Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Whoever can receive the grant money.So, who's going to provide the non-abortion services PP provides if y'all get your wish of a defunded planned parenthood?
What non abortion services do they provide?So, who's going to provide the non-abortion services PP provides if y'all get your wish of a defunded planned parenthood?
Well gee, maybe you should look into things like that before you condemn an entire organisation, huh?What non abortion services do they provide?
I wouldn't say useless, they do refer women to charities that give grants for low cost or free mammograms, and they do provide paps and cervical cancer screenings in some of their clinics, often at low or no cost. They do some good. They also do much evil and should not recieve government funding, but we should also recognize what good they do.
So you would assert that the bishops would endorse the Republicans' defunding the federal government, crippling the economy, and causing great harm in order to prevent $528 million (peanuts) to be spent on Planned Parenthood's services that are unrelated to abortion from being spent?
Let's think of an analogy--if we blow Afghanistan off the map, Muslim women would never be stoned to death for adultery....
Does that make it right?
We should certainly try to prevent Muslim women from being stoned to death in ways that don't create far greater damage.
I think that the bishops certainly did raise some very important points and troubling points about PP that Democrat Catholics might want to enter into a debate with, if abortion was actually an issue for them.I think the real question is whether we pay attention to the bishops just when we feel like it.
I think that the bishops certainly did raise some very important points and troubling points about PP that Democrat Catholics might want to enter into a debate with, if abortion was actually an issue for them.
It becomes apparent enough over time that what is more important to some Catholic Democrats is to make talking points on every point against Republicans, and the lives of the unborn are merely a minor inconvenience to being able to make those talking points.or if they were to believe that life...all life...is important.
by bringing the bishops into the argument it emphasizes the fact that once again this is not just a Republicans versus Democrats argument,
but one part of an endless plot with the goal to coerce people to eradicate human life wherever in the world it is found.
that is the true goal here; the re-sale of human organs is just the tip of the iceberg.
Planned Parenthood's lobbyists are very active everywhere, including on these forums.Planned Parenthood has been amazingly successful in worming their way into government and into the favor of the elites.
Are there any other companies whose defenders just assume are owed government money in perpetuity? Do we hear arguments about the need to fund GM forever, or else there will not be enough cars in the US? For that matter, are there other hospitals which are owed perpetual government funding? It's absurd that the debate would even start with that position. Planned Parenthood should have to justify why it deserves funding, it should not require extraordinary circumstances to even contemplate removing that funding.
It also inevitably happens that in mainstream reports about Planned Parenthood, the only research conducted will be contacting Planned Parenthood (or the Guttmacher Institute, which is much the same thing) with absolutely no time given to its critics. Any claims that they make are treated as the absolute truth. Remember when we heard that "most" of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortion, based off their own choice of counting method (which tracked the sale of 12 condoms as 12 different services but all expenses relating to an abortion as a single service). Remember the Susen G. Komen fiasco, where most reporters seemed to be completely unaware that many people find Planned Parenthood to be a controversial organization?
You've got to hand it to Planned Parenthood's lobbyists and PR directors. I don't know of another company which is so beyond criticism on both the level of the media and the law.
I wonder what it cost when Clinton shut down the government 3 times...The real question is whether Republican lawbreakers (oops, I suppose I meant lawmakers, although they are pretty much just obstructionists most of the time) should resort to blackmailing the federal government.
Our last government shutdown cost $24.1 billion, or $192 million a day, according to Moody's Analytics, as reported by the Washington Post. Planned Parenthood receives $528 million a year (none of which goes towards abortion, just towards the other 96% of Planned Parenthood's programs)
Isn't it unethical to use immoral means (blackmail) to achieve a moral goal? Doesn't harming the ecomomy by $24.1 billion, money which could have been used for roads, or bridges, or education, or nutrition for poor children, constitute immorality?
I see another Oklahoma legislator is behind all this. Without a doubt, they have the worst crop of legislators in the country.
Exactly.Planned Parenthood has been amazingly successful in worming their way into government and into the favor of the elites.
Are there any other companies whose defenders just assume are owed government money in perpetuity? Do we hear arguments about the need to fund GM forever, or else there will not be enough cars in the US? For that matter, are there other hospitals which are owed perpetual government funding? It's absurd that the debate would even start with that position. Planned Parenthood should have to justify why it deserves funding, it should not require extraordinary circumstances to even contemplate removing that funding.
It also inevitably happens that in mainstream reports about Planned Parenthood, the only research conducted will be contacting Planned Parenthood (or the Guttmacher Institute, which is much the same thing) with absolutely no time given to its critics. Any claims that they make are treated as the absolute truth. Remember when we heard that "most" of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortion, based off their own choice of counting method (which tracked the sale of 12 condoms as 12 different services but all expenses relating to an abortion as a single service). Remember the Susen G. Komen fiasco, where most reporters seemed to be completely unaware that many people find Planned Parenthood to be a controversial organization?
You've got to hand it to Planned Parenthood's lobbyists and PR directors. I don't know of another company which is so beyond criticism on both the level of the media and the law.
Let's give those babies a chance to endure, overcome those hardships rather than killing them so we don't have to worry about it.Perhaps the Republicans' plan to cause a government shutdown by vetoing $528 million for Planned Parenthood would gain more credibility if it contained additional funds for WIC, Medicaid, education, and the other expenses that the increased population would bring.
But oh darn! Those things are all part of a long laundry list of items that Congress wants to underfund, too!
Guess that's what happens when people who call themselves pro-life duck for cover when all those inconvenient truths emerge from the womb nine months later.
Obama assures Planned Parenthood that they still got friends in high places.Exactly.
Betting they dont even get a wrist slap. Maybe the few who openly discussed the prices may be fired - but otherwise - no biggy.
Perpetual protection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?