• 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!

House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

The funds reimbursed to Planned Parenthood isn't really fungible.
That's a talking point that has no real basis in the case of Planned Parenthood funds.

All money donated to Planned Parenthood that is earmarked for cetain service goes to that service.
Funds for breast cancer sevices goes to help more women obtain breast screening exams.

Abortion clinics charge the patients for abortions.
Over 200,000 women request help paying for their abortions every year.

Private donations help women pay for their abortions.
From the fund abortion now .org site:


In the following <SNIP> a women with 5 children resells of of struggles to try to raise money for an abortion when her husband was laid off his job during the last recession and she found out she was expecting again. Because they loved their children very much they decided she needed an abortion.She sold her wedding ring and other items but still did not have enough to pay the abortion so she aked for help funding the abortion:



Here is a <SNIP> from her story.


Sonia has 5 kids and her husband was just laid off. | Fund Abortion Now.org


:lamo Wait, wait....This is too damned rich....minnie you can do better than this....A claim that PP separates its funds, but refuses to turn over its financial information to congress that has asked, so you use a militant pro choice group to echo the false claim that tax dollars aren't going to abortions, when everyone with eyes, and ears knows damned well it is? Then you try to back it up with an appeal to emotion in an anecdotal bunch of tear jerking nonsense?

:doh
 
Is money fungible Minnie?

Not for abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Read my reply post #72.

About 200,000 women ask for help paying for their abortions every year.
Private money is donated to help these women but there are not enough funds to fully cover any of the abortions.
 
House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary | Fox News


My my my, those GOP members have been busy creating jobs bill after jobs bill, but managed to write legislation to overturn Roe v Wade,
then they decided to kill their own bill because they didn't want to offend female GOP members. Hypocrites.

What morons. :roll:
wasting taxpayer time money writing stupid bills, no wonder the congress has a low favorability rating.

Congress was split when their favorability was at it's lowest. Remember, Dems had the senate. Repubs just gained office... lol
 
:doh

Dumb. Nothing is there that couldn't have been worked out, and limiting abortion past pain-capable is a popular position in the US. Force the President to veto it or Senate Democrats to filibuster it, and make them go on record as well to the left of the American populace.

ever consider that the problem for the GOP isn't a fear of offending women but a fear of offending men who oppose abortion altogether? It makes it look like the GOP has caved on abortion and that might not be so good for candidates facing primary challenges in 2016.
 
money is inherently fungible. That's like arguing that the water in planned parenthoods' water fountains isn't wet.

The money used for abortions is either paid by the woman herself or partly paid by herself and taken from privately donated funds set aside for abortions.

I donate to the abortion funds. I do not donate money for the water fountains.
 
The money used for abortions is either paid by the woman herself or partly paid by herself and taken from privately donated funds set aside for abortions

Funding PP's operations anywhere free's up the money that they apply elsewhere. For example, if someone bought all of your gas for you, you would have more money in your budget for fun.

I do not donate money for the water fountains.

WoooSH!
 
ever consider that the problem for the GOP isn't a fear of offending women but a fear of offending men who oppose abortion altogether?

Not in this instance. I'm pretty close to that line myself (I would except cases of actual risk to the mother only), and as near as I can tell, neither myself nor anyone else like me viewed this as anything except moving the football. The semi-Catholic National Review has been hammering the GOP on not passing this.
 
Funding PP's operations anywhere free's up the money that they apply elsewhere. For example, if someone bought all of your gas for you, you would have more money in your budget for fun.



WoooSH!

Planned Parenthood charges for abortions.
There are no sliding scales for their abortions.
That's why there are of organizations that take donations to help women get the abortions they need.
 
The money used for abortions is either paid by the woman herself or partly paid by herself and taken from privately donated funds set aside for abortions.

If that is the case minnie, then why do they consistently refuse to turn over documentation proving such to congress?
 
Planned Parenthood charges for abortions.
There are no sliding scales for their abortions.
That's why there are of organizations that take donations to help women get the abortions they need.

Planned Parenthood has costs associated with providing its services. Funding some of those services allows more of its' funds to go towards providing the others. You seem to be confusing "mitigating costs" with "completely covering costs".

Money Is Fungible.
 
From the following Washington Post article:


So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion.
It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already.
The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children. The same goes for preventable cancers and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
 
I donate to the abortion funds.

Thanks for sharing. How many needless, violent killings are you directly and personally responsible for by now?
 
As a Libertarian I am not for outlawing abortions outright, but I am for removal of how we seem to have circumvented the Hyde Amendment.

There seems to be a fair level of confusion and concern with what Planned Parenthood is using their well north of $1 Million per day from the government to exactly fund. There is very little accounting of what Planned Parenthood allocates that money to other than "services." Under that category ends up just about all Planned Parenthood does, and as of recent Planned Parenthood rejects the idea of being accountable to the GAO or Congress on where all that money goes.

But more to the point of this thread it is not a general statement about medical procedures funded by the government, just a point of contention on where the line should be for the abortion debate. It seems to me a good compromise between the pro-abortion group and pro-life group is to ensure government is entirely out of the mix. Put the onus on the individual to decide these things and fund their own decision to end life. There may be a certain subset of conditions where a government funded abortion to those of need is acceptable in those cases of rape, incest, etc. But we seem to be shying away from that conversation here, and I would be against more government funding of any regard (especially in the context of this topic.)

I have no choice ideologically to be against the idea that we have designed a way for an organization to perform so many abortions, seemingly on the government dime, with zero accountability as to the numbers of abortions they have achieved and how they funded all these procedures. I am not asking for HIPAA or ACA privacy laws to be broken, just some degree of reporting to ensure that Planned Parenthood is doing what they claim they are.

It was a serious question. I dont know the level or or assignment of any other govt funding of medical procedures or reproductive measures.

I can see pluses and minuses for having govt funding for abortion or birth control. For example I can see advantages for society if we allow such funding. But if we consider it elective health care, then no. (Then I also consider maternity care as not subsidized by health coverage too).

If we dont fund from a moral standpoint, that certainly should be examined.
 
No, that's not true...The provisions about reporting were at odds within the caucus, but they absolutely should have passed it, and worked out the differences later.

.

Has nothing to do with abortion but I hate when ANY group of lawmakers in any party just pass something and 'work out the details later.' THat is crap. We saw a bunch of stuff like that when they tried to rush gun control laws on us. We just got stuck with one here in WA. We also just passed a school bill that we had no idea how we were going to fund. They actually said 'we'll figure that out later.' We did it with a pie in the sky monorail too. And then had to figure out had to do it.

They pass things they cant enforce and cant pay for and dont even know how to administer. And alot of it is 'feel good' legislation that doesnt really 'do' anything. Like changing the time limits for when women can have abortions. Feel good but of no value. They dont occur except for medical necessity. Canada has no time limits and have fewer abortions/population and few to no late term abortions.
 
Funding PP's operations anywhere free's up the money that they apply elsewhere. For example, if someone bought all of your gas for you, you would have more money in your budget for fun.



WoooSH!

No it's not. If a woman comes in for an abortion, that $ would not take anything away from their general operating funds. Ever, under current financial structuring. It implies that PP WOULD pay for her abortion if there werent separate funds for abortion. According to current law, they would not.
 
Planned Parenthood has costs associated with providing its services. Funding some of those services allows more of its' funds to go towards providing the others. You seem to be confusing "mitigating costs" with "completely covering costs".

Money Is Fungible.

You mean like receptionist salaries, electric bills, office furniture,heating/ac???

Come on, they provide many many services to women, including education. And most of that education is all about preventing pregnancy in the first place...i.e. less abortions.

Even without providing abortions services, they would have to have all those things...and would...anyway.
 
This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.

Well then.
 
You mean like receptionist salaries, electric bills, office furniture,heating/ac???

:shrug: it's a % increase. You could apply it equally across all operations if you wanted to use that theoretical, but the only place to know is to take the funding away and then see what they cut.
 
Well then.

:shrug: you have to have priorities. I prioritize childrens' lives over things like lower marginal tax rates and a private healthcare system.
 
You mean like receptionist salaries, electric bills, office furniture,heating/ac???

Come on, they provide many many services to women, including education. And most of that education is all about preventing pregnancy in the first place...i.e. less abortions.

Even without providing abortions services, they would have to have all those things...and would...anyway.

You and I both know that the "pro-life" movement is not at all about preventing abortions. It never has been, and it never will be. The evidence for this is legion. For example, if "pro-lifers" really cared about reducing the number of abortions, then they would be passionate supporters of affordable birth control and comprehensive sex ed. Yet they have become antagonists of both. I wonder why this is?
 
:shrug: you have to have priorities. I prioritize childrens' lives over things like lower marginal tax rates and a private healthcare system.

You do? Great! Then I am sure you support Obama's childcare initiatives that he announced in the SOTU, plus other measures that support the lives and well-being of children and their parents. Right?

Hey, I'm all in favor of reducing the number of abortions, IF it is done by proactively addressing the root causes of abortion and not reactively making it harder and harder for women to obtain abortions.
 
House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary | Fox News


My my my, those GOP members have been busy creating jobs bill after jobs bill, but managed to write legislation to overturn Roe v Wade,
then they decided to kill their own bill because they didn't want to offend female GOP members. Hypocrites.

What morons. :roll:
wasting taxpayer time money writing stupid bills, no wonder the congress has a low favorability rating.

I think that just shows that the GOP no longer runs on principle or morals. The GOP needs to be defunded.
 
Back
Top Bottom