• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another PP Funding Ban goes down in Flames

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Florida this time

A federal judge on Thursday definitively blocked a Florida abortion law to prevent state funds from going to organizations that provide abortions — after the administration of Gov. Rick Scott made the unusual decision to drop further legal action.

...instead of taking the case to trial and offering additional evidence or legal arguments, attorneys for the Scott administration agreed to forgo further legal action. They filed a joint motion with the plaintiffs earlier this month agreeing to end the litigation. Hinkle held a brief hearing to discuss the move and issued his final ruling hours later.
Click to expand...

Jaydub's gonna be pissed. Good.
 
calamity said:
Florida this time



Jaydub's gonna be pissed. Good.
Click to expand...

Clearly, at least in my view, States have the right to budget their dollars in whatever way they choose, so why bother with these laws when you control the State House and the Governor's Mansion? Why not just zero line the funding of PP as part of the budget process and claim it's an austerity measure, nothing more? Surely the federal courts can't micromanage a State's budget and force the funding of a line item.

Seems to me, the only purpose of the legislation is political, not operational.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Clearly, at least in my view, States have the right to budget their dollars in whatever way they choose, so why bother with these laws when you control the State House and the Governor's Mansion? Why not just zero line the funding of PP as part of the budget process and claim it's an austerity measure, nothing more? Surely the federal courts can't micromanage a State's budget and force the funding of a line item.

Seems to me, the only purpose of the legislation is political, not operational.
Click to expand...

It's Federal money given to the state, which has to abide by federal laws regarding its distribution.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Clearly, at least in my view, States have the right to budget their dollars in whatever way they choose, so why bother with these laws when you control the State House and the Governor's Mansion? Why not just zero line the funding of PP as part of the budget process and claim it's an austerity measure, nothing more? Surely the federal courts can't micromanage a State's budget and force the funding of a line item.

Seems to me, the only purpose of the legislation is political, not operational.
Click to expand...

Because there is no funding line for PP. There is funding for services which various organizations (including PP) provide and as the court decisions show, you can't not pay someone for a service they provide because you don't like the other stuff they do and say

If they want to cut the funding, they have to cut it to everyone, and then you get
Pregnancy-Related Deaths Nearly Doubled In Texas After Cuts To Women's Health
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stick to the topic, which is not any member of DP.
 
calamity said:
It's Federal money given to the state, which has to abide by federal laws regarding its distribution.
Click to expand...

sangha said:
Because there is no funding line for PP. There is funding for services which various organizations (including PP) provide and as the court decisions show, you can't not pay someone for a service they provide because you don't like the other stuff they do and say

If they want to cut the funding, they have to cut it to everyone, and then you get
Pregnancy-Related Deaths Nearly Doubled In Texas After Cuts To Women's Health
Click to expand...

Exactly. They narrowly look at Planned Parenthood by a few of the services they offer rather than the other 97% of what they do.

Are they delivering the service that they are asking payment for? That should be the concern.
 
When these bills are based on lies they are simply going to fail over and over again. Some are quickly defeated and never see the light of day and others take a while but since they are nothing more than to try an limit people rights and ban abortion they fool nobody and dont last the test of time, rights and constitutionality.

They are as transparent as glass and the dishonesty they are based on fools nobody. This is no surprise.
 
calamity said:
It's Federal money given to the state, which has to abide by federal laws regarding its distribution.
Click to expand...

Easy-peasy - don't accept the federal money, as many States did with the ACA Medicare/Medicaid dollars.

If that adversely impacts other services that people in the State want, the people in the State will make that abundantly clear to their political representatives. If they're supportive, they will accept that the funding of other services they want to support will have to come from State revenue or from the constituents directly through user fees.

As the old saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Easy-peasy - don't accept the federal money, as many States did with the ACA Medicare/Medicaid dollars.

If that adversely impacts other services that people in the State want, the people in the State will make that abundantly clear to their political representatives. If they're supportive, they will accept that the funding of other services they want to support will have to come from State revenue or from the constituents directly through user fees.

As the old saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".
Click to expand...


Do you think the states will refuse the non ACA Medicare//Medicaid dollars? That is pretty funny.
 
year2late said:
Do you think the states will refuse the non ACA Medicare//Medicaid dollars? That is pretty funny.
Click to expand...

I'll let you correct me and prove me wrong, if you can, but it's my distinct recollection that many States refused the new one time or short term dollars that the Obama administration tried to funnel out in this regard. Now, I could have it mixed up with the stimulus funding that Obama tried to funnel out to States to save teacher and other public employee jobs, but there's no doubt in my mind that States have the ability to reject federal funding for some services they don't wish to support or manage. Likewise, many States refused to establish ACA exchanges because the federal dollars were insufficient to cover all of the State's cost of implementation.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Easy-peasy - don't accept the federal money, as many States did with the ACA Medicare/Medicaid dollars.

If that adversely impacts other services that people in the State want, the people in the State will make that abundantly clear to their political representatives. If they're supportive, they will accept that the funding of other services they want to support will have to come from State revenue or from the constituents directly through user fees.

As the old saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".
Click to expand...

They could refuse the money. But the problem with that is that it would affect far more areas than they want in a VERY negative way. So negative and so widespread of area types that they'd be guaranteed to lose the next election cycle....and the next several after it. That funding goes towards many many types of services. Including services at regular medical clinics that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion in even the slightest way. Indeed the retribution may affect politicians outside of that state, even the whole country due to the extremely negative feedback that would result.
 
Kal'Stang said:
They could refuse the money. But the problem with that is that it would affect far more areas than they want in a VERY negative way. So negative and so widespread of area types that they'd be guaranteed to lose the next election cycle....and the next several after it. That funding goes towards many many types of services. Including services at regular medical clinics that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion in even the slightest way. Indeed the retribution may affect politicians outside of that state, even the whole country due to the extremely negative feedback that would result.
Click to expand...

That's fair, and I don't doubt there would be significant blow-back. But hey, these politicians are claiming to be acting on principle and on support for innocent life so let's see if they are. What's more important to them? Their principles, or their elected office?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'll let you correct me and prove me wrong, if you can, but it's my distinct recollection that many States refused the new one time or short term dollars that the Obama administration tried to funnel out in this regard. Now, I could have it mixed up with the stimulus funding that Obama tried to funnel out to States to save teacher and other public employee jobs, but there's no doubt in my mind that States have the ability to reject federal funding for some services they don't wish to support or manage. Likewise, many States refused to establish ACA exchanges because the federal dollars were insufficient to cover all of the State's cost of implementation.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the funding isn't for select services. IE: cancer screenings, abortions etc etc. The funding is about funding charitable/non-profit organizations. That funding includes anything from an outreach organization specializing in getting kids off the streets to medical organizations to building homes for the homeless. It's all in a one package "hat fits all" type of bill. So if they (the state) were to refuse money based simply on abortion, they would lose money for ALL of those organizations, not just the money that goes towards PP.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair, and I don't doubt there would be significant blow-back. But hey, these politicians are claiming to be acting on principle and on support for innocent life so let's see if they are. What's more important to them? Their principles, or their elected office?
Click to expand...

Read post 18. I expanded on what I said previously. Sorry. :)
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair, and I don't doubt there would be significant blow-back. But hey, these politicians are claiming to be acting on principle and on support for innocent life so let's see if they are. What's more important to them? Their principles, or their elected office?
Click to expand...

PS: Regarding them and as a result of this blowback their party not getting elected again for several election cycles. Could you imagine this country completely run by Democrats? Every city, every state, under the Democratic Party control. If that were to happen I just KNOW that a zombie apocalypse would definitely be happening. *shudders at the very thought of a complete Democratic Party controlled US)
 
calamity said:
Florida this time



Jaydub's gonna be pissed. Good.
Click to expand...
There are few things more pathetically hypocritical than the cheers of the supposed 'pro-choice' left that rain down whenever unelected judges trample the choices made by elected representatives of the people.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The problem is that the funding isn't for select services. IE: cancer screenings, abortions etc etc. The funding is about funding charitable/non-profit organizations. That funding includes anything from an outreach organization specializing in getting kids off the streets to medical organizations to building homes for the homeless. It's all in a one package "hat fits all" type of bill. So if they (the state) were to refuse money based simply on abortion, they would lose money for ALL of those organizations, not just the money that goes towards PP.
Click to expand...

You're telling me that if a charitable non-profit organization, like PP, decided to sell subsidized firearms out of their locations State legislators wouldn't be able to ensure none of the State/Federal subsidies went, directly or indirectly, to subsidize firearms sales?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'll let you correct me and prove me wrong, if you can, but it's my distinct recollection that many States refused the new one time or short term dollars that the Obama administration tried to funnel out in this regard. Now, I could have it mixed up with the stimulus funding that Obama tried to funnel out to States to save teacher and other public employee jobs, but there's no doubt in my mind that States have the ability to reject federal funding for some services they don't wish to support or manage. Likewise, many States refused to establish ACA exchanges because the federal dollars were insufficient to cover all of the State's cost of implementation.
Click to expand...

No, I get why states would refuse ACA money tied to enhancing Medicaid.

I believe you were talking about refusing medicare/Medicaid money in general . You separated the refusal to take ACA money targeted to expanding Medicaid from refusing to take federal funds targeted to Medicare/Medicaid in general.

If you were only talking about ACA , your post surely did not reflect that.
 
year2late said:
No, I get why states would refuse ACA money tied to enhancing Medicaid.

I believe you were talking about refusing medicare/Medicaid money in general . You separated the refusal to take ACA money targeted to expanding Medicaid from refusing to take federal funds targeted to Medicare/Medicaid in general.

If you were only talking about ACA , your post surely did not reflect that.
Click to expand...

If you think my original post didn't reflect that, it's a malfunction of your reading/comprehension of my post not of the post itself, where I clearly reference ACA funding. But that was only one example of where States have the authority to reject federal funding and/or programs.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're telling me that if a charitable non-profit organization, like PP, decided to sell subsidized firearms out of their locations State legislators wouldn't be able to ensure none of the State/Federal subsidies went, directly or indirectly, to subsidize firearms sales?
Click to expand...

Where is that Fonzie jumping the shark video when you need it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom