• 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!

Judge says Texas can't ban Planned Parenthood

I think something got twisted.

Here in Oklahoma public funds are NOT allowed to pay for abortions.

Public funds pay for cancer screenings of various female related parts, birth control and such.

But not abortions, is Texas different?

Now seems to me if ALL women's programs are stopped in Texas over this it isn't on the Judge. That would be like blaming a Judge for a mother killing her kids because she was ordered to take a drug test.

No, this will be on a some out of touch right wing demi-goads.
 
The whole thing comes down to Texas refusing medicaid payments to PP, which is against the rules a state must follow to receive federal medicaid funds.
A state can not deny payments to any licensed medical provider who is willing to accept medicaid patients. The state of Texas does not just write a check to PP, they are paying PP for services rendered to patients who are covered by medicaid. Which is what they are now refusing to do.
 
wolfsgirl said:
The whole thing comes down to Texas refusing medicaid payments to PP, which is against the rules a state must follow to receive federal medicaid funds.
A state can not deny payments to any licensed medical provider who is willing to accept medicaid patients. The state of Texas does not just write a check to PP, they are paying PP for services rendered to patients who are covered by medicaid. Which is what they are now refusing to do.
Click to expand...

I think if Texas really wanted to do this the right way, they would need to do an in depth audit of their accounting and bookkeeping... then make the case that state funds are actually being used against state law.
that would at least give them a valid pretense to use in legislation defunding them.
beyond that, I think if Texas feels they can opt out of medicare, and make up their own system to replace it ( along their line of standards), I say go for it .. but something tells me the federal government will not allow that and will do whatever it can to ensure Texas is kept under their thumb.

personally, I have no problem with a state deciding who they will fund or not fund...I do not enjoy the idea that a company can hold taxpayers hostage like that, no matter what company it is.

where i think people on the other end of the argument err is in thinking PP holds a monopoly on womens healthcare, and that defunding them means womens will go without healthcare... that's like saying you can't get a hamburger if Burger King isn't around.. you'd have to ignore the rest of the hamburger providers for that to be accurate
healthcare providers would still exist, womens would still have access to womens healthcare , we need to stop pretending PP is the end all be all in womens health.
 
Lokiate said:
I'd like to know exactly how it's unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Good point. Texas is pretty much free to do whatever it likes. If it wants to ban PP, or Burger King, it can.
 
Thrilla said:
I think if Texas really wanted to do this the right way, they would need to do an in depth audit of their accounting and bookkeeping... then make the case that state funds are actually being used against state law.
that would at least give them a valid pretense to use in legislation defunding them.
beyond that, I think if Texas feels they can opt out of medicare, and make up their own system to replace it ( along their line of standards), I say go for it .. but something tells me the federal government will not allow that and will do whatever it can to ensure Texas is kept under their thumb.

personally, I have no problem with a state deciding who they will fund or not fund...I do not enjoy the idea that a company can hold taxpayers hostage like that, no matter what company it is.

where i think people on the other end of the argument err is in thinking PP holds a monopoly on womens healthcare, and that defunding them means womens will go without healthcare... that's like saying you can't get a hamburger if Burger King isn't around.. you'd have to ignore the rest of the hamburger providers for that to be accurate
healthcare providers would still exist, womens would still have access to womens healthcare , we need to stop pretending PP is the end all be all in womens health.
Click to expand...

If Texas wants to fully fund their medicaid program that's fine, but they can not violate the rules for receiving federal money for medicaid, and continue to get the money.
They have to follow the rules just like every other state.
 
Top Cat said:
Even if it were true, how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

well that gets into the whole other side of the pro-life-pro-choice argument.

but basically, PP deliberately.... shall we say misleadingly utilizes statistics in order to misrepresent the focus of that organization.


Saying that PP isn't abortion-centered because there are lots of other transactions it is involved in is like saying that McDonalds isnt' burger-centered because not only does every meal come with fries and a drink, but they also offer salads and milkshakes.

as a final note:

PPFA_Revenues.png


PP knows where their bread is buttered. Which is why PP clinic managers were told to work to increase abortions.
 
JayDubya said:
Well, I mean, if you can't read a plain English document and you think that other people can when they demonstrably can't, then no, you don't have qualifications.
Click to expand...

Which "plain english document" do you think the judge has failed to read?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah, they're 99% of what Planned Parenthood Does...

(This was not intended to be a factual statement :lol:)
Click to expand...

No, no....97.6%.

YOEST & FRANZONELLO: Nation's largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood - Washington Times
"But if you want to understand how big a role abortion plays in Planned Parenthood’s care of pregnant women, just read its fine print. According to a “fact sheet” detailing its “services” for 2009, affiliates performed 332,278 abortions, saw 7,021 prenatal clients and made 977 adoption referrals. That means for 97.6 percent of its 340,276 pregnant clients, abortion was Planned Parenthood’s provided “service.” "
 
mac said:
No, no....97.6%.

YOEST & FRANZONELLO: Nation's largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood - Washington Times
"But if you want to understand how big a role abortion plays in Planned Parenthood’s care of pregnant women, just read its fine print. According to a “fact sheet” detailing its “services” for 2009, affiliates performed 332,278 abortions, saw 7,021 prenatal clients and made 977 adoption referrals. That means for 97.6 percent of its 340,276 pregnant clients, abortion was Planned Parenthood’s provided “service.” "
Click to expand...
So 97% of pregnant PP patients get abortions, but what percentage of their entire client base are pregnant?
I know I have used PP at least 40 times for birth control, pap smears, even had them refer me to a radiologist for a mammogram. I was never pregnant at any time that I was a patient, nor are many of their patients.
 
cpwill said:
well that gets into the whole other side of the pro-life-pro-choice argument.

but basically, PP deliberately.... shall we say misleadingly utilizes statistics in order to misrepresent the focus of that organization.s.
Click to expand...


From the same guy that deliberately posted the completely disingenuous "Seal Community" pap no less? Really? Ballsy, I'll give you that.
 
In 2010 (the
latest year for which we have figures), Planned
Parenthood provided nearly five million people
worldwide with the means to make responsible
choices about their sexual and reproductive health.
Click to expand...
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

So if PP saw nearly 5 million patients, and of that 5 million 340,276 were pregnant. Even if ALL of its pregnant clients had an abortion it would not account for 97% of its services.
 
wolfsgirl said:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

So if PP saw nearly 5 million patients, and of that 5 million 340,276 were pregnant. Even if ALL of its pregnant clients had an abortion it would not account for 97% of its services.
Click to expand...

See, those against PP don't want to take into account that PP handles 5 million patients. As such they phrase their statements in the way that mac phrased his statements. It makes PP look bad to sheeple. They just want PP shut down because it provides abortions...nevermind all the other things that PP provides.
 
wolfsgirl said:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf

So if PP saw nearly 5 million patients, and of that 5 million 340,276 were pregnant. Even if ALL of its pregnant clients had an abortion it would not account for 97% of its services.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
See, those against PP don't want to take into account that PP handles 5 million patients. As such they phrase their statements in the way that mac phrased his statements. It makes PP look bad to sheeple. They just want PP shut down because it provides abortions...nevermind all the other things that PP provides.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-medias-blinders-on-abortion.html
 
Out of about 5MILLION patients 340,000 had abortions.
An op-ed piece does not change the numbers.
 
cpwill said:
Good point. Texas is pretty much free to do whatever it likes. If it wants to ban PP, or Burger King, it can.
Click to expand...

Not sure if sarcasm, or srs. I'm tired of people saying something is unconstitutional like some kind of knee jerk reaction. The judge stated that it was unconstitutional, I want to know how he came to that conclusion.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Out of about 5MILLION patients 340,000 had abortions.
An op-ed piece does not change the numbers.
Click to expand...

The reality is that pp uses a walk in to get a condom as a patient in order to obfuscate the stats...we all know that. I applaud pp for providing family planning...but their "women's health" impact is actually minimal, and it's nothing that can't be provided elsewhere. Further, they make upwards of 70 million dollars a year performing abortions and that equates to about a third of their income, while govt funding attributes for half....that leaves very little accountable to private donations. The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing abortion (against their will). IF they want taxpayer funds, they should sever connection with abortion so they can provided "women's health" services without controversy.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Out of about 5MILLION patients 340,000 had abortions.
An op-ed piece does not change the numbers.
Click to expand...

Prime example of obfuscation. The 5 million stat is worldwide, the 340k stat is US alone. You are comparing worldwide service to US only abortion. It's just dishonest. :shrug:
 
mac said:
Prime example of obfuscation. The 5 million stat is worldwide, the 340k stat is US alone. You are comparing worldwide service to US only abortion. It's just dishonest. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're right, the 5 million patients is world wide. The actual number for in the States is 3 million.

The core of Planned Parenthood affiliate medical service is contraception and accompanying health care, education, and information. In 2010, we provided 11 million medical services for nearly three million people, and helped to prevent approximately 584,000 unintended pregnancies. Seventy-six percent of our clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. As of January 2012, our nearly 800 health centers are operated by 79 affiliates, which have a presence in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (PPFA, 2011a; PPFA, 2011b; PPFA, internal documents).
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood Services
 
Kal'Stang said:
You're right, the 5 million patients is world wide. The actual number for in the States is 3 million.



Planned Parenthood Services
Click to expand...

Let me ask....was providing a condom "helped to prevent approximately 584,000 unintended pregnancies"? How exactly do you prove that you helped prevent an unintended pregnancy?

Do you actually put any thought into the propaganda?

11 million medical services for three million people.....when you consider a single visit to be 15 services...I guess it's easy to rack up that kind of number.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
The reality is that pp uses a walk in to get a condom as a patient in order to obfuscate the stats...we all know that. I applaud pp for providing family planning...but their "women's health" impact is actually minimal, and it's nothing that can't be provided elsewhere. Further, they make upwards of 70 million dollars a year performing abortions and that equates to about a third of their income, while govt funding attributes for half....that leaves very little accountable to private donations. The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing abortion (against their will). IF they want taxpayer funds, they should sever connection with abortion so they can provided "women's health" services without controversy.
Click to expand...

Actually STI/STD testing is the majority of their services...has nothing to do with a simple walk in, grab a condom, leave. The people actually stay there for a bit, get a test done, and get results.

You're talking about PP obfuscating their numbers and yet you're trying to do the same thing by suggesting that PP's counted services include walking in and grabbing a condom and leaving. Which ones worse I wonder? The numbers that PP have include documented people. Which means the patients stayed long enough to give enough information to be documented. Normally a walk in for condoms is not documented. They just give ya a brown bag with a handful of condoms in it and ya leave.
 
mac said:
Let me ask....was providing a condom "helped to prevent approximately 584,000 unintended pregnancies"? How exactly do you prove that you helped prevent an unintended pregnancy?

Do you actually put any thought into the propaganda?

11 million medical services for three million people.....when you consider a single visit to be 15 services...I guess it's easy to rack up that kind of number.
Click to expand...

You do know that people can come in multiple times right? And not always for the same things right?

Tell me...how many people does your local clinic see? How many services do they perform? I would bet you that the services performed is far larger than the amount of people seen.

As for your "single visit being 15 services" claim...please provide proof. And for something like this you're going to need something much better than a simple biased article. Something along the lines of government evidence would be good. Or a statement from PP themselves. Whichever. Serious claims deserve serious evidence.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You do know that people can come in multiple times right? And not always for the same things right?

Tell me...how many people does your local clinic see? How many services do they perform? I would bet you that the services performed is far larger than the amount of people seen.

As for your "single visit being 15 services" claim...please provide proof. And for something like this you're going to need something much better than a simple biased article. Something along the lines of government evidence would be good. Or a statement from PP themselves. Whichever. Serious claims deserve serious evidence.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. How do you prove you helped prevent an unintended pregnancy?


In 23 years in the Navy, I couldn't tell you how many times I told a young sailor to wrap the weasel. How many unintended pregnancies can I claim I prevented?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom