Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,078
    vCash
    1000

    House Votes to Strip Planned Parenthood Funding

    House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding

    From NBC's Shawna Thomas and Mark Murray

    As expected, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence's (R) amendment to strip federal funding for Planned Parenthood passed the House by a 240-185 vote. Ten Democrats joined the GOP majority, while seven Republicans voted against the measure.

    It is very unlikely that the measure would pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...nthood-funding
    .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,779
    vCash
    1500
    Clearly no one told them that the video that "caught" PPH was fake/edited just like the one about Acorn.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,078
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Clearly no one told them that the video that "caught" PPH was fake/edited just like the one about Acorn.
    Does that also mean that PP isn't run by the ghost of Karl Marx? I'VE BEEN DUPED!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,078
    vCash
    1000
    UGH, anybody who wants to see what's wrong with our gov't and why it takes so ****ing long to get stuff done, watch CSPAN on cspan.org right now. 30 minutes just to praise some one who's leaving the House.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Clearly no one told them that the video that "caught" PPH was fake/edited just like the one about Acorn.
    I've seen nothing to substantiate the claim that anything was doctored about the tape. I've just seen it claimed, and then repeated a bunch of times.

    The other claim has been that Planned Parenthood alerted authorities. To which the counterclaim has been that they only alerted authorities when they figured out it was a sting. They wrote a letter to Eric Holder, but I am not sure how and when they alerted local authorities.


    But, on the topic at hand. Why should the government be funding Planned Parenthood in the first place?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,078
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    But, on the topic at hand. Why should the government be funding Planned Parenthood in the first place?
    To supplement and assist in funding health services for families in need.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I've seen nothing to substantiate the claim that anything was doctored about the tape. I've just seen it claimed, and then repeated a bunch of times.

    The other claim has been that Planned Parenthood alerted authorities. To which the counterclaim has been that they only alerted authorities when they figured out it was a sting. They wrote a letter to Eric Holder, but I am not sure how and when they alerted local authorities.


    But, on the topic at hand. Why should the government be funding Planned Parenthood in the first place?
    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/04/v...-tapes-a-hoax/

    From Cucenelli's own mouth, “My office has not yet received the complete and unedited video footage."

    For reference Cucenelli is the AG of Virginia who is leading the case against the Health Insurance Reform, heavily backed by the tea party, so he certainly isnt bias in favor of PPH.

    But the reason that the government is funding PPH is because they provide a service for families of extremely low incomes and those who do not have the resources to properly care for a child.

    Now as far as the rules that they "broke", there were none, if you dont like that a child can get legally birth control at 12 then that is a separate issue entirely to thinking it is immoral to help them get it. The law is what it is, and PPH and other pro-choice organizations help people who want the information get it, the same way any other free legal service works. PPH provides legal consultation the same way that pro bono defenders and public defendants do. I dont mean to compare people who get an abortion to defendants but i will say that nearly all of them feel worse than a defendant when they go in and when they leave. People who treat abortion seekers as people who just use abortion as birth control do not give them any credit and assume they are all scum from what i see.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Oh, I don't know. There's really no reason the federal government has to fund PPH. This is just a classic "political process" issue. If Congress votes to strip PPH of funding, so be it. If it votes to fund PPH, so be it. In other words, there's not really any constitutional issue here.

    I think the federal government should fund PPH (at least in consideration of how many organizations the federal government funds). But I don't see why it has to. PPH does plenty of good, even if you don't like their abortion policies. Contraception, sexual education, services for prospective mothers ... Only the Catholic Church could take issue with any of those things.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,078
    vCash
    1000
    well it's a little unnerving that when it comes time to trim the budget, there's a lot of talk about cutting PPH funding and NPR/PBS going away. Seems more agenda based than practical and/or ethical.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    well it's a little unnerving that when it comes time to trim the budget, there's a lot of talk about cutting PPH funding and NPR/PBS going away. Seems more agenda based than practical and/or ethical.
    I am not defending these cuts, i believe in times of economic crisis the people who most need assistance are those on the very bottom (lets face it hedge fund managers dont go to PPH for help). But i will say, you can call it "defense" if you want, that it is easiest to see waste in programs you fully disagree with than ones you agree with. Conservatives in the House see waste in PPH, NPR, and PBS the same way that i see waste in subsidies for oil and gas companies, the war in Iraq, or the criminalization and prosecution of drug use (particularly pot).

    It isnt a justification, but i believe it helps understand the differing views of "waste".
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Valencia, CA
    Posts
    3,780
    vCash
    1500
    NPR/PBS wouldn't go away if they lost their federal funding. Neither would PPH.
    "If [Republicans] were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." -- Pres. Barack Obama

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,767
    vCash
    1500
    Just remember, it's all about jobs. Or was it all about symbolic votes in the House on totally irrelevant issues? Why symbolic? Because they have no chance whatsoever of passing the Senate and being signed into law. Welcome to yet more political puppet theater designed to energize the Republican base while actually achieving nothing.
    I'm going to list ALEC in credits as associate producer of creating horrifying things for us to talk about -John Oliver

    People who think the least powerful members of society are responsible for most of its problems are deluded, at best.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,078
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I am not defending these cuts, i believe in times of economic crisis the people who most need assistance are those on the very bottom (lets face it hedge fund managers dont go to PPH for help). But i will say, you can call it "defense" if you want, that it is easiest to see waste in programs you fully disagree with than ones you agree with. Conservatives in the House see waste in PPH, NPR, and PBS the same way that i see waste in subsidies for oil and gas companies, the war in Iraq, or the criminalization and prosecution of drug use (particularly pot).

    It isnt a justification, but i believe it helps understand the differing views of "waste".
    I was glad to see a Republican take the floor yesterday to discuss excess and wasteful military spending. Spoke of all the weapons bought for the defense department that the defense department said they don't need and never will.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,779
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    I was glad to see a Republican take the floor yesterday to discuss excess and wasteful military spending. Spoke of all the weapons bought for the defense department that the defense department said they don't need and never will.
    I do believe the new Republicans in their plea to include military spending. I take them at their word to attempt to cut it. I feel like an EO to tell the defense department to not build useless weapons would be a good idea, but representatives with the building in their district wouldnt like that.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •