What does this statement from Hillary on Planned Parenthood mean?

[dudeabides]

I'm starting to wonder if she's capable of making a clear statement on any relevant political issue.

The reality is, Hillary Clinton is not an authentic candidate. She is in panic mode because while on one hand, you have Bernie Sanders getting thousands of people to come out to see him and hear his socialist message, she knows that Jeb Bush can win the political center and defeat her next fall. Hillary Clinton has never had many principles other than getting elected and re-elected. There are few issues where she actually cares about what she says. For example, the reason she has been critical of free trade and has been for criminal justice reform is because that's what is popular, mind you her husband took responsible positions on both issues while President. On Planned Parenthood, of course Hillary is going to support funding them, because she knows that there is an element of the Democratic base that expects hand outs from government. It's not 47% of the population, but there are a number of people who like handouts, and they almost always vote for the Democrats.

[dudeabides]

I'm starting to wonder if she's capable of making a clear statement on any relevant political issue.

The reality is, Hillary Clinton is not an authentic candidate. She is in panic mode because while on one hand, you have Bernie Sanders getting thousands of people to come out to see him and hear his socialist message, she knows that Jeb Bush can win the political center and defeat her next fall. Hillary Clinton has never had many principles other than getting elected and re-elected. There are few issues where she actually cares about what she says. For example, the reason she has been critical of free trade and has been for criminal justice reform is because that's what is popular, mind you her husband took responsible positions on both issues while President. On Planned Parenthood, of course Hillary is going to support funding them, because she knows that there is an element of the Democratic base that expects hand outs from government. It's not 47% of the population, but there are a number of people who like handouts, and they almost always vote for the Democrats.

Most federal funding of Planned Parenthood is fee-for-service payments.  So, Planned Parenthood performs a medical exam and they get paid by Medicaid. 

The direct funding for Planned Parenthood goes to birth control and family planning.  That might be a handout, but it net saves money, because birth control is cheaper than an unwanted child living in poverty raised by a single mother. 

First of all, giving any money to planned parenthood essentially funds abortion. If we defunded planned parenthood, they'd have to fundraise for everything, right now they only have to fundraise for abortion. So, it's indirect, but there is federal funding of abortion.

There are plenty of charities that give out birth control. That is fine, I am not opposed to birth control, I am very much for it actually. I am actually not opposed to states supporting health care centers. I don't believe that is the role of the federal government, but I'm open to it so long as it doesn't go to abortions.

I realize the vast majority of folks on public assistance don't want to be on public assistance. That's why I disagreed with Mitt Romney's number of 47%. But, there are still folks who want free birth control, free cell phones, food stamps for life, free housing etc. Look at Sandra Fluke, well I have which makes me wonder why she even needs birth control, but the point is people like that who can easily afford birth control, but they want the government to pay for it. It's wrong.

I am deeply concerned about the cycle of poverty in this country. We have more people in poverty today than at any time in the last 50 years and yet, nothing is done. We have the same economic policies coming from Washington and the Federal Reserve, the same social welfare programs, nothing is being done.

[dudeabides]

I'm starting to wonder if she's capable of making a clear statement on any relevant political issue.

The reality is, Hillary Clinton is not an authentic candidate. She is in panic mode because while on one hand, you have Bernie Sanders getting thousands of people to come out to see him and hear his socialist message, she knows that Jeb Bush can win the political center and defeat her next fall. Hillary Clinton has never had many principles other than getting elected and re-elected. There are few issues where she actually cares about what she says. For example, the reason she has been critical of free trade and has been for criminal justice reform is because that's what is popular, mind you her husband took responsible positions on both issues while President. On Planned Parenthood, of course Hillary is going to support funding them, because she knows that there is an element of the Democratic base that expects hand outs from government. It's not 47% of the population, but there are a number of people who like handouts, and they almost always vote for the Democrats.

Most federal funding of Planned Parenthood is fee-for-service payments.  So, Planned Parenthood performs a medical exam and they get paid by Medicaid. 

The direct funding for Planned Parenthood goes to birth control and family planning.  That might be a handout, but it net saves money, because birth control is cheaper than an unwanted child living in poverty raised by a single mother. 

First of all, giving any money to planned parenthood essentially funds abortion. If we defunded planned parenthood, they'd have to fundraise for everything, right now they only have to fundraise for abortion. So, it's indirect, but there is federal funding of abortion.

There are plenty of charities that give out birth control. That is fine, I am not opposed to birth control, I am very much for it actually. I am actually not opposed to states supporting health care centers. I don't believe that is the role of the federal government, but I'm open to it so long as it doesn't go to abortions.

I realize the vast majority of folks on public assistance don't want to be on public assistance. That's why I disagreed with Mitt Romney's number of 47%. But, there are still folks who want free birth control, free cell phones, food stamps for life, free housing etc. Look at Sandra Fluke, well I have which makes me wonder why she even needs birth control, but the point is people like that who can easily afford birth control, but they want the government to pay for it. It's wrong.

I am deeply concerned about the cycle of poverty in this country. We have more people in poverty today than at any time in the last 50 years and yet, nothing is done. We have the same economic policies coming from Washington and the Federal Reserve, the same social welfare programs, nothing is being done.

Oy vey.

The money doesn't go to abortions.  It's for birth control, which stops abortions.  Abortions are going to keep happening in any case, because abortions are a pressing medical need.  There's no evidence or any reason to suggest that cutting birth control funding to Planned Parenthood would force them to redirect their "abortion money" and thus cut abortions.  No evidence at all.  Everything indirectly funds something else anyway.  That's called the economy.  If you don't want your money indirectly going to other people who might spend it in ways you don't like, keep your money in a Scrooge McDuck vault or shut the hell up.

And, spare me the political jargon and moralizing.  This is not about women demanding "free stuff."  This is about giving away a penny to get a dollar.  You're angry that someone got a free penny, even though you're 99 cents in the black.  That's called sour grapes.  Birth control is an investment in women that pays immediate dividends for society. 

And, what is this philosophy that nothing should be free?  Most roads are free, parks are free, libraries are free, police protection is free, why don't those constitute a culture of dependency?  Maybe because it doesn't involve female sexuality which you want to demonize.

I don't believe the federal government should fund contraception, but what is most offensive is this funding of Planned Parenthood because the money does indirectly go to abortions. I don't think anyone has done a study as to what would happen if Planned Parenthood lost their federal funding, but one would have to assume they'd have difficulty funding contraception and abortion.

Let's be realistic here. Abortion is a very serious issue. Prior to this last century, whites essentially violated the reproductive rights of black women. White women who had abortions were punished. This is an extremely sensitive topic, I get that. I understand that there are cases involving a woman's health where abortion is necessary, as painful as that decision is. But abortion on demand is not something a civilized society should stand for. This is not political talk, it's called doing what is right.

I simply reject the idea that it is the role of the federal government to give birth control to those who decide they want it. People have access to contraceptives that are free. What we are really arguing over is whether or not it's appropriate for the federal government to "invest" in something that people already have.

Yes, roads are free. Parks are free. Libraries are free. But there is a huge difference. In my home state of New Jersey, we get back roughly 68 cents on the dollar that we send to Washington. Our state government funds parks and roads. County and municipal governments fund parks, libraries, and roads. We have a few federal historic sites, but no national parks. We are funding national parks in Utah and Wyoming. We are funding the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. Taxpayers here in New Jersey rarely benefit from those things, granted I love the Smithsonian. I think at the local level, funding things such as roads, parks, and libraries is fine. I'm actually for the interstate highway system because it's necessary for interstate commerce, which the federal government has control over. But the federal government is not supposed to fund contraception.

The federal government is supposed to be limited, states are supposed to have broader power and responsibility.

[dudeabides]

I'm starting to wonder if she's capable of making a clear statement on any relevant political issue.

The reality is, Hillary Clinton is not an authentic candidate. She is in panic mode because while on one hand, you have Bernie Sanders getting thousands of people to come out to see him and hear his socialist message, she knows that Jeb Bush can win the political center and defeat her next fall. Hillary Clinton has never had many principles other than getting elected and re-elected. There are few issues where she actually cares about what she says. For example, the reason she has been critical of free trade and has been for criminal justice reform is because that's what is popular, mind you her husband took responsible positions on both issues while President. On Planned Parenthood, of course Hillary is going to support funding them, because she knows that there is an element of the Democratic base that expects hand outs from government. It's not 47% of the population, but there are a number of people who like handouts, and they almost always vote for the Democrats.

Most federal funding of Planned Parenthood is fee-for-service payments.  So, Planned Parenthood performs a medical exam and they get paid by Medicaid. 

The direct funding for Planned Parenthood goes to birth control and family planning.  That might be a handout, but it net saves money, because birth control is cheaper than an unwanted child living in poverty raised by a single mother. 

First of all, giving any money to planned parenthood essentially funds abortion. If we defunded planned parenthood, they'd have to fundraise for everything, right now they only have to fundraise for abortion. So, it's indirect, but there is federal funding of abortion.

There are plenty of charities that give out birth control. That is fine, I am not opposed to birth control, I am very much for it actually. I am actually not opposed to states supporting health care centers. I don't believe that is the role of the federal government, but I'm open to it so long as it doesn't go to abortions.

I realize the vast majority of folks on public assistance don't want to be on public assistance. That's why I disagreed with Mitt Romney's number of 47%. But, there are still folks who want free birth control, free cell phones, food stamps for life, free housing etc. Look at Sandra Fluke, well I have which makes me wonder why she even needs birth control, but the point is people like that who can easily afford birth control, but they want the government to pay for it. It's wrong.

I am deeply concerned about the cycle of poverty in this country. We have more people in poverty today than at any time in the last 50 years and yet, nothing is done. We have the same economic policies coming from Washington and the Federal Reserve, the same social welfare programs, nothing is being done.

Oy vey.

The money doesn't go to abortions.  It's for birth control, which stops abortions.  Abortions are going to keep happening in any case, because abortions are a pressing medical need.  There's no evidence or any reason to suggest that cutting birth control funding to Planned Parenthood would force them to redirect their "abortion money" and thus cut abortions.  No evidence at all.  Everything indirectly funds something else anyway.  That's called the economy.  If you don't want your money indirectly going to other people who might spend it in ways you don't like, keep your money in a Scrooge McDuck vault or shut the hell up.

And, spare me the political jargon and moralizing.  This is not about women demanding "free stuff."  This is about giving away a penny to get a dollar.  You're angry that someone got a free penny, even though you're 99 cents in the black.  That's called sour grapes.  Birth control is an investment in women that pays immediate dividends for society. 

And, what is this philosophy that nothing should be free?  Most roads are free, parks are free, libraries are free, police protection is free, why don't those constitute a culture of dependency?  Maybe because it doesn't involve female sexuality which you want to demonize.

I don't believe the federal government should fund contraception, but what is most offensive is this funding of Planned Parenthood because the money does indirectly go to abortions. I don't think anyone has done a study as to what would happen if Planned Parenthood lost their federal funding, but one would have to assume they'd have difficulty funding contraception and abortion.

Let's be realistic here. Abortion is a very serious issue. Prior to this last century, whites essentially violated the reproductive rights of black women. White women who had abortions were punished. This is an extremely sensitive topic, I get that. I understand that there are cases involving a woman's health where abortion is necessary, as painful as that decision is. But abortion on demand is not something a civilized society should stand for. This is not political talk, it's called doing what is right.

I simply reject the idea that it is the role of the federal government to give birth control to those who decide they want it. People have access to contraceptives that are free. What we are really arguing over is whether or not it's appropriate for the federal government to "invest" in something that people already have.

Yes, roads are free. Parks are free. Libraries are free. But there is a huge difference. In my home state of New Jersey, we get back roughly 68 cents on the dollar that we send to Washington. Our state government funds parks and roads. County and municipal governments fund parks, libraries, and roads. We have a few federal historic sites, but no national parks. We are funding national parks in Utah and Wyoming. We are funding the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. Taxpayers here in New Jersey rarely benefit from those things, granted I love the Smithsonian. I think at the local level, funding things such as roads, parks, and libraries is fine. I'm actually for the interstate highway system because it's necessary for interstate commerce, which the federal government has control over. But the federal government is not supposed to fund contraception.

The federal government is supposed to be limited, states are supposed to have broader power and responsibility.

OK.  I'm going to assume you're trolling, please stop.

Obviously, you don't understand what I'm saying because I have put forth some logical arguments. I'm going to do something I rarely do. Refer you to Ron Paul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdQRzIdTMyY

[dudeabides]

If you read the statement carefully, she's not wrong.  She's avoiding commenting on an issue that is a trap.  Dissing Planned Parenthood will anger the Feminist Left, without gaining her any new support.

"Planned Parenthood" represents issues that are often mixed together; the issues of abortion (which produces a pro-choice majority but a large, vocal pro-life minority) and birth control (which there is pretty much of a national consensus that this is OK and a good thing).  The government isn't funding abortions; they're funding birth control, but Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider, so the issues co-mingle to the quickly-glancing eye.  

I'm pro-life, but I'm resigned to the fact that the Democrats have made abortion a litmus test and the GOP wants the issue to remain open for the funds it brings in and the volunteers it brings in.  The GOP has figured out that in the long run, abortion (unfortunately, IMO) will be accepted to a point where only a small minority of voters will actually advocate for something like the Human Life Amendment (which isn'te evena  part of the GOP platform anymore).

Hillary's pro-choice, but she's not responsible for individual abortions any more so than any number of Republicans are responsible for the carnage in Newtown or Columbine.  This is really a non-issue in the current campaign in that nothing will change no matter who's elected.  

I agree with part of what you are saying.

But, indirectly, would you agree with my argument, which is the argument Republicans have made, that because Planned Parenthood has been able to receive taxpayer subsidies to pay for health care services and birth control, which then frees up money for abortion, therefore allowing abortion to be funded thanks to taxpayer dollars? It isn't a stretch of the imagination.

In my mind, the important issues of the day are the economy and our standing in the world. These moral questions will ultimately solved by societal consensus, and my hope is with advancing technology, abortions will become even more rare. I personally am opposed to abortion and believe they should only be legal in cases where the mother's health is at risk and in cases of rape and incest.

[dudeabides]

I'm sorry, I just think you should be intellectually honest.  Playing stupid because you think it's cute or whatever is just annoying.

What is stupid is actually believing that federal tax dollars don't indirectly go to abortions when we fund Planned Parenthood.

To be frank, I think you should stop accusing people of having negative motives when you disagree with them or when they know something you don't.

The bottom line is this. The amount of money the federal government gives to Planned Parenthood is $540 million, a small fraction of federal spending. But this subsidy is in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment and for those of us who are pro-life, it violates our conscious.

Let me break this down for you:

Johnny needs $10 for a pizza pie and a soda. His mother gives him $3 for the soda. Now Johnny only needs $7 for pizza pie. Had Johnny not gotten the $3, he'd need $10 for both.

[dudeabides]

Ohh, brother.

Planned Parenthood doesn't just have a pool of money they use for everything. They have dedicated sources of funding for different elements of their organization.  It's not as simple as a Lemonade stand.

And, we don't give them $540 million.  Most of that is fee for service, so they give someone a STD test, medicaid pays.  That's the government paying for a service, which Planned Parenthood had to pay for themselves. 

The Hyde Amendment applies to abortion, not birth control.

We do give them $540 million per year, that's a fact. The federal government isn't giving Planned Parenthood funding for abortion, but by providing them with funding for birth control, we are enabling them to use other monies they have for abortion. I will concede that it's a small percentage of their total expenditures, but I don't believe it's morally right.