It All Comes Down To Planned Parenthood
If the government shuts down it will be because Republicans refused to drop the rider concerning Planned Parenthood.
GEIST: Are you willing to hold up this entire budget over defunding Planned Parenthood?
PENCE: Of course I am. I think the American people have begun to learn tha tthe largest abortion provider in the country is also the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X and they want to see that come to an end.
Of course, “Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using public funds to terminate pregnancies, and has been for many years.” So, this isn’t about abortion funding. Not one little bit.
Nevertheless, this is where we are at. Jobs smjobs! Republicans believe women receiving pap smears are the greatest threat to our economy.
Tags: Planned Parenthood, Republicans
conversely, the Senate Dems think funding the abortion mill is so important that they are willing to shut down the federal government to ensure Planned Parenthood’s piece of the federal pie.
Yeah, Avo, let’s send women back into the alleys with a rusty coat hanger. Or better yet, let’s make them give birth to that baby that was conceived because they were raped.
This isn’t about Planned Parenthood, it’s about how the teabaggers have taken control of the House GOP caucus and none of the leaders have any balls to tell them to go to Hell.
Sputter, sputter, sputter. I’m just speechless. The absurdity of this defies anything I can think of. We need the men in the white jackets with the butterfly nets to round up the Tea Partiers and put them someplace safe where they can’t do this sort of damage. My gosh I’ve seen eight year olds act with more reason.
The GOP has already lost the PR battle. If we are discussing policy instead of budget the GOP loses. Especially since the media is already informing the public that federal money is already prohibited from funding abortions. The GOP is fighting against pap smears.
Oh no you don’t, Avagadro. This isn’t about abortion. This is about women’s health. I get that you’re not familiar with the female body, but we’re very different from men. Healthy men normally have one doctor, a GP. Healthy women have two – a GP and a GYN. The GYN is not optional.
poor stupid little aardvark. Dont worry, when the conservatives are driven from influence forever, we’ll make sure you get to say all the stupid embarrassing crap you want.
Well, my tax dollars shouldnt fund your special needs. you made the choice to be women, dont put it on me that your lady parts need extra attention. now get back to breeding troops for Exxon’s wars!
We created the Tea Party monster.
The Tea Party gained its power and field-tested its tactics while Obama let the HCR bill linger in committee during the Summer Of Spittle. Finally they were able to step out of their clown shoes and become an official Congressional caucus, one third the size of the Progressive Caucus but three times as influential.
Obama ran as a compromiser and accommodater. As soon as Republicans heard Obama was promising compromise, they staked out new territory further out on the right.
It is no coincidence that the Tea Party was invented the moment Obama took office, to take Obama up on his compromise offers and establish new rightward boundaries that Obama had pre-committed to compromise with.
Part of me has a sinister wish Obama will sell out Planned Parenthood. Then half of Democrats (the female half) will suddenly understand the evil nature of the compromises we have been asked to celebrate as wins.
“Part of me has a sinister wish Obama will sell out Planned Parenthood. ”
that part of you should never enter a voting booth ever again.
that part of you should never enter a voting booth ever again.
Same for the voters who not only wished but actually did sell us out on tax cuts and HCR.
But you go into elections with the voters you have, not the voters you wish you had.
Breaking: Harry Reid locates spine, struggles to walk upright again.
Planned Parenthood will survive whether federal funding is cut off or not, so why should the government be borrowing money to fund it? National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System will survive if federal funding is cut off; should we be borrowing money to help fund programs which will survive anyway, just so Pandora doesn’t have to listen to a Dulcolax commercial?
Every government program does some good, somewhere, for someone. But with a $1.4 to $1.6 trillion deficit, we have to start deciding what is a luxury and what is a necessity, and programs which will survive on their own, without federal funding, certainly seem like luxury spending to me.
MJ wrote:
Kind of difficult to expect the leadership to tell the very people who transformed them from a minority to a majority to go to Hell, don’t you think?
Oh, I forgot: that’s exactly what you want, isn’t it?
Planned Parenthood will survive whether federal funding is cut off or not
…but will their former patients?
Republicans are trying to make believe that the Federal money for Planned Parenthood is some kind of a gift or grant given as largesse to the organization.
It is not; it is payment for health care services provided to people the Government does not have the resources to serve otherwise.
Planned Parenthood WILL surivive but not in its current state. Centers will close. Women will be denied critical care they need (cancer screenings, pap smears, std testing, pre-natal care) and will get sick and possibly die because of it. FEMALE MEDICAL CARE IS NOT A LUXURY. AND I AM FUCKING SICK OF MEN TELLING ME THAT IT IS.
NPR and PBS are completely different entities and you know it. Also I don’t see Planned Parenthood getting money from other sources as much as PBS rakes in royalties from Elmo etc.
Democrats have agreed to $78 billion in cuts to social spending without tax increases. Whatever happens now, the Republicans have already won the budget battle.
This is why I am a party hack. I know that Republicans hate me. They hate my gender. They hate the thought that I might have any money. They hate the idea that I might have equal rights with the rich folks.
We don’t always get it right in the Democratic party but we sure don’t despise our constituents.
OMG – I’m so confused. Some are referring to the defunding of PP as if it’s a grant and others are stating its denying Medicaid claims for services rendered. Which is it???? Because that makes a difference in this discussion.
If it’s the latter than it’s not about the budget. It’s about punishing PP because they provide abortion services. Abortion is legal. Get over it. Where’s the free market mentality when you need it? I should be able to shop around for my abortion needs and find the lowest price. All defunding would do is create a monopooly on abortion services and cause the price to sky rocket. And this is being offered by a Republican?
In all seriousness though, I use PP for my female medical needs. I started going there when I didn’t have insurance and they offered services on a sliding scale fee. I continued because I liked the women doctors. While I’ll admit PP does provide abortions – probably more than I’d like to know about – there are many other worthwhile and needed services it provides as well. Sure, I can go to a regular OB/GYN office as can a women with Medicaid if PP is no longer available. The point is I/we shouldn’t have to.
Only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activities are abortion. It’s the largest healthcare provider for women. Title X is used to pay for healthcare services for women, like pap smears.
We don’t always get it right in the Democratic party but we sure don’t despise our constituents.
Not even the effing retards who need to be drug tested?
I seem to remember that Republicans voted for continued government funding of NASCAR. Priorities, people!
From CNN – The $100,000 to $400,000 life insurance death benefit for those killed in the line of duty will not be paid during a government shutdown, a defense official said Friday. About 100-150 claims are processed a month, generally quickly, to help meet expenses in days after the death. The official, who briefed reporters about the potential shutdown impact at the Pentagon on the condition the official’s name not be used, said it could lead to families having trouble meeting death expenses, the CNN Pentagon Unit reported. The official also said the money would be paid when the shutdown is completed.
So much for the teabaggers’ support of our troops.
anon wrote:
Why does the government have to “serve” them at all? Why is the government responsible for their health care?
I find it something of an intellectual conundrum that the same people who tell us that the government has no business in people’s sex lives also insist that the government provide funds for people’s sex lives.
Why does the government have to “serve” them at all? Why is the government responsible for their health care?
How “pro-life” of you.
or our lives at all! Who is the government to fund fire fighters. If the market wants the house to stop burning and the people to stop screaming, it will do something about it.
It also isnt the GUMMENT who is funding planned parenthood. It is We The People, and i am just fine with my tax dollars going to cervical cancer screenings for women i’ll never meet, because it is in my best interests to live in a nation where people can catch sickness early and be healthy and productive. I also have a conscious and dont feel good about letting poor people die when small contributions from all of us can keep them alice…. unlike you apparently.
Why does the government have to “serve” them at all? Why is the government responsible for their health care?
It’s the old “brother’s keeper” question, pal. Or in this case, maybe sister’s keeper.
Everybody has to live with their own answer to that question.
Pandora wrote:
If that’s true, then such should be eliminated. But the argument that one person’s luxury spending hasn’t been cut isn’t an argument that someone else’s luxury spending shouldn’t be cut.
Ask any woman in your life if her gyno visits are a luxury. I know I just LOOOOVE going. It’s like a visit to the spa! This is NOT a nascar car, this is not sesame street. This is necessary specialized medical care.
Also I started seeing my gyno YEARS before I had a “sex life.” Women’s health isn’t exclusively tied to what they do with their organs, it’s about the organs themselves.
anon wrote:
And my answer is, no, I am not your father, nor your uncle, nor your brother, nor your keeper. If I am, then I also have authority over you; is that what you want?
If the government is to be responsible for your health care, then the government also has the right to tell you to stop smoking, to tell you to eat your broccoli, to tell you to lose weight, to tell you what kind of shoes to wear, to tell you with whom you can have sex, to tell you that you have to go to the doctor and the dentist, basically to run your life for you; is that what you want?
You want to use birth control? Fine, go right ahead! It’s none of my business. But don’t try to make it my business by requiring me to pay for it.
V wrote:
I have women in my life, a wife and two daughters. They go, but, strangely enough, we pay for it ourselves.
No one is stopping you from going for your pap smear, but you can pay for it yourself.
I do, thank you. But to deny low income women the opportunity to go based on cost is absurd, as it’ll just drive up costs in other areas when the women get sick and/or their children become a burden on the state.
Also, given you have two daughters I’m shocked that you would deny them someone to turn to if they were by any chance having an issue with their reproductive health they felt uncomfortable discussing with their conservative parents or the doctor they pay for. More “nice girls” go to PP for one reason or another than you think.
you idiot. if people cant pay for it, they get the health care anyway because doctors are not conservative GOP monsters. YOUR health care bills then go up MUCH MORE than they would if you had been a human and paid taxes.
by your logic, doctors would have to be forbidden to administer care to people without the health insurance to pay for it…… oh my… oh my goodness, ive just uncovered the secret GOP strategy!!!!!
V, those girls are clearly amoral and need a stern talking to from Bristol Palin.
Wonder how Dana can operate a site with the words “common sense” in its title when they show they have none.
it makes perfect sense if you are a sociopath.
“It’s about punishing PP because they provide abortion services. Abortion is legal. Get over it. Where’s the free market mentality when you need it? I should be able to shop around for my abortion needs and find the lowest price. All defunding would do is create a monopooly on abortion services and cause the price to sky rocket. And this is being offered by a Republican?”
Reality check: Providing government money to an organization is in direct opposition to the free market concept. Eliminating subsidies increases private competition. Creating subsidies encourages government-sponsored monopolies.
Reality check 2: Democrats rather have Planned Barrenhood or bust.
A leftwing abortion agenda is more important to them than the rest of government. Republicans passed their budget. Democrats passed nothing.
“But to deny low income women the opportunity to go based on cost is absurd, as it’ll just drive up costs in other areas when the women get sick and/or their children become a burden on the state.”
What’s absurd is that the federal government provides funding for such a vast array of programs outside of its intended scope. NASCAR and Planned Parenthood included.
Let’s try this again:
Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using public funds to terminate pregnancies, and has been for many years.
This is not about abortion. It’s about women’s health.
Look who else gets Federal funds.
Leftwing abortion agenda? You’re fucking brilliant, David
Conservatives never have abortions, unless they want one.
If you dont think that Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS aren’t red herrings (remember these are the same people who brought us government-run Death Panels, all the while completely ignoring the real insurance industry death panels), coupled with the no tax increase on our benefactors child-like tantrum stance, then you are not capable of being a part of this conversation.
\”Pandora: Look who else gets Federal funds.\”
Agreed. Liberty University or Boston College, doesn\’t matter- defund all Pell grants immediately.
\”If you dont think that Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS aren’t red herrings\”
They aren\’t red herrings, they\’re a good start.
Why not support deficit reduction? There\’s plenty of room for spending cuts in the defense budget and oil industry subsidies, to name a few.
Why not? Simple. Those enities do their job very well and to the benefit of our society. More Americans than not agree.
You know whats a good start? Cutting the defense budget by a third. How about closing coporate tax loopholes and set the corp tax rate(which is never collected anyway) to something lower than it is today? Is that a good start for ya?
How about getting rid if the bush tax cuts? Oh wait! That’s a non-starter, so says the “I’m gonna be rich someday too!”.
But no, I’m sure, in some way, the millions saved in gutting PP, PBS and NPR is more than the billions in savings and revenue that I offered.
\”But no, I’m sure, in some way, the millions saved in gutting PP, PBS and NPR is more than the billions in savings and revenue that I offered.\”
You don\’t get it. Cut it all down.
Defense, tax loopholes, discretionary spending, education department, social security, medicaid, medicare, ad nauseam.
Some should be reduced dramatically, some should be eliminated entirely.
If the state of Delaware, or any other state, wishes to provide any of these programs, good on them, but it is not the province of the federal government to legislate in so many of these areas.
Ah, I see your point of view. That dream died 200 years ago. It ain’t ever gonna happen.
well Free Market – good thing youare not selling yourself as a constitutinal scholar – I would return you to the store;
Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
1824 Gibbons v. Ogden, SCOTUS: “Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. … Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.”
now you can argue all day but – you want to discuss the province of the Federal government to legislate? or the Doctrine of Pre-eminence? let’s go!
To one of your points, FM, some states are doing just that – like health care in Vermont & Mass. But seeing other citizens suffering in states like Mississippi, doesn’t really jibe with the whole More Perfect Union thing.
But hey, what would you expect from a socialist? 🙂
Politically, I’m basically the same as Reagan, Nixon and Bush, to you, I guess.
and I dont mean that as a jibe.
\”now you can argue all day but – you want to discuss the province of the Federal government to legislate? or the Doctrine of Pre-eminence? let’s go!\”
Alright. Where in the enumerated powers is Congress granted the authority to provide healthcare for every citizen?
\”But seeing other citizens suffering in states like Mississippi, doesn’t really jibe with the whole More Perfect Union thing.\”
Indeed. So, this is the justification you use to impose your good will on those who didn\’t ask for it?
You sound like a missionary bound for the dark interior of the Amazon, intent on enlightening the savages.
what? don’t let your imagination run too wild. And, I was referring to your fantastical StatesPower-Utopia scenario anyways.
But you have to admit that those three presidents are just a little less socialistic that me, right?
I would say this covers it:
Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause
……..and general Welfare of the United States…….
\”what? don’t let your imagination run too wild. And, I was referring to your fantastical StatesPower-Utopia scenario anyways.\”
What\’s fantastical about wanting to stick to the constitution? We are in a Federal Republic. That is, a government of shared powers between the member states and the central government, not a league of subordinate states subject to an all-powerful central government. If you don\’t like the rules laid out by the constitution, there is an amendment process to change that. We may not change the rules by fiat, we must follow the agreed upon process.
\”But you have to admit that those three presidents are just a little less socialistic that me, right?\”
From the little I know of you so far, I\’d say yes, though I don\’t like to jump to conclusions with little information.
I think we can also both agree that two were big spenders, and one was a crook. However, I\’d certainly say the crookedness of the other two is also up for debate.
\”I would say this covers it:
Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause
……..and general Welfare of the United States…….\”
And I would say it does not.
First, let\’s take a look at the wording. \”The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States\”
We\’re specifically talking about the defense and welfare of the states, not individuals. Just as Congress does not have the authority to create a national police force to provide for the defense of each individual, it may not provide for the welfare of each individual.
Furthermore, let\’s take a look at the definition of welfare. According to Webster\’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 edition, there are two definitions of welfare:
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
(Source: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,welfare)
You may try, but universal health cannot be reasonably interpreted from the second definition. In the simplest terms, providing for the \”general Welfare\” means providing good governance.
Second, why lay out the successive enumerated powers if they could have lumped all of them under \”general Welfare?\” Are all those enumerated powers not to provide for the \”general Welfare?\”
They were specifically enumerated because they /had/ to be specifically enumerated, or the federal government would not have those powers.
@Free Market–
1. The Supreme Court disagrees w/ your opinion. Their decision is what counts, however, you are free to blather on about the subject until you’re blue in the face. There is a principle in the law known as “stare decisis”. Right wingers like you are all for it when it suits your agenda, not so much when it doesn’t suit your agenda.
2. I find it hilarious that you attempt to support your opinion with the SECOND definition from a dictionary printed more than 180 years ago. Pretty weak.
Read a little bit about how our Constitution was passed & the arguments that preceded its passing & you may gain some insight into its flaws. It is a good foundation for our system of government. It is NOT perfect, nor is it “divinely inspired”, as some would like to think. It is a document that was ultimately ratified because good men were willing to COMPROMISE.
Perhaps our modern politicians (skeletor from Nevada & the orange guy from Ohio come to mind) should take a cue from our founders and pass a reasonable budget w/o all the bickering over minor issues.
Have a nice day.
Ahh. A deal was passed…
…and I was so hoping to see the elephant skewered on the pike of public opinion.
Anon40:
To your first point, Supreme Court decisions are not infallible. To defend stare decisis unyieldingly flies in the face of common sense. Just because something has been decided, doesn\’t make it right. Using your line of thought, we\’d still have Plessy, along with other dubious decisions.
To your second point, the first definition is specifically for persons, while the second is for states. The second is the applicable definition in the context of our discussion. The meaning of words is very important, especially regarding the law, though you already know this.
As to your final exposition, I\’m very aware of the imperfections. To know that it was both a document based on compromise and one written by imperfect, corruptible men, one only has to take note of the three-fifths compromise.
However, in their wisdom, the convention included a process for making changes to the new constitution. As I said earlier in this thread: If you don’t like the rules laid out by the constitution, there is an amendment process to change that. We may not change the rules by fiat, we must follow the agreed upon process.
\”Perhaps our modern politicians (skeletor from Nevada & the orange guy from Ohio come to mind) should take a cue from our founders and pass a reasonable budget w/o all the bickering over minor issues.\”
Agreed. For the current fiasco, I think it makes sense to replace the cuts in contentious programs with less divisive cuts of an equal dollar amount. Eventually, however, all of these extraneous programs must be be eliminated at the federal level and relegated to the states, should they choose to continue them. It\’s imperative to commit to a fiscal plan that puts us on the path to sustainability, not debt-slavery.
Finally, I\’m not sure exactly why I am, as you say, a right winger. Can you explain this one for me?
@anon40 – good one….FM is weak -but lets see if I can turn it and what I can do with it…….
FM sez – 2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.
okayyyyyy…
disease spreads-see ‘black death’ bubonic plague, hiv/aids, dark ages, gonareah, syphilis….
treating/curing disease-saves lives and people
people create/are the government/states
loose the people…loose the country
now-think about health care/general welfare-the two cannot be seperated.
“government of the people, by the people and for the people”
“Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness”
kinda hard when one is sick or dead..
I love the Jesuits – they trained us well – next argument…..
did you take logic in college? its really….logical
lets go to the common demoninator:
“To your second point, the first definition is specifically for persons, while the second is for states”
without people – what would we have?
“for want of a nail the shoe was lost
for what of a shoe the horse was lost
for want of a horse the king was lost
for want of a king the kingdom was lost
all for the want of a nail”
Maybe your Utopia ia a vacuum where things are not inter-connected and inter-dependant
my world is inhabited my real people – its called reality
You\’re performing quite a feat of mental gymnastics there. Our law, including the constitution, is written in plain English, meant to be easily understood.
The opening clause of Article I, Section 8 clearly refers to the states, so we must use the definition that applies to the states, and not individual persons. Therefore, the meaning is to grant authority to the Congress to provide to the states \”exemption from unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.\” We can paraphrase that into assistance for disaster and providing good governance.
When you have to resort to distortions of meaning to support your position, it\’s likely that you\’ve gone astray.
\”did you take logic in college? its really….logical\”
No. Did you take spelling in grade school?
not in English, no – and its not the spelling its the typing – i dont use spell check and could care less -cheap shot failed – up the ante.
its the mental gymnastics, therefore the substance, not the fluff im concerned about
so first you argue the words and language – then you jump to the meaning, i.e. YOUR interpetation
“Therefore, the meaning is to grant authority” ON WHO’S AUTHORITY? YOURS? WHO ARE YOU? –
We can paraphrase that into assistance – NO REALLY? PARAPHRASING – I THOUGHT IT WAS IN PLAIN ENGLISH, EASY TO UNDERSTAND? WHY IS DEFINING BY 250 YEARS OF SCOTUS NECESSARY THEN?
resort to distortions of meaning to support your position – WELL, YO
U JUST DISTORTED AND PARAPHRASED AND EXTRAPOLATED
(CAPS FOR DISTINCTION I AM NOT YELLING)
distortion? – you used an out of date dictionary – do you use a flat world map too? it IS 2011
you obviously care only for the literal then stick with the bible.
I paraphrased for your convenience; to make it easier for you to understand. I felt it was justified to ease your misunderstanding, doubly so now that I understand English is not your first language. It was not necessary to do so, as I could have just left it at: the meaning is to grant authority to the Congress to provide to the states ”exemption from unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.”
I used a dictionary (Actually, the authoritative dictionary at that time) from 1828, because it\’s the closest I could find to 1787, i.e., when our constitution was written. It\’s important to understand the meaning of words at the time a document was written.
The Supreme Court is necessary to clarify what\’s written in the face of constitutional challenges. Unfortunately, there have been many instances where the justices have stepped outside of the bounds of the constitution.
\”you obviously care only for the literal then stick with the bible.\”
What does a bible have to do with our constitution? I see no mention of God or Christ or the Holy Bible within it.
thank you for your condesencion – It really is thoughtful, unnecessary but thoughtful.
plain English is easy to read, common sense easier
…Oddly tho, I tend to read the SCOTUS decisions as to HOW the Constitution has been defined,
not a decision by Free Market as to their definitition
where you to challenge the SCOTUS decisions and rail against “Stare decisis:and be sucessful, I might read you brief- but until then well,
its just extrapolation and paraphrasing and mindless blather really, isnt it>
It has also been amusing to watch you point fingers at others then turn around and do the same thing yourself – you’ve been led – hope you enjoyed the walk
Pence, and those like him, are why the Republicans are doomed in the long term. They openly admit they can’t win without the social conservatives. And yet America hates them, wants no part of them and has rejected them on all, repeat all, issues. I suggest Pence take two aspirins, chant jeebus and abstinence and pray until he passes out.