What does this statement from Hillary on Planned Parenthood mean?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She thinks other abortion providers should be investigated as well if PP is?  Or is this just a poor attempt at vaguely trying to deflect any blame from the organization?

[Maxwell]

Wow she is really trying to not take a stand on ANYTHING.

[ElectionsGuy]

Nice slimy dodge.

[RFayette]

Sigh...

[Kingpoleon]

"Focus groups say this is the best response."

[Crumpets]

I think it's pretty clear she's saying that Congressional Republicans clearly have a vendetta against Planned Parenthood, and that even though there are legitimate questions raised by the videos, they don't actually care about fetal tissue donations as much as they care about grandstanding against one of conservative activists' favorite punching-bags. If they did, they would be investigating the entire system, not just one organization.

[Pyro]

The most plastic candidate in the race, that's for sure.

[BaconBacon96]

Hillary you are really disappointing me.

[heatmaster]

She's in danger of losing the female vote, she's basically playing catch up with women voter's. They like most of the population don't trust her. I mean she can't blame Fox News or us 'mean old Republicans' for her problems😊 Maybe a lot of folks are not fools like those stupid Democratic trolls who have been 1000% in her corner and were claiming she was 'invincible', the best thing since sliced bread and all that and were publishing those unrealistic maps. Funny! don't see many of those maps now. Well I told you so. This contest on the Democratic side is not a done deal and neither is the contest for the Presidency. I hope however she's the nominee, she would be easier to defeat😊😀 Fact is Hillary wants to be against everything and for nothing. A blank slate if you will. There's an old saying,  "if you stand for nothing, you will 'lie' down for anything"

[pbrower2a]

If she's getting mealy-mouthed -- that's how to lose the election. Take a stand, and show some spine!

[SWE]

I think it's pretty clear she's saying that Congressional Republicans clearly have a vendetta against Planned Parenthood, and that even though there are legitimate questions raised by the videos, they don't actually care about fetal tissue donations as much as they care about grandstanding against one of conservative activists' favorite punching-bags. If they did, they would be investigating the entire system, not just one organization.

In fairness, there's no reason to care about that.

[Reluctant Republican]

Hillary you are really disappointing me.

I'm someone who likes Clinton but I must agree with this. Her whole campaign has lacked any sort of fire. The only time she's in the news seems to be negative stories about her emails. Her campaign needs to change the narrative somehow. Her base is the type who wants to see Planned Parenthood defended and she should have gone full throttle in that direction. Maybe used the whole event as a fundraiser. "Fight back against Republicans who want to infringe on women's right's!" etc. The only thing a response like this serves is to depress her base. She'd probably have been better off saying nothing.

I really am beginning to think that her heart's not in it this time. The only good news I can see for her going forward is that it seems to be all negative press and focus on her now, yet she still leads or barely trails her opponents within the margin of error. If she makes it to the general election and actually campaigns maybe she can turn this around. It also helps that most of the Republican field probably can't defeat her without a total implosion on her part. But right now she is seeming like Thomas Dewey 2.0( or whatever model you prefer)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The most plastic candidate in the race, that's for sure.

SEXIST

[bedstuy]

She means that she understands that people are upset because the video showed a woman being callous  about a sensitive issue.  Get over yourself.  You can take on sentence from any person out of context and claim it's not truly addressing the issue. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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

[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.

[bedstuy]

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. 

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

She means that she understands that people are upset because the video showed a woman being callous  about a sensitive issue.  Get over yourself.  You can take on sentence from any person out of context and claim it's not truly addressing the issue. 

That bares not the faintest resemblance to the words she used.   You really need to try harder next time if you are going to get that press secretary job.     

[bedstuy]

She means that she understands that people are upset because the video showed a woman being callous  about a sensitive issue.  Get over yourself.  You can take on sentence from any person out of context and claim it's not truly addressing the issue.  

That bares not the faintest resemblance to the words she used.   You really need to try harder next time if you are going to get that press secretary job.    

Let me try again, even though I assume you're being purposefully obtuse aka Ernest.

First, you cut off the context.  Here are the quotes from the article.  First, they say that she was talking about the Planned Parenthood videos.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See?  Do you understand this?  She saw a summary or news article about the videos and found them disturbing.  Does that make sense?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This means she's going to make a couple of argument or "points."  Points just means arguments that lead to a neat conclusion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, her point is that you shouldn't throw the fetus out with the bathwater.  Just because one person who works for Planned Parenthood was lacking in tact, you don't label everything that they do as evil.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, this is the final point.  She clearly means if you have a problem with fetal tissue donations, don't place the blame on one organization.  If that's your actual problem, not trying to undermine Planned Parenthood, focus on that actual issue, the ethics behind fetal tissue donation in medicine.  

And, that's the heart of this issue, it's a political scheme to attack Planned Parenthood. Nobody actually cares about fetal tissue donations.

[pbrower2a]

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.

Example:

Microsoft and Apple give away free software as upgrades.  That is far more advantageous than losing customers who give up their computers because they will otherwise be nickled and dimed to aggravation.

Also, advertising is usually free to the targeted person.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[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