Romney: Let's get rid of Planned Parenthood!

[memphis]

I'm sure catching breast cancer at stage 4 instead of 1 will make for good public policy.

[memphis]

Right, like they actually care about breast cancer screening.

It's a huge part of what they do.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/breast-cancer-screenings-21189.htm

[memphis]

It's a huge part of what they do.

You know what's even huger?

Abortions.

Number one provider of abortion in America at 300k a year.

30 percent of planned parenthood's total revenue is from abortion.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf

You said they don't care about breast cancer screenings. Are abortion and "caring about breast cancer screenings" mutually exclusive now?

[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.

[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.

[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.