• 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!

Trump Administration to Advance Plan to Restrict Funding for Abortion Providers

What the hell are "abortion services?"

  • A woman either is or is not pregnant.
    • If she is pregnant, she's either going to remain so for up to ~9 months or she's not.
  • If she's not going to remain pregnant, there are several ways that can happen.
    • Of the ways she can become not-pregnant before giving birth, one of them is healthy/safe for her and the rest likely are not.
  • Why anyone would deny a woman the ability to safely become not-pregnant is beyond me.

A woman is a born person and a fetus is not. I see anti-abortionists carrying on about a damned fetus, for ages now having insisted that a fetus should have the same status as a born child, yet, AFAIK, nary a one proposed that pregnant women be eligible for a personal exemption (when the tax code still offered them) for having a fetus, a child care tax credit (CTC) for having a fetus, or any other child-related tax break.

Aside:
How personal exemptions and the child-care credits work(-ed):

For individuals who did not itemize on Schedule A in 2017 and won't in 2018, the analysis is simple:
2017 Calculation:
AGI
Less: Standard deduction ($6,350 or $12,700)
Less: $4050 per household individual, dependent, or spouse (personal exemptions)
Taxable income
Times: Applicable effective tax rate (e)
Provisional tax liability
Less: Qualified child tax credit (the refundable $1K per kid (c) CTC phases out in direct proportion to income)
Total 2017 federal income tax liability​
​​
2018 Calculation:
AGI
Less: Standard deduction ($12,200 or $24,400)
Taxable income
Times: Applicable effective tax rate (e)
Provisional tax liability
Less: Qualified child tax credit (up to $2000 per child (c); click here for the new terms of the CTC)
Total 2018 federal income tax liability

It takes no great math skill to see that, relative to the prior personal exemption and CTC provisions, the Trump tax bill makes it more expensive to have children, regardless of one's views on abortion.​


  • [*=1]2017 value of standard deduction, CTC and personal exemptions for non-itemizers:

    • [*=1]Single: y = (4050x + 6350)e + 1000c
      [*=1]Married filing jointly: y = (4050x + 12,700)e + 1000c
    [*=1]2018 value of standard deduction and CTC for non-itemizers:

    • [*=1]Single: y = 12,200e + 2000c
      [*=1]Married filing jointly: y = 24,400e + 2000c
As if raising kids isn't expensive enough -- I have four children -- Trump's tax plan made the cost of doing so even more impactful. As a woman once said to me, "Some people have children. I have wealth and options." Much as I love my kids, it's hard to argue with her for, like everyone, I've complained about my kids, but I've never complained about my money or the options it affords me.​




 
Re: Planned Parenthood's tax dollar gravy train just got derailed

Stuff already with your tripe bs. I'm pro-abortion and have no problem with what is being pushed here. It's not illegal to get an abortion you just can't get one at a federal subsidized health ceneter. Go ahead and explain what the problem is that princess righteousness

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Stuff already? Speak English, please. If you can.

Of course you have no problem with what's being "pushed" here. If Trump was pushing for you to live in a gulag and hand over your money to him, you'd approve of it.

By the way, it's against the rules to call me "princess righteousness".
 
Who do you think funds Medicaid and Title X? Santa Claus?

Are you trying to change the subject? Obviously the government funds Medicaid and Title X.

As the link clearly spells out, these funds are not used for abortions or abortion services in any way connected to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is reimbursed for birth control and other women's health issues by the government for those eligible for Medicaid and other government programs. The government would reimburse those services at the local hospital also, at a much greater cost. Planned Parenthood is a life saver for many women, and those on the right playing political games should be ashamed of themselves.
 
What the hell are "abortion services?"

  • A woman either is or is not pregnant.
    • If she is pregnant, she's either going to remain so for up to ~9 months or she's not.
  • If she's not going to remain pregnant, there are several ways that can happen.
    • Of the ways she can become not-pregnant before giving birth, one of them is healthy/safe for her and the rest likely are not.
  • Why anyone would deny a woman the ability to safely become not-pregnant is beyond me.

A woman is a born person and a fetus is not. I see anti-abortionists carrying on about a damned fetus, for ages now having insisted that a fetus should have the same status as a born child, yet, AFAIK, nary a one proposed that pregnant women be eligible for a personal exemption (when the tax code still offered them) for having a fetus, a child care tax credit (CTC) for having a fetus, or any other child-related tax break.

Aside:
How personal exemptions and the child-care credits work(-ed):

For individuals who did not itemize on Schedule A in 2017 and won't in 2018, the analysis is simple:
2017 Calculation:
AGI
Less: Standard deduction ($6,350 or $12,700)
Less: $4050 per household individual, dependent, or spouse (personal exemptions)
Taxable income
Times: Applicable effective tax rate (e)
Provisional tax liability
Less: Qualified child tax credit (the refundable $1K per kid (c) CTC phases out in direct proportion to income)
Total 2017 federal income tax liability​
​​
2018 Calculation:
AGI
Less: Standard deduction ($12,200 or $24,400)
Taxable income
Times: Applicable effective tax rate (e)
Provisional tax liability
Less: Qualified child tax credit (up to $2000 per child (c); click here for the new terms of the CTC)
Total 2018 federal income tax liability

It takes no great math skill to see that, relative to the prior personal exemption and CTC provisions, the Trump tax bill makes it more expensive to have children, regardless of one's views on abortion.​


  • [*=1]2017 value of standard deduction, CTC and personal exemptions for non-itemizers:

    • [*=1]Single: y = (4050x + 6350)e + 1000c
      [*=1]Married filing jointly: y = (4050x + 12,700)e + 1000c
    [*=1]2018 value of standard deduction and CTC for non-itemizers:

    • [*=1]Single: y = 12,200e + 2000c
      [*=1]Married filing jointly: y = 24,400e + 2000c
As if raising kids isn't expensive enough -- I have four children -- Trump's tax plan made the cost of doing so even more impactful. As a woman once said to me, "Some people have children. I have wealth and options." Much as I love my kids, it's hard to argue with her for, like everyone, I've complained about my kids, but I've never complained about my money or the options it affords me.​




Nobody is deny a woman to abort they are denying her ability to do it on their dime

Let me ask you a question
Let's subisitute abortion with guns and go ahead and make your argument again. Are you denying someone their 2A rights if tax payers are not subsidizing their purchases?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Propossed, sorry I thought we were talking about Trump's push

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

That shouldnt stand up under legal scrutiny. Why should they be forbidden to recommend a related medical procedure? Or is it that they just cant refer them to specific places? That seems like an illegal extension of my statement then...if a patient needs or chooses a medical procedure...how do they justify not being allowed to refer them somewhere for treatment?
 
Collectively those million may have more of an influence than 1 company. For the sake of this conversation im more focused on the principle of if you receive money from the gov is it unethical for you to donate money to political campaigns

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


How are corporations that donate to political campaigns whose politicians then give tax breaks/cuts and subsidies to those companies any different?
 
Re: Planned Parenthood's tax dollar gravy train just got derailed

Stuff already? Speak English, please. If you can.

Of course you have no problem with what's being "pushed" here. If Trump was pushing for you to live in a gulag and hand over your money to him, you'd approve of it.

By the way, it's against the rules to call me "princess righteousness".
I don't think it's against the rules to reference you that way but if you think it is turn me in.

More importantly you completely dodged my point
The gov has no legal aboligation to fund any particular organization.

Furthermore PP claims they don't need the gov so what's the big deal here?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
That shouldnt stand up under legal scrutiny. Why should they be forbidden to recommend a related medical procedure? Or is it that they just cant refer them to specific places? That seems like an illegal extension of my statement then...if a patient needs or chooses a medical procedure...how do they justify not being allowed to refer them somewhere for treatment?
From what I understand they are free to discuss options but not free to recommend specific clinics

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Planned Parenthood's tax dollar gravy train just got derailed

More of the usual self serving ignorant bull crap from you. Perhaps if you took a bit of time and read some books instead of making stupid posts you could make some relevant and intelligent ones.

I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.

Pineapple Pizza is actually not pizza. It is a true definition of a culinary abomination. Pineapples do not go with tomato sauce. It go against all natural culinary and food laws.

Just because a few wack jobs like it, because a Canadian was bored and decided to put a fruit on top of a pizza, does not make it "good" or even pizza. What's next? A person deciding to put chicken in their sushi?

Just because people have abortions and call it "family planning" does not mean it is so. It is murder. Abortions may be legal, but that doesn't make it right. Just like how pizza chains sell pineapple pizza as pizza, doesn't make it legitimate pizza, it is not.
 
That shouldnt stand up under legal scrutiny. Why should they be forbidden to recommend a related medical procedure? Or is it that they just cant refer them to specific places? That seems like an illegal extension of my statement then...if a patient needs or chooses a medical procedure...how do they justify not being allowed to refer them somewhere for treatment?
Seems to me to be a very semantically effort to block ways to circumvent the spirit of the law. I'm personally opposed to preventing a doctor from recommending another doctor but I get their argument.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Nobody is deny a woman to abort they are denying her ability to do it on their dime

Let me ask you a question
Let's subisitute abortion with guns and go ahead and make your argument again. Are you denying someone their 2A rights if tax payers are not subsidizing their purchases?

False Equivalence
 
How are corporations that donate to political campaigns whose politicians then give tax breaks/cuts and subsidies to those companies any different?
Thats what im trying to figure out too

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Devotion to Trump?
Yes an obvious one.

LOL Man, I swear, people simply do not pay attention around here?
How does that change what you post?

Look, I'll criticize ANY President where appropriate
Clearly the standards you apply are very low.

He's managing to mostly play the media and the left to his desire
Is he? Then why his desperation?

All the "scandals" are nothing of the sort, no real evidence, nothing but fishing expeditions in stagnated water
Are you part of the investigation and privy to all the information gathered?

Trump, for all of his faults, is taking action, and returning the favor on campaign promises.
Like the wall?

The left has not figured out yet that his base, and even blue democrats, and independents don't care what he says or tweets, they care what he does.
Clearly the degenerates that are his base do not care about what he does either.

If we're giving him a grade for his actions, I'd say he's firmly in the "A" category.
As I said when you set gutter low standards, even bums excel.

but most American's aren't as stupid.
I guess that is why he did not win the popular vote.
 
Re: Planned Parenthood's tax dollar gravy train just got derailed

I look at abortion the same way I do Pineapple Pizza.
I really do not give a crap. There are bare minimums of intellectual honesty that are way above what you think.

Just because people have abortions and call it "family planning" does not mean it is so.
Please do not delude yourself, just because you can not grasp it and deny it does not mean that it isn't so.

It is murder.
For the uneducated primitive thinkers only.

Abortions may be legal
It is as it should be i any civilized society that is not run by morons.

but that doesn't make it right.
Actually it does.
 
Interesting. I wonder if he will share with this anti-abortion group how for decades he was a pro-choice man who even publicly supported partial birth abortion. Funny how he changed at the tender age of 70 years old.

He evolved. That's allowed, you know.
 
From what I understand they are free to discuss options but not free to recommend specific clinics

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Well I'd like to see that challenged in court, for the reason I mentioned. Are they not allowed to recommend clinics for mammograms? That's another procedure they often dont do in-house.
 
32833997_1674824812566228_8944929143846338560_n.jpg


If true, then PP has too much money.

Also if true, why should this back channel DNC funding by tax payer expense be allowed?

Since money is fungible, there's no practical manner to reliably separate and ensure the separation of, funding.

Its fairly well cited that PP really doesn't really deliver anything but abortions, which, if true, PP is little more than an abortion mill, running afoul of the existing laws.
 
Well I'd like to see that challenged in court, for the reason I mentioned. Are they not allowed to recommend clinics for mammograms? That's another procedure they often dont do in-house.
As far as I know it's specific to abortions but I'm curious what would be the argument you would challenge it with?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
As far as I know it's specific to abortions but I'm curious what would be the argument you would challenge it with?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

I put it in my previous post. That they could make referrals for other medical procedures but not abortion. That's not expending any federal funds on abortion.
 
Oh no. Trump changed his mind at 70 years old. From being vehemently pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-gun control, pro-Clintons, to the complete opposite - coincidentally about 5 minutes before he changed his party from Democrat to Republican and declared himself a candidate for the GOP nomination. What a coinkydink!

Many times I've presented plausible explanations for Trump changing political parties: Trump is a moderate democrat but the dem party is currently infiltrated by progressives and shuns, no hates, liberals and their ideology. For example, Trump liked Bill Clinton's liberal ideology but has always hated Hillary's progressive ideology (and Hillary's progressive ideology wasn't evident until she ran for president).

Some of Trump's alleged flip-flopping is rather him being a political animal because he's found success as a Republican president.
Finally, no other political faction of the GOP could come up with a successful presidential candidate like Trump. Never-Trumpers hate this but the majority of GOPs, at least, love it.

This is all very much off topic. If a never-Trumper, for example, wishes to point out Trump's alleged flip-flops, let them do so on another forum.
 
Last edited:
I've presented a plausible explanation for Trump changing his political parties many times on DP: Trump is a moderate democrat but the dem party is currently infiltrated by progressives and shuns, no hates, liberals and their ideology. For example, Trump liked Bill Clinton's liberal ideology but has always hated Hillary's progressive ideology (and Hillary's progressive ideology wasn't evident until she ran for president).

Some of Trump's alleged flip-flopping is rather him being a political animal because he's found success as a Republican president. This is all very much off topic. If a never-Trumper, for example, wishes to pointed out Trump's alleged flip-flops, let them do so on another forum.

Yeah! Is there anything more moderate than someone being pro-partial birth abortion, pro-gun control, pro-Hillary Clinton.

So as far as your commented that Trump "always hated" Hillary's progressive ideology. Interesting. So in 2008 when he was publicly and vocally supporting her for President, he was confused and didn't realize he was supporting someone whose ideology he actually hated. Not too bright, is he?
 
Me? This has nothing to do with me?

You should tell the administration of the board that someone hacked your account and posted something as you then. Because that post I responded to came from your account.
 
You should tell the administration of the board that someone hacked your account and posted something as you then. Because that post I responded to came from your account.

Oh...that was my post.

But I wasn't talking about myself, as you were...I was talking about Trump. Maybe you didn't understand that when I used the term, "He".
 
Back
Top Bottom