Romney: Let's get rid of Planned Parenthood!

[RI]

The real problem is the existence of the idea that a trade-off exists between combatting breast cancer and combatting abortion. These two things have very little inherent connection. There is no rational reason that a company could not solely do one or the other. Ideally, Planned Parenthood would be completely bifurcated into two entities, one that handles health, screenings, and the like and one that handles abortion and contraception. I would have no issue funding the former to their hearts' content, but the latter should not be subsidized at all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Right is still resolute in trying its best to make people's life worse.

[memphis]

The real problem is the existence of the idea that a trade-off exists between combatting breast cancer and combatting abortion. These two things have very little inherent connection. There is no rational reason that a company could not solely do one or the other. Ideally, Planned Parenthood would be completely bifurcated into two entities, one that handles health, screenings, and the like and one that handles abortion and contraception. I would have no issue funding the former to their hearts' content, but the latter should not be subsidized at all.

Abortion services are already not funded at all. When Republicans try to cut off funding, they are cutting off the cancer screening.

[RI]

The real problem is the existence of the idea that a trade-off exists between combatting breast cancer and combatting abortion. These two things have very little inherent connection. There is no rational reason that a company could not solely do one or the other. Ideally, Planned Parenthood would be completely bifurcated into two entities, one that handles health, screenings, and the like and one that handles abortion and contraception. I would have no issue funding the former to their hearts' content, but the latter should not be subsidized at all.

Abortion services are already not funded at all. When Republicans try to cut off funding, they are cutting off the cancer screening.

When it goes to a unitary entity, it doesn't matter what it's 'slated' for.

[memphis]

The real problem is the existence of the idea that a trade-off exists between combatting breast cancer and combatting abortion. These two things have very little inherent connection. There is no rational reason that a company could not solely do one or the other. Ideally, Planned Parenthood would be completely bifurcated into two entities, one that handles health, screenings, and the like and one that handles abortion and contraception. I would have no issue funding the former to their hearts' content, but the latter should not be subsidized at all.

Abortion services are already not funded at all. When Republicans try to cut off funding, they are cutting off the cancer screening.

When it goes to a unitary entity, it doesn't matter what it's 'slated' for.

It would matter quite a bit to you if you were at risk for breast cancer.

[Wisconsin+17]

Abortion services are already not funded at all. When Republicans try to cut off funding, they are cutting off the cancer screening.

So, what you are saying is that Planned Parenthood would sooner cut cancer screening than abortion services?

[Likely Voter]

Just to show what a loser issue this is, 59% of TEXAS voters oppose Rick Perry's plan to pull funding for Planned Parenthood
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-health-resources/abortion-texas/poll-voters-want-keep-planned-parenthood-whp/

...and that's Texas!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you say push poll?

Ask us how many people want to fund abortion?

[RI]

The real problem is the existence of the idea that a trade-off exists between combatting breast cancer and combatting abortion. These two things have very little inherent connection. There is no rational reason that a company could not solely do one or the other. Ideally, Planned Parenthood would be completely bifurcated into two entities, one that handles health, screenings, and the like and one that handles abortion and contraception. I would have no issue funding the former to their hearts' content, but the latter should not be subsidized at all.

Abortion services are already not funded at all. When Republicans try to cut off funding, they are cutting off the cancer screening.

When it goes to a unitary entity, it doesn't matter what it's 'slated' for.

It would matter quite a bit to you if you were at risk for breast cancer.

That..doesn't have anything to do with anything unless you're implying what Ben Kenobi said.

[memphis]

The real problem is the existence of the idea that a trade-off exists between combatting breast cancer and combatting abortion. These two things have very little inherent connection. There is no rational reason that a company could not solely do one or the other. Ideally, Planned Parenthood would be completely bifurcated into two entities, one that handles health, screenings, and the like and one that handles abortion and contraception. I would have no issue funding the former to their hearts' content, but the latter should not be subsidized at all.

Abortion services are already not funded at all. When Republicans try to cut off funding, they are cutting off the cancer screening.

When it goes to a unitary entity, it doesn't matter what it's 'slated' for.

It would matter quite a bit to you if you were at risk for breast cancer.

That..doesn't have anything to do with anything unless you're implying what Ben Kenobi said.

It has everything to do with the case at hand becuase abortion services are paid for by the individual women seeking abortions when they get an abortion. Unlike a host of things that the government funds with my money that I find immoral (needless wars, subsidies for oil companies, roads to nowhere) there already is no taxpayer funding for abortions. Instead, cutting off funding for PP, means that women will not find out they have cancer until the disease is at a later state. And if you think that is the moral position because PP also offers a legal service that you may not agree with to people who want it, you need to have your head examined.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

[Smash255]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

Probably been listening to Jon Kyl too much.

Planned Parenthood, as well-informed people know, is strictly a women's healthcare provider that works in multiple fields.  This page has a good overview of it.  The reason why it is discriminated against so much and treated differently than any other healthcare provider is beyond me.

[tpfkaw]

Uh, if Planned Parenthood provides abortions, then any federal money going to them could be said to be going to abortions, since funding one of their services frees up other funds which can be spent on providing abortions.  Alternative example: if there's a Mafia-run soup kitchen and the city of Newark decides to subsidize it, then they're subsidizing the criminal activities of the Mafia because they're freeing up funds otherwise spent on the soup kitchen to be spent on criminal activities.  It seems that a lot of people are either unaware of this very basic economic concept (fungibility), or are being deliberately disingenuous.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Uh, if Planned Parenthood provides abortions, then any federal money going to them could be said to be going to abortions, since funding one of their services frees up other funds which can be spent on providing abortions.  Alternative example: if there's a Mafia-run soup kitchen and the city of Newark decides to subsidize it, then they're subsidizing the criminal activities of the Mafia because they're freeing up funds otherwise spent on the soup kitchen to be spent on criminal activities.  It seems that a lot of people are either unaware of this very basic economic concept (fungibility), or are being deliberately disingenuous.

Women and private insurance companies have to pay for the entire costs of the abortion and they are not backed by federal dollars the way Planed Parenthood's other services are.  Federally-subsidized abortion services are illegal and have been for many years.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strictly that logic, the distribution of federal Medicaid funding to hospitals that provide abortions 'go to abortions.' The allowing of children of abortion practitioners into public schools 'go to abortions.' The maintenance of roads outside of abortion facilities 'go to abortions.' The employment of women in federal or state government who pay for abortions is the spending of money to 'go for abortions'. As is the employment of their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, mothers, and anyone who could give them money, which may one day end up in the hands of Dr. Abortion provider. Even the extension of fire and police protection to providers of abortion 'go to abortions', because if the U.S. existed in a state of anarchy, those pesky abortion clinics would have to hire extra security.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

Probably been listening to Jon Kyl too much.

Planned Parenthood, as well-informed people know, is strictly a women's healthcare provider that works in multiple fields.  This page has a good overview of it.  The reason why it is discriminated against so much and treated differently than any other healthcare provider is beyond me.

Beyond you, really?  You don't give yourself enough credit.  The first sentence of that page states what their core mission is.  What do you think they mean by "reproductive health"?  They're a pro-abortion advocacy group for Pete sakes.

Women and insurance companies have to pay for the entire costs of the abortion and they are not backed by federal dollars the way Planed Parenthood's other services are.  Federally-subsidized abortion services are illegal and have been for many years.

Well in that case their affiliates are guilty of false advertising for saying that they offer financial help for women seeking abortions.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

Probably been listening to Jon Kyl too much.

Planned Parenthood, as well-informed people know, is strictly a women's healthcare provider that works in multiple fields.  This page has a good overview of it.  The reason why it is discriminated against so much and treated differently than any other healthcare provider is beyond me.

Beyond you, really?  You don't give yourself enough credit.  The first sentence of that page states what their core mission is.  What do you think they mean by "reproductive health"?  They're a pro-abortion advocacy group for Pete sakes.

Yeah, okay.  A "pro-abortion advocacy group" that dedicates only 3% of its services to abortion makes a whole lotta sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll just give you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

[Beet]

I work for a contractor that services the federal government, and I have donated money to PP. By the logic being spun here that is a violation of the prohibition of federal funding of abortion. I suppose I should be fired, or arrested?

[Wisconsin+17]

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

If you look up in the thread, my link to planned parenthood's 2007 numbers show that Abortion made up 30 percent of planned parenthoods total revenue.

Planned Parenthood is also the largest abortion provider in the US providing about 300k abortions a year, roughly 1/3rd of the total.

Face it, PP is the abortion industry leader.

[BigSkyBob]

Not everyone who is pro-life is anti-Planned Parenthood. Lots of women, including many pro-life women, for what is the bulk of their work: women's health.

BTW Latino's are not that different than the rest of the country on social issues and as noted, Romney's anti-immigrant talk is much more salient to them.

Getting back to my point that he seems to think there is no price to pay with independents with this hard right pandering to the base.

The interesting observation is that few people whom are "pro-choice" are anti-PP. World PP endorsed China's one-child policies that denies Chinese couples the right to have as many children as they choose. And, that policy is enforced with series of draconian policies such as forced abortion. It would seem any organization committed to "choice" would reject coercion.

[BigSkyBob]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%. 

Well, if that is only "3%," then, PP would only have to abandon "3%" of their business to other "providers" to ensure an uninterupted stream of state and federal funding. Seem PP/WP isn't willing to abandon that "3%" because it considers that "3%" critical to its mission. Well, so do pro-life folk.

[BigSkyBob]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

Probably been listening to Jon Kyl too much.

Planned Parenthood, as well-informed people know, is strictly a women's healthcare provider that works in multiple fields.

Whether you consider abortion "women's healthcare" or the killing of children before they are born depends mainly on your point of view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some "healthcare providers" perform abortions, and others don't. To suggest that pro-life folk don't make that distinction is pathetic.

[BigSkyBob]

Uh, if Planned Parenthood provides abortions, then any federal money going to them could be said to be going to abortions, since funding one of their services frees up other funds which can be spent on providing abortions.  Alternative example: if there's a Mafia-run soup kitchen and the city of Newark decides to subsidize it, then they're subsidizing the criminal activities of the Mafia because they're freeing up funds otherwise spent on the soup kitchen to be spent on criminal activities.  It seems that a lot of people are either unaware of this very basic economic concept (fungibility), or are being deliberately disingenuous.

Women and private insurance companies have to pay for the entire costs of the abortion and they are not backed by federal dollars the way Planed Parenthood's other services are.  Federally-subsidized abortion services are illegal and have been for many years.

And, pro-life folk are as much against medical insurance companies that fund abortion as they are against PP. The desire for a dead baby is simply not a "medical need."

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

PP often provides financial assistance for abortion. And their infrastructure is funded through the government, which they use in providing and referring abortions.  Their basic mission is in the name, and its not breast cancer screening. There's no reason breast cancer screenings can be provided by an organization with a more appropriate mission. Whether PP's human butchery is legal or not is irrelevant.

FALSE

3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, 3%.  NONE of the government $$$ goes to abortions.  These are the facts and its shown in the financials.  I know Fox News and the talking heads in the GOP (often one in the same) try to get you to believe otherwise, but its false.

Probably been listening to Jon Kyl too much.

Planned Parenthood, as well-informed people know, is strictly a women's healthcare provider that works in multiple fields.

Whether you consider abortion "women's healthcare" or the killing of children before they are born depends mainly on your point of view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some "healthcare providers" perform abortions, and others don't. To suggest that pro-life folk don't make that distinction is pathetic.

Uh, if Planned Parenthood provides abortions, then any federal money going to them could be said to be going to abortions, since funding one of their services frees up other funds which can be spent on providing abortions.  Alternative example: if there's a Mafia-run soup kitchen and the city of Newark decides to subsidize it, then they're subsidizing the criminal activities of the Mafia because they're freeing up funds otherwise spent on the soup kitchen to be spent on criminal activities.  It seems that a lot of people are either unaware of this very basic economic concept (fungibility), or are being deliberately disingenuous.

Women and private insurance companies have to pay for the entire costs of the abortion and they are not backed by federal dollars the way Planed Parenthood's other services are.  Federally-subsidized abortion services are illegal and have been for many years.

And, pro-life folk are as much against medical insurance companies that fund abortion as they are against PP. The desire for a dead baby is simply not a "medical need."

Not even going to respond to these.

Come back when you have real arguments instead of weasel words and emotional appeals.