• 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 blocks Texas cutting Medicaid to Planned Parenthood

Excon said:
iLOL
The videos weren't fake.
Click to expand...

iLOLiLOLiLOLiLOL
They were edited out of context. Noone was profiting from fetuses. They were getting some money towards cost spent. Editing and lying is what anti-choicers do best.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
When you can factually dispute the quotes at the link and demonstrate he didn't actually state them, or that they've been misrepresented, you step on up and let me know, hmmm?

And since you missed it, it links back to another site that shows the actually video interview on CNN.

Do hurry, won't you?
Click to expand...

David Daleiden Vindicated as Judge Dismisses Charges Against Him for Exposing Planned Parenthood | LifeNews.com

Actually, the one point that you're hanging your hat on is:
“It’s the same baby, whether it’s born dead or alive, whether the organs are harvested or not,” Daleiden replied.

“It’s also completely irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make, which is, ‘Look at what they do to these babies,'” the CNN host pressed. “It was born stillborn. It was not aborted. Doesn’t that matter to you if you’re talking about abortion?”

“It’s the same kind of fetus,” Daleiden continued to insist.

“My point is context,” Cuomo shot back. “You’re saying, ‘what they do in abortions,’ that wasn’t an abortion. That’s my point.”
Click to expand...
He was admitting that particular point and that particular fetus was still born and not an abortion. He didn't admit anything, in fact he clarified because someone else, Carly Fiorina was making a false assertion.

Care to try again?
 
danarhea said:
States are not allowed to discriminate against a provider that offers the same service as other providers. As for the abortion issue, Planned Parenthood does not use Federal funds to perform them, so that issue is moot.
Click to expand...

Well, duh.;)
 
Renae said:
David Daleiden Vindicated as Judge Dismisses Charges Against Him for Exposing Planned Parenthood | LifeNews.com
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what I posted.
Actually, the one point that you're hanging your hat on is:

He was admitting that particular point and that particular fetus was still born and not an abortion. He didn't admit anything, in fact he clarified because someone else, Carly Fiorina was making a false assertion.

Care to try again?
Click to expand...

The video clearly shows him saying, "Carly Fiorina was referencing a sequence in our video that shows footage of a born-alive infant from a late-term abortion actually moving in the specimen pan,” he explained.

But it wasn't a baby from an abortion, as he clearly admits, although it attempted to pass it off as one.

Your desperation is both comical and almost palpable.

This seems to have you in quite a pickel. What's got you so confused?
 
Kal'Stang said:
He's playing word games with ya beefheart. The videos were very real...the content of them is where the fraud lays.
Click to expand...

He wasn't, told ya
 
ajn678 said:
Hypothetical situation here. Say that a national butcher receives federal subsidies(for whatever reason), but some of their business in Asia deals with the killing of endangered animals and expensive questionable business practices involving the sale of these animal products. Would you still be okay with your federal tax dollars sustaining the business, if you were morally against another part of their business? Or would you want them to no longer be subsidized?
Click to expand...
No real intelligent arguments rooted in reality?
 
Napoleon said:
Actually, virtually all of the Federal "funding" received by Planned Parenthood is Medicaid and Title X reimbursement for preventative care and family planning services.
Click to expand...
Facts for ignorant people are like pearls for swine.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, a rare case of justice, common sense and decency being delivered by the judiciary.
Click to expand...

The courts don't have the power to regulate government spending.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, dear. This is really difficult for you. The video mentioned at the link clearly has him admitting that the body of a stillborn was being depicted as one that was aborted. A fraud. And therefore fake.

Again, you can lie to yourself til you're blue in the face, but it won't change reality. You clearly consider this some sort of game, since you can't honestly debate.

Safe space, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Your argument is a false one and irrelevant to what I said.
Again.
The videos were not fake

You should have paid attention to what Kal'Stang said as he nailed my factual point.
The videos were very real​




Praxas said:
They were edited out of context. Noone was profiting from fetuses. They were getting some money towards cost spent. Editing and lying is what anti-choicers do best.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Again.
The videos were not fake

You too should have paid attention to what Kal'Stang said as he nailed my factual point.
The videos were very real​

And btw, I don't know if you included me in your asinine disparagement, but just so you know, I am pro-choice.




danarhea said:
Repeating the same falsehood over and over isn't going to make it true.

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
Click to expand...
The problem here is that you can nto accept the trth.
The video was not fake.

You too should have paid attention to what Kal'Stang said as he nailed my factual point.
The videos were very real​
 
prometeus said:
Yea, just deny services to the needy, that is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Can you point out anyplace I advocate for denying services?

I said stop federal funding. That leaves open state funding (Not my favorite option). Or the better solution of private donations to fund PP( the way it should work). Instead of reading what I wrote you choose to jump to your biased conclusions of what you ASSumed I meant.

Only morons fall for the ignorant talking points about accounting. You should try reality.
Click to expand...


Have you taken a basic accounting course or understand simple budgeting skills? Your comments show you haven't.


PP takes $30 from the feds. They use it to pay rent. They then take the $30 they had set aside to pay rent and use it to fund the killing of unwanted pregnancies. With creative accounting PP did not use the feds money directly for abortions but also could not of provided the abortion services unless the feds offset those funds they budgeted for rent but used for abortions. That is the reality that ignorant morons are incapable of accepting.
 
Chillfolks said:
Can you point out anyplace I advocate for denying services?

I said stop federal funding. That leaves open state funding (Not my favorite option). Or the better solution of private donations to fund PP( the way it should work). Instead of reading what I wrote you choose to jump to your biased conclusions of what you ASSumed I meant.




Have you taken a basic accounting course or understand simple budgeting skills? Your comments show you haven't.


PP takes $30 from the feds. They use it to pay rent. They then take the $30 they had set aside to pay rent and use it to fund the killing of unwanted pregnancies. With creative accounting PP did not use the feds money directly for abortions but also could not of provided the abortion services unless the feds offset those funds they budgeted for rent but used for abortions. That is the reality that ignorant morons are incapable of accepting.
Click to expand...

And how does that work when you've already spent the money and then are given a reimbursement for that specific money spent?
 
Kal'Stang said:
And how does that work when you've already spent the money and then are given a reimbursement for that specific money spent?
Click to expand...


You mean like they overspend on abortions and use Fed money to refill the killing coffers? They simply use creative accounting to borrow from other programs to cover the abortion cost and refill them with Fed money.
Can you not grasp the concept or Do you refuse to acknowledge how PP skirts laws concerning how and what Fed dollars are spent on?
 
Chillfolks said:
You mean like they overspend on abortions and use Fed money to refill the killing coffers? They simply use creative accounting to borrow from other programs to cover the abortion cost and refill them with Fed money.
Can you not grasp the concept or Do you refuse to acknowledge how PP skirts laws concerning how and what Fed dollars are spent on?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you have proof of that right?

And you still didn't answer my question. Here, let me put it in an analogy for you.

Johnny pays $350 for his health insurance per month. At the end of the tax season the government reimburses him with $4,200 for the money that he has already spent.

Johnny has already paid the $4,200. It's gone. At the end of the year he gets it back from the government, which he then has to use on his health insurance in order to keep his health insurance.
 
danarhea said:
States are not allowed to discriminate against a provider that offers the same service as other providers. As for the abortion issue, Planned Parenthood does not use Federal funds to perform them, so that issue is moot.
Click to expand...

Oh come on now you know there isn't a way to actually determine how PP uses the money given to them. They can just report tax payer money was spent on say a mammogram and that they spent private money on the abortion they did. you cant really prove either way.
 
digsbe said:
The state should be free to decide how they spend their money. If they can't block it just restructure Medicaid so taxpayer dollars don't go to Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

The state is free to do what it wants, within the law, including federal law.

This is why the National Guard went into Alabama to enforce desegregation, even though the government of Alabama refused to integrate. This is why the National Guard could go into sanctuary cities to enforce immigration laws, if the government in that state refused to comply with federal immigration laws.

Planned Parenthood should be funded, anyway, if people care about abortion. It is a main way for working class women to get birth control.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure that you have proof of that right?

And you still didn't answer my question. Here, let me put it in an analogy for you.

Johnny pays $350 for his health insurance per month. At the end of the tax season the government reimburses him with $4,200 for the money that he has already spent.

Johnny has already paid the $4,200. It's gone. At the end of the year he gets it back from the government, which he then has to use on his health insurance in order to keep his health insurance.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not fully understanding your question.

For your example to be equivalent it would have to be a law against Johnny using Fed money to pay for his insurance. So Johnny is borrowing from other budgeting sources and using the reimbursement to replenish them. A creative accounting solution that allows Johnny to use federal money for his insurance with a shell game that as they say may not break the letter of the law but defiantly the spirt.

My solution is for Johnny to not get federal funds but rather go out find people who support What Johnny does and get the needed 4200 from them without restrictions in how it's spent
 
Chillfolks said:
I guess I'm not fully understanding your question.

For your example to be equivalent it would have to be a law against Johnny using Fed money to pay for his insurance. So Johnny is borrowing from other budgeting sources and using the reimbursement to replenish them. A creative accounting solution that allows Johnny to use federal money for his insurance with a shell game that as they say may not break the letter of the law but defiantly the spirt.

My solution is for Johnny to not get federal funds but rather go out find people who support What Johnny does and get the needed 4200 from them without restrictions in how it's spent
Click to expand...

So you don't approve of Obamacare?
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you don't approve of Obamacare?
Click to expand...

I approve of the preexisting clause rule. I wish it did more to cover dential and vision. I would of like to of seen more emphasis on preventative measures like diet and exercise. I don't approve of the mandate and how the penalties are assessed.

So my final answer is kinda just depends.
 
apdst said:
The courts don't have the power to regulate government spending.
Click to expand...
The usual ignorant partisan drivel from you. Here is a clue. They did not regulate government spending. They prevented discrimination advocated by idiots.
 
Chillfolks said:
Can you point out anyplace I advocate for denying services?
Click to expand...
Cutting of funding, which is actually a misnomer since they are not funded but reimbursed for services is the same as denying services because in most instances states can not pick up the slack and the women receiving those services are entitled to them under the law.

PP takes $30 from the feds. They use it to pay rent. They then take the $30 they had set aside to pay rent and use it to fund the killing of unwanted pregnancies.
Click to expand...
Spare me the ignorant moronic drivel. It only works on you and the like minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom