Should Planned Parenthood receive federal funding?
@proveit: I never once said I was God, but as a women you should be capable of making choices pertaining to your body, just as men do. Having an abortion is also beneficial to those who have been raped. However, it's not only what PP provides.
If women want to get fixed as men often do to prevent unwanted pregnancies I have zero problem with that. But once you've made a life with another person you're no longer making a decision solely about your life. It's a costly error in judgement.
@proveit: if having an abortion meant not putting the child through a hard life, yes, I would. It's better to have an abortion than raise a child with no financial support and put it through hell just because people don't approve of it.
I happen to know lots of awesome people who had a really tough life. I'm really glad that nobody killed them before they had a chance to make something from nothing. You're not God, you don't get to decide who lives or dies.
@proveit: There's also no justice in this world for your out-dated opinions. If "his" judgment is what you're going based off of, maybe you shouldn't turn away when it comes to other topics in the bible such as polyester, divorce, adultery, & tattoos
Hmmm. 62% disagree with you. Must be lots of outdated opinions out there. Would you just do away with us too?
@proveit: outdated? Or stuff you overlook? I'm pretty sure if you did your research, "his" judgment clearly states that in the bible, but like I said, you pick and chose what to shame people on doing.
Sounds like someone has a God complex....look I'm not trying to shame you. I'm just not afraid to tell you the truth. Supporting and performing are the same thing. Could you crush the baby's skull? Would it bother you to actually do it?
PP is a beneficial cooperation that helps provide quality healthcare. It should receive findings so people are safe getting the help they need and not doing so illegally. ALSO, abortions are CELLS/FETUSES, not real babies that go towards research
I don't know what's worse, the fact that you agree with ripping apart a baby and selling his or her body parts or that you really might be stupid enough to believe that they are "not real babies". Read before you speak. Pray for help. You need it.
@provit: don't give advice on here.
@proveit: a baby is considered a baby when it's grown, not when it's a matter of cells, that's considered a fetus. Also, I don't need to be prayed for, it's you who believe that women shouldn't have control over their body and their health.
@proveit: if a women wants to have an abortion, that's fully up to her and what she chooses to do with it afterwards, it's up to her. Don't shame a person for having an abortion and giving up a fetus then allowing it to go towards stem-cell research
There may not be justice in this life to throw your sorry tail into prison for murder but rest easy, there will be a day. Your opinion means nothing at all in the long run. Only His.
@proveit: Im pretty sure nobody on this thread murdered anyone
If it is planned, they should have the money, if it is by accident they deserve support from government
Listen not to piss off any body but abortion is only acceptable if this woman or couple have absolutely no other option (absolutely poor or no family to help etc) but the government shouldn't take money from the wallets of people who didnt require it
Hey, fun fact for idiots! Abortions are not federally funded. Women must pay for them out of pocket. YOUR money goes to pap smears, STD/HIV testing, affordable access to contraceptives, etc... Stop being controlled by your worthless emotions.
Planned parenthood hid the fact that they were selling fetal parts. Do you think they'd tell us that they were putting money toward abortions? The entire organization is corrupt.
It's literally illegal for them to do so. Besides, if you know any woman whose had an abortion, she had to pay out of pocket for it, unless the instance is rape, incest, or life of mother. Insurance doesn't usually cover abortions, and PP never does.
FOR THE 38% OF YOU THAT VOTED YES YOU DO REALIZE THAT THEY HARVEST BABIES FOR SALE, YES HUMAN CHILDREN.
The question should really be: "Should taxpayers be required to support organizations who slaughter defenseless, innocent children?"
Yes yes yes a million times yes
Funny how an organization that pretends to protect women from getting pregnant has so many women getting pregnant so they can have an abortion. Abortion is not a contraceptive.
But they also provide contraception such as birth control & condoms, that way abortion is a last resort.
Absolutely. No hesitation. Now, how many of you objecting to PP receiving federal funding are in favor or religious organizations receiving tax exemptions and funding? Yeah. Thought so.
Religious organizations are not crushing the heads of innocent babies to donate body parts for research.
neither is planned parenthood...
saying no to PP for abortion is also saying no to PP for STD/HIV screenings, cancer screenings, free contraception, and health care/information for a lot of people who can't afford it otherwise.
...it's saying no to have those things funded involuntarily through taxation. Those things are all amazing. But they shouldn't be paid for through subsidization
I'm just saying to everyone who thinks planned parenthood should be closed for good. they do have a pretty good income, so they don't necessarily need government funding, so yeah I get what you're saying.
Few advocate shutting PP down entirely. *Vast* majority oppose tax subsidies - &, if *proven* to be in violation of law, appropriate legal action taken. It is hyperbole to say that none of the services you've listed would be available w/o PP.
PP doesn't even provide the lion's share of these services to women:
If the narrative were accurate, it would be more genuine to support defunding PP & support Community Health Clinics instead - that service even rural communities, which often have greater need of supportive health care.
I'm not against planned parenthood but they don't need federal funding.
Abortion is disgusting
That wasn't the question XD
Someone please explain why this obviously political (funds several campaign ads each election cycle) "non-profit" organization should get federal funding. If a church behaved this way it would be shut down in a week.
Yo dummies, Planned Parenthood does a lot more for women's health than perform abortions. Do a little reading.
PP does not provide a *fraction* of the healthcare services Community Health Centers do. Women would get along just fine w/o PP, if that was even the issue. It isn't. Regardless what they provide, PP tax subsidies no longer legitimate Fed expense.
Planned Parenthood prevents abortions.
If planned parenthood prevented abortions we wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. And if their contraceptives worked we wouldn't either.
Oh so contraception is a conspiracy? LOL
Clearly that is factually inaccurate. If PP "prevented abortion," there would be no discussion about the abortion services they provide - or what they do with the "leftover" humans they parcel out to the highest bidders, doe a "Lamborgini" & such.
Abortion are a fact if life. They are legal and that's settled law. Preventing pregnancies prevents abortions and thats something PP does through distribution of contraceptives.
The left over tissue will be thrown in the garbage or used for research. Research that saves lives.
Prohibition was "legal and settled law." Slavery was "legal and settled law." Something being legal doesn't make it right, laws can and sometimes should change,
and even though abortion is currently legal, the trafficking of human organs isn't. And PP isn't the only provider of contraceptives, I can get a pack of condoms from Walmart.
And FYI the research done on "leftover tissue" by Josef Mengele and the Nazis also saved countless lives, but the ends do not justify the means.
You cannot get more socialist than the government planning your family!
You keep using that word socialism, it doesn't mean what you think it means. It would be socialist if a community or a labor co op were decided if it would allow that.
Ignorance is bliss. Just let him stumble around mentally until he collapses from exhaustion.
No, taxpayers should not be forced to support an organization that performs abortions. There are plenty of other women's health organizations that can perform the same services without the grisly act of abortion.
Sailing, ok, sit down and pay attention.
I have $5 in my wallet. I find a $5 on the ground, and I get $5 in a birthday card.
I go out and buy a hotdog for $5.
Which of the money did I use?
Sailing: I understand that, but my tax dollars are still subsidizing an organization infamous for performing abortions. It doesn't matter whether or not my taxes support the abortion procedure itself, it's egregious enough to keep the organization
running. Let's put this from a perspective you can understand better, because I understand that pro-choice advocates sometimes have difficulty putting themselves in our shoes. Let's say the year is 1939 and the federal government is giving hundreds
of millions of dollars to Germany. However, the US forbids any of that money from going towards war or genocide, it can only go towards improving the German economy. Is that okay with you?
That's essentially our problem. The Hyde Amendment may
prevent tax dollars from going towards the abhorrent procedure itself, but I still have no desire to financially support any organization that I regard as malign. I do not want to support abortions directly or indirectly. Besides, let's be clear,
Planned Parenthood is already running on a surplus; they don't need federal dollars.
Haha, I think Rebel would take issue with the idea that we are the same user. I didn't say anything condescending, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to resort to pejoratives. I disagree with you regarding human life, but you're sidestepping the
actual issue we are debating. We aren't debating the ethics of abortion. We are debating whether or not it is just that taxpayers should support Planned Parenthood. You've defended the subsidy by referencing the Hyde Amendment, which seems to
acknowledge that many Americans do not want to pay for abortions. I've countered by explaining that indirect support can be as damaging as direct support by brining up an analogy that you can understand as a pro-choice advocate. You don't believe a
fetus is alive, but you are able to comprehend other tragedies like the Holocaust. What you should be arguing is why I should be forced to indirectly support a procedure that I consider to have cost more lives than the Holocaust. Anyways, Rebel
will have to continue the debate from here, because I have camp in a few hours.
No, I most certainly do desire to stop abortion, but that's a separate debate. Contrary to what you believe, a fetus is a living human being with his own unique genetic code. He or she will grow into a self sufficient being without intervention.
Stunning. ....fucking amazing
If you're only concerned about protecting the "other" services provide by PP, and not just about rewarding them for performing 380K abortions per yr, why not agree to direct the money to a different organization that also provides the other services?
No tax money required. They're making plenty of money selling baby body parts. They can follow the example of the WWII Germans who made concentration camp killing a money making enterprise, with skin for lampshades, hair to stuff mattresses, etc...
Of course... PP does more than abortions... But shhh the religious reich doesn't want you to know that
Obamacare covers EVERYTHING that s--t organization does, except murdering babies. No tax money needed.
Oh the ACA? The bill then made coverage possible for all Americans, got rid of exclusions, lifetime limits, and got rid of pre existing condition clauses? I love that bill!
Because I am pro choice I and I support a women's choice
So you basically admit that they need the federal funding to abort pregnancies...
A woman's choice =/= the baby's choice
The advocates for PP are missing something. For there to be body parts for harvest, there must be relatively late term abortions. This has been so understated by PP as to be almost never. Apparently it is fairly common. The deception is also immoral.
As opposed as I am to my tax $ paying for this inhumanity, that is not factually accurate. There are useable "parts" - in addition to the *actual* "tissue" - such as brain, heart, lungs, liver, etc, as early as 9 wks gestation from conception.
Btw, I appreciate the compliment on this issue you gave me elsewhere. 😀
I understand that minimum of 9 weeks however that is the minimum and even the words they use describe a later term in many cases ( crushing, repositioning, etc) and they even talk of arms and legs suggests 16 or more weeks.
In 1 video recently released, they showed Petrie dish remains of an "11 weeker" - in which you could clearly see the little fingers on the hand, btw. It cannot be refuted that they do late term abortions *as well*; but documented much earlier too.
Fetus are sucking their thumbs as early as nine weeks... so they have arms that early. (See middle link above)
I support a woman's right to choose and trust that they and they alone are the best informed to make the right choice for themselves, but I do not believe that I should be taxed for that service.
Tax dollars go to support planned parenthood, so what do you mean by you're not?
The tax dollars go to fund selected program. No federal money goes to abortions
Federal money that goes to select programs leaves money in PP to go towards abortions. By extension, tax dollars are going to abortions.
And those $ are fungible. They can be used in whatever way the organization chooses & is *easily* hidden w/creative bookkeeping. (Which they already do)
With ACA there is no reasonable/legitimate case to be made to continue tax $ to a profoundly political organization under the guise of "women's health services"... That is easily available w/o tax $ under ACA.
Of course not.The government or private sector should never fund an organization that is ethically & morally corrupt.Why would anyone support murdering innocents?It is criminal to take a life.It's amazing how the "politically correct" can't see it.
ACA is *supposed* to cover these same services. It's time for PP to make it on their own. If proven to be violating law, they should be prosecuted to fullest extent of law & shut down entirely. I don't care to support them w/my tax $, tyvm.
Embryonic stem cell unnecessary for medical research
It's been known since at least 1999 that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary
Adult stem cells *just* as useful; embryonic stem cells can be obtained *w/o* aborting donor via umbilical cord, placenta & amniotic fluid
Gruesome, cannibalistic, inhumane & barbaric to disassemble abortion remains for unnecessary "tissue" for any reason.
Inhumane - not humane; lacking humanity, kindness, compassion, etc.
Barbaric - w/o civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive
Cannibalistic - the removal... from one product... in order to use them in another. In *this* sense: the removal of parts of a developing human being in order to use those parts for the benefit of another human being.
This gruesome corrupt immoral harvesting also makes me question their motives completely. People should also understand how despicable Margaret Sanger was as well as her supporter Woodrow Wilson. Very Hitleresque.
Margaret Sanger & Planned Parenthood
For health screening services for women yes. Some women do rely on PP for annuals, birth control, and such yes
Great services, no doubt. But why should money be taken from my paycheck with the threat of violence to fund these programs? Great services are only great when they are voluntarily. PP would be functioning without leeching off all taxpayers
ACA is supposed to do this also. Why both?
Evan. What about Medicare and Medicare? What about food stamps? Subsidized housing? WIC? Our tax money goes and pays for a lot of services for the poor.
HTC Last statistic I heard was that it only dropped the uninsured from 20% to 15%. I know how important your annual. It provides a breast exam, pelvic exam, pap, blood work, access to a doctor, etc. Your annual is cheaper than the alternative.
PP is not - contrary to all political hype - the *only* resource for economically stressed women to obtain healthcare other than abortion. It just isn't. PP is virulently political which has undermined its credibility. Past time to defund of *tax $*.
That is *w/o* doing *any* research about its Founder, founding or history. It has *always* been a political entity & tool.
I have recently discovered that PP does not even provide most of these other medical services to poor women - & men. Community Health Centers perform even more services - to more ppl & in more areas - than PP.
I'll never understand why some people want other people to have babies so bad. If that baby is unwanted it will probably have a horrible childhood. It's probably better off not getting born into that.
This is asking if PP should receive federal funding, not whether abortion should be legal.
That's precisely why derby's comment is relevant. The bulk of Planned Parenthood's work is in family planning, medical exams, birth control, etc. Hardly any of its budget goes toward abortions. It PREVENTS many abortions.
I made this comment after reading everyone else's, people should mind their own business. I went to PP when I was 19 and was provided with birth control then I never needed an abortion. Why don't people understand that idea.
Derby, ACA provides these services as well. Time to eliminate fed spending on these factories.
Is an acorn already considered an oak tree even if has not yet sprouted? In all species, plant or animal, when does an individual life begin?
A little under 14 billion years ago.
Moonshot....nice poetry but I believe these babies have already sprouted!
If planting seed - of any description - did not *consistently* - produce the expected harvest we'd all be dead. Civilization persists becuz seed produces sustaining life.
Metaphors aside, answer is yes, if I leave an acorn on the ground = oak tree.
It should be a fully covered medical procedure by all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid.
I didn't even realize this debate was about abortion. I was more thinking that they're doing fine now, why get the government involved?
Yes, but very limited funding. People receiving their services should pay at least half.
I understand that they have helped but their videos are disgusting!
Not a penny. If they would physically and financially sever their health care clinics from their abortion "services" AND counseling, I wouldn't oppose the health care clinics' funding IF there was scrupulous financial accounting to prove that NOT A
PENNY of government funds went to their disgusting abortion operations. ✟
Why couldn't they be funded voluntarily, without money being stolen from people? If it was a good organization it wouldn't need federal funding. I hate PP because they perform abortions and I dislike PP because they are subsidized by taxpayer dollars
The problem is any money given is fungible. There is no reasonable way of earmarking money and regulating it use or non use.
A lot of federal funding, they are our best hope of eliminating abortion. Religion hasn't worked, nor laws, nor abstinence. PP will work through planning, prevention and adoption. It's a process!
No, they shouldn't receive any public money.
Planned Parenthood has provided healthcare for millions of women who cannot afford to go anywhere else. And there is a law that protects any federal funding for abortions. The funding wouldn't go to that, and it is only 3% of what PP does.
Planned Parenthood does 329,445 abortions in one year alone!!!
And now that we have obamanationcare we shouldn't need other healthcare avenues... RIGHT???
That's correct....."The law of the land" was and is supposed to correct those deficiencies in healthcare, therefore, rendering the necessity for that side of PP, now women have a choice.......no?......
I am pro-choice so your argument that they do abortions doesn't sway my opinion. I am not 'pro-abortion' by any means, but women should have the right to make their own decision. It is a very personal matter; none of anyone else's business.
They have also saved countless lives by providing pap smears and testing for women that have detected many types of reproductive cancer.
I used to be pro choice. You cannot explain away the videos...but planned parenthood only sells a small portion of infants...right? So it's ok? Really? Really I want to see the other side, but this is really sick.
My apologies, if I have drawn memories of pain for you, it was not my intent, however, the need for that side of PP has unfortunately ran it's course, therefore, rendering it unnecessary.........
I do believe it is the unborn child's business. It's our duty to defend them and their right to exist.
The videos were heavily edited. And the opinion of the woman in the video does not reflect everyone's opinion at PP. they have been proven to be false. If the person who has an abortion wants to donate the fetus for research, she should have the
Right to do that. They never do that without the person's consent. And they don't profit from it. It is for research purposes.
Using special words such as fetus, tissue, heavily edited video, illegal blah. It sounds like one big cover up. Where there's smoke there's fire. I think those videos are the tip of the iceberg.
Anytime $ are involved morality takes a back seat.
FULL FOOTAGE Video 1- youtu.be/H4UjIM9B9KQ
FULL FOOTAGE Video 2- youtu.be/vwAGsjoorvk
So heavily edited wasn't a good argument? Who'd have thought.
The law is a joke because the funds are fungible. Also, ACA provides the same services. Stop funding these crooks.
Does anyone in this thread even realize they're not selling anything?? Fees are being paid.. Nothing more. You pay shipping/handling when you order something online. These fees are for processing donated fetus tissue for research
It's not like PP is saying, 'hey, got some dead babies here; wanna buy some??'.. That's completely ridiculous. And yes, the heavy editing of the video is pretty much everything. If it lacks context, it's not credible. Context governs content.
Just look at any news group. They (are supposed to) take great care to edit footage to convey a persons message, without removing too much context, to maintain journalistic integrity. This video, from a non-news group, who have
No incentive to maintain such integrity edit away, to rile people up. It's how gung-ho media works. Of course it's gonna sound bad. They could edit it to sound like they're miracle workers too, but they want only the parts that sound bad
To sensationalize the parts of the business that seem to outsiders like a controversy, but are otherwise standard to science.
That's their story but it appears they are covering up the fact that they are profiting from the sale.
If Josef Mengele was still alive, should he receive federal funds for his human experiments?
You're derping too hard.
No, as long as it is in the abortion business.
Equal rights for the unborn! Defund Planned Parenthood!
Last year Planned Parenthood failed to report statutory RAPE! Defund Planned Parenthood!!
Military rapes go unpunished defund the military?
Absolutely. If you said no then why don't you set up camp in economically disadvantaged areas and provide medical and family planning services - most of them free. See how long till you ask for public funding...
Why should our tax dollars pay for a woman's decision to kill her unborn hold, regardless of the reasoning she may come up with? If she wants to abort her baby, let her pay for it.
Tax payer dollars are forbidden by federal law to fund abortions.
And the clinics don't just help women. You really should do some of your own research before you spew what you hear from hyperbolic talking heads.
After reading some of this shit I kinda wish abortions performed by planned parenthood clinics where much much higher than 3%, and I was one of them. At least the pp clinics are a clean alternative to a back alley garage.
Some people make mistakes and don't want to be parents, get the fuck over it! Making abortions illegal will not stop the practice. It's proven
You're so right. Outlawing murder, rape, and theft hasn't eradicated it, so it's probably easier just to legalize it. At least the government can regulate them to make them safer.
Agree ^ Regardless of the morality of the practice, people will still find ways to do it. Just like with guns or drugs, simply banning abortion won't work. Might as well let them do it safely (or at least, during early stages of pregnancy).
I think education is the only thing that will really do any good here. It is proven to reduce crime and help parents make better choices.
As in, I agree with awkwardism, I mean ^
@Anse there is a difference between violent crimes and victimless crimes. Your strawman is irrelevant.
Well, actually, while abortion may not technically be "victimless" (as you could argue the fetus is alive), it works like gun control or drug control in that simply making it illegal doesn't work.
The point altogether is that you can't just ban it.
Oh I completely agree that you can't just ban it. But that doesn't mean that abortion is okay or we must accept it. My wish is that people become educated enough to understand the immorality of the act and have no need for it to be legal.
@anse or have less people getting irresponsibly pregnant in the first place, lol. Agreed
A good place to start might be in schools, start teaching kids more than just "abstinence only" sex ed, imo.
While teaching more than abstinence helps, it really doesn't do enough. I wish kids were just smarter and knew that casual sex with any partner you don't plan on marrying is extremely dangerous and not worth it. Unfortunately most don't.
Is Planned Parenthood an enumerated power of the federal government under the Constitution? No? Okay, then its continued federal support is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Maybe defund the abortion sector and not the entire thing because many people rely on it for other things
There is no funding for the "abortion part" of it.
These funds are fungible. Funding any part of PP funds abortion.
Maybe if christian groups would back off and allow women to receive birth control, planned parenthood would use less federal dollars
In contrast to that lame argument, perhaps if Christian groups had been more adamant, forceful & successful opposing "free sex" & "women's right to choose," the issue wouldn't be so virulent dealing with the predictable results.
I support every woman's right to choose. My issue is they demonstrate no responsibility to choose sufficiently early to not become pregnant when they don't want to be.
And *before* we start w/rape & incest red herring - I am a survivor of *both* - multiple times over. That is a *separate* issue & just as irrelevant to the discussion as the original comment.
Planned parenthood barely gets any federal funding, it only subsidizes women of low income
Subsidization is still wrong. Less wrong then abortion, but still unfair and something that shouldn't be happening in a free country
Then they won't miss it when they are defunded of tax $. Problem solved.
Smh the fact that almost half said yes makes me want to throw up.
What is there to oppose? The fact that they asked people to pay for shipping costs of fetuses to supposed labs? Nah.
The fact that money that we earn is being taken from our paychecks and is given to an organization that performs abortions.