birth control will save welfare entitlements billions.
Prevent girls from dropping out of high school and college, etc.

Question: Doesn't PP charge for abortions in most cases? I heard somewhere that they make a lot of money providing abortions and that it pays for the other stuff.

SC, the quote about money not going for abortions is a deception. While the actual goverment check may not go to abortions, it does fund other programs so private donations can be used instead to pay for abortions.

I haven't taken the time to fact-check the article's numbers so I cannot disagree. All I know is there will be a lot of bad coming from this passing. And it looks to me like they want to remove private insurance paying for abortions too - if true, that's absolutely wrong.

outdoor338 wrote: Lets see, drugs, booze, ciggs or buy condoms...how about keeping your legs closed, maybe know when your cycle is..men and women have to take responsibility for their actions. The left has used PP for years for their agenda, we have lots of cuts to make ahead of us, we all will have to tighten our belts both republicans and democrats, its about time we do this now..or our future is very bleak if we keep putting it off..JMTCW

TM, We the people spoke very loudly last November, cut our spending..NOW!

It's a lot harder to take responsibility for your actions if your access to birth control is removed. Face it Outdoor, people always have, and always will, have sex. If the hormonal drive wasn't a strong as it is, our species would've died out long ago - it's only been reinforced and strengthened as we breed. No, I am not saying that individuals abdicate their responsibility (I always have been, and always will, be a strong proponent of responsibility for one's own words and actions), but they should have help being responsible, and the effect of having Planned Parenthood is obvious if you compare before and after their existence.

bailey bud wrote: SC: I'm pragmatic enough to understand the need for birth control, STD testing, and general counseling on sexual issues.

Here's my question, though. If abortion is only 10 percent of what PP does - why is support of abortion such a litmus test for them? I think the answer lies in their philosophy.

Unfortunately, PP has insisting on keeping abortion part of its key activities.

Because abortion is legal, and someone has to provide it for those who don't have insurance. Abortion is a litmus test for PP because it is an issue which brings out strong emotions, and actions, in people. Removing PP will not remove the issue of abortion.

In general, I think abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control (although I accept it to protect the life of the mother).

I don't know if you've noticed - but you can find a life-time supply (okay - maybe a year's supply) of condoms at Sam's for just twenty dollars. We pay the health department $100 to provide the same thing. Planned parenthood would likely be able to do it for $50.

I disagree with their insistence on providing abortions. Beyond that, my other objection with health departments and PP clinics is that they're downright inefficient.

I agree, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, and until we start ramping up sex education and support for those who have unintended pregnancies to assist them in carrying to term, keeping their jobs or staying in school, and giving up for adoption, then abortion will remain one. Yes, condoms are available at stores, but what about those whose choice is condoms, or food for their family, or paying the electric bill. It's been a long while since I went to one, but last I heard, PP provided condoms for free. And it's not just about the birth control, they offer cancer and STD testing and treatment too. Shall we let those disease rates rise because they will now be left untreated in many? If a person doesn't have insurance, and can't afford to see a doctor, they will live with what they contract, and keep spreading it. Wishing people had more self-control and responsibility will not solve the problem.

And why isn't the GOP cutting funding for the DoD at all? Do they really want to reduce our deficit or are they just effing around? Why are they focusing on Planned Parenthood, and restricting the EPA, and wasting time passing a repeal health care bill that won't go past the Senate, when they should be creating jobs, and balancing the budget? Their priorities don't seem to be in line with the American people.

Can we please have adults running this country, instead of petulant, short-sighted, selfish children? And yes, I mean all of 'em!

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/sen ... nning-cuts
Senate Dems: We Can Beat GOP Family Planning Cuts
— By Nick Baumann
| Thu Feb. 17, 2011

...at a Thursday press conference, Senate Democrats and Planned Parenthood officials said that they're confident that they have enough votes in the Senate to restore the funding, regardless of the outcome in the House. (UPDATE: On Friday afternoon, the House voted 240-185 to approve Pence's amendment barring any funding in the government-funding bill from going to Planned Parenthood.)

There's a problem, however. House Republicans have made defunding Planned Parenthood and expanding restrictions on abortion rights a top priority this Congress—and they could shut down the government if they don't get their way. It remains unclear whether the House GOP, Senate Democrats, or the White House are willing to see this happen. But if no one is willing to cave or compromise, that's exactly what could transpire.

If the government funding bill (known as a continuing resolution, or CR in Washington-speak) doesn't pass before or around March 4, the government will have to cease providing crucial services, as it did during a similar fight in the mid-1990s.

This could really come back to haunt the Republicans if they continue trying to pass this kind of legislation:

I also spoke to Richards about Dave Weigel's recent Slate article that argues that House Republicans are overreaching on abortion rights (as with the now-famous "redefining rape" provision, motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republi...define-rape-abortion which I first reported) and giving Planned Parenthood and their Democratic allies a political opening. Richards heartily agreed with Weigel's thesis, noting that the new House majority seemed "obsessed with women's health issues." House GOP overreach, Richards said, was allowing her organization and Democrats in general to reconnect with women voters, whom she noted went for Republicans by a point in the last election. (Women as a group tend to vote for Democrats.) As an example, a Planned Parenthood spokesman pointed to a Ben Smith item from Thursday that highlighted a story about the family planning cuts in Cosmopolitan—a sure sign that the issue is getting very broad coverage.