• 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 says Texas can't ban Planned Parenthood

SheWolf said:
Massive defunding could spell the end to any organization... Conservatives are not worried about PP disappearing. I am not naive, I know a lot pro lifers think PP should be banned.
Click to expand...

i'm not worried about PP disappearing.. they might be the nations largest abortion provider, but they are certainly not the only people who can tend to womens health matters... and i'm sure they have enough customers to stay afloat if defunding happens.


the PP fanaticism really intrigues me though... most businesses don't command the type of loyalty that PP gets, 'cept maybe sports teams
 
SheWolf said:
Massive defunding could spell the end to any organization... Conservatives are not worried about PP disappearing. I am not naive, I know a lot pro lifers think PP should be banned.
Click to expand...

I don't know a single "pro-lifer" who objects to Pap smears, etc. It's the abortions to which they object.
 
nota bene said:
I don't know a single "pro-lifer" who objects to Pap smears, etc. It's the abortions to which they object.
Click to expand...

Well they also piss and moan when many of the babies of the women they talk out of abortions end up on welfare.

Walking over long dollars to pick up short dimes.
 
Top Cat said:
Well they also piss and moan when many of the babies of the women they talk out of abortions end up on welfare.

Walking over long dollars to pick up short dimes.
Click to expand...

Well those babies should get jobs and support themeselves! /sarcsm
 
I look at it this way. If a state funds any medical organization then they should ALL be funded equally. If a state funds an organization that gives pap smears then the state should fund all organizations that gives pap smears. If they fund an organization that helps with breast cancer then they should fund all organizations that help with breast cancer.

In case you don't understand my point it is simple. If the state funds one organization that provides a particular service then the state should fund them all FOR THAT SERVICE. It is perfectly acceptable to not fund a particular service or to fund specific services. But to ban a whole organization from recieving funds because of one service out of dozens that they provide? That is throwing the baby out with the bath water stupidity and bigotry of the highest order. It's called equality under the law. You know..something that our country is supposedly founded upon.

No state is required to fund abortion and to the best of my knowledge not one single state does. No federal government agency gives money towards it either.

Anti-abortionists have gone utterly stupid banning ANY funds from going towards PP. PP abortion services make up 3% of their total services. And yet help millions of women across the country with a variety of problems...97% having nothing to do with abortion. All that this tells me is that anti-abortionists have the stick shoved up so high that they would rather millions of women have no help with breast cancer or cervic cancer or god knows what else just to save a few clumps of cells.
 
nota bene said:
This isn't over. We'll just have to see as the judicial decisions travel upward.
Click to expand...


I think in the end the state will lose...what a great climate we live in to be lawyers...with the far left and the far right in control of the country...american attorneys will soon overtake all the worlds richest top positions..
 
I am confused. So PP is not completely privately funded? Why would the state be required to fund them?
 
SheWolf said:
And people say Conservatives don't want to end PP... :roll:

I am going to bet Conservatives tried to ban PP from Texas and not Liberals... what a joke.
Click to expand...

The story is rather long, but the short side of it is...efforts have been underway for a long time now to end all women's health programs, along with PP, has been very intentional and contrived by conservative legislators who have held a majority in Texas government for eons. Texas legislators purposely failed to meet certain legislative requirements with the Depart. of Health and Human Services thus causing Texas to lose about $30 billion in funding for health care issues. Rick Perry and other conservatives were extremely happy that these funds were cut off.
 
No story on this seems to indicate quite how the judge finds it's unconstitutional.

This:

"The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women," Yeakel wrote in his ruling. "The record before the court at this juncture reflects uncertainty as to the continued viability of the Texas Women's Health Program."
Click to expand...

Is in no way a constitutional argument.
 
Thrilla said:
which is their choice, certainly.

....not sure the state should be forced to fund them though.
if that's going to be the case, i'm going to look for a business to set up to hold Texans hostage to being my customers.... which seem to be a trend in this country.
Click to expand...

Because they provide a lot of services to women that otherwise would have no healthcare.....
 
nota bene said:
And abortions. Don't forget that.
Click to expand...

Approximately 3% of PP provided services are abortions. No state or governmental funding is used for that 3%.
 
I wonder if our new system in Texas is going to include things like prenatal care, housing, baby formula like PP has done in the past.
 
DiAnna said:
Approximately 3% of PP provided services are abortions. No state or governmental funding is used for that 3%.
Click to expand...

that's not really fully accurate. Even if a patient goes in and only goes in for the abortion, they count every singe part of the routine as a "separate procedure" so as to lower that percentage..
 
cpwill said:
that's not really fully accurate. Even if a patient goes in and only goes in for the abortion, they count every singe part of the routine as a "separate procedure" so as to lower that percentage..
Click to expand...


What in the world are you talking about? Please link.
 
winston53660 said:
I wonder if our new system in Texas is going to include things like prenatal care, housing, baby formula like PP has done in the past.
Click to expand...

So catch me up to speed on Texas. This state has actually provided all prenatal care, housing, and formula? And now it's not? I had no idea. Which laws have been changed? Are there any measurable results of the consequences?
 
iliveonramen said:
Because they provide a lot of services to women that otherwise would have no healthcare.....
Click to expand...

sure, they do provide a lot of services.. however, they are not the only ones that provide those services, so saying the women would have no healthcare is not accurate.

PP does not hold a monopoly ( except for maybe abortions) on women's healthcare.
 
nota bene said:
So catch me up to speed on Texas. This state has actually provided all prenatal care, housing, and formula? And now it's not? I had no idea. Which laws have been changed? Are there any measurable results of the consequences?
Click to expand...

Uhmm I did not say anything that extreme nota. Now if you want to step down to something less extreme I'd be more than willing to discuss the issue and see what we can learn from each other.
 
Thrilla said:
sure, they do provide a lot of services.. however, they are not the only ones that provide those services, so saying the women would have no healthcare is not accurate.

PP does not hold a monopoly ( except for maybe abortions) on women's healthcare.
Click to expand...

We also have private clinics here in Texas.
 
DiAnna said:
Approximately 3% of PP provided services are abortions. No state or governmental funding is used for that 3%.
Click to expand...

that's what PP claims... but as no audit of their accounting has ever been done, we can't know for sure.
 
winston53660 said:
Uhmm I did not say anything that extreme nota. Now if you want to step down to something less extreme I'd be more than willing to discuss the issue and see what we can learn from each other.
Click to expand...

You posted, "I wonder if our new system in Texas is going to include things like prenatal care, housing, baby formula like PP has done in the past." That's what I asked what I did. If I've misinterpreted what you posted, please explain what you did mean.
 
Thrilla said:
sure, they do provide a lot of services.. however, they are not the only ones that provide those services, so saying the women would have no healthcare is not accurate.

PP does not hold a monopoly ( except for maybe abortions) on women's healthcare.
Click to expand...

I'm still Googling, but it does seem to me preliminarily that Texas does have programs in place. I am really worried about that formula, though. Cannot stand the thought of hungry babies.
 
nota bene said:
I'm still Googling, but it does seem to me preliminarily that Texas does have programs in place. I am really worried about that formula, though. Cannot stand the thought of hungry babies.
Click to expand...

understood..... but as an aside, PP doesn't feed hungry babies :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom