Quelle Surprise...
(H/T: Illinois Review.)
If this bill ever becomes law, perhaps they will no longer be able to afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of our own money to lie to us! Defund.
Thank you, Congressman Joe Walsh, for supporting the Pence Amendment!
14 comments:
In the full transcript it is clear she was talking about the women's preventative care funding that is stripped with H.R. 1. The defunding of Planned Parenthood is what makes the press, but the bill actually defunds other women's health care as well.
This video is just edited to make it look like she is listing Planned Parenthood services.
I can understand pro-life proponents want to defund Planned Parenthood because they are not satisfied with the federal funding firewall to keep tax payer money out of abortions. I just wish they would propose ways to fix that wall to their satisfaction rather than defunding all the services. Perhaps proposing the organization be broken into two different organizations.
As a broke, uninsured early 20-something, I would get my cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood. They really do provide valuable preventative care for women that have no other option.
No other option? Really? You don't have a county hospital? A crisis pregnancy center? Planned Parenthood is the ONLY healthcare provider in the area?
Come on. You know that if PP is de-funded they'll still be there. They just won't have as much cash with which to promote abortion.
Because what happens when we give them public money?
They do more abortions!
Oh, and if you're in your 20s and uninsured, maybe you should think about getting a HUSBAND to take care of you.
Because I've already got a wife and kids I'm taking care of.
Yes, going to a hospital can be a lot more expensive. They are also designed for people with insurance, which adds administrative barriers as well. Now some areas there might be alternative clinics, and other areas Planned Parenthood probably the only clinic in the area.
For me, I was a student putting myself through school. I was lucky that I got a job as a student researcher, which reduced the tuition bills. However, it didn't pay enough to cover rent and food. I worked hard to minimize the debt I was taking on. I had no insurance and no spare money to spend on well-visits to the doctor. I saw an outreach ad for an inexpensive pap smear and breast exam at Planned Parenthood. It was like $40-$50 dollars. Not cheap for me at the time, but doable. A visit to the hospital would have been in the range of $200+, which was beyond my cash flow.
These are really important exams, and there are many women in much, much tougher financial spots than I was in. And not just students, all kinds of women of all ages, some mothers.
I don't think you've thought through your 'get married' solution very far. A husband in a working class job most likely doesn't have health insurance. After rent, food, and cost of providing for children, many of husbands aren't paid enough for uninsured well visits. And like most parents would do, the money they had for well visits would be prioritized for the children. And so what's the solution, those women should get ANOTHER husband?
Your 'get married' solution wouldn't do much for me either. (Leaving aside the civil liberty issues of women deciding their own destiny, whether it be stay-at-home mom or a single-for-life business executive) The men that had any interest in me at the time were broke college students.
And you never answered my question. Why can't social conservatives advocate for the organizational separation of Planned Parenthood health services and their abortion wing. Once separated, it would be easier to target the abortion-only organization? Or work on a conservative solution to get low-income people insured. Then they would be getting these exams by their primary physician.
Stephanie, if you were a college student, there was doubtless a clinic on your campus.
My intent was to take aim at your attitude that if you choose not to enter a lifestyle that provides you security, then I should have to provide that security to you. As usual, you have been impervious to common sense.
Why can't social conservatives advocate for the organizational separation of Planned Parenthood health services and their abortion wing.
Anyone is free to open such services, whether within or without the present Planned Parenthood organization.
The problem is, that PP gets federal subsidies because it offers abortion, and this enables it to force competitors out of business.
It should be de-funded.
And if federal funds are to go for this prupose, why on Earth should the Federal Government pick a single provider to be the beneficiary of this sort of largesse?
Admit it, you like PP because of your support for abortion, and their advocacy of it, and you hate to see them suffer anything for it.
But they are so vile that their employees were shown to be willing to assist pimps running stables of underage illegal aliens.
Perhaps you want your tax dollars to support this, but I do not.
I did choose a lifestyle that provides security. I make a very good living now, and have paid much more into the system than was given to me in times a need.
And you don't know my position on abortion. I'm sure if you told an abortion advocate that you wanted to break up Planned Parenthood into two separate organizations they would violently protest. That isn't exactly a liberal pro-abortion position.
If you are really going to go on super-libertarian saying that public money shouldn't be spent subsidizing life-saving cancer screening to low income women and mothers, than perhaps you should also chastise politicians advocating for public funding of school AND school vouchers. Both have non-parents subsidizing parents. After all, by your logic if I wanted to be raising kids I would be. I don't need to raise other people's kids.
Of course, I don't mind because I think education is important (public, private, homeschool) and should be subsidized, even if it isn't my kid.
We are going to disagree often Paul, but not on everything. I am not a caricature.
This is a function must better done at the state than at the federal level. And better done at the county then by the state.
But it was your turn not to answer my question:
"why on Earth should the Federal Government pick a single provider to be the beneficiary of this sort of largesse?"
The government isn't choosing one provider. Funding in Title X goes to other women's health clinics as well. There are several pro-life sources that report the clinics to remain funded through Title X because they want to emphasize they aren't cutting off all women's health funding.
Planned Parenthood happens to be by far the largest network of women's health clinics around, and so it isn't a surprise they get a large allocation. Personally, I'd like to see a breakdown of per-clinic funding. That would be a far more accurate measure of how much the government is over/under subsidizing Planned Parenthood.
If the dominance in funding of Planned Parenthood bothers social conservatives, I can understand that. I think a transition from Planned Parenthood would be more reasonable if it happened methodically over time, enabling a network of alternate providers to open in the many underserved areas where Planned Parenthood is the only option. The transition would also be smoother if outreach was done to let women know about the new options. Splitting the organization up would be quicker, but it's not the only way to do it.
A Planned Parenthood funding block would leave so many low-income women without (completely non-abortion related) health services. I really think there really needs to be a practical plan in place to transition to other providers.
As far as where funding comes from, I generally agree with you. Non-profit charitable funding is better than city funding. City funding is better than county funding. County funding is better than state funding. State funding is better than Federal funding. However, since some regions are poorer than others, like the South, I think some federal assistance for things we nationally prioritize is reasonable. Not always, but sometimes.
Stephanie, when a person spend this much energy defending the nation's largest abortion provider, after they've been repeatedly caught in lies and scandal, that she cannot then claim that I don't know her position on abortion.
You are, if not pro-abortion, at least pro-abortionist.
Paul, if you want to put me in a box, that's up to you. I don't even know what the difference is between pro-abortion and pro-abortionist.
For me, I'd like to see more restrictions on abortion, and public policy that encourages adoption and parenting within wedlock. Since I go short of outlawing abortion, I'm sure you consider that position extremely pro-abortion. Among liberals, I would be considered anti-abortion or at least pro-anti-abortionist. Such is the life of an independent.
As for lies, I'm sure Planned Parenthood has had it's scandals. However, the clip above is a edited to give a false impression on what was said. And, as an independent, I have a pet peeve against false information, whichever political side it comes from.
America is turning more pro-life. There isn't a need to lie.
I don't even know what the difference is between pro-abortion and pro-abortionist.
There isn't one, in practice.
For me, I'd like to see more restrictions on abortion, and public policy that encourages adoption and parenting within wedlock.
In that case, why do you want to subsidize abortion providers? Your statement conflicts with your arguments.
I'm sure you consider that position extremely pro-abortion.
Not extremely so, but effectively so, if you aren't willing to support the simplest measures, such as refusing to fund abortion providers.
As for lies, I'm sure Planned Parenthood has had it's scandals. However, the clip above is a edited to give a false impression on what was said.
No it isn't. The woman is clearly saying that there will be fewer mammograms is PP is de-funded, and that simply isn't the case.
The lying is coming from the pro-abort side.
To be fair, Paul has been quite clear on this issue. Essentially, if you're not against PP then you support the pimping of underage prostitutes and the use of government money to do it.
And, Stephanie, you are a caricature.
- You're a woman so you need a HUSBAND to look after you.
- If you can't pay for health insurance then you've chosen the wrong lifestyle and you're just waiting for others to pick up the bill.
Paul has also reminded you through the use of italics that as a woman you need to marry a man, not a woman. Just in case you were thinking of making some immoral lifestyle choices.
through the use of capitals, not italics. Sorry
Paul, the current law doesn't subsidize abortions. If it did I would be against it. Just like I am fine with faith based charities getting federal grants as long as the money doesn't fund regular church activities.
However, I understand that people don't trust the accountants, so I would back any plan to split up plan parenthood, or transition funding overtime to a new network of providers.
I don't understand how you can distort that position into being pro-abortion subsidizing.
Also, in the full video of the interview she lists Planned Parenthood services provided, and does not mention mammograms. It's only when she is talking about the full impact of the bill (which does cut other non-pp health services).
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1/show
Lastly, Planned Parenthood does do breast cancer screening which is typical of yearly exams.
But as things usually end, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree.
It's about that time I head over to the gay disco with Oliver anyway. We wouldn't want to be late, tonight we are plotting the downfall of the American family.
Post a Comment