• 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

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...

If they qualify for Title X then yeah, sure. But they wouldn't due to Title X being about family planning services.

Which btw I'd like to correct part of what I said. "building houses for the homeless" would actually fall under the U.S. Housing Act and not Title X. Sorry about that.

Here's a link to Title X and what its about:

Title X

I'll also note that it also includes public organizations...such as hospitals I'd imagine. I hadn't realized that before. Thought it was just non-profit organizations. Guess the backlash would be even bigger than I thought.
 
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...

The zealots lack that kind of balls. But, yeah. I hope they run on that platform come November.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If they qualify for Title X then yeah, sure. But they wouldn't due to Title X being about family planning services.

Which btw I'd like to correct part of what I said. "building houses for the homeless" would actually fall under the U.S. Housing Act and not Title X. Sorry about that.

Here's a link to Title X and what its about:

Title X

I'll also note that it also includes public organizations...such as hospitals I'd imagine. I hadn't realized that before. Thought it was just non-profit organizations. Guess the backlash would be even bigger than I thought.
Click to expand...

The irony is that one of the rungs in the economic recovery ladder is medical spending. New hospitals and medical research centers are popping up all around the country like daisies in springtime.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tyranny going down in flames is a beautiful thing, even when said tyranny is led by zealots in the majority.

Maybe if they hadn't based their crusaade on the lie that PP was selling baby parts...
 
calamity said:
Tyranny going down in flames is a beautiful thing, even when said tyranny is led by zealots in the majority.

Maybe if they hadn't based their crusaade on the lie that PP was selling baby parts...
Click to expand...

You mean the tyranny of the Constitution? That is an interesting view.
 
joG said:
You mean the tyranny of the Constitution? That is an interesting view.
Click to expand...

It was the equality protections in the Constitution which allowed the judges to strike down the tyrannical laws in Florida and Ohio and Texas and...
 
Kal'Stang said:
If they qualify for Title X then yeah, sure. But they wouldn't due to Title X being about family planning services.

Which btw I'd like to correct part of what I said. "building houses for the homeless" would actually fall under the U.S. Housing Act and not Title X. Sorry about that.

Here's a link to Title X and what its about:

Title X

I'll also note that it also includes public organizations...such as hospitals I'd imagine. I hadn't realized that before. Thought it was just non-profit organizations. Guess the backlash would be even bigger than I thought.
Click to expand...

But it is forbidden that tax money be handed over to pay for abortions. Even contraception is on the wrong side of the Constitution protection and an infringement on citizens rights. I really do not understand how any citizen can endorse the disregard of the Constitution by redefinition and sleazy arguments. It is so elemental to maintaining the security of minorities against the vagaries of majority rule that it is hard to believe that in an mature democracy with rule of law citizens do not realize this. IT is as astounding as the choice between Trump and Clinton and as much a symptom of a sick society.
 
calamity said:
Tyranny going down in flames is a beautiful thing, even when said tyranny is led by zealots in the majority.

Maybe if they hadn't based their crusaade on the lie that PP was selling baby parts...
Click to expand...

Tyranny??? What the hell are you talking about?
 
Fletch said:
Tyranny??? What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to understand But, this is a clear case of the majority: R representatives; of a state pushing their agenda on the minority: poor women who rely on PP for reproductive medical needs--tyranny.
 
joG said:
But it is forbidden that tax money be handed over to pay for abortions. Even contraception is on the wrong side of the Constitution protection and an infringement on citizens rights. I really do not understand how any citizen can endorse the disregard of the Constitution by redefinition and sleazy arguments. It is so elemental to maintaining the security of minorities against the vagaries of majority rule that it is hard to believe that in an mature democracy with rule of law citizens do not realize this. IT is as astounding as the choice between Trump and Clinton and as much a symptom of a sick society.
Click to expand...

Actually the Hyde Amendment doesn't forbid all types of abortions. In the cases of incest, possible mothers death, and rape the Hyde Amendment allows the Federal Funding of those types of abortions.

That said, beyond that, no money is going towards abortions. None.

And the only violation of the Constitution going on is that by the States by not abiding the equal protections clause in the Constitution. The States either have to treat PP the same as any other Title X organization that gets Title X monies or they have to refuse all Title X monies. That is their only options Constitutionally speaking.
 
calamity said:
I don't expect you to understand But, this is a clear case of the majority: R representatives; of a state pushing their agenda on the minority: poor women who rely on PP for reproductive medical needs--tyranny.
Click to expand...

Good of you to ignore the tyrannical nature of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the tyrannical nature of forcing one person to pay for the 'reproductive medical needs' of another, but that is the sort of mental gymnastics needed to make the claims that you do.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Easy-peasy - don't accept the federal money, as many States did with the ACA Medicare/Medicaid dollar.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are comparing two actions "as many states did with the medicare/Medicaid dollar"

What are you comparing it to?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually the Hyde Amendment doesn't forbid all types of abortions. In the cases of incest, possible mothers death, and rape the Hyde Amendment allows the Federal Funding of those types of abortions.

That said, beyond that, no money is going towards abortions. None.

And the only violation of the Constitution going on is that by the States by not abiding the equal protections clause in the Constitution. The States either have to treat PP the same as any other Title X organization that gets Title X monies or they have to refuse all Title X monies. That is their only options Constitutionally speaking.
Click to expand...
I thought the 'equal protection clause' applied to individuals not organizations. This is nothing more than monetary blackmail of the states by the federal government
 
Fletch said:
I thought the 'equal protection clause' applied to individuals not organizations. This is nothing more than monetary blackmail of the states by the federal government
Click to expand...

Nope, it applies to all laws. Not just individuals.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually the Hyde Amendment doesn't forbid all types of abortions. In the cases of incest, possible mothers death, and rape the Hyde Amendment allows the Federal Funding of those types of abortions.

That said, beyond that, no money is going towards abortions. None.

And the only violation of the Constitution going on is that by the States by not abiding the equal protections clause in the Constitution. The States either have to treat PP the same as any other Title X organization that gets Title X monies or they have to refuse all Title X monies. That is their only options Constitutionally speaking.
Click to expand...

Fine then lets repeal Title X. If title X means money has to go to an organization that does abortion then it has to go.
 
calamity said:
It was the equality protections in the Constitution which allowed the judges to strike down the tyrannical laws in Florida and Ohio and Texas and...
Click to expand...

How is the government not giving you money somehow tyrannical? Lol.
 
Fletch said:
How is this an equal protection issue?
Click to expand...

Title X is designed to give all public and non-profit organizations money to help with family planning services provided they meet the requirements of that federal law. If an organization does family planning services then they are allowed to receive Title X funding. The State cannot pick and choose who gets that funding. All organizations that meet Title X requirements are allowed to have it. If the State were to pick and choose then that would mean that some organizations are being treated differently under the Title X law than others.

So, my question to you would be, how would it not be an equal protection issue?
 
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...

States can do that. They have chosen not to.
 
calamity said:
I don't expect you to understand But, this is a clear case of the majority: R representatives; of a state pushing their agenda on the minority: poor women who rely on PP for reproductive medical needs--tyranny.
Click to expand...

:roll: People not benefiting from government subsidies/assistance is not tyrannical. Yes, without the money PP would either have to cut back on services or make up the money from people like you, but that is not tyrannical.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Title X is designed to give all public and non-profit organizations money to help with family planning services provided they meet the requirements of that federal law. If an organization does family planning services then they are allowed to receive Title X funding. The State cannot pick and choose who gets that funding. All organizations that meet Title X requirements are allowed to have it. If the State were to pick and choose then that would mean that some organizations are being treated differently under the Title X law than others.

So, my question to you would be, how would it not be an equal protection issue?
Click to expand...

Because Title X is arbitrary and has no Constitutional basis to begin with. Why should only family planning services receive taxpayer funding. By your standard, shouldn't every non-profit organization receive taxpayer funding? Are not those non-profit organizations that receive no funding being denied their equal protection?
 
Kal'Stang said:
If they qualify for Title X then yeah, sure. But they wouldn't due to Title X being about family planning services.

Which btw I'd like to correct part of what I said. "building houses for the homeless" would actually fall under the U.S. Housing Act and not Title X. Sorry about that.

Here's a link to Title X and what its about:

Title X

I'll also note that it also includes public organizations...such as hospitals I'd imagine. I hadn't realized that before. Thought it was just non-profit organizations. Guess the backlash would be even bigger than I thought.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - it's hardly surprising that Democrats in Congress would work to make separating the funding so incredibly complicated and virtually impossible as to ensure PP gets funding.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You did not understand what the law did and why the challenge. If you read the article, it makes it quite clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom