Talk Elections

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/mitt-romney-planned-parenthood_n_1343450.html




This came out a few days ago, but I still think it is worth putting on here.  

I think the real point is that it hasn't been an issue. Had Gingrich, Santorum or Perry stated in no uncertain terms that they intended defund planned parenthood the outcry would have been deafening. Liberal Democrats would have denounced it as evil. Establishment Republicans would have lectured them about how suburban women were going to leave the party in droves. Romney's stance draws no real attention because noone takes it seriously. Everyone one knows it is just boob bait for fundamentalist bubbas. Sure, Romney is lying in a particularly egregious fashion, but, of what concern is it if he is lying to those people?

Mitt, I agree, I agree.

Who votes for these freaks?

He said he wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood, not that he just wants to ban the organization from existence.

Inks, Isnt that effectively the same thing.

Pretty typical comments from an extreme conservative.

Don't you mean a "severe" conservative. :P

Yeah, that's what I meant.

They really can't get another $360 elsewhere?

It's not likely that he or any candidate will ban planned parenthood because they can't. Only about a third of their money comes from the federal government. Now I'd like to see us cut funding for them, but as for putting them out of business some more things would have to happen.

Heh. Man, good thing Santorum came up with this policy earlier. ;)

Does Romney think he can really pivot and go after independent women and latinos after spending a year pandering to the angry white male vote?

Wouldn't surprise me if he does believe so. The man has proven he isn't a very smart politician.....so this shouldn't be surprising.

lol? Hispanics are pro life generally...soooo this specific issue wouldnt hurt him among hispanics...

Sounds nice, but not very practical. Anyway, he'll probably flop back over on this in the general. He has no convictions besides getting himself elected. I doubt he really cares one lick about social issues.

Nanny state it up!!!

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

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

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?

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.

Even McDonald's sells salad.

lol

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.

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

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.

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

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!

Can you say push poll?

Ask us how many people want to fund abortion?

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.

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 (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-glance-5552.htm) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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


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

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.

I see ad hominem is all that you  have.

I see snootiness is all you have, friend.

See, I don't respond to "arguments" when they're filled with senseless weasel words and emotional appeals that were clearly only posted with the intent of ticking people off or trolling in general.

But by all means, keep trolling.

Again, if ad hominem accusations are all that you have, you have nothing.

I don't have to call you a "troll" when I can simply point out that you are wrong.

If tough guy talk is all you have for me, then tough guy talk is all I have for you.  It works both ways, see? :)

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/positions/protecting-abortion-access-69.htm

Which they lobby to overturn. But it hasn't stopped them from using running programs like this (http://www.fundabortionnow.org/funds/abortion-fund-pp-nyc).

Did you even read the page?  "Our primary goal is prevention — reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, especially the alarmingly high number of teenage pregnancies, in the United States."  Not abortion - prevention.  Just because it supports a woman's access to abortion doesn't mean they're advocating for the procedure itself, because they advocate for access to the full range of reproductive health care.

This website- while in opposition to the Hyde Amendment- asks for private donations for abortions.  They receive no federal dollars whatsoever.

You don't seem to realize that I did point out that you were wrong, which simply isn't "tough guy talk."

When Robert Goodloe Harper said, "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute" he was taking a stand on principle. It didn't matter to him that settling the war might cost less than "3%" of prosecuting a war. If a school voucher program were passed there would be a principled opposition to the program from the left even if only "3%" of the students opted out of the public school system [and, they would go ballistic if private "religious" schools were covered.]

The simple truth is that PP is adamant about performing abortions because they see it as a matter of principle, while pro-life folks oppose PP because they take a principled stand against using their tax dollars to fund abortion. Whether abortion is 1% or 99% of PP's revenue, both sides would still take the same principled stand. I was right, and you were wrong.

PP is performing abortions on a large scale.

So I suppose the fact that Planned Parenthood's focus on comprehensive sex education, birth control, and family planning services do nothing at all to reduce the number of abortions performed?

This whole controversy is not about abortion, it's about the rights of women to have control over their own bodies.

More importantly, shutting down PP is something only the hardcore of the GOP care about. It is not a winning position for those all important swing voter white suburban women that Mitt needs if he wants to win.

This along with the problems he has created with Latino voters is going to be fatal in the fall.

No, no, no.  Don't back away from it.  You did not prove anyone wrong; your original intent was merely to insult PP and label them.  It was tough guy talk; that, or just the way you prefer to open up your "arguments."  Read your original post, because I'm not explaining it again.

You still fail to see why PP is in business.  They are not "adamant" about performing abortions if their intent is to prevent the abortions so that the procedure is less necessary.  PP does not promote abortions, it merely offers them as a resort.  But the bottom line is, your tax dollars are NOT funding abortion for reasons that have already been stated here.  Your quote holds no relevance for this reason.  However, if you insist on opposing this healthcare center because of one services it provides, then I suppose that's just your blind way of looking at it.

"Matter of principle" to perform abortions.  Wow.  This is why I can't even take your posts seriously.


Your point?  PP's job is to provide all health services for women- be it contraceptives, abortion procedures, exams, etc.  But you and shua isolate just one of their services and throw silly labels at them because you don't like it, then continue regurgitating this debunked and logically false presumption that federal dollars pay for that procedure.

Eh...I'm sorry, but in what way can you pay an organization only for specific things?

I enjoyed Ben Kenobi's circular logic at the start of this thread. Yes, Planned Parenthood gets a third of its revenue from abortions. They don't use their government money towards abortions and would cut out their other services if funding was lost for precisely that reason. Abortions are profitable and breast cancer screenings are not. The point of government subsides is to make crucial but commercially unviable products sell. By forcing them to go free market, you are forcing them to either (a) eliminate valuable health programs that have nothing to do with contraceptives and (b) try to promote an increase in contraceptive profits in order to self-subsidize the rest of their nonprofit business. As there is not enough support to outright ban abortion, removing Planned Parenthood's funding wouldn't eliminate abortions but, in fact, eliminate the federal government's role in Planned Parenthood.  This removes any control they might have had over PP's dissemination of information as state laws cannot be applied easily to a national company and, again, their need to go for-profit would probably cause them to have to expand not shut down.

This.  It also should be noted, the abortion rate would very likely increase if PP is denied funding for its other services.