• 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

Kal'Stang said:
And yet professionals from both sides of the aisle still accept them at their word. You might not accept them, but others do. And when people from both sides of the aisle start agreeing about something I tend to believe that something when it comes to things I have no knowledge of.
Click to expand...

I generally do accept their findings, but like I said earlier...their bias shows in what they choose to omit. For example, substantiation on a particular claim we've been discussing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If I knew that then I would have provided it long before now. But if there is such a problem with the numbers then why hasn't there been an outcry about them providing bad numbers? Instead of just calling them liars then why not provide evidence that they are lying? Surely if their numbers were bad then someone, somewhere would have provided proof that it was.
Click to expand...

The problem is, no-one has substantiated it. You just assume they did because they are PP. Blind faith.
 
mac said:
I don' think anyone loved McCarthy regardless of political lean.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's what I think of every time the 'guilt by association' issue comes up - and this is one of those times.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Sorry, but that's what I think of every time the 'guilt by association' issue comes up - and this is one of those times.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a bit of a stretch, but I get what you're saying. They are part of the larger organization though. My feeling is that with all the hoopla over PP, if their true goal was "health services" for women, they would sever ties with PP in order to continue their altruistic goals unabated.
 
mac said:
Well, it's a bit of a stretch, but I get what you're saying. They are part of the larger organization though. My feeling is that with all the hoopla over PP, if their true goal was "health services" for women, they would sever ties with PP in order to continue their altruistic goals unabated.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure many of McCarthy's targets were told basically the same thing.
"Just quit associating with this <guy/girl/group> and we'll quit questioning and hounding you."

American government at it's finest.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Yes, I'm sure many of McCarthy's targets were told basically the same thing.
"Just quit associating with this <guy/girl/group> and we'll quit questioning and hounding you."

American government at it's finest.
Click to expand...

You're still stretching. The comparison is only superficially valid. These affiliates receive funds from the PP organization, they are not just "pro-PP"
 
mac said:
You're still stretching. The comparison is only superficially valid. These affiliates receive funds from the PP organization, they are not just "pro-PP"
Click to expand...
I'm not stretching anything, it's Texas that's stretching. Why the hell should Texas care where the other funds are coming from as long as it's not an illegal source? The only answer is "guilt by association".
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm not stretching anything, it's Texas that's stretching. Why the hell should Texas care where the other funds are coming from as long as it's not an illegal source? The only answer is "guilt by association".
Click to expand...

It is stretching...you're comparing ideological association with financial association.
 
What's to stop Texas from initiating a "USA First" bill where no state funding is allowed to go to foreign owned companies?
 
mac said:
No, there is a financial association between these clinics and planned parenthood.
Click to expand...
And there is an idealistic intent in the new Texas law that denies funding.


But regardless of that, why should Texas care where the money comes from if it's not an illegal source? The clinics themselves aren't breaking any laws and PP isn't breaking any laws.

Texas has given itself the right to deny funding to abortion clinics, but these clinics aren't abortion clinics, they just get some of their funding from the same place that some abortion clinics get funding. That's obviously guilt by association.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
What's to stop Texas from initiating a "USA First" bill where no state funding is allowed to go to foreign owned companies?
Click to expand...

That kind of law already exists, both at the Federal and State level. The government is only allowed to use products and services from Foreign sources if there are no American products or services available.
 
DVSentinel said:
That kind of law already exists, both at the Federal and State level. The government is only allowed to use products and services from Foreign sources if there are no American products or services available.
Click to expand...
Then we should not allow funding to Catholic hospitals since the Pope et al is obviously foreign.


I wonder how many more "guilt by association" ties we can conjure up using that rule?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
And there is an idealistic intent in the new Texas law that denies funding.


But regardless of that, why should Texas care where the money comes from if it's not an illegal source? The clinics themselves aren't breaking any laws and PP isn't breaking any laws.

Texas has given itself the right to deny funding to abortion clinics, but these clinics aren't abortion clinics, they just get some of their funding from the same place that some abortion clinics get funding. That's obviously guilt by association.
Click to expand...

Texas doesn't concern it's self with where other money comes from, only where it's money goes. The government of Texas has simply said it will not use it's funds to pay for organisations that perform abortions or organisations associated with another organisation that provides abortions. It's our (I'm a Texan) money, we can spend however we damned well please.

One part of the whole argument about this mess that is ignored is whether or not it is the governments responsibility to even provide healthcare services. IMO, all healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a governmental one. Nowhere in the Federal or State constitutions is there any clause that says the government has to provide any goods or service to those who do not earn it for themselves. Healthcare is a service, not a Right.
 
DVSentinel said:
Texas doesn't concern it's self with where other money comes from, only where it's money goes. The government of Texas has simply said it will not use it's funds to pay for organisations that perform abortions or organisations associated with another organisation that provides abortions. It's our (I'm a Texan) money, we can spend however we damned well please.

.
Click to expand...


:2wave: 5th Generation Texan here who wants PP funded.
 
DVSentinel said:
Texas doesn't concern it's self with where other money comes from, only where it's money goes. The government of Texas has simply said it will not use it's funds to pay for organisations that perform abortions or organisations associated with another organisation that provides abortions. It's our (I'm a Texan) money, we can spend however we damned well please.

One part of the whole argument about this mess that is ignored is whether or not it is the governments responsibility to even provide healthcare services. IMO, all healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a governmental one. Nowhere in the Federal or State constitutions is there any clause that says the government has to provide any goods or service to those who do not earn it for themselves. Healthcare is a service, not a Right.
Click to expand...
If Texas wants to stop funding any social health programs I'm sure it could do so and it would be better than playing favorites like it's doing now.
 
DVSentinel said:
Texas doesn't concern it's self with where other money comes from, only where it's money goes. The government of Texas has simply said it will not use it's funds to pay for organisations that perform abortions or organisations associated with another organisation that provides abortions. It's our (I'm a Texan) money, we can spend however we damned well please.

One part of the whole argument about this mess that is ignored is whether or not it is the governments responsibility to even provide healthcare services. IMO, all healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a governmental one. Nowhere in the Federal or State constitutions is there any clause that says the government has to provide any goods or service to those who do not earn it for themselves. Healthcare is a service, not a Right.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't, $23M is fed dollars, $3M is Texas dollars, the fed dollars come with a proviso.

This is the second time I have personally told you this.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
:2wave: 5th Generation Texan here who wants PP funded.
Click to expand...
I have to wonder how many of your fellow Texans agree with you? I suspect it's a lot, maybe even a majority.
 
mac said:
The majority of "health services" provided are screenings. Services that can easily be provided elsewhere. What medical "treatment" does PP provide?
Click to expand...
I did not say "treatment", I said health care and health services. You need to once again get into nitpicking without purpose, so off the top of my head, one form of treatment is the Rx of oral birth control which is used for ailments not related to pregnancy prevention.

Now as far as your "provided elsewhere", it seems women in Texas have a multitude of reasons for their choice in using PP, probably due in large part to cost. Now if Texas does not want to accept the $23M in fed med subsidies, wants to remove these PP providers, then I think they can show what they will do to replace those dollars AND the providers. I would like to see the economics of that. It seems to me that the market has been working, and after all, isn't that the number one priority for your clow....er....cons?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I have to wonder how many of your fellow Texans agree with you? I suspect it's a lot, maybe even a majority.
Click to expand...

I suspect not..unless you think that state legislators are ignoring the will of the people.

From the Dallas Morning News [6-2011 and bolding below is mine]:

And 57 percent said they would be against a measure that would strip state funding to all medical facilities that perform abortions or abortion-related services. Such a measure was passed by the House, but was stripped from a funding bill in the Senate during the regular session. Nevertheless, the Legislature did cut more than $100 million from contraception and women's health programs in which Planned Parenthood was involved.

...While Texans favored maintaining the health funding, a strong majority - 62 percent - did agree with the sonogram law, signed by the governor and currently being contested in court. The law requires doctors to conduct a sonogram and discuss the picture with a woman prior to an abortion.

Texans split on hot-button legislative issues | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com
 
DVSentinel said:
Texas doesn't concern it's self with where other money comes from, only where it's money goes. The government of Texas has simply said it will not use it's funds to pay for organisations that perform abortions or organisations associated with another organisation that provides abortions. It's our (I'm a Texan) money, we can spend however we damned well please.

One part of the whole argument about this mess that is ignored is whether or not it is the governments responsibility to even provide healthcare services. IMO, all healthcare is a personal responsibility, not a governmental one. Nowhere in the Federal or State constitutions is there any clause that says the government has to provide any goods or service to those who do not earn it for themselves. Healthcare is a service, not a Right.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, people shouldn't be allowed to die just because they don't have enough money.
 
nota bene said:
I suspect not..unless you think that state legislators are ignoring the will of the people.

From the Dallas Morning News [6-2011 and bolding below is mine]:

And 57 percent said they would be against a measure that would strip state funding to all medical facilities that perform abortions or abortion-related services. Such a measure was passed by the House, but was stripped from a funding bill in the Senate during the regular session. Nevertheless, the Legislature did cut more than $100 million from contraception and women's health programs in which Planned Parenthood was involved.

...While Texans favored maintaining the health funding, a strong majority - 62 percent - did agree with the sonogram law, signed by the governor and currently being contested in court. The law requires doctors to conduct a sonogram and discuss the picture with a woman prior to an abortion.

Texans split on hot-button legislative issues | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com
Click to expand...
Obviously you are wrong as your link and your quoting of that link plainly states:

57 percent said they would be against a measure that would strip state funding to all medical facilities that perform abortions or abortion-related services
Click to expand...
57% against is a majority against what the legislature is doing so, yes, indeed, the legislature is blowing off the public just as I suspected. They don't give a crap what the People want as long as their personal political objectives are met. More than one State has been hoodwinked by these clowns - Texas is one more in a long line of circuses where they're performing.
 
Deuce said:
In my opinion, people shouldn't be allowed to die just because they don't have enough money.
Click to expand...

Medicine has achieved Immortality? I must of missed that article. Whether you have money or not, you will die. What you achieve in life, what you get, and when you die are all the result of individuals making their own choices. I just have no problem with them having to live or die as a consequence of their own choices. It is not, nor should it ever be the governments responsibility to mitigate those consequences. Frankly, the US and mankind in general would be much better off if we allowed Natural Selection to work un-impeeded and let these people suffer the fate that they chose for themselves.
 
DVSentinel said:
Medicine has achieved Immortality? I must of missed that article. Whether you have money or not, you will die. What you achieve in life, what you get, and when you die are all the result of individuals making their own choices. I just have no problem with them having to live or die as a consequence of their own choices. It is not, nor should it ever be the governments responsibility to mitigate those consequences. Frankly, the US and mankind in general would be much better off if we allowed Natural Selection to work un-impeeded and let these people suffer the fate that they chose for themselves.
Click to expand...

Interesting 'social Darwinist" take on the matter. So you think ALL deaths are the consequence of the deceased actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom