heckofajobbrownie Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Mitt Romney says he'll eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. This is the position of all the GOP candidates. Federal funding makes up 90% of Planned Parenthood's budget, so this is basically the same as saying you want to drastically reduce what Panned Parenthood does, if not eliminate it completely. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget deals with abortion services. The rest is made up of a range of women's health services - cancer screenings, contraception, pap smears, etc. - for poor women. Do you agree with Romney's position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Ignorance is dangerous. I'm going there this weekend with my girlfriend to get her on birth control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Yes, cut all those sluts' care of all kinds. Then we can take away their right to drive too, and have jobs and we can live in new Afghanistan like Jesus intended. Damn sluts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Yea I remember this going into one with my ex-girlfriend for birth control and a yearly checkup. Showing them the birth control I said, "where the fuck are your kids at?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I can understand the opposition to tax dollars going to pay for PP since it does perform a lot of abortions, even if the abortion arm isn't technically funded by public money. Regardless, it's a great organization, doing a lot of work for a very underserved population. But it's funny because funding for Planned Parenthood wasn't an issue with Reagan or Bush Sr., or part of the Dole platform, or even Bush Jr. And now it is. And this is why we have elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 A recent Brookings Institute study: "Unintended pregnancy is a widespread problem with far-reaching implications: almost half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and the women and children involved in these pregnancies are disproportionately likely to experience a range of negative outcomes. I review research on the causes of unintended pregnancy and the impacts of various evidence-based pregnancy prevention policies. I discuss the estimated effects of mass media campaigns discouraging unprotected sex, teen pregnancy prevention programs, and expansions in publicly funded family planning services, and then present new research showing that expansions in these policies would likely lead to reductions in teen and unintended pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and child poverty. The research also shows that each dollar spent on these policies would produce taxpayer savings of between two and six dollars. Over the last few years, prudent investments have been made in several proven pregnancy prevention policies. Some of these investments, however, have recently come under attack at the state and federal levels. The findings presented in this brief suggest that policymakers would be wise to expand these programs rather than pare them back." And an article on this here called The Fiscal Conservative's Case for Spending More Money on Birth Control. "If you happen to dislike the idea of your money going to help poor, unmarried, or teenage women, consider the fact that you will not just get your money back, you'll at least double it and at most quintuple. You'll enjoy this profit in the form of lower health care costs and lower taxes. ...When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens, according to the nonpartisan state Legislative Budget Board. The other result was more unintended pregnancies and, presumably, more abortions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 If you read the news you'd know that, yes, he said that. I'm not making this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 This is push back to Obamao's pushing us over the cliff in debt. And, more and more, Planned Parenthood is an arm of the KGB Democratic Party. I don't care how much money it saves, the murder of unborn children is now a battle of humanity, and INhumanity. Pro-abortions never want to talk about adoptions. Again, WHY ? "Planned NO Parenthood" is more like it. with the push to the left by this Obamao fascist regime, the American people do NOT want to fund the murder of unborn children, now that Obamao and his ilk have made Planned Parenthood a political football. It's all about trying to turn "women" against the Republicans for the next election. It's about POWER, KEPT by the left. It's what the left always does. Try to change enough of everything, so that they OWN the electoral process by any means necessary. Like, Obamao's CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE. We are big, serious, Chavez-like trouble with these dirtbag leftists in our WH, and slithering around Congress, and the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Steve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Pro-abortions never want to talk about adoptions. Again, WHY ? There 1s probably about 100k+ kids waiting for adoption, who do you think pays for them to be in foster care waiting for adoption? Have you or do you intend to adopt? Or have you decided it would be ok for gay/lesbian couples to be able to adopt? It's merely playing to the Republican base to trumpet up attacking things that are associated with abortion, but even if they do get elected I doubt they will make any cuts to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Steve? Allow me to apologize in advance for repeating that I don't care. No republican will get traction with an abortion on demand platform. No democrat will win with a right to life position. Let me give you this analogy. if the state of ohio wanted to pay me a huge amount of money for a saint patrick's day show but thought some rebel songs might be offensive to some citizens and that those rebel songs were only 3 percent of my repetoire I think I could, in good conscience, eliminate them. Problem solved. Of course if I were so ideologically committed to rebel songs and refused to forego them then I would need to find a another source of funding. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm pretty sure everyone's taxes goes to one thing or another they don't like.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Woody is using the old noggin. Our government is large enough to do as it wants regardless to those who oppose it even if it is the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Allow me to apologize in advance for repeating that I don't care. No republican will get traction with an abortion on demand platform. No democrat will win with a right to life position. Let me give you this analogy. if the state of ohio wanted to pay me a huge amount of money for a saint patrick's day show but thought some rebel songs might be offensive to some citizens and that those rebel songs were only 3 percent of my repetoire I think I could, in good conscience, eliminate them. Problem solved. Of course if I were so ideologically committed to rebel songs and refused to forego them then I would need to find a another source of funding. WSS So you'd like PP to perform all of those other functions, but not perform abortions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 So you'd like PP to perform all of those other functions, but not perform abortions? I don't care but that seems like a logical compromise. Except this isn't a real issue. Its political bullshit. Hell I'd like to have free heart diabetes and prostate treatment. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I don't care but that seems like a logical compromise. Except this isn't a real issue. Its political bullshit. Hell I'd like to have free heart diabetes and prostate treatment. WSS What does free care have to do with anything? I went this morning, my gfs insurance doesn't cover anything under 7k. She paid 50 for the appointment and the pills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Of course, it's not your concern, so it's a bullshit issue. It doesn't matter that it's a grave concern to millions of women who use PP to get reproductive health care every year. Now, the GOP candidates are all running on a platform to zero out their federal funding. You think that's a good compromise. Of course, the compromise is already in place: no federal funding is used to provide abortion services. That's already law. And hey, funny you mention prostate care, because colonoscopies are also a part of the same mandated coverage. So you will get them as part of your health package. And for the 50th time, nothing is "free." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 What does free care have to do with anything? I went this morning, my gfs insurance doesn't cover anything under 7k. She paid 50 for the appointment and the pills. We're talking about federal tax dollars funding planned parenthood. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 No Heck, I don't care because I don't care. Fund it or not. I'm not the demographic either side is trying to pander too. It's bullshit because both sides want to play hardball with the abortion question. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 And for the 51st time, it's free to me if somebody else is paying for it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 You can think that all you like, but your premise is entirely flawed. Abortion is one of - if not the - most hotly debated social issues of our time, and issues of women's health care and contraception and unwanted pregnancy and access to abortion services affect millions of Americans every year, and in the deepest ways possible. You simply dismiss this. And because politics are involved? Isn't that what politics is for? Side A thinks this should be the policy... Side B thinks it shouldn't, and that this should be the policy... Now vote for which one you prefer. If you're admitting a personal flaw - that you don't give a shit about the biggest social issue of our time, one that affects millions of Americans every year, or that as long as an issue doesn't affect you personally it's not important - then I suppose I accept that you don't give a shit. But abortion, and access to abortion services, is hardly a bullshit issue, and it's odd to listen to someone pretend it is. Next time NYC gets hit with a terrorist strike you can claim it's also bullshit and doesn't affect you because, hey, you live in Ohio. Not your problem, right? Terrorism is a bullshit issue. Of course, you're even wrong on that front, since this does affect you through your tax dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 No you're just wasting my time. If it upsets you that much climb a clock tower with an ak 47. Contraception is free or cheap and that's not going to change. Abortion is perfectly legal probably up into the area that would upset you yourself. I'm personally not basing my vote solely on the issue of abortion, you can if you so choose. And since noone is ever ever ever going to it outlaw it I don't care. And yes it is bullshit. Your guys just want to stick that paying for abortion gag up the ass of the small religious few. Since I'm not really one of them who cares? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Also, it seems to me that you guys thought terrorism was bullshit. You know insulting anybody that used the term war on terror, or terrorist. It was law enforcement responsibility as I recall. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 And what can you say to that other than, "Um ...okay." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 And what can you say to that other than, "Um ...okay." Really not very much. You brought it up. But don't worry, nobody is trying to take away your abortion and contraceptives rights. Well maybe a tiny minority is trying but that toothpaste isn't going back into the tube. So you can breathe easy. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 "But don't worry, nobody is trying to take away your abortion and contraceptives rights." Are you kidding? Phew. I used to think there's was this thing called "the pro-life movement"...and that their entire goal was to take away the right to an abortion. And to elect people who would appoint judges that would reverse the decision that found a right to privacy in the Constitution that led to the legalization of abortion. Thanks for setting me straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 "But don't worry, nobody is trying to take away your abortion and contraceptives rights." Are you kidding? Phew. I used to think there's was this thing called "the pro-life movement"...and that their entire goal was to take away the right to an abortion. And to elect people who would appoint judges that would reverse the decision that found a right to privacy in the Constitution that led to the legalization of abortion. Thanks for setting me straight. Bud, Seems like you quit reading a sentence or two early... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 No, I just dismissed it. The idea that pro-lifers are "a tiny minority" is nonsense. It's a major political movement, one of the most well-funded in the country. You might recall just a few years ago when they were all touting new polls that showed that "pro-life" was now the majority opinion in America. They also count four of the nine Supreme Court justices who are pro-life and anti-Roe. That means they just need one more. But you're right. Not an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 So in your opinion you believe that with just 1 more vote the supreme court of the united states would make abortion under any circumstances illegal? Is that what you are trying to tell me? I don't know the answer but what would you guess the percentage of americans that believes that would be? Also, could you personally live with a law that says abortion is legal only during the first 2 trimesters? And legal during the third in cases of rape, incest or severe health concern? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.