• 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!

Court: Texas can cut off Planned Parenthood funds[W:104, W:111]

F

Furiounova

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
4,237
Reaction score
552
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Texas officials sought to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood clinics that provide family planning and health services to poor women after the state's Republican-led Legislature passed a law banning funds to organizations linked to abortion providers."
Court: Texas can cut off Planned Parenthood funds

This coming from a State that uses the death penalty like a Pez dispenser. It is also obvious most of these same people have no problem with invading nations that didn't attack us and in the process kill thousands of innocent women and children along with our own soldiers.

I have no respect for these Anti-Choice people who are only "Pro-Life" when they can dictate who should die.

This is an attack on the poorest people who need help the most but the ones supporting this actually convince themselves they are doing "God's" work by forcing their choices between women's legs. Yes I understand it is only cutting off funding but knowing that without that funding many women will suffer it makes no difference. Do not play semantics.

I will respect the Anti-Choice crowd when they begin to display Pro-Life priorities. Until then, they are another heap of hypocrisy drowning their neighbors in their own self righteous agendas.
 
No charity or organization has a right to public funds and the government can cut the funds they receive whenever the government decides on doing it. PP is not any different than any other organization or charity that gets funds and just like those it does not matter if the organization or charity fails to continues on without such funds. It also does not matter if poor people or rich people or anyone in between is hurt from the organization no longer being able to provide them a service.

Oh and asking for public funds for what you desire is being self centered and wanting them to continue is being self righteous.

I have to wonder why we needed a court case over something that was obvious.
 
Last edited:
So, other clinics who do not provide abortion services will get the money and provide medical services to the poor. Excellent.

If you're poor and cannot pay for an abortion or afford to raise a child, here's a clue - don't get pregnant.
 
Btw, what does attacking other countries and public funds to private organizations have in common again?
 
Henrin said:
No charity or organization has a right to public funds and the government can cut the funds they receive whenever the government decides on doing it. PP is not any different than any other organization or charity that gets funds and just like those it does not matter if the organization or charity fails to continues on without such funds. It also does not matter if poor people or rich people or anyone in between is hurt from the organization no longer being able to provide them a service.

Oh and asking for public funds for what you desire is being self centered and wanting them to continue is being self righteous.

I have to wonder why we needed a court case over something that was obvious.
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information.
Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Henrin said:
Btw, what does attacking other countries and public funds to private organizations have in common again?
Click to expand...

The same people who oppose abortion have no problem with very late term abortions performed on people in other nations who did not look like us.
 
clownboy said:
So, other clinics who do not provide abortion services will get the money and provide medical services to the poor. Excellent.

If you're poor and cannot pay for an abortion or afford to raise a child, here's a clue - don't get pregnant.
Click to expand...

Right. Because contraception never ever never really never ever ever fails. Ever.
 
Furiounova said:
Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information.
Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

And?? That does nothing to my point. When the government granted themselves the power to fund private organizations(it's not actually in the Constitution) they also gave themselves the power to take it away.

If you really want to fight this issue you lose on all accounts. The federal government does not have the power to fund PP and when they breached the constitution to give themselves this power they also took the power to take it away.
 
clownboy said:
So, other clinics who do not provide abortion services will get the money and provide medical services to the poor. Excellent.

If you're poor and cannot pay for an abortion or afford to raise a child, here's a clue - don't get pregnant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except Planned Parenthood also provides birth control and contraceptives to help poor people not get pregnant. Which is all the more reason to continue funding to them.
 
Furiounova said:
The same people who oppose abortion have no problem with very late term abortions performed on people in other nations who did not look like us.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Henrin said:
And?? That does nothing to my point. When the government granted themselves the power to fund private organizations(it's not actually in the Constitution) they also gave themselves the power to take it away.

If you really want to fight this issue you lose on all accounts. The federal government does not have the power to fund PP and when they breached the constitution to give themselves this power they also took the power to take it away.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The government does have that power to fund or not fund as they choose.

And in this case, it's a bad idea to not fund Planned Parenthood.
 
samsmart said:
Yeah, except Planned Parenthood also provides birth control and contraceptives to help poor people not get pregnant. Which is all the more reason to continue funding to them.
Click to expand...

And people should pay for their pills because they are poor why again?
 
samsmart said:
Indeed. The government does have that power to fund or not fund as they choose.

And in this case, it's a bad idea to not fund Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

No private organization or charity should get public funding ever. If you want to help a charity get your wallet out and help them. Doing it with public funds just destroys the balance amongst charities and puts governments interests into the mix.
 
Henrin said:
And?? That does nothing to my point. When the government granted themselves the power to fund private organizations(it's not actually in the Constitution) they also gave themselves the power to take it away.

If you really want to fight this issue you lose on all accounts. The federal government does not have the power to fund PP and when they breached the constitution to give themselves this power they also took the power to take it away.
Click to expand...

Where did Nixon breach the Constitution on this issue? (Keep in mind....I don't really care. I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy from the Anti-Choice crowd that has falsely been using the Pro-Life label)
 
samsmart said:
Yeah, except Planned Parenthood also provides birth control and contraceptives to help poor people not get pregnant. Which is all the more reason to continue funding to them.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, abortions accounted for only 3% of PP's activities.
 
samsmart said:
Yeah, except Planned Parenthood also provides birth control and contraceptives to help poor people not get pregnant. Which is all the more reason to continue funding to them.
Click to expand...

Again, the funding will go to clinics that do not offer abortion services. PP is an abortion provider, all the more reason for them to get zero public funding.
 
Furiounova said:
Where did Nixon breach the Constitution on this issue? (Keep in mind....I don't really care. I'm pointing out the utter hypocrisy from the Anti-Choice crowd that has falsely been using the Pro-Life label)
Click to expand...

Find me where the power is granted. Can you? No.
 
Henrin said:
And people should pay for their pills because they are poor why again?
Click to expand...

Because it's good public policy on an incredible variety of levels even though to do so requires mutualization of the costs involved.

For example, by paying for the mutualization of the cost of birth control, women can have children only when they are financially stable for it. Which means they can better bear the costs of raising a children themselves. Which means those women are less likely to require welfare in order to take care of their children.

And the mutualization of the cost of birth control is much less than the mutualization of the cost of welfare to those children.
 
clownboy said:
Again, the funding will go to clinics that do not offer abortion services. PP is an abortion provider, all the more reason for them to get zero public funding.
Click to expand...

No, they should get public funding.
 
samsmart said:
Because it's good public policy on an incredible variety of levels even though to do so requires mutualization of the costs involved.

For example, by paying for the mutualization of the cost of birth control, women can have children only when they are financially stable for it. Which means they can better bear the costs of raising a children themselves. Which means those women are less likely to require welfare in order to take care of their children.
Click to expand...

Eliminate welfare and the problem you created is solved. After all, its also a breach of the Constitution.

And since when did two wrongs make a right? If it's left turns you need at least three. :p

And the mutualization of the cost of birth control is much less than the mutualization of the cost of welfare to those children.
Click to expand...

Already gave you the solution to the problem government created. Done.
 
With our up-and-coming health care coverage mandate, what would be the reason for funding PP in the first place? It has traditionally been a provider of services for low-income people, who wanted affordable birth control and gyn visits. If we're all covered now that health care coverage is required, there should be no need for PP anyway.
 
samsmart said:
Indeed. The government does have that power to fund or not fund as they choose.

And in this case, it's a bad idea to not fund Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

!Caution... EXTREME SARCASIM... Caution!

Right, because we really should kill lots and lots more of them little black and brown babies... mama Maggie would be oh, so proud...


Her "Negro Project" is in good hands.
 
Henrin said:
Also, vaginal sex= avoid it if you're poor. Problem solved all around.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a real good idea to tell women who get pregnant after being raped.

Henrin said:
Already gave you the solution to the problem government created. Done.
Click to expand...

Well, the Constitution doesn't cover everything. Which is why we need a new Constitution that does.
 
samsmart said:
No, they should get public funding.
Click to expand...

That your opinion. Obviously this federal court and a whole lot of your countrymen disagree with your opinion. Some agree. Let's put it to a vote. You probably won't like the results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom