Republicans Defunding Planned Parenthood

Life is full of tough choices SC, and the Republicans are saying that Planned Parenthood either needs to divest itself of its abortion affiliations to continue to receive public funds for the rest of their activities or keep the abortion service and lose public money to support their birth control, cancer screening and other health care services.

I guess it all falls into the category of what is the primary mission of Planned Parenthood? If it is to help provide family planning by distributing birth control, provide prenatal care and provide cancer screenings, then they will let go of the abortion services they offer and focus on their primary mission with continued assistance from the federal government if the legislation passes into law, which I doubt that it will given that it has to get through the Senate where the opposing party holds the majority and be signed by the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Over 90% of the abortions performed in this nation every year have nothing to do with rape, incest or preventing the mother from losing her life as a result of the pregnancy. They are elective surgeries to effect post conception birth control. The federal government shouldn't be sending money to a health care provider to allow them to make the elective surgeries another branch of the company performs less expensive. Would you support the federal government sending money to an ophthalmologist for provide eye examinations that he used to pay the overhead of most of his office space that is also used to provide elective Lasik surgery to some people and he gained an unfair advantage over his competitors in the Lasik field due to the infusion of federal funds? How about a dentist who garnered public funds to care for the teeth of the working poor that then was able to use those funds to help him lower the cost of dental implant surgery so that he made a higher profit than other dentists who did the dental implants? That is the charade being played out by Planned Parenthood and their pretension about federal funds not being applied to abortions. With the federal grants they are able to offer a lower cost abortion service than they could if they didn't have the federal funds to help support their other operations. Elective surgeries should not come at a reduced cost because federal funds are helping to subsidize other services, even if those other services are beneficial in nature. That is where I come down on the issue.

Extortion is only illegal of a private party does it.

For the people is only part of it SC. Of the people, ( no longer-Career Politicians), by the people ( Elitists now) and for the people. You can't have one without the other.

You also can't just be selective about government of the people, by the people, and for the people just when you want it. Everybody wants things. Having things is not a RIGHT, just a desire.

It is not the responsibility of the people ( taxpayers) to provide Birth control for everybody just because they were too stupid, drunk, stoned or excited to protect themselves or keep their legs crossed. It is called personal responsibility, not Taxpayers' responsibility.

Science Chic wrote: And who are the Republican politicians to make that choice for women across this country? Do they not care what their constituents want? What happened to government "For the People?"

I'm sorry SC, but that statement augments the republican's argument. If they are making "that choice " for women, then it is taxes that are paying for it. I would have a big problem with taxes going towards abortion as it implies that I agree with abortion which I only do under certain circumstances. The government should not be in the business of funding anything that is as morally charged as abortion.

Science Chic wrote: And who are the Republican politicians to make that choice for women across this country? Do they not care what their constituents want? What happened to government "For the People?"

According to the president of Planned Parenthood, no federal funds have gone to fund abortions for the last 30 years - they do receive private donations as well and maybe that covers that cost entirely. The financials aren't clear-cut enough to know for sure. Trying to force PP's hand on abortion by cutting off funding for everything else smacks of extortion to me. You don't strike me as the type who would endorse your elected officials stooping to illegal tactics like that.

There exists executive orders, which the current president has confirmed, that the public funds will not be used to facilitate abortions SC. That is the law of the land. Indirectly supporting the ability of a clinic to lower their costs to perform an abortion by using taxpayer money to cover other costs is still using taxpayer money to subsidize abortions - especially when the abortions and the taxpayer supported operations take place under the same roof. You can say whatever you want about no taxpayer dollars being directly used to provide abortions for 30 years, but the bottom line is that taxpayer support is being utilized to help lower the cost of abortions and make them a more affordable birth control option by Planned Parenthood. The doctor dispensing "The Pill" is, in many instances, the same doctor performing the abortions. The government subsidy of the chemical birth control portion of his business allows him to charge less for the physical birth control portion of his business and still realize the amount of salary that he desires. Rent is also likely lower per square foot because more square feet are being leased. HVAC costs are also lower because there is one unit servicing the footprint of the business rather than the additional units that would be required for a separate space. Office costs are lower because the same executive assistant handles the appointments for both, copier costs are reduced, internet access, phones, lower cost of medical supplies due to higher volume purchased........the list of cost savings realized by having one office perform both tasks is pretty substantial when you get to examining it, and at least a portion of every one of them is paid for with taxpayer money that is prohibited from being used to support abortion services.

PP does have a choice. They can stop providing abortions at the same clinics where their other services are also performed and continue to receive the government support intended to help provide birth control and other medical services for women or they can continue to perform abortions at the same clinic that they provide those services for which government support has been available and lose that government support for providing those services. Pro choice means supporting more than one option from which to choose, and that is what Planned Parenthood is being given, an option to choose between two choices.

People often assign moral standards for decades old actions, like condemming the Hiroshima attack. I wonder if in 50 years young people with access to effective birth control will be horrified to find out what percentages of pregnancies ended in abortion. They might find us barbarians.

Or the world might be teeming with 12 billion starving people and abortion might end 75% of pregnancies.

archer wrote: [...2012 may look very different from 2010.....voters have short memories, what they thought they voted for in 2010 may be voted out in 2012. I see Republicans making exactly the same mistakes they have made in the past, and that Democrats made after their wins of 2008.....they think they have some sort of mandate and they run amok with it. Not to worry, the voters will set them straight next election.

Anything is possible but don't start holding your breath. It is disappointing that turn out was only 25%.

GOP Candidate Wins Louisiana Senate Special Election, Shifting Majority

Published February 20, 2011
| Associated Press

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... majority/#

Some "facts" (maybe "statistics" is a better word)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 1s0100.pdf

The figures (collected by a pro-abortion organization) tell me a few things:

a) A large number of individuals who terminate pregnancy are using it as a form of birth control. In fact, over half of the individuals terminating pregnancy did so because their primary method of birth control failed.

b) Just under half (42%) of the persons terminating pregnancy are poor.

c) Abortion is primarily an urban phenomena.

d) Just over half (60+ percent) of all abortions occur within the first 9 weeks. The figure is up - I assume due to recent developments of the so-called "abortion pill."

Finally, it's hard to ignore the overwhelming evidence that abortion has racial/ethnic ties (women of color - particularly low income and urban - are much more likely to utilize the procedure).

Kind of odd that we're discussing abortion in DC - where abortions per capita are higher than any other place in the USA.