genuinegirly

Wow... just... wow.
Congress wants to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood in a rush vote this weekned.

Will the rest of the medical community in low-income areas be prepared to tackle the needs of those who use Planned Parenthood for preventative medicine?

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us...d.html?_r=1&hp
Snippets below.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

Baraka_Guru

I want to be shocked and all surprised by this—I really do—except when I think of the big picture, I'm not all that surprised. I am, however, dismayed.

If the program gets cut completely, it will be a major strike against women's health in the country, particularly women among the lower income strata.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dc_dux

The Republican House is proposing lots of cuts that wont make it past the Senate.

This is one of those "cutting of their nose to spite their face." While it panders to their base., it alienates moderate Independent voters who were critical to their recent election success.

Others are "throwing the baby out with the bath water" or cuts like infrastructure funding and investing in clean energy that will only result in higher costs down the road, and in the long run wont help with debt reduction.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i hope that is all this vote is, a meaningless ritual of sucking up to the far right, and that these cuts are not implemented.

one could go here and do what is suggested

Planned Parenthood

as of an hour ago, the debate had gone on for 3 hours and there's been no vote...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

FoolThemAll

Give me an organization that covers everything up to and including birth control and I'll support it.

Of course, that would never be considered an adequate substitute "among women's health advocates" because this isn't just about women's health.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Seaver

.... You guys realize federal aid to abortions has been illegal since the '70s right?

This is a bill to make something illegal that's been illegal for 40 years. It's pandering to the base because they can't/won't do other promises they've made.

Please WAARRRBBGGLE to stuff that's actually relevant.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Bonkai

It's not just about abortions but preventing the pregnancies in the first place. This is a bit dismaying, how could they be some adamantly against an organization that educate women (and some men) about pregnancies, infants, and general sex ed. Though i doubt it would pass PP has to many supporters to let it teeter off with just one simple vote.

Willravel

This is a video of California Representative Jackie Speier responding to a tirade by Representative Chris Smith about Planned Parenthood:

Bonkai

I stand corrected, SMH

aceventura3

From the article cited in the original post:

over the weekend I watched a documentary based on the book Freakonmics. They did a segment on the drop in crime statistics starting in the 90's and correlated the drop, among other things, with the legalization of abortion in the 70's. If true the $1 to $4 savings may be underestimated. However, and I do plan on reading the book now, what was missing is the root cause of the increasing rime rates starting from the 60's - my guess is that there was an increase in unwed child births due to the war on poverty and the growth of the "welfare state".

I know to some the above appears to be some random bits of information, but to me it begs the question. Is continued investment in Planned Parenthood the best use of government dollars? My gut tells me it is not.

I find compelling, the argument that Planned Parenthood's approach of tolerance with no questions asked is actually more harmful to society than it is helpful. At the extreme, the thought that a 40 year old man can drop off a 14 year old girl to get an abortion no questions asked, bothers me a lot. If funding continues at the very least they need to change some of their rules.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

jewels

Sure, we can sustain another few hours of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with the annual PP funding.

Nice trade-off indeed.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

dc_dux

Title X Family Planning Program, which the House Republicans are proposing to zero out, is not just funding for Planned Parenthood.'' It provides funding to clinics in an estimated 75 percent of the counties in the country and primarily serve those w/o health insurance.

The funds, which by federal law cannot be used for abortion, provide for breast and pelvic exams, cervical cancer screenings, contraceptives, family planning education and counseling, and STD and HIV testing for those who might not otherwise receive this type of care.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

The stories of 40 year old men dropping off 14 year old girls for abortions with no questions asked, if in fact, it occurs at all, is a right wing smear attempt at Planned Parenthood to divert attention from the real services provided to those in need.

And yes, w/o these services, the costs to taxpayers down the road, are likely to be far higher...in the form of medicaid costs, welfare costs, etc.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

It's a shame the common decency argument isn't enough, you also have to back it up with the fact that it's ultimately cheaper. Reminds me of the torture debate.

ottopilot

Does the common decency argument cover the 40 million plus abortions that have taken place in the USA since R. vs W.? While I respect the rule of law, but after having children, and to hold my significantly premature niece in the palm of my hand, then to witness her 12th birthday this year... we're kidding ourselves if we don't look at abortion as anything less than murder. At the same time my niece was becoming "viable" ... other babies of the same age were being killed as an inconvenience.

I don't want anyone to suffer in life. But with my experiences I can no longer rationalize the act of abortion as a personal choice about one's body. If viability outside the womb is the bench-mark, then anyone on life-support is no longer viable outside the womb. Why is this any different? Does anyone here regret the opportunity at life?

The law is the law in regards to choice. However, the law also prohibits funding abortions. If PPH suffers from funding cuts, then so be it. They can regroup and find funding somewhere else. I'm sure they will be fine.

As an aside - I think if more of us researched Margaret Sanger and the roots of PPH, I'd hope your findings would leave you disgusted. She was an unapologetic racist, eugenicist, and Fabian socialist. But that may be more than OK with some of you. It's all out there if you care to look it up. A monstrously vile human being.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

Of course!

The decency argument comes from the alternative. Imagine a country in which Roe v. Wade had not happened yet. Law enforcement pushed safe, educated abortion providers out of the practice, directly causing abortions to become far more dangerous, and often deadly. Illegal abortionists before Roe v. Wade and in countries where abortion is currently illegal are often not properly trained and do not take all the necessary steps to ensure a safe procedure. The consequence is women, at one of the most vulnerable and depressing moments in their lives, are in the hands of someone far from professional. Did you know that in countries where abortion is currently illegal, between 25-50% of all maternal mortality is due to illegal abortion? Those are all deaths prevented here in the United States as a direct result of a woman's right to choose. Abortions performed by certified and trained medical professionals in a hospital or clinic environment are incredibly safe.

Common decency would point someone to wanting less deaths of women. That's the argument.
Your premature niece was an infant and not a fetus or embryo. The vast majority of abortions are done on embryos, and some are done on fetuses. None are done on infants. You don't get to pretend that a premature infant in your hand is the exact same thing that's in the womb, connected via umbilical cord to the mother for sustenance, air and waste disposal. You don't get to ignore statements like "my body, my choice" because you can't accept that there's a real biological difference between a fetus and an infant. I'm sorry, but you can't just glaze over reality.

And I'm glad your niece is doing well.
The benchmark is not viability outside of the womb, it's biological disconnection from the mother.
Ad hom. Planned Parenthood in 2011 has nothing to do with racism or eugenics. Have you ever read War of the Worlds? H.G. Wells was a Fabian socialist.

dc_dux

Title X funding is not about abortions.

It is to provide access to womens health care and family planning education and counseling.

U.S. history is full of racists, including past presidents who were slave owners and considered Blacks to be inferior or the fact that the Constitution counted slaves (Blacks) as 3/5 of a person.

The millions of women, particularly minority women, who utilize clinics that have Title X funding for non-abortion services, have not expressed concern or disgust about Margaret Sanger's background.

The disgust comes from those who are anti-choice and want to limit womens access to a Constitutionally guaranteed right by defunding these clinics completely.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Seaver

You're kidding yourself if you believe a single Government dollar has gone to an abortion since the '70s.

Honestly this is equivalent to cutting federal funding to the military to ensure they don't participate in sex-slave trades. They don't do it, and you'd be hurting a good group for a false justification.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

ottopilot

I respectfully disagree regarding the goodness attributed to PP. However, they have a legal right to exist... they should seek private funding. Believers should show support with their money... not mine.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

roachboy

like dc said above this:

is clearly outrageous. serfs don't need health care, right otto? their role is to work, pay their tithes and die. anything else interferes with the prerogatives of the lords of the new feudalism.

but if the outrageous program that provides health care to women continues, you can pretend that "your" tax money is going for things conservative like---you know weapons systems to kill people in great number or surveillance systems and the companies that develop them in order to monitor people, or police to arrest them or prisons to keep them in.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Anxst

Out of curiosity, what "badness" do you attribute to Planned Parenthood? They provide healthcare, of a reproductive nature, to women, and they provide sexual and reproductive education to any who ask for it. What part of that is bad?

__________________
Don't mind me. I'm just releasing the insanity pressure from my headvalves.

mixedmedia

Margaret Sanger was a public health nurse who watched many poor women, including minorities, suffer under lifetimes of continual pregnancy and early death. Her position on eugenics (which is overblown and often mischaracterized as a racially-centered position, it was not) is hardly defensible in this day and age, but at the time and place she was working (slums of NYC in the early 20th century) it is at least understandable. The focus of her life, though, was to help women of all races gain control of their bodies and to decide when they want to have children. The good work she did (and inspired in others) in those days was invaluable to a woman's ability today to have a career and upwardly mobilize herself and her family. But I guess summing up the efforts of a strong woman who actually spent her life 'in the trenches' helping the hopeless improve their states in life is the point, yes?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

dippin

It is a sad commentary on the media and the collective intelligence of the nation that a group of spin masters can so dominate the coverage of certain issues as to force the discussion to exist on a purely false basis.

And so we keep discussing the Wisconsin bill as if it was a matter of compensation even after the union has accepted the cuts and increased contributions. And we keep discussing this planned parenthood thing as if it was somehow a matter of abortion even when that is absolutely false.

Because, of course, if the issue was framed as "do you want to provide low income women with cancer prevention and STD testing" most would support it. So we have to create the bogey man of abortion to push through something that is essentially bullshit. Make it so that the frame is more like "do you want your money to pay for a 14 year old to have an abortion so her family doesn't find out she was abused" or some other ridiculous scenario which is nonsense, but that the mouth breathers will accept in a second.

Ps: Also, gotta love the Pavlovian relationship some have with the word "socialism." The founder of Planned Parenthood was a "Fabian socialist?" Oh, no! That means she was like a British social democrat! Maybe even part of the Fabian Society, that terrible organization that included such radical thinkers like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and even Ramsay MacDonald, that old radical that formed a government with the conservative party. Can't have that!

Cimarron29414

I support planned parenthood - at the state supported level. (Hey, you guys knew I was going to say that.)

This is a question borne out of complete ignorance - why on earth did they choose the name "Planned Parenthood" if 90% of their business is STD testing, cancer screenings, etc.? Does anyone know the origin of that name? I'd change the name.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

aceventura3

That is not actually the trade-off. If we question the cost benefit ratio of the war, we can do that on a stand alone basis - just like we can look at the cost benefit ratio of dollars spent on Planned Parenthood.

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------


What I suggest is that we take the time for a careful look at the issue. If what you say is true I can support the funding. However, my gut (I have not seen any objective analysis), tells me that at the very least some procedural changes are required. With minors, I believe a parent, guardian, or court has to be involved at the very least.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------

What fact????

Give a source. Let's look at the data. Let's look at the assumptions used. Let's look at the methodology of the study behind the numbers given. I even question the study done by the economist who did the Freakomics documentary that should cause a conservative to support the funding, and i intend to look at their source data.

A person you agree with can pull a number out of thin air and you accept it without question, and call it a fact - is that how you do it?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Anxst

I believe it was in the forties that they chose the name. Before they chose Planned Parent Federation it was called the American Birth Control Foundation. You have to admit, Planned Parenthood is a step up from that. It's a more positive term for the outcome of birth control, which sounds negative and restrictive.

Still, I wouldn't disagree that a name change would probably help rather than hurt their image. If all their funding gets pulled, perhaps that should be their backup plan.

I still vehemently disagree with their funding being pulled. The reality of the service they provide greatly outweighs what some people think they do, or what their name might be.

__________________
Don't mind me. I'm just releasing the insanity pressure from my headvalves.

Willravel

Like I said, the common decency argument should be enough. I'm tired of playing the Republican game of ignoring morality and just looking at budgets. We may not live in a universe with a set of objective morals, but I have morals and I'm happy to factor them in to my political beliefs. It's wrong for women to die because they can't get access to medical care. It's wrong for people to claim that the unborn are deserving of rights at the expense of women's basic rights without having already established that life begins at conception.

aceventura3

You do not know how frequently children under 18, receive services and why. Does this concern you?

Outside of the - when life begins - question, I don't care what adults do from a common decency point of view. But if PP is not protecting children they need to change their rules or be shut down.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

You mean abortions? I'd like there to be less abortions for all people, be they over or under 18. To that extent, abortions concern me. They do not, however, concern me enough to remove a woman's fundamental reproductive freedom or to invade people's privacy.
What's this "if" business? PPFA does a fantastic job of helping to educate people on reproductive healthy and child health, providing contraception, screening for breast, cervical, and testicular cancer, pregnancy tests, counseling, and testing for STDs. They should be lauded, not ostracized.

Cimarron29414

Let's all suppose for a minute that PP did not provide abortions. Would you all be arguing the same thing? I wonder if the abortion component of PP is what has both sides behaving the way they do...

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

roachboy

you know, it's self-evident that conservative who simply carry shit for the republican party have jettisoned any pretense to intellectual integrity with this one. they're trying to insist on some imaginary standard to which planned parenthood should be held in the name of some equally imaginary "fiscal responsibility" while they continue to simply throw money at the giant republican-preferred patronage system centered on military expenditure.

House Republicans' bill would increase defense spending - Feb. 22, 2011

those heroes on the right actually proposed cutting a single defense procurement item that even the pentagon had said was unnecessary.

and in that style true to the integrity-free way the right rolls, the defense budget doesn't include anything expended on either republican-specific military debacle (afghanistan, iraq) nor does it include money sent streaming down the toilet in the name of "domestic counter-terrorism"----which is of course off the fucking books....

but planned parenthood---there's a problem.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dippin

Given the level of support medicaid already has among the population, I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of people would be against STD and cancer screening. As such, it seems to me that at least "one side" of this debate would still defend PP even if it were unrelated to abortions.

aceventura3

My issue is with children not adults. By services, I mean everything. A child under most circumstances does not have the legal capacity as adults for a reason that I agree with, if a child is receiving any medical services a parent, guardian or the courts should be involved in my view. Even for emergency care I think extra effort needs to be taken to involve a parent, guardian or the courts. Children should be receiving comprehensive medical care, education and guidance.

All I suggest is that we look at the data. By "if" I am saying i do not know and I am not simply going to take your word for it. If what you say is true, i will support funding - and for the third time I repeat - it is likely in my view that they need to take a look at their policies regarding how they handle children.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------


Yes.

---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

Put simply, I don't trust them. I have not seen any data that suggests that I should. I have only heard broad unsubstantiated claims about the net good that they do. If they want my support as a tax payer, they need to make their case.

The general argument that simply because a person has question or concern means that there are anti-PP is ridiculous. Comparing this issue to other expenditures like defense spending is also ridiculous.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

Ace,

So you oppose the mission of PP in its entirety, even if abortions were off the table? Or do you ooppse that it is federally/government funded?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

samcol

I agree that that republican stance on military spending is quite hypocritical when it comes to looking for areas in the budget to cut.

However, there are a few republican who want to drastically slash military spending and would also be considered pro-life. They are mostly of the 'tea bagging' persuasion.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

aceventura3

I fully support low income people being able to receive subsidized medical care, education, and family planning services including birth control. I think the subsidy can be handled in a number of different ways including the use of an organization like PP. As is the currently law I do not support public dollars being used for abortion. Also, based on current law abortion should be available to everyone. Private dollars should be used to subsidize abortions for low income people.

Children should receive the best comprehensive medical care available in this country with no exceptions. They should receive sex education and have access to birth control and abortion consistent with the above - only difference being with parent, guardian or court involvement.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

Every other national political issue is simply commentary if our national defense is inadequate.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

Ace,

I'm a little confused. I just asked, if abortions were off the table with PP, would you still be arguing the same side - and you said yes. This seems to mean that you would be fine with pulling the funds from PP. For clarity, I asked if you opposed PP in its entirety or just the public funding of it and you say that you support all the other things PP does with public funds, just not abortions. I think these two points are contradictory. I guess I don't understand your position.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Willravel

Keeping information about reproduction from children leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Children are less likely to seek out information if parents have to be involved.

aceventura3

Any service PP provides to children should be with the consent of a parent, guardian or a court. That's my position regardless of abortion.

I don't trust PP. I think in the name of tolerance they provide services to children that gives me cause for concern. For example if i had a daughter I would want a doctor to look at her complete medical record before providing or recommending certain forms of birth control. Piece meal medical care is not as effective as comprehensive medical care. I would rather have children going to clinics that can look at them as a whole person, not just their reproductive organs (and even in that regard the evaluation may be incomplete). For children perhaps there may be a better way.

I assume PP follows current law and I am o.k. with that unless the law is changed. Outside of that there are some changes I would make to current law regarding abortion - my position is that a viable fetus should not be killed.

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

Perhaps statutory rape would be less of a problem if parents were aware that their daughters are getting pregnant. So, perhaps there is no obvious solution, I would error on the side of parental involvement or give a teenager the ability to get a confidential court order - but at least have some responsible adult look at the facts - someone to look out for the child. PP does not do that.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Cimarron29414

Thanks, Ace. That cleared it up. I appreciate it.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Willravel

You think minor's ability to have abortions increases the instances of statutory rape? At what point do we drop pretense and admit that you're grasping at straws to try and justify a belief given to you instead of reached independently?