• 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

Lokiate said:
Guess nobody is going to touch on the subject on how exactly banning PP is unconstitutional, as stated by the judge.
Click to expand...

Its already been stated in the thread. But here ya go again. Equality under the law.
 
mac said:
Guttmacher is planned parenthood...no matter how they try to show that they've distanced themselves.
Click to expand...

And yet professionals from both sides of the aisle still accept them at their word. You might not accept them, but others do. And when people from both sides of the aisle start agreeing about something I tend to believe that something when it comes to things I have no knowledge of.
 
jambalaya said:
I am confused. So PP is not completely privately funded? Why would the state be required to fund them?
Click to expand...

That is what I want to know. Where is it in the Constitution where PP has to be funded? Where is it that it can even be funded for that matter. Its like they created something that is clearly unconstitutional and then somehow make it where we can't get rid of it using the same paper. I have no idea how that works though.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
From what I understand, the major conservative opposition to Planned Parenthood stems from the fact that they are the largest single abortion provider in the US. I have not heard a credible conservative source proclaim their opposition stemmed from birth control.
Click to expand...

They are also the largest organization that provides abortion...when you're the largest buisness of something you tend to get the largest amount of buisness. Wal-Mart is one hell of a huge buisness...I think that they were rated in the top ten of largest buisnesses in the country. But I would bet that if you added up all the other stores that provide the same type of goods that Wal-Mart does then they would be bigger and provide more goods than Wal-Mart.

But hey, if you really want to stick to that talking point go ahead. It would also ring true of other services that PP provides on the same exact basis of which you are putting on PP.
 
mac said:
Ok, who has substantiated it?
Click to expand...

If I knew that then I would have provided it long before now. But if there is such a problem with the numbers then why hasn't there been an outcry about them providing bad numbers? Instead of just calling them liars then why not provide evidence that they are lying? Surely if their numbers were bad then someone, somewhere would have provided proof that it was.
 
mac said:
Then it is obviously simply the affiliation to PP clinics that do that must be the issue.
Click to expand...

So you think that it is right to strip PP clinics of funds regardless if those clinics provide abortion or not? I thought you were against abortion...that you had no problem with the other services that PP provides? Why punish them and the women that go to those clinics just to get at the clinics that provide abortion?
 
Kal'Stang said:
And yet professionals from both sides of the aisle still accept them at their word. You might not accept them, but others do. And when people from both sides of the aisle start agreeing about something I tend to believe that something when it comes to things I have no knowledge of.
Click to expand...

Great, appeal to authority. Nobody has yet explained the constitutionality of it. I don't care about the arguments on what PP is, or why people think it's good or bad. The judge said banning it is unconstitutional. Professionals accepting it is not an answer, it's a cop out.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But hey, if you really want to stick to that talking point go ahead. It would also ring true of other services that PP provides on the same exact basis of which you are putting on PP.
Click to expand...

Is that the answer to why we can't get rid of the funding? Because of the services? What a lame legal case that makes if so.
 
Henrin said:
What?? Explain your reasoning please.
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
Really? Post number.
Click to expand...

I'll provide what I stated on it. If there are others you'll have to look them up yourself. No offense Henrin as I do have respect for you. But I'm not going to go through the whole thread repeating and looking for post numbers so that you can look them up when you can do the same thing with the same amount of effort as I can.

Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you think that it is right to strip PP clinics of funds regardless if those clinics provide abortion or not? I thought you were against abortion...that you had no problem with the other services that PP provides? Why punish them and the women that go to those clinics just to get at the clinics that provide abortion?
Click to expand...

OMG, its not punishing women if you stop funding it. PP will still exist people. Look at how private funding goes up every time PP funding is threatened. That should answer all your worries.
 
Lokiate said:
Great, appeal to authority. Nobody has yet explained the constitutionality of it. I don't care about the arguments on what PP is, or why people think it's good or bad. The judge said banning it is unconstitutional. Professionals accepting it is not an answer, it's a cop out.
Click to expand...

Everytime you look up and post a study or an article to support one of your statements you are making an appeal to authority. The question is..."is this a valid form of appeal to authority"?

In this case I believe it is.

As for the rest of your post...that post of mine was not directed at you. So naturally it is not going to address what you want answered or what you care about.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'll provide what I stated on it. If there are others you'll have to look them up yourself. No offense Henrin as I do have respect for you. But I'm not going to go through the whole thread repeating and looking for post numbers so that you can look them up when you can do the same thing with the same amount of effort as I can.
Click to expand...

Its a long thread dude. If you know the answer its easier if you just quote it. And thanks for doing it, btw. :)

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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't appear to be a constitutional argument. It appears to be an equality argument which is fine, but I see nothing in the Constitution that says anything like the above. I guess you could argue the 14th but that is hell of a jump that I assume this judge did.

You know..something that our country is supposedly founded upon.
Click to expand...

Eh..equality under the law was meant so that everyone had their rights and liberties protected. Its hard to make the argument that providing services is anything like that.
 
Henrin said:
Is that the answer to why we can't get rid of the funding? Because of the services? What a lame legal case that makes if so.
Click to expand...

If we got rid of funding all across the board for ALL organization then there would be no valid gripe. However singleing out a specific organization? Thats an entirely different ball of wax. IMO it is much like what happened earlier in President Obama's term when he tried to prevent FOX reporters from participating in what every other news agency was allowed in. Even the other news agencies knew that was wrong to do and spoke against Obama for it. So why is it OK when it comes to PP? Why is it OK to exclude them from a service that every other organization gets to partake in? All because of some service which they provide...never mind the fact that NONE of the money that is provided ever goes towards abortion. In fact it is illegal for those funds to go towards abortion.
 
Henrin said:
Its a long thread dude. If you know the answer its easier if you just quote it. And thanks for doing it, btw. :)
Click to expand...

Your welcome.

Henrin said:
That doesn't appear to be a constitutional argument. It appears to be an equality argument which is fine, but I see nothing in the Constitution that says anything like the above. I guess you could argue the 14th but that is hell of a jump that I assume this judge did.

Eh..equality under the law was meant so that everyone had their rights and liberties protected. Its hard to make the argument that providing services is anything like that.
Click to expand...

It was also meant to protect people from being excluded from services that the government provides. For example (and yes this is a bit extreme perhaps..but valid imo) would you find it acceptable if cops started to ignore emergency calls to low income neighborhoods?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Everytime you look up and post a study or an article to support one of your statements you are making an appeal to authority. The question is..."is this a valid form of appeal to authority"?
Click to expand...
You grievously misunderstand what the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is. Stating "And yet professionals from both sides of the aisle still accept them at their word." is an appeal to authority. Presenting graphs, statistics, and other forms of evidence from unbiased sources is the presentation of evidence. Of course, what you're doing now is classic misdirection of the topic, in order to derail the original question I presented, which was for someone to demonstrate how banning PP is unconstitutional. So far, I still have no answer.

As for the rest of your post...that post of mine was not directed at you.
Click to expand...

Then why did you quote me?
 
Lokiate said:
You grievously misunderstand what the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is. Stating "And yet professionals from both sides of the aisle still accept them at their word." is an appeal to authority. Presenting graphs, statistics, and other forms of evidence from unbiased sources is the presentation of evidence. Of course, what you're doing now is classic misdirection of the topic, in order to derail the original question I presented, which was for someone to demonstrate how banning PP is unconstitutional. So far, I still have no answer.
Click to expand...

Nope, I just showed how else it could be applied.

Lokiate said:
Then why did you quote me?
Click to expand...

I didn't. I quoted mac. Look again.
 
BTW Henrin, don't know if you know this but the judge in the OP did not stop the law in question from being permanently enforced. He just put a temporary injunction against it until it can be decided in a court of law if it is consitutional or not. I'm just suggesting that the "equality under the law" could be applied. Not whether it truely does apply or not.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Yes, Texas seems to bias their government aide based on association. Does the world McCarthy ring a bell? I bet ya'all just loved him, too.
Click to expand...

I don' think anyone loved McCarthy regardless of political lean.
 
nota bene said:
Yes, it is. Doesn't mean, however, that its stats are unreliable.
Click to expand...

I agree, their stats generally are, but they omit pertinent stats.

And no matter what percentages are offered about PP, it is a significant purveyor of abortions-on-demand.
Click to expand...

It is the single largest abortion provider in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom