Federal funding cut for Planned Parenthood

[Lux]

The House of Representatives has voted to cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The Senate is still to vote on this bill.

Besides abortion, Planned Parenthood provides STD testing and treatment, cancer testing, birth control information and supply, information on safe sex, pregnancy screening, infertility diagnosis and treatment among other services. They report that only 2-3% of the visits they receive result in an abortion.


Is it acceptable to remove all federal funding from this organization?

Is this issue all about abortion, or are there other reasons for the cut?

[Abraxas]

Is it acceptable to remove all federal funding from this organization?

Yes, as it is all other private institutions. This is, for the most part, a non-issue. The government isn't shutting Planned Parenthood down, they're not defunding profit from the organization, they simply voted to remove themselves, and taxpayer moneies, from supporting the contreversial institution. If they can't survive without a handout from taxpayers then they shouldn't be around.

Why? Is it your position that all things that require tax dollars to exist should not be around? If not, what makes this one special beyond you not liking one thing they do?

They provide medical care to women who can't afford to get it otherwise, provide services which keep infants who would otherwise die alive, and provide treatments for disease that as a society we do not want bouncing around the general population. Even if you oppose abortion, I think you would be hard pressed to claim they are a net negative.

Is this issue all about abortion, or are there other reasons for the cut?

Do you know what prompted this legislation? Here's a decent article from WSJ explaining the scandal.

No, it is a rather poor article explaining the scandal. In a good article, much more emphasis would be given to the facts that the videos were heavily edited to take statements out of context and to present the individual doing the questioning in a different light than is accurate to how he presented himself to the workers at these clinics. Further, a good article would devote more than one line at the end to the fact that after each incident the individual was reported to police or FBI officials to put an end to him. The claims in that video are nothing short of fraudulent.

This is a political ploy, that is what promted this. Nothing more.

The conservatives have that as a key issue, and they don't bother to look at other facts, such as Planned parenthood supplies prenatal care, health care, and contraception for many thousands of poor women that would not otherwise have it.

Do you even know what the facts are? The fact is Planned Parenthood provides abortion to women, the fact is federal funding for abortion is strictly prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, and the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw from these facts is that federal funding for planned parenthood should be restricted. They have a right to exist, I and other members of the Pro Life community don't have a right to support their existence and you liberals don't have a right to coerce us into doing it through taxiation.[/quote]

I don't support much of what the military does, nor do I support many of the subsidies provided to oil companies and defense contractors. Can I opt out of my tax dollars going to them too?

The fact of the matter is, none of the tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood were being used to fund abortions and so this is a red herring unless you want to contend we should be allowed to choose where our tax dollars go.

[Shermana]

I think that the other issue is that conservatives are big advocates of personal responsibility. Why should any more tax dollars than is absolutely necessary be spent on loose women, who take no responsibility for their own choices?

The preceding is my understanding of the conservative viewpoint, and in no way reflects my own.

I think it's a perfectly fair claim considering that 98% of abortions are due to economic reasons (aka "convenience") as opposed to issues of lack of consent and health. Ultimately its purely elective due to purely elective relations.

Does anyone plan on sending me money to go party with a bunch of girls?

No?

Why not? Only women get to have subsidized safety nets for their fun? What if I catch an STD while I'm trolling for ladies, should I get a taxpayer to cover such a condition? I'm poor, why can't I find someone to subsidize my party time? Is it because I'm Jewish? Racists! I'm poor, not all Jews are rich. Why do those girls get to party and get others to pay for their ahem....lack of foresight? Why can't I have my own elective encounters subsidized? How about we pay for poor people to go to casinos too?

Abraxas, there is debate whether or not PP uses the Funds purely as they are meant to be used. Why can't they go seek Private funders? Are there not enough abortion activists who don't want to contribute money instead of their mouths? As for paying for the military, I wish there was a way to get the corrupt contractors and generals to admit where these unaccounted "trillions" go to, it would be great to shave $300 billion a year off of the internal arms racket, but that's one of the densest jungles in the corruption.

You may be right that it's a political ploy, but I don't see why its federally funded in the first place, or why I have to pay for it.

[WinePusher]

Yes, as it is all other private institutions. This is, for the most part, a non-issue. The government isn't shutting Planned Parenthood down, they're not defunding profit from the organization, they simply voted to remove themselves, and taxpayer moneies, from supporting the contreversial institution. If they can't survive without a handout from taxpayers then they shouldn't be around.

Why? Is it your position that all things that require tax dollars to exist should not be around? If not, what makes this one special beyond you not liking one thing they do?

My position is that tax dollars should not fund private institutions, I already said that. A private institution should be able to compete on their own using the resources they earned through their personal management without handouts from a governemnt that favors them over another institution.

They provide medical care to women who can't afford to get it otherwise, provide services which keep infants who would otherwise die alive, and provide treatments for disease that as a society we do not want bouncing around the general population. Even if you oppose abortion, I think you would be hard pressed to claim they are a net negative.

Funny that you and others keep spinning this issue into abortion and claiming conservatives disapprove of Planned Parenthood because of abortion, yea, it's a big part of it. But if I were in this same type of sterotypic argumentation I'd say Liberal support federeal subsidies for Planned Parenthood because they offer a procedure they support. Oh yea, and they're definitely a charitable organization like you're trying to make them out to be. Don't they give free abortions to the poor and needy women that we're concerned about, or do they charge and seek to make profitable earnings just like any other organization. Funny how liberals react so differently when it comes to planned parenthood versus other corporations that actually compete and don't get government handouts.

Do you know what prompted this legislation? Here's a decent article from WSJ explaining the scandal.

No, it is a rather poor article explaining the scandal. In a good article, much more emphasis would be given to the facts that the videos were heavily edited to take statements out of context and to present the individual doing the questioning in a different light than is accurate to how he presented himself to the workers at these clinics. Further, a good article would devote more than one line at the end to the fact that after each incident the individual was reported to police or FBI officials to put an end to him. The claims in that video are nothing short of fraudulent.

Oh, you're claiming an article from the WSJ is a poor source. Seriously! Just because they don't add liberal spin to a story doesn't make then a poor source, we have the HuffingtonPost and MoveOn.org for that kinda stuff. Abraxas, leave the objective reporting to objective news institutions like WSJ and USA Today and leave the left/right conjecture to Huffington, MoveOn, WorldNet and National Review.

Do you even know what the facts are? The fact is Planned Parenthood provides abortion to women, the fact is federal funding for abortion is strictly prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, and the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw from these facts is that federal funding for planned parenthood should be restricted. They have a right to exist, I and other members of the Pro Life community don't have a right to support their existence and you liberals don't have a right to coerce us into doing it through taxiation.

I don't support much of what the military does, nor do I support many of the subsidies provided to oil companies and defense contractors. Can I opt out of my tax dollars going to them too?

Yea, it's called an election. Cast your vote for the candidate whom you believe will opt out your tax dollars for big oil and the military. We all have one vote, we're all equal in that respect, the majority of people voted for a conservative house that would create policy in line with their beliefs and opinions. This decision is democracy at work.

[Wyvern]

Is this issue all about abortion, or are there other reasons for the cut?

Do you know what prompted this legislation? Here's a decent article from WSJ explaining the scandal.

So one individual from one clinic makes a mistake which was quickly caught and corrected coming from all appearances from a number of entrapment operations from antiabortion groups and that justifies defunding it entirely? By that same logic the army should also be defunded because one individual made the mistake of killing nine children. I believe this will also end up in the law of unintended consequences pile. As many PP clinics are forced to close or scale back operations due to lack of funding the people that used their services will then be forced to go to emergency rooms for their health care which will further strain an already thinly stretched health care system. Many if not most of these people will not be able to pay for their services which means the hospitals will be forced to increase fees for those who do pay and in turn the HMO's will also have to increase fees to cover the larger costs which the hospitals have had to pass on which means that you the tax payer/health insured will still end up paying the costs of this.

The conservatives have that as a key issue, and they don't bother to look at other facts, such as Planned parenthood supplies prenatal care, health care, and contraception for many thousands of poor women that would not otherwise have it.

Do you even know what the facts are? The fact is Planned Parenthood provides abortion to women, the fact is federal funding for abortion is strictly prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, and the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw from these facts is that federal funding for planned parenthood should be restricted. They have a right to exist, I and other members of the Pro Life community don't have a right to support their existence and you liberals don't have a right to coerce us into doing it through taxiation.

As Goat mentioned but you ignored PP provides many more services than just abortions. If providing funding is illegal on the federal level then the military has been in violation of that law as well. Back when I was in the Navy I was a corpsman and served in the ob/gyn ward in the hospital I was stationed at. I can say from personal experience that we provided many abortions during my stay on that ward although maybe because they didn't call it an abortion that made it okay.

Your argument about coercion through taxation is just plain silly, you are not coerced into paying taxes and you are free to give up your citizenship any time you like. But if you value your citizenship in this nation then you agree to pay taxes which funds the operation of the government and the services it provides. You don't have the right to pick and choose what the government does simply because your particular group disagrees with it. I'm sure there are many people in this country that disagree with the level of military spending by our country, should these people stop paying taxes because they don't like what the government is doing? And for that matter are you willing to pay for the huge bureaucracy that would be needed to direct everyones taxes only to the programs they agree with?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

I think it's a perfectly fair claim considering that 98% of abortions are due to economic reasons (aka "convenience") as opposed to issues of lack of consent and health. Ultimately its purely elective due to purely elective relations.

I'm not sure if the above percentage can be supported. Even still, shouldn't women have a right to control their own bodies?

Does anyone plan on sending me money to go party with a bunch of girls?

How much ya chargin' and what all will they do for that amount?

...Only women get to have subsidized safety nets for their fun?

I propose all men who seek abortions should have access to information, and where they are too poor to afford them, we might all come out cheaper by helping 'em out.

What if I catch an STD while I'm trolling for ladies, should I get a taxpayer to cover such a condition?

Depends. How much is it gonna cost in other victims if we don't?

...Why do those girls get to party and get others to pay for their ahem....lack of foresight?

Cause they're the ones with what all the partyin's about.

...How about we pay for poor people to go to casinos too?

Cause that casino ain't the one having to raise a baby into adulthood with my potential tax dollars.

Abraxas, there is debate whether or not PP uses the Funds purely as they are meant to be used. Why can't they go seek Private funders?

I propose those who use federal funds in violation of the law need to be punished, then we can sort out whether that violation is sufficient grounds to eliminate the remainder of a given program.

Are there not enough abortion activists who don't want to contribute money instead of their mouths? As for paying for the military, I wish there was a way to get the corrupt contractors and generals to admit where these unaccounted "trillions" go to, it would be great to shave $300 billion a year off of the internal arms racket, but that's one of the densest jungles in the corruption.

Just because one group is misusing funds is no reason to discontinue a completely unrelated endeavor.

You may be right that it's a political ploy, but I don't see why its federally funded in the first place, or why I have to pay for it.

There's this notion that a woman's body belongs to her and sometimes we just get out cheaper all around if we abort a baby that may enter the world under circumstances that may see them causing more harm to society than the abortion does.

I'm relatively glad to pay taxes, and I do hate that in some part my money just may end up being used directly or tangentially for an abortion. But I'd rather pay for that abortion than I would the related costs of supporting a person to adulthood.

[Lux]

Yes, as it is all other private institutions. This is, for the most part, a non-issue. The government isn't shutting Planned Parenthood down, they're not defunding profit from the organization, they simply voted to remove themselves, and taxpayer moneies, from supporting the contreversial institution. If they can't survive without a handout from taxpayers then they shouldn't be around.

The entire point of funding Planned Parenthood is so that they can offer contraceptives, cancer and STDs testing and other services at a lower price in order to make it available to a wider range of people. They also offer free consultations and I could be wrong here but I think in some cases free contraception and emergency contraception. Several countries offer free condoms and sometimes even birth control pills to women of low resources. Funding PP is a way of making these available without the government actually having to hand them out.

I'm no fan of abortion, at all, but that is clearly not all PP is about. It's just the most controversial part and therefore the only one that gets massive attention. The truth of the matter is that PP, being such a large provider of sex education and contraception, probably prevents more abortions than it performs.

Do you know what prompted this legislation? Here's a decent article from WSJ explaining the scandal.

One employee makes a very poor decision, is fired and the authorities notified. Not quite what I'd call a big scandal, let alone a good reason to remove all funding from PP.

Do you even know what the facts are? The fact is Planned Parenthood provides abortion to women, the fact is federal funding for abortion is strictly prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, and the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw from these facts is that federal funding for planned parenthood should be restricted. They have a right to exist, I and other members of the Pro Life community don't have a right to support their existence and you liberals don't have a right to coerce us into doing it through taxiation.

Only 2-3% of the women that visit PP end up getting an abortion, and it does not offer free abortions, that's not where the tax money goes, since it would be illegal for them to use public funds for that.

[WinePusher]

So one individual from one clinic makes a mistake which was quickly caught and corrected coming from all appearances from a number of entrapment operations from antiabortion groups and that justifies defunding it entirely? By that same logic the army should also be defunded because one individual made the mistake of killing nine children.

No, the language found in the Hyde Amendment justifies halting any additional federal funding of Planned Parenthood. The Hyde Amendment, that thing Obama said he would put into law through executive order in order to get Stupaks vote, or is this just another lie we can add to Obama's list. And your analogy is fallacious, you're trying to say the Planned Parenthood employee made a mistake and that her mistake is the same as the untentional civilian casualties accumulated in war due to the treacherous tactics engaged in by militant organizations like Hamas.

I believe this will also end up in the law of unintended consequences pile. As many PP clinics are forced to close or scale back operations due to lack of funding the people that used their services will then be forced to go to emergency rooms for their health care which will further strain an already thinly stretched health care system.

If they can't survive on their own, then they shouldn't exist at all. Democrats go as far as to deny tax breaks to businees owners, yet in this case they actually want to help fund a businees simply because they provide a service they approve of.

Many if not most of these people will not be able to pay for their services which means the hospitals will be forced to increase fees for those who do pay and in turn the HMO's will also have to increase fees to cover the larger costs which the hospitals have had to pass on which means that you the tax payer/health insured will still end up paying the costs of this.

I guess Obamacare won't cover any of this? You make is seem as if Armageddon has hit simply because the Federal Governemnt won't put up funds for Planned Parenthood. Is the Fed Planned Parenthood's sole source of revenue?

Do you even know what the facts are? The fact is Planned Parenthood provides abortion to women, the fact is federal funding for abortion is strictly prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, and the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw from these facts is that federal funding for planned parenthood should be restricted. They have a right to exist, I and other members of the Pro Life community don't have a right to support their existence and you liberals don't have a right to coerce us into doing it through taxiation.

As Goat mentioned but you ignored PP provides many more services than just abortions.

Yes, I tend to ignore non sequitors. I don't care what service they provide, the fact is they should compete on their own and if they want to provide a contreversial service such as abortion then they autmatically exempt themselves from federal funding due to the Hyde Amendment.

Your argument about coercion through taxation is just plain silly, you are not coerced into paying taxes and you are free to give up your citizenship any time you like. But if you value your citizenship in this nation then you agree to pay taxes which funds the operation of the government and the services it provides. You don't have the right to pick and choose what the government does simply because your particular group disagrees with it. I'm sure there are many people in this country that disagree with the level of military spending by our country, should these people stop paying taxes because they don't like what the government is doing? And for that matter are you willing to pay for the huge bureaucracy that would be needed to direct everyones taxes only to the programs they agree with?

In a demcratic system, I (a member of the populus) have a say in what my government does and doesn't do. If I want my tax dollars to go to this specific area and to stay away from this area, I vote for the politician who will represent my view and fight for my interests. It's Civics 101 and it (no taxation without representation) was the thing that ignited the inception of America.

[Wyvern]

No, the language found in the Hyde Amendment justifies halting any additional federal funding of Planned Parenthood. The Hyde Amendment, that thing Obama said he would put into law through executive order in order to get Stupaks vote, or is this just another lie we can add to Obama's list. And your analogy is fallacious, you're trying to say the Planned Parenthood employee made a mistake and that her mistake is the same as the untentional civilian casualties accumulated in war due to the treacherous tactics engaged in by militant organizations like Hamas.

As Lux pointed out PP does not provide free abortions nor does any federal money go towards it. I find it interesting that you accuse Obama of lying before the fact, it should also be noted that this bit of legislation as you point out has everything to do with horse trading common in politics and nothing to do with anything that actually happened in the real world. Maybe you should look to the motivations of Stupak first.
Maybe you haven't been listening to the news, our forces in Afghanistan accidently killed nine boys gathering firewood, just as with PP one person made a mistake so by your logic if all it takes is one error by one person at one location to withdraw all funding then all the armed forces should have their funding withdrawn. Where you got that I was talking about Hamas is beyond me.

I believe this will also end up in the law of unintended consequences pile. As many PP clinics are forced to close or scale back operations due to lack of funding the people that used their services will then be forced to go to emergency rooms for their health care which will further strain an already thinly stretched health care system.

If they can't survive on their own, then they shouldn't exist at all. Democrats go as far as to deny tax breaks to businees owners, yet in this case they actually want to help fund a businees simply because they provide a service they approve of.

So you are advocating getting rid of such agencies such as DARPA and companies such as the FDIC and of course forget about any federally backed student loans. DARPAs entire reason for existance is to channel federal funds to private companies for research purposes, without DARPA the internet may never have been invented. The FDIC, a federally created company whose sole function is to insure individual deposits which the evil federal government mandated every bank subscribe to and even worse they have no competition. Federal loans, forget it if those kids can't afford to go to college on their own they shouldn't go at all.

Many if not most of these people will not be able to pay for their services which means the hospitals will be forced to increase fees for those who do pay and in turn the HMO's will also have to increase fees to cover the larger costs which the hospitals have had to pass on which means that you the tax payer/health insured will still end up paying the costs of this.

I guess Obamacare won't cover any of this? You make is seem as if Armageddon has hit simply because the Federal Governemnt won't put up funds for Planned Parenthood. Is the Fed Planned Parenthood's sole source of revenue?

All I'm doing is pointing out that you are going to pay for it one way or another, or do you think the hospitals or HMOs are just going to take the extra expenses without passing it on to you the consumer.

Yes, I tend to ignore non sequitors. I don't care what service they provide, the fact is they should compete on their own and if they want to provide a contreversial service such as abortion then they autmatically exempt themselves from federal funding due to the Hyde Amendment.

Health care does not compete like other businesses. Never will you see hospitals advertising the great deals on tummy tucks or liposuction. There are many hospitals and HMOs but they don't compete against each other. Your idea is great and all but what happens is that all the resources go to those areas that can afford to pay more and those areas that can't get no health care at all. Your ideas remind me of an old Dead Kennedys song,"Kill the poor".

In a demcratic system, I (a member of the populus) have a say in what my government does and doesn't do. If I want my tax dollars to go to this specific area and to stay away from this area, I vote for the politician who will represent my view and fight for my interests. It's Civics 101 and it (no taxation without representation) was the thing that ignited the inception of America.

Then why were you saying all that stuff about being coerced to pay taxes for things you don't like?

[East of Eden]

Is it acceptable to remove all federal funding from this organization?

Yes, as it is all other private institutions. This is, for the most part, a non-issue. The government isn't shutting Planned Parenthood down, they're not defunding profit from the organization, they simply voted to remove themselves, and taxpayer moneies, from supporting the contreversial institution. If they can't survive without a handout from taxpayers then they shouldn't be around.

Is this issue all about abortion, or are there other reasons for the cut?

Do you know what prompted this legislation? Here's a decent article from WSJ explaining the scandal.

The conservatives have that as a key issue, and they don't bother to look at other facts, such as Planned parenthood supplies prenatal care, health care, and contraception for many thousands of poor women that would not otherwise have it.

Do you even know what the facts are? The fact is Planned Parenthood provides abortion to women, the fact is federal funding for abortion is strictly prohibited under the Hyde Amendment, and the conclusion that a reasonable person should draw from these facts is that federal funding for planned parenthood should be restricted. They have a right to exist, I and other members of the Pro Life community don't have a right to support their existence and you liberals don't have a right to coerce us into doing it through taxiation.

Exactly. It is a disgrace that millions of Americans who consider abortion to be the murder of a human being are being forced to pay for this ghastly procedure.

We also can't afford it.

[McCulloch]

It is a disgrace that millions of Americans who consider abortion to be the murder of a human being are being forced to pay for this ghastly procedure.

Is it also a disgrace that millions of Americans who consider blood transfusions and organ transplants to be a sin against God are being forced to pay for those ghastly procedures? Hey, if I don't like war, can I get a tax exemption for the cost of supporting our troops in Afghanistan?

We also can't afford it.

I'm not sure that is true. If it was shown that publicly supported abortion was cost effective, would it influence your attitude toward it at all?