Another PP Funding Ban goes down in Flames

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.

Seems to me, the only purpose of the legislation is political, not operational.

Click to expand...

In the name of "social justice" anything is justified. It shouldn't even require legislative action for a state to choose its vendors/providers of state funded services. If the requirement is for competitive bidding, that's another matter.

Fletch said:

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?

Click to expand...

Title X is not the only law that deals with funding of non-profit organizations.

And as to whether it has a Constitutional basis or not...:shrug: Take it to the courts if you think its unconstitutional.

CanadaJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Title X wasn't brought about because of PP. And it wasn't just Democrats that voted for it. In fact there was strong bi-partisan support for it and it was passed by nearly a unanimous vote.

SDET said:

In the name of "social justice" anything is justified. It shouldn't even require legislative action for a state to choose its vendors/providers of state funded services. If the requirement is for competitive bidding, that's another matter.

Click to expand...

Here are some of Title X requirements for funding.

5. CRITERIA FOR FUNDING
Within the limits of funds available for these purposes, grants are awarded for the establishment and operation of projects that will best promote the purposes of Section 1001 of Title X of the PHS Act. The application must address all seven points contained in section 59.7(a) of the regulations. These are the criteria HHS uses to determine which family planning projects to fund and in what amount.

In making funding decisions, HHS takes into account:
• the number of patients, and, in particular, the number of low-income patients to be served;
• the extent to which family planning services are needed locally;
• the relative need of the applicant;
• the capacity of the applicant to make rapid and effective use of the Federal assistance;
• the adequacy of the applicant’s facilities and staff;
• the relative availability of non-Federal resources within the community to be served and the
degree to which those resources are committed to the project; and
• the degree to which the project plan adequately provides for the requirements set forth in the Title X regulations

Click to expand...

Page 9

Kal'Stang said:

Title X wasn't brought about because of PP. And it wasn't just Democrats that voted for it. In fact there was strong bi-partisan support for it and it was passed by nearly a unanimous vote.

Click to expand...

Fair enough - you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

No need to tell me that no federal funding goes to the provision of abortions - we all know that's a crock as it relates to PP. Otherwise, PP could easily set up stand alone abortion clinics that are fully funded by fees and donations and could fully document those funding relationships. But they won't, because they need those federal funds to support their abortion practices.

CanadaJohn said:

Fair enough - you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

No need to tell me that no federal funding goes to the provision of abortions - we all know that's a crock as it relates to PP. Otherwise, PP could easily set up stand alone abortion clinics that are fully funded by fees and donations and could fully document those funding relationships. But they won't, because they need those federal funds to support their abortion practices.

Click to expand...

So because PP takes advantage of using Title X its an automatic assumption that its to fund abortions? You do realize that as a Title X recipient that they are required to account for each penny that they spend and are audited all the time to ensure that none of that money goes to places where its not supposed to go?

Kal'Stang said:

So because PP takes advantage of using Title X its an automatic assumption that its to fund abortions? You do realize that as a Title X recipient that they are required to account for each penny that they spend and are audited all the time to ensure that none of that money goes to places where its not supposed to go?

Click to expand...

Look at it this way - if you're paying $1000 a month for rent and spending $500 a month on pot and I give you a $500 subsidy on your rent then you have $500 freed up to buy more pot or to spend it on something else entirely. Clearly, you're going to record your rent as being $500 out of your pocket and $500 from the subsidy, but we all know that $500 is found money that you will use however you choose.

I never once claimed that Democrats and/or PP are stupid people. I'm sure they're fully versed on how to play the system. The same kind of scam/juggling of donations was being perpetrated by the UN in its UNICEF charitable foundation. They were using funds donated to support all kinds of birth control activities in Africa and elsewhere - fine programs, I'm sure - but they were telling Catholic and other religious schools that any donations made by them would be funneled to non-birth control activities. The Catholic and other religious schools didn't fall for the slight of hand and UNICEF boxes on Halloween and other occasions are no longer seen.

People can originally be fooled by such ploys, but once they catch on you won't get to fool them again.

CanadaJohn said:

Look at it this way - if you're paying $1000 a month for rent and spending $500 a month on pot and I give you a $500 subsidy on your rent then you have $500 freed up to buy more pot or to spend it on something else entirely. Clearly, you're going to record your rent as being $500 out of your pocket and $500 from the subsidy, but we all know that $500 is found money that you will use however you choose.

I never once claimed that Democrats and/or PP are stupid people. I'm sure they're fully versed on how to play the system. The same kind of scam/juggling of donations was being perpetrated by the UN in its UNICEF charitable foundation. They were using funds donated to support all kinds of birth control activities in Africa and elsewhere - fine programs, I'm sure - but they were telling Catholic and other religious schools that any donations made by them would be funneled to non-birth control activities. The Catholic and other religious schools didn't fall for the slight of hand and UNICEF boxes on Halloween and other occasions are no longer seen.

People can originally be fooled by such ploys, but once they catch on you won't get to fool them again.

Click to expand...

It is astounding how many citizens do fall for the ploy, even the first time. But even well educated ones seem to have been taken in in droves.

CanadaJohn said:

Look at it this way - if you're paying $1000 a month for rent and spending $500 a month on pot and I give you a $500 subsidy on your rent then you have $500 freed up to buy more pot or to spend it on something else entirely. Clearly, you're going to record your rent as being $500 out of your pocket and $500 from the subsidy, but we all know that $500 is found money that you will use however you choose.

I never once claimed that Democrats and/or PP are stupid people. I'm sure they're fully versed on how to play the system. The same kind of scam/juggling of donations was being perpetrated by the UN in its UNICEF charitable foundation. They were using funds donated to support all kinds of birth control activities in Africa and elsewhere - fine programs, I'm sure - but they were telling Catholic and other religious schools that any donations made by them would be funneled to non-birth control activities. The Catholic and other religious schools didn't fall for the slight of hand and UNICEF boxes on Halloween and other occasions are no longer seen.

People can originally be fooled by such ploys, but once they catch on you won't get to fool them again.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the "money is fungible" concept.

The problem with that concept in this case is that you would have to prove that that person wouldn't have gotten the money some other way. And since PP does receive private donations specifically to help with abortions that is going to be hard to do.

CanadaJohn said:

Look at it this way - if you're paying $1000 a month for rent and spending $500 a month on pot and I give you a $500 subsidy on your rent then you have $500 freed up to buy more pot or to spend it on something else entirely. Clearly, you're going to record your rent as being $500 out of your pocket and $500 from the subsidy, but we all know that $500 is found money that you will use however you choose.

I never once claimed that Democrats and/or PP are stupid people. I'm sure they're fully versed on how to play the system. The same kind of scam/juggling of donations was being perpetrated by the UN in its UNICEF charitable foundation. They were using funds donated to support all kinds of birth control activities in Africa and elsewhere - fine programs, I'm sure - but they were telling Catholic and other religious schools that any donations made by them would be funneled to non-birth control activities. The Catholic and other religious schools didn't fall for the slight of hand and UNICEF boxes on Halloween and other occasions are no longer seen.

People can originally be fooled by such ploys, but once they catch on you won't get to fool them again.

Click to expand...

looking at it that "logical" <sarcasm> way then every american that has paid taxes has taken part in the wars then and responsible for death, Ill let them know. Also 1000s of other things money may have freed up . . abortion, porn, executions, drug programs, sex changes etc etc etc . . .LMAO I mean if we are simply going by the "total pot or money" "logic"

Kal'Stang said:

Ah yes, the "money is fungible" concept.

The problem with that concept in this case is that you would have to prove that that person wouldn't have gotten the money some other way. And since PP does receive private donations specifically to help with abortions that is going to be hard to do.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Really, there's no getting around it - if the organization does things that are both funded by the federal government and not funded by the federal government, it is impossible to say that none of the federal funding is going to the non-eligible activities.

PP doesn't receive donations solely and only for abortion services, do they?

It's a foolish argument to try to make - and yes, the money is fungible because the services are fungible and intermingled as a means to scam the system.

AGENT J said:

looking at it that "logical" <sarcasm> way then every american that has paid taxes has taken part in the wars then and responsible for death, Ill let them know. Also 1000s of other things money may have freed up . . abortion, porn, executions, drug programs, sex changes etc etc etc . . .LMAO I mean if we are simply going by the "total pot or money" "logic"

Click to expand...

Even on the scale of absurdity of your usual posts, that's about as dumb as they come. You can peddle your idiocy at someone else's door - I'm not interested.

CanadaJohn said:

Fair enough - you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

No need to tell me that no federal funding goes to the provision of abortions - we all know that's a crock as it relates to PP. Otherwise, PP could easily set up stand alone abortion clinics that are fully funded by fees and donations and could fully document those funding relationships. But they won't, because they need those federal funds to support their abortion practices.

Click to expand...

Umm, PP abortion services *are* funded by fees and donations and they do fully document the money they spend.

CanadaJohn said:

Seriously? Really, there's no getting around it - if the organization does things that are both funded by the federal government and not funded by the federal government, it is impossible to say that none of the federal funding is going to the non-eligible activities.

PP doesn't receive donations solely and only for abortion services, do they?

It's a foolish argument to try to make - and yes, the money is fungible because the services are fungible and intermingled as a means to scam the system.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

The federal money PP recieves for family planning and reproductive health services doesn't even cover the cost of providing those services so there is no "extra money" floating around to subsidize their rent.

sangha said:

Because there is no funding line for PP. There is funding for services which various organizations (including PP) provide and as the court decisions show, you can't not pay someone for a service they provide because you don't like the other stuff they do and say

If they want to cut the funding, they have to cut it to everyone, and then you get
Pregnancy-Related Deaths Nearly Doubled In Texas After Cuts To Women's Health

Click to expand...

Because Texas is pro life and women's health.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

CanadaJohn said:

Fair enough - you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

No need to tell me that no federal funding goes to the provision of abortions - we all know that's a crock as it relates to PP. Otherwise, PP could easily set up stand alone abortion clinics that are fully funded by fees and donations and could fully document those funding relationships. But they won't, because they need those federal funds to support their abortion practices.

Click to expand...

I guess you are unaware that many Planned Parenthoods don't even perform abortions.
Out of 30 Planned Parenthoods in Pennsylvania only three perform abortions.

CanadaJohn said:

Seriously? Really, there's no getting around it - if the organization does things that are both funded by the federal government and not funded by the federal government, it is impossible to say that none of the federal funding is going to the non-eligible activities.

PP doesn't receive donations solely and only for abortion services, do they?

It's a foolish argument to try to make - and yes, the money is fungible because the services are fungible and intermingled as a means to scam the system.

Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics do receive private donations only for abortion services.

Fund Abortion Now . Org is just one of many that give private donations for abortions.

What are abortion funds?

Abortion funds are groups of people who help women pay for their abortions.

Nearly all abortion funds are grassroots organizations that work directly with women and families who face obstacles to abortion. Funds help women to pay for an abortion and for travel to a clinic or for an overnight stay in a motel near a clinic. Some funds provide a place to stay in their own homes for women who have to travel a great distance. Many funds also help women to pay for contraception, including emergency contraception.

Abortion funds are often women’s only allies as they try to raise money to pay for an abortion.

We are also at the forefront of a dynamic and growing movement that honors the leadership and voices of low-income women, young women, and women of color.

Click to expand...

Read more:

https://fundabortionnow.org/learn/abortion-funds

calamity said:

Florida this time

cbsnews.com/news/florida-abortion-law-definitively-blocked-federal-judge/
seattletimes.com/nation-world/judge-definitively-blocks-florida-abortion-law/
wtop.com/government/2016/08/judge-definitively-blocks-florida-abortion-law/
startribune.com/judge-definitively-blocks-florida-abortion-law/390631241/

Click to expand...

Jaydub's gonna be pissed. Good.

Click to expand...

. . . . This FL decision was also the proper operation of law especially after the OH ruling. The OH ruling and the FL AG decision to drop this funding case were proper. These protect the right of a woman to kill the zygote, blastocyst or embryo growing within her. This right is as fundamental as free speech or self-defence.

. . . . Each of these infestation can be removed as a right due to being parasitic "growths" caused by spermatozoa and are not being new individual human beings yet. In fact; These growths may be frozen and used later, in some cases, - these may be used by surrogates long after the biological parents have died.

. . . . Once the placenta produces the progesterone needed to allow gestation to continue and replaces the monthly corpus luteum, the new individual human(s) have formed from the two. See "......and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24

. . . . A live human Fetus exists initially only while supported by umbilical life-support. The Fetus should be granted human dignity and be protected by the State, though not yet able to be born from 8-24 weeks. The Fetal/umbilical time varies from 8 -14 weeks and is different for each pregnancy.

. . . . This scientific fact is described exactly by Genesis 2:24 linked above. This scientific truth was not known until 2013 when it was first a known fact the genes controlling development of the placenta are from the father. Thanks Pop....

. . . . A regular old Act of Congress is now needed to define a human Fetus to be protected as a person. No Constitutional Amendment is necessary. Arkansas Act 301 was very close to being an excellent example though male responsibility for pre-fetal expenses and pre-fetal decisions should have been split between the male and female.

. . . . The fundamental human right to female autonomy must be balanced against the fundamental right of the Fetus to continue to exist. The lack-of-consent argument is irrelevant because the Fetus did not "consent" to exist within the female and could have been removed when only a growth as a fundamenral human right.

CanadaJohn said:

Fair enough - you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

No need to tell me that no federal funding goes to the provision of abortions - ,....

Click to expand...

And again you do not understand that Planned Parenthood never has had enough government funds to pay for their Title X programs. There is no extra government money.

...Title X grant is designed to help with costs, not to fully cover them. So family-planning programs are required to find other money to support the Title X project — not the other way around. For patients who qualify for Medicaid, reimbursement rates for reproductive health services are lower than the cost of the care. A typical family-planning visit might cost upward of $200, including the exam, lab tests and contraceptive method, but the Medicaid reimbursement rate may be as low as $20.

Click to expand...

Read more :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1iD_story.html

CanadaJohn said:

Fair enough - you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

No need to tell me that no federal funding goes to the provision of abortions - we all know that's a crock as it relates to PP. Otherwise, PP could easily set up stand alone abortion clinics that are fully funded by fees and donations and could fully document those funding relationships. But they won't, because they need those federal funds to support their abortion practices.

Click to expand...

Ah, so they don't have in Canuckistahn what we here in the US call 'accounting'.

Or, at the very least, you have no idea how it works.

Wow. Just wow.

CanadaJohn said:

you'll never convince me that Democrats have not used the law to ensure PP can offer subsidized abortions through this funding.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to do that? What you believe is entirely and completely irrelevant to the facts.

we all know that's a crock as it relates to PP.

Click to expand...

The crock is just your unsupported assertion.

Otherwise, PP could easily set up stand alone abortion clinics that are fully funded by fees and donations and could fully document those funding relationships.

Click to expand...

Why would or should they, just to satisfy some staunchly ignorant people? Would you donate to the cost of such arrangements?

But they won't, because they need those federal funds to support their abortion practices.

Click to expand...

And yet another load of unsupported crock.

CanadaJohn said:

Look at it this way

Click to expand...

No, that is your uninformed way of looking at it and of course it is false. Why not bother the learn some facts first?

I never once claimed that Democrats and/or PP are stupid people.

Click to expand...

Yet for some reason you are making stupid assertions and of course you offer nothing to support them. Care to guess how that makes you look?

CanadaJohn said:

Seriously? Really, there's no getting around it - if the organization does things that are both funded by the federal government and not funded by the federal government, it is impossible to say that none of the federal funding is going to the non-eligible activities.

PP doesn't receive donations solely and only for abortion services, do they?

It's a foolish argument to try to make - and yes, the money is fungible because the services are fungible and intermingled as a means to scam the system.

Click to expand...

You have no clue whatsoever how they operate do you, yet you keep on ranting about it.

AGENT J said:

looking at it that "logical" <sarcasm> way then every american that has paid taxes has taken part in the wars then and responsible for death, Ill let them know. Also 1000s of other things money may have freed up . . abortion, porn, executions, drug programs, sex changes etc etc etc . . .LMAO I mean if we are simply going by the "total pot or money" "logic"

Click to expand...

Reading your well argued opinions ROFL I am always pleasantly surprised at the reason you back them up with <sarcasm> and having seen this one LMAO.

Kal'Stang said:

Ah yes, the "money is fungible" concept.

The problem with that concept in this case is that you would have to prove that that person wouldn't have gotten the money some other way. And since PP does receive private donations specifically to help with abortions that is going to be hard to do.

Click to expand...

Nope. That is not a problem with the concept. Yours is a false argument to justify. Smoke and mirrors do not falsify a standard basis of monetary reason. But never mind. It takes a trained mind to do logic.