|
|
I don't get all the paranoia behind cutting Planned Parenthood funding. If Planned Parenthood needs government funding then Planned Parenthood is a bad organization that needs to fail.
|
|
|
On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
On October 22 2012 12:24 Darknat wrote:
I don't get all the paranoia behind cutting Planned Parenthood funding. If Planned Parenthood needs government funding then Planned Parenthood is a bad organization that needs to fail.
i dont see the logic from that. schools need public funding, but also receive some charitable donations, but without the government schools would fail. are schools bad organisations?
|
On October 22 2012 12:18 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:08 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours!
I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it. Again, then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it. Derp. Some Republicans are against it. WTF, that doesn't mean it instantly goes away if Romney is elected. EXACTLY. It is the republicans pandering to their religious right vote. To say both parties are pandering is ridiculous. It would be a non issue if republicans didn't bring it up.
this is the worst post I've ever seen. EVERY issue would be a non issue if one of the parties didn't bring it up. Is the legalization of pot a non issue in this election? Is forcing men to pay child support if they didn't want to have a child an issue in this election? Is ending the civil war in mexico a nation that we share a border with an issue in the election?
Both sides pander to their base and raise issues that will help get them elected. Thats just basic political science.
Why should PP get federal funding if they give money to democratic candidates to protect their government funding. thats the real issue I have with it.
|
On October 22 2012 12:07 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 10:56 urashimakt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! I don't understand your reasoning. Keeping the status quo takes away nothing from work on the economy and foreign relations. If Romney takes a moment to revoke civil rights policies, this somehow makes "more room" or something to work on the economy? On October 22 2012 09:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pay is very close to equal. 72% is not "very close to equal". 72% is not an accurate number. We've discussed this previously on this thread. You need to adjust for things like occupation, hours worked, qualifications etc. When you do that the disparity falls to something like women get paid 5% less, which may or may not be due to discrimination. No, women on average make between 70% and 80% of what men make. You don't need to adjust to find that number, it's just there. The "5%" number, which I assume was lifted from the top of wikipedia, is one estimate of the unexplained gender gap. This is a difference in average pay that is not accounted for and so is assumed to imply gender discrimination. The rest of the difference is still chalked up to discrimination, it's just got an explanation. Differences in things like experience. Think about it this way: You may see a woman making only 5% less as an office administrator than her male contemporaries. That looks pretty good doesn't it? But it doesn't indicate anything about discriminatory hiring practices that favor males with equivalently good resumes. Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different ....except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Yes. Right now, women are allowed to abort a fetus. I think we should keep it that way. I think wasting time overturning Roe v Wade and legislating away choices based on faith is a mistake. It's one thing I disagree with Romney and the Republican party on. The issue, for you, may be primarily whether government funds this stuff but to the candidate and his party it's whether it's legally allowed. His complete stance on the issue and legislative goals are outlined on his website.
Jumping the gun a bit maybe? Maybe women are different than men, and maybe they "choose" (by nature) to work slightly less than men. Choose other kinds of education
For instance, at least in Norway, there are about 10-20% girls in math and science classes (university level). Does it mean they are being discriminated against here? No. They choose other routes in life (seeing as education is free). If anything, every now and then men are discriminated against, because they try to recruit more women for sociopolitical reasons; setting them above fair competition, since they'll then only compete with each other, ignoring 80-90% of the qualified applicants (male).
I'm not suggesting you get rid of PP or whatever, simply questioning all the "fouls" I'm hearing. This is actually a great paradox in Norway. We've worked so hard to give everyone equal opportunities, and still there are statistics showing that children of academic parents get better grades, and women and men aren't equally represented across the work force. We're operating under the assumption that every human is equal, regardless of gender; and so equal opportunities should result in homogenization of the genders. But it isn't. Statistics show that we're still different, and feminists try to interpret this as discrimination. Laws like enforcing any business' board to have 40% female members, etc, being topics for discussion. Which is complete BS.
On a flip side, we're now enforcing mandatory social responsibilities on women, that previously were only thought for men, like military enrollment/enlistment (our military works differently, don't try to compare directly).
|
On October 22 2012 11:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You talk about looming fiscal catastrophe, yet you support the candidate who has laid out a plan to increase the debt by 8 trillion After getting criticized because the 5 trillion charge wasn't true, the solution for Obama and his supporters is... up the lie to 8 trillion! Show nested quote + You talk about economy being in the shitter, yet you support the candidate who believes in supply side economics. Supply side economics = 4.8% unemployment rate. Obamanomics = 8% unemployment rate.
Supply side economics is taking a logical assumption everyone can agree on (that there is a tax rate at which government revenue shrinks due to a combination of low productivity, tax evasion, and economic depression) and assuming that somehow this means that at any given tax rate you can lower taxes and increase government revenue.
Also, the messiah of supply side had 7.5% unemployment...
Edit:
On October 22 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:08 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it. Again, then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it. Derp. Some Republicans are against it. WTF, that doesn't mean it instantly goes away if Romney is elected.
Uh, I'm not sure where you're going with this discussion, but you'd agree that the fact that Romney wants to appoint supreme court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade means that if are resolutely pro-choice you probably should not vote for him, yes?
Also, if that's really what his site said I can't believe no one called Ryan on straight-out lying during the VP debate about not wanting to use judicial activism to alter precedent...
|
On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding.
Simply saying something does not make it true. In fact, when someone responds so simply, it tends to highlight a lack of resolve in the face of a topic they may not have a good grasp on. The current healthcare infrastructure cannot weather the side-effects of losing a third of Planned Parenthood. Simple things like getting STD/HIV tests and cancer screenings would become a lot more difficult to obtain and overall more expensive by virtue of the alternate route of provision. Seriously, learn a thing or two about how disease and lack of health are dealt with from a policy standard; prevention in excess is always cheaper than palliative treatment.
|
On October 22 2012 12:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:18 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:08 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
[quote]
boys? i see what you did there
if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it. Again, then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it. Derp. Some Republicans are against it. WTF, that doesn't mean it instantly goes away if Romney is elected. EXACTLY. It is the republicans pandering to their religious right vote. To say both parties are pandering is ridiculous. It would be a non issue if republicans didn't bring it up. this is the worst post I've ever seen. EVERY issue would be a non issue if one of the parties didn't bring it up. Is the legalization of pot a non issue in this election? Is forcing men to pay child support if they didn't want to have a child an issue in this election? Is ending the civil war in mexico a nation that we share a border with an issue in the election? Both sides pander to their base and raise issues that will help get them elected. Thats just basic political science. Why should PP get federal funding if they give money to democratic candidates to protect their government funding. thats the real issue I have with it.
If you truly believe nothing is going to change, why bring it up if it is a non issue? ONLY TO PANDER TO YOUR BASE. He said the abortion issue was pandered too by both sides which is 100% false.
|
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours!
I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper. other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure. and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory? because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
|
On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
PP funding can't be used for abortions, before anybody says anything else about government subsidized abortions.
The reason your analogy is incorrect is because there isn't another institution like PP in the country. It offers sliding scale, and often free, sexual health services. Cancer screenings, STD testing, and contraceptives make up the bulk of its services. Eliminate these, and large amounts of women go without this type of health care. Period.
Here is a case study where a PP was defunded in Tennessee.
http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/what-happens-when-title-x-funds-are-stripped-from-planned-parenthood-a-memphis-case-study/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/tennessee-case-study-defunding-planned-parenthood
Motherjones is bias as fuck. Still, the fact remains that huge amounts of women didn't get care because of PP being defunded.
|
On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote:On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
[quote]
boys? i see what you did there
if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper. other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure. and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory? because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position. HAHAHA!! I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer! Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
|
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2012 12:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. Simply saying something does not make it true. In fact, when someone responds so simply, it tends to highlight a lack of resolve in the face of a topic they may not have a good grasp on. The current healthcare infrastructure cannot weather the side-effects of losing a third of Planned Parenthood. Simple things like getting STD/HIV tests and cancer screenings would become a lot more difficult to obtain and overall more expensive by virtue of the alternate route of provision. Seriously, learn a thing or two about how disease and lack of health are dealt with from a policy standard; prevention in excess is always cheaper than palliative treatment.
If you think PP is somehow so unique that its services cannot be replicated elsewhere than you need to make that case.
Perhaps I'm ignorant on this topic but I've never heard anyone make that case.
|
United States6277 Posts
On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote:On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
....except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper. other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure. and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory? because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position. HAHAHA!! I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer! Wow, just wow! You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
|
On October 22 2012 12:29 Cutlery wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 12:07 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 10:56 urashimakt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! I don't understand your reasoning. Keeping the status quo takes away nothing from work on the economy and foreign relations. If Romney takes a moment to revoke civil rights policies, this somehow makes "more room" or something to work on the economy? On October 22 2012 09:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Pay is very close to equal. 72% is not "very close to equal". 72% is not an accurate number. We've discussed this previously on this thread. You need to adjust for things like occupation, hours worked, qualifications etc. When you do that the disparity falls to something like women get paid 5% less, which may or may not be due to discrimination. No, women on average make between 70% and 80% of what men make. You don't need to adjust to find that number, it's just there. The "5%" number, which I assume was lifted from the top of wikipedia, is one estimate of the unexplained gender gap. This is a difference in average pay that is not accounted for and so is assumed to imply gender discrimination. The rest of the difference is still chalked up to discrimination, it's just got an explanation. Differences in things like experience. Think about it this way: You may see a woman making only 5% less as an office administrator than her male contemporaries. That looks pretty good doesn't it? But it doesn't indicate anything about discriminatory hiring practices that favor males with equivalently good resumes. Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different ....except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Yes. Right now, women are allowed to abort a fetus. I think we should keep it that way. I think wasting time overturning Roe v Wade and legislating away choices based on faith is a mistake. It's one thing I disagree with Romney and the Republican party on. The issue, for you, may be primarily whether government funds this stuff but to the candidate and his party it's whether it's legally allowed. His complete stance on the issue and legislative goals are outlined on his website. Jumping the gun a bit maybe? Maybe women are different than men, and maybe they "choose" (by nature) to work slightly less than men. Choose other kinds of education For instance, at least in Norway, there are about 10-20% girls in math and science classes (university level). Does it mean they are being discriminated against here? No. They choose other routes in life (seeing as education is free). If anything, every now and then men are discriminated against, because they try to recruit more women for sociopolitical reasons; setting them above fair competition, since they'll then only compete with each other, ignoring 80-90% of the qualified applicants (male). I'm not suggesting you get rid of PP or whatever, simply questioning all the "fouls" I'm hearing. This is actually a great paradox in Norway. We've worked so hard to give everyone equal opportunities, and still there are statistics showing that children of academic parents get better grades, and women and men aren't equally represented across the work force. We're operating under the assumption that every human is equal, regardless of gender; and so equal opportunities should result in homogenization of the genders. But it isn't. Statistics show that we're still different, and feminists try to interpret this as discrimination. Laws like enforcing any business' board to have 40% female members, etc, being topics for discussion. Which is complete BS. On a flip side, we're now enforcing mandatory social responsibilities on women, that previously were only thought for men, like military enrollment/enlistment (our military works differently, don't try to compare directly).
girls are under represented in things like science in many countries but there are 2 reasons why i think this is largely irrelevant. women have only been given truly equal rights for the best part of a century, some of that still lives on in how people are brought up and how people live. i think iirc that the numbers show girls uptake of academic studies etc is on the rise, so really its just a matter of time.
i think the main difference in the US compared to countries like Norway or the UK is that there are rules in place, and social norms that make it very difficult to uncover discrimination, whether its based on colour or race or gender. people dont talk about how much they are being paid, so they dont find out they were being fucked until its too late. this is a real problem in the US, not just with gender, but with people being paid different amounts for the same work, and many people feel it should be made illegal, or atleast there be put in place better rules to protect people.
now i will say i am personally against affirmative action (shocking i know). from what i have seen with a variety of issues around the world is that positive discrimination just leads to resentment with the people who were previously favoured. so not only do you end up arguing for the very thing you previously were against ("its ok to discriminate against you, but not me") but it just continues the mistrust/hatred/whatever for decades or more. what tends to actually solve the issue in the long term is an adjustment to the rules and an amnesty for the previous winners. in the short term things are slow to change in these circumstances, but long term the issue can be resolved.
so back to gender gaps in pay. i think many countries need better rules for victims if it can be proven the reason for the pay gap was hateful. but that being said these rules shouldnt include anything further reaching than that, or any positive discrimination.
On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote:On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
[quote]
boys? i see what you did there
if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper. other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure. and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory? because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position. HAHAHA!! I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer! Wow, just wow!
you're too busy laughing to actually answer the question though. are you against planned parenthood for a more complex reason, where you feel their services can be replicated for less money, or are you purely against abortion? simple question really.
|
|
|
On October 22 2012 12:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:18 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:08 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:54 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
[quote]
boys? i see what you did there
if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. Then stop campaigning on it. Seriously. It isn't fear mongering, it is one side claiming they are for repealing Roe v Wade and the other wanting things to stay as they are. wtf is there to get? Well you can't "repeal" Roe v Wade since it isn't a law. You'd need to put enough new judges in place to skew the balance of the court and cross your fingers that the court chooses to hear a case that has the potential to overturn roe v wade (they could decline) and then cross your fingers again that the judges would vote the way you want them to (they don't always do this!). Then, you'd actually need to pass legislation to get abortion banned. That's a tall order for 4 years. Oh, and additionally not all Republicans are for either overturning Roe v. Wade or if it happens enacting laws to ban abortion. The sky is not falling - get over it. Again, then why campaign on it? Who is doing the pandering? It wouldn't even be brought up if the Republicans didn't mention being against it. Derp. Some Republicans are against it. WTF, that doesn't mean it instantly goes away if Romney is elected. EXACTLY. It is the republicans pandering to their religious right vote. To say both parties are pandering is ridiculous. It would be a non issue if republicans didn't bring it up. this is the worst post I've ever seen. EVERY issue would be a non issue if one of the parties didn't bring it up. Is the legalization of pot a non issue in this election? Is forcing men to pay child support if they didn't want to have a child an issue in this election? Is ending the civil war in mexico a nation that we share a border with an issue in the election? Both sides pander to their base and raise issues that will help get them elected. Thats just basic political science. Why should PP get federal funding if they give money to democratic candidates to protect their government funding. thats the real issue I have with it.
PP donating money to democratic candidates you say? Source?
|
On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote:On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade.
I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper. other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure. and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory? because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position. HAHAHA!! I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer! Wow, just wow! You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer. That's BS. Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
|
On October 22 2012 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:31 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. Simply saying something does not make it true. In fact, when someone responds so simply, it tends to highlight a lack of resolve in the face of a topic they may not have a good grasp on. The current healthcare infrastructure cannot weather the side-effects of losing a third of Planned Parenthood. Simple things like getting STD/HIV tests and cancer screenings would become a lot more difficult to obtain and overall more expensive by virtue of the alternate route of provision. Seriously, learn a thing or two about how disease and lack of health are dealt with from a policy standard; prevention in excess is always cheaper than palliative treatment. If you think PP is somehow so unique that its services cannot be replicated elsewhere than you need to make that case. Perhaps I'm ignorant on this topic but I've never heard anyone make that case.
Enlighten us on an organization that is as effective at providing low-cost and free female reproductive health services?
|
Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
|
On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 12:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:58 farvacola wrote:On October 22 2012 11:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 11:39 Sadist wrote:On October 22 2012 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 11:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2012 09:44 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Just because you don't see overt sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even though its a "nothing" issue for you (xDaunt), lots of women who are shit on in various ways might disagree.
Romney has been very clear about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, and his desire to repeal Roe vs. Wade (depending on what the date is). If you are a woman, that is a huge fucking deal. If you can't see how that would be important to somebody, you have a problem.
Yeah, nevermind that the economy is in the shitter, the Middle East is on fire, and our budget is a looming fiscal catastrophe... we need to do some social engineering to give women a fair shake in this unjust country of ours! I really, really, really hope that Obama and democrats keep talking about the war on women as if it is an issue of reletive consequence. Keep it up, boys! boys? i see what you did there if you got pregnant and the govt forced you to take care of the kid and ruin your life i bet you'd think a lot different . ...except this never happens. Women are free to abort and give up for adoption their unwanted babies. Then stop campaigning on getting rid of PP and getting judges into the supreme court who will repeal Roe v Wade. I'd love for PP funding to go to hospitals instead. I think they've gone too political to still get taxpayer money. I wouldn't worry too much about the supreme court as both sides have been using that as a fear mongering point for decades. How familiar are you with typical outpatient hospital services? I only ask because if you had more than a passing experience with hospital infrastructure insofar as basic health service distribution is concerned, you'd not so readily recommend that hospitals take on the role of Planned Parenthood. As a provider of basic reproductive services on a ready and efficient basis, PP fulfills a very niche role in society that remaining providers are going to be hard pressed to cover without a huge cost and reduction in efficiency. PP is not indispensable. Nor would PP vanish without federal funding. It's not indispensable for YOU. Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
if people didn't need planned parenthood it wouldn't exist but it does therefore it must
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
