Trump Signs Anti-Planned Parenthood Law

joseph33

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

mickeyrat

law or exec order?

joseph33

It passed in the Senate. Pence's vote was the tie breaker.

elvistheking44

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

oftenreading

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

elvistheking44

oftenreading said:

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

Yes. PP offers much more. My words were short. Funding may get cut, but no woman is losing a right. This is the kind of wording that gets people in trouble. No rights are being infringed on.

oftenreading

elvistheking44 said:

oftenreading said:

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

Yes. PP offers much more. My words were short. Funding may get cut, but no woman is losing a right. This is the kind of wording that gets people in trouble. No rights are being infringed on.

Well, that depends on what you consider rights. I mean, it's not like guns or anything, but throughout the world, most nations that the US would probably like to be grouped with consider access to affordable and appropriate health care a basic human right. Organizations like the UN, WHO, and others consider it so. Defunding PP will likely remove access to health care for a large number of people, many of them women. Low income women and those in more remote areas of the country will be particularly affected.

HesCalledDyer

elvistheking44 said:

oftenreading said:

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

Yes. PP offers much more. My words were short. Funding may get cut, but no woman is losing a right. This is the kind of wording that gets people in trouble. No rights are being infringed on.

Access to affordable, professional health care isn't a right?

elvistheking44

HesCalledDyer said:

elvistheking44 said:

oftenreading said:

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

Yes. PP offers much more. My words were short. Funding may get cut, but no woman is losing a right. This is the kind of wording that gets people in trouble. No rights are being infringed on.

Access to affordable, professional health care isn't a right?</blockquote

No it's a luxury our government has provided to those who can't afford it. Is it fucked up, absolutely.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Moving backwards. And not only moving backwards... stepping on the accelerator to get backwards quickly.

I think it must be unbelievably challenging for remotely intelligent people to digest the course this regime is pursuing. That frumpy orange man who's recently been on a giddy 'dropping bombs' kick is actually damaging the soul of a country.

HesCalledDyer

elvistheking44 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

elvistheking44 said:

oftenreading said:

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

Yes. PP offers much more. My words were short. Funding may get cut, but no woman is losing a right. This is the kind of wording that gets people in trouble. No rights are being infringed on.

Access to affordable, professional health care isn't a right?

No it's a luxury our government has provided to those who can't afford it. Is it fucked up, absolutely.

Then you agree that rights are being infringed upon since government has made it a luxury and not a right?

InHiding80

Stripping women's rights away. How Muslim of the anti Muslim party!

oftenreading

elvistheking44 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

elvistheking44 said:

oftenreading said:

elvistheking44 said:

joseph33 said:

Under the noses of the press,the president signed a law that allows states to withhold funding for planned Parenthood. This is a very hostile act towards women's health rights.

Women still have the same rights, the fed just doesn't want to pay for their abortions anymore.

Right. Because that's all PP does if provide abortions.

Only about 3% of PP's services is abortion provision. The vast majority is provision of reproductive health services to women and men (including teens). Their services prevent far, far more abortions than they perform, and defunding them will lead reduced access to reproductive health services, including contraception, particularly for those least able to afford alternatives, and hence to an increase in unwanted pregnancies.

Where people have no affordable alternative, and thus no longer get reproductive health services, you can bet it does infringe on their rights. It's also a pretty stupid move when one actually looks at the outcomes. PP does exactly what conservatives pretend to want - prevent unwanted pregnancies. But that's not what they actually want.

Yes. PP offers much more. My words were short. Funding may get cut, but no woman is losing a right. This is the kind of wording that gets people in trouble. No rights are being infringed on.

Access to affordable, professional health care isn't a right?

What is "fucked up"? That health care is a luxury? That the government provides it to people who can't afford it? That PP is being defunded? I don't even know what side you are arguing here.

what dreams

Because right to life doesn't mean the right to a healthy life.

Halifax2TheMax

what dreams said:

Because right to life doesn't mean the right to a healthy life.

Prolife until you're born.

ponytd

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

HesCalledDyer

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

And they're all going to just that, right? Give me a break.

HughFreakingDillon

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on? And I know what Planned Parenthood does, another little known fact is that they also provide treatment for men. Women are charged more because the overall cost of treating a woman is higher. I know plenty of men that probably don't even go to a doctor until after 40.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay. Elective treatments such as abortion and contraception should not be payed for by taxpayers. Not all types of medical treatment are under the umbrella of "basic healthcare" and saying someone has the right to elective surgeries should not be funded by the government in my opinion.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.

You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.

You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.

And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.

You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.

And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?

Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions, you know that. They are prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, again, I think you know that.
"Other non-profit medical providers" do not exist in nearly enough quantity to provide the care needed.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.

You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.

And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?

Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions, you know that. They are prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, again, I think you know that.
"Other non-profit medication providers" do not exist in nearly enough quantity to provide the care needed.

That is a false statement and is dependent on the city you live in.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.

You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.

And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?

Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions, you know that. They are prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, again, I think you know that.
"Other non-profit medication providers" do not exist in nearly enough quantity to provide the care needed.

That is a false statement and is dependent on the city you live in.

Some areas are covered, more are not. Comparing the locations and services provided by PP to other "free-clinics" will not enhance your argument, especially when you consider the portion which are religiously affiliated and don't provide contraception services.


Because they are nutballs.

KC2917

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

You've got to be kidding me. Stand up for your beliefs, I get that. But this statement is just fucking absurd and ultimately detracts from the point you're apparently trying to make. It's dramatic and insulting.

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.

http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/

the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?

do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?

It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.

You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.

And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?

wait...back up
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?

HughFreakingDillon

KC2917 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ponytd said:

Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.

access to the same health care options that men have.

Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?

it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.

You've got to be kidding me. Stand up for your beliefs, I get that. But this statement is just fucking absurd and ultimately detracts from the point you're apparently trying to make. It's dramatic and insulting.

dramatic and insulting?

if that's true, why does the right keep perpetuating the outright lie that defunding planned parenthood is "all about stopping the taxpayers from having to pay for your abortions".

now who's dramatic and insulting again?