• 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 stalls Texas efforts to defund Planned Parenthood

Scrabaholic

Scrabaholic

certified batshit crazy
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
27,375
Reaction score
19,413
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Planned Parenthood will remain eligible for Medicaid funds in Texas until a court rules on the merits of the state's case against the organization, a federal judge has determined.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin granted Planned Parenthood an injunction, temporarily blocking state lawmakers' efforts to terminate around $4 million in Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services to the organization. That effort, he wrote, “would deprive Medicaid patients of their statutory right to obtain health care from their chosen qualified provider.” The injunction will protect medical services for these patients until the case goes to trial, he indicated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-stalls-texas-efforts-defund-planned-parenthood-211836100.html

======================================================================

Saner minds are prevailing in Texas.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Planned Parenthood will remain eligible for Medicaid funds in Texas until a court rules on the merits of the state's case against the organization, a federal judge has determined.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin granted Planned Parenthood an injunction, temporarily blocking state lawmakers' efforts to terminate around $4 million in Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services to the organization. That effort, he wrote, “would deprive Medicaid patients of their statutory right to obtain health care from their chosen qualified provider.” The injunction will protect medical services for these patients until the case goes to trial, he indicated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-stalls-texas-efforts-defund-planned-parenthood-211836100.html

======================================================================

Saner minds are prevailing in Texas.
Click to expand...

patients of their statutory right to obtain health care from their chosen qualified provider.
Click to expand...
<<<----Great opinion, at least while ACA remains in force.
 
There are other free clinics beside Planned Parenthood. I do not understand the concern for this abortion factory and body parts distributor.
 
LittleNipper said:
There are other free clinics beside Planned Parenthood. I do not understand the concern for this abortion factory and body parts distributor.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. Most anti-women's reproductive rights and pro-fetus advocates feel exactly the same way you do.
 
LittleNipper said:
There are other free clinics beside Planned Parenthood. I do not understand the concern for this abortion factory and body parts distributor.
Click to expand...

More choice for women. I approve the decision.
 
LittleNipper said:
There are other free clinics beside Planned Parenthood. I do not understand the concern for this abortion factory and body parts distributor.
Click to expand...

A lot of PP clinics are in areas that do not have other clinics.

PP is not an "abortion factory" or a "body parts distributor". :roll:
 
zyzygy said:
More choice for women. I approve the decision.
Click to expand...

Taking away government funding from PP doesn't remove choice unless the people that agree with it don't pick up the slack.
 
Henrin said:
Taking away government funding from PP doesn't remove choice unless the people that agree with it don't pick up the slack.
Click to expand...

PP isn't about choice. That's a legal construct.

PP is offering a variety of health care sevices as well as family planning. Abortion isn't offered at every facility. In fact, way more don't than do.
 
Henrin said:
Taking away government funding from PP doesn't remove choice unless the people that agree with it don't pick up the slack.
Click to expand...

People on medicaid have a right to use the provider of their choice.
 
Removable Mind said:
PP isn't about choice. That's a legal construct.

PP is offering a variety of health care sevices as well as family planning. Abortion isn't offered at every facility. In fact, way more don't than do.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reality check.:lamo
 
Removable Mind said:
Of course you don't. Most anti-women's reproductive rights and pro-fetus advocates feel exactly the same way you do.
Click to expand...

And most women who have no respect for their God given bodies, abuse natures parameters, and fail to appreciate the institution of marriage feel exactly as you do.
 
LittleNipper said:
And most women who have no respect for their God given bodies, abuse natures parameters, and fail to appreciate the institution of marriage feel exactly as you do.
Click to expand...

Prove that a god gave them their bodies.
 
LittleNipper said:
And most women
Click to expand...
PROVE IT!
LittleNipper said:
who have no respect for their God given bodies,
Click to expand...
PROVE THAT, TWO --BOTH PARTS OF IT. (As for the second part, you can't even prove God exists, much less gave each woman her body!)

LittleNipper said:
abuse natures parameters,
Click to expand...
NOW YOU EXHIBIT PURE IGNORANCE. In Nature, when offspring cannot be supported, it is quite possible for a pregnant mammal to do something called "fetal resorption" --the mother's body kills the unborn. For human women, when they discover they are due to have offspring that cannot be supported, they are free to do an extremely equivalent thing--abortion. Therefore abortion is CONSISTENT with Nature, not contrary to it!

LittleNipper said:
and fail to appreciate the institution of marriage feel exactly as you do.
Click to expand...
MARRIAGE HAS THE TRADITIONAL PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A STABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR RAISING OFFSPRING. But traditions do change --consider old folks getting married, and how unlikely that has anything at all to do with offspring-raising. Just for example! FURTHERMORE, while in the past marriage has often been an economically stable thing, that is no longer true these days when many companies are trying to replace human workers with robots. Many couples find themselves working two low-paying jobs each just to afford a residence, with nothing left over for child-raising. You want the Good Old Days to return, try bringing back the Good Old Days of economic stability, first!
 
Prove that man created life. If man created life than a man has control over the woman's body being the creator of it.
 
It is very easy to prove that GOD exists. Every action carries with it consequences. And whether it is assumed global warming, or the evolution of various disease causing pathogens --- the fact remains that the general public is far more frightened of its own shadow now than it ever was while the Judeo/Christian values were respected, valued, and revered. Prove this is not the case.
 
It seems sooooooooooo ironic to me that the very people who are soooooooooo concerned for animals, plants and nature are often the very ones bent on promoting sexual experimentation, induced abortion "rights" and using their bodies as graffiti billboards. Sadly, there is among the general public the desire to follow the dictates of the secular fashion world without any deeper thought as to the long term desirability of yesterday's fashion dictates --- 5, 10 20 years from now...

At least hair will grow back and one can change his suit of clothes, but what one does to his body has long term ramifications that only GOD fully realizes and man seems to misjudge.
 
LittleNipper said:
Prove that man created life. If man created life than a man has control over the woman's body being the creator of it.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaat???



LittleNipper said:
It is very easy to prove that GOD exists. Every action carries with it consequences. And whether it is assumed global warming, or the evolution of various disease causing pathogens --- the fact remains that the general public is far more frightened of its own shadow now than it ever was while the Judeo/Christian values were respected, valued, and revered. Prove this is not the case.
Click to expand...


That is not proof of a god existing.



LittleNipper said:
It seems sooooooooooo ironic to me that the very people who are soooooooooo concerned for animals, plants and nature are often the very ones bent on promoting sexual experimentation, induced abortion "rights" and using their bodies as graffiti billboards. Sadly, there is among the general public the desire to follow the dictates of the secular fashion world without any deeper thought as to the long term desirability of yesterday's fashion dictates --- 5, 10 20 years from now...

At least hair will grow back and one can change his suit of clothes, but what one does to his body has long term ramifications that only GOD fully realizes and man seems to misjudge.
Click to expand...


What the heck are you on about?
 
LittleNipper said:
Prove that man created life. If man created life than a man has control over the woman's body being the creator of it.
Click to expand...

That's a strawman if I've ever heard one. Who is even saying man created life?
 
LittleNipper said:
Prove that man created life.
Click to expand...
TOO BROAD. Human interactions, however, are very often (especially by abortion opponents), claimed to create unborn human lives. Sperm require assistance to be introduced into a vagina, after all. (And per formal definitions of "living things", sperm and ova generally don't qualify.)

LittleNipper said:
If man created life than a man has control over the woman's body being the creator of it.
Click to expand...
INACCURATE. A man contributes far less than a woman, to the creation of a new living entity --an ovum easily out-weighs a sperm by 70,000 times. PLUS, the environment which allows a fertilized-ovum/zygote to yield many many daughter-cells totally belongs to the woman. THEREFORE THE WOMAN has complete Authority over that new life-form --at most the man can only claim ownership over 1/2 the DNA of one single living cell, of that new entity, and nothing more than that.
 
LittleNipper said:
It is very easy to prove that GOD exists.
Click to expand...
NO, IT IS NOT. Else it would have been done long ago, and the proof widely accepted.

LittleNipper said:
Every action carries with it consequences.
Click to expand...
THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT doesn't need God in order to happen. PLUS, in Quantum Mechanics we have Experimentally Verifiable Proof that there are exceptions to that Law.

LittleNipper said:
And whether it is assumed global warming, or the evolution of various disease causing pathogens --- the fact remains that the general public is far more frightened of its own shadow now than it ever was while the Judeo/Christian values were respected, valued, and revered. Prove this is not the case.
Click to expand...
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. The word "risk" is a cultural valuation, and older cultures were simply far more willing to subject human lives to risk than today's culture. One symptom of that is the increasing amounts of arguments over ownership of guns. Back in the Old West just about everyone carried one around routinely, but because of RISK, the culture more-and-more frowned on folks doing that.
 
LittleNipper said:
And most women who have no respect for their God given bodies, abuse natures parameters, and fail to appreciate the institution of marriage feel exactly as you do.
Click to expand...

Reading your posts after the reply to me above, it's clear that you are in the wrong forum.

You have injected "your personal religious beliefs" into an abortion forum thread, which have clearly instilled in you the tenet that humans become into being at the pleasure or command of an entity or a supernatural deity not from our planet, or is from this planet but has the ability to be invisible.

Actually you have no legitimate or verifiable proof that such a deity exist, much less that that deity has the ability to give a body to something, which I can only assume that you believe that same deity created from mere thought or a body making machine.

And even a deity does exist there or other groups that recognize their perception of such deity is based on different tenets. Some religions recognize abortion as a religious liberty. DPs members, Minnie 616 can offer you plenty of references on that topic.

You have also made a claim about "abusing nature's parameters", which I seriously doubt that you can define exactly what the parameters of nature are, but more importantly, regarding what?

Failing to appreciate the institution of marriage has nothing to do with human reproduction. Marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of commitment to a relationship between two people. It's also a way to follow lineage over time, government demographics statistics, etc. In earlier eras of human rituals, marriage could be between several people.

It's obvious that via evolution that humans don't have the individual ability to produce another human because they lack possessing both the sperm and ovum type gametes production organs along with a self contained incubation organ for those gamete to join and develop.

Consequently, reproduction requires individuals with different biological abilities to create another human. And it's obvious that one of those individuals must possess an organ to serve as a vessel for joined gametes to develop.

It sounds so impersonal, does it not? Sometimes it's actually not. The biological mechanism that encourages sexual behaviors is used many times more for pleasure - but we humans do realize that via evolution, the mechanism that produces pleasure - was sort of nature's trick to ensure the survival of our species.

Anyway - you might consider creating a thread in the Religious Forum on the moral aspects of reproduction based on a religious perspective.
 
So explain to me the proof that GOD didn't create life. You're under the assumption that scientists are creating biological life from dirt everyday? So scientists are even making rocks from nothing? So, if no one can create either rocks or life, how do you prove that GOD doesn't exist. What, you never prayed to GOD? You accept that everything exists and happens as only a series of chance events?
 
Removable Mind said:
Reading your posts after the reply to me above, it's clear that you are in the wrong forum.

You have injected "your personal religious beliefs" into an abortion forum thread, which have clearly instilled in you the tenet that humans become into being at the pleasure or command of an entity or a supernatural deity not from our planet, or is from this planet but has the ability to be invisible.

Actually you have no legitimate or verifiable proof that such a deity exist, much less that that deity has the ability to give a body to something, which I can only assume that you believe that same deity created from mere thought or a body making machine.

And even a deity does exist there or other groups that recognize their perception of such deity is based on different tenets. Some religions recognize abortion as a religious liberty. DPs members, Minnie 616 can offer you plenty of references on that topic.

You have also made a claim about "abusing nature's parameters", which I seriously doubt that you can define exactly what the parameters of nature are, but more importantly, regarding what?

Failing to appreciate the institution of marriage has nothing to do with human reproduction. Marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of commitment to a relationship between two people. It's also a way to follow lineage over time, government demographics statistics, etc. In earlier eras of human rituals, marriage could be between several people.

It's obvious that via evolution that humans don't have the individual ability to produce another human because they lack possessing both the sperm and ovum type gametes production organs along with a self contained incubation organ for those gamete to join and develop.

Consequently, reproduction requires individuals with different biological abilities to create another human. And it's obvious that one of those individuals must possess an organ to serve as a vessel for joined gametes to develop.

It sounds so impersonal, does it not? Sometimes it's actually not. The biological mechanism that encourages sexual behaviors is used many times more for pleasure - but we humans do realize that via evolution, the mechanism that produces pleasure - was sort of nature's trick to ensure the survival of our species.

Anyway - you might consider creating a thread in the Religious Forum on the moral aspects of reproduction based on a religious perspective.
Click to expand...
My beliefs are the foundation of my opinion, as your unbelief is the foundation of yours. Evolution is a very broad and difficult to nail down belief structure among many of the scientific community, and those who simply need an excuse to disavow the existence of a higher power. Planned Parenthood was founded by a Nazi loving woman who hated the poor and minorities reproducing, and as such should not be funded by the Federal Government nor anyone who values human life.
 
Last edited:
LittleNipper said:
My beliefs are the foundation of my opinion, as your unbelief is the foundation of yours. Evolution is a very broad and difficult to nail down belief structure among many of the scientific community, and those who simply need an excuse to disavow the existence of a higher power. Planned Parenthood was founded by a Nazi loving woman who hated the poor and minorities reproducing, and as such should not be funded by the Federal Government nor anyone who values human life.
Click to expand...

Your opinions are noted.
 
LittleNipper said:
So explain to me the proof that GOD didn't create life.
Click to expand...
UNNEEDED. The Rules Of Debate require those who make "positive" statements to prove them. "God exists" is a positive statement; therefore if you make the claim, you must prove the claim. Otherwise the claim can be completely thrown out of the Debate. Ditto with "God created life", and any other God-related positive claim. You either prove the claim, or you shut your yap.

The worst thing about Debates regarding God is not the claims made, but the inconsistency among claims made. "Morals", for example, are claimed to come from God --yet that is perfectly obviously a Stupid Lie. Otherwise different cultures, all believing in God, would have the same morals --and they don't. For proof, just go to a bunch of Judeo-Christian/Moslem cultures, asking in different places whether or not it is "moral" to eat pork or consume alcohol, and see the inconsistency for yourself!

The net result is that no matter where "morals" come from, they have no place in the Overall Abortion Debate entirely because they are actually arbitrary and irrational, not based on Objectively Valid Data. The concept of "ethics" is a vastly superior concept, entirely because that concept CAN be based on Objectively Valid Data, and can be utterly rational.

All that said, I have nothing against the notion that God might exist. In that vein, I invite you to read this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom