Bush signs increase to Planned Parenthood funding

[mlchance]

oat soda:

i think republican catholics are hypocritical. they can spot all things wrong with the left but when their boys contradict the teachings of the church, they turn their head or make excuses like you do.

IOW, you don’t have a single example of anyone saying President Bush and/or the Republican Party can do no wrong. Just as I suspected.

Unsurprisingly, you do have the ability to call people names and tell lies. For examples of the latter:
oat soda:

just recently, the republican party is recieving support from the porn-industry at a GOP convention.

i never said anything about abortions.

Even the title to this thread is a lie.
oat soda:

if you admit that title X is intrinsically evil…

Title X isn’t intrinsically evil. (Telling lies, OTOH…) As you yourself have been forced to admit, Title X does more than merely fund contraception (and its funds cannot be used for abortions at all). Or are we to believe that screening for cervical cancer is intrinsically evil?
oat soda:

the fact is he did sign it which means he approves more money being spent on contraception.

You don’t know that. Maybe President Bush signed H. R. 4818 because he wanted $5,000,000 for the upgrade and construction of shelters for victims of domestic violence and child abuse.
oat soda:

he could have vetoed the bill and at least saved face with traditional conservatives.

And H. R. 4818 would still be law since Congress had sufficient votes to override a presidential veto.

And then folks would be complaining that President Bush was anti-life because he rejected funding for community health centers; for the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Program; for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs; for a psychiatric treatment facility in Bethel, Alaska; for residential and supportive housing for elders; for medical and dental equipment for rural clinics; as well as the aforementioned $5,000,000 for upgrade and construction of shelters for victims of domestic violence and child abuse.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Philip_P]

The subject of this thread is actually a good example of what’s wrong with the “non-negotiables” approach to voting. As a consequence of funding Title X, there very well may be more funds available for things such as abortion. I wouldn’t use this as an argument against Bush, but then again I don’t believe in the validity/workablity of the “non-negotiables” argument.

I remember when I first heard Chaput’s remarks on Catholic voters and following Church teachings, my first reaction was “great, he’s just disenfranchised the entire Catholic electorate.” Strictly applied, the “non-negotiables” approach makes participation in public life impossible, even as a voter.

 

[ChrisR246]

I’d simply like to point out that even thought Title X $$ can not be used to fund abortions, any additional money going to Planned Parenthood does then allow PP to redirect other money that is not restricted to fund abortions.

For example, say Planned Parenthood can raise $100MM on it’s own to spend however it wishes and directs $50MM to abortions and the other $50MM to the other services that Title X will cover. If the government now gives PP $25MM in Title X money, PP can move $25MM from it’s original, non restricted funding over to the abortion side and now spend $75MM on abortion while still maintaining the $50 on other stuff. So Title X does not directly fund abortions, but any money going to PP in net does.

Other than that I really don’t want to bother commenting on Bush, the Republicans, etc.

Carry on

 

[mlchance]

ChrisR246:

I’d simply like to point out that even thought Title X $$ can not be used to fund abortions, any additional money going to Planned Parenthood does then allow PP to redirect other money that is not restricted to fund abortions.

Admittedly. That is why sensible people who care to do more than just cast aspersions push for meaningful changes to the laws themselves. There is no reason why Title X guidelines cannot be changed to prohibit funds from being given to any organization that provides abortion services, regardless of the fact that Title X funds themselves cannot be used for such services. This would remove organizations like Planned Parenthood from the federal teat.

But, OTOH, there is the counter-argument that such a change in legislation could remove necessary services (such as breast cancer examinations and STD screening) from many people. As true is your observation quoted above, the opposite is also likely to be true: Cut Title X funding for non-abortion services, and Planned Parenthood will then also cut funding for non-abortion services in order to compensate.

As has been pointed out, in life and in politics, there are often no easy solutions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ChrisR246]

mlchance:

Admittedly. That is why sensible people who care to do more than just cast aspersions push for meaningful changes to the laws themselves. There is no reason why Title X guidelines cannot be changed to prohibit funds from being given to any organization that provides abortion services, regardless of the fact that Title X funds themselves cannot be used for such services. This would remove organizations like Planned Parenthood from the federal teat.

But, OTOH, there is the counter-argument that such a change in legislation could remove necessary services (such as breast cancer examinations and STD screening) from many people. As true is your observation quoted above, the opposite is also likely to be true: Cut Title X funding for non-abortion services, and Planned Parenthood will then also cut funding for non-abortion services in order to compensate.

As has been pointed out, in life and in politics, there are often no easy solutions.

– Mark L. Chance.

I completely agree. Unlike some others, I also agree that President Bush (and the Republicans that would have helped override his possible veto) are bright people and understand what I just laid out. They know that increased Title X funding indirectly increases abortion funding.

There is a straightforward, easy solution. Simply cut this and most other tax funding that is unconstitutional. We could then use the money we keep to directly fund breast exams, pelvic exams, etc without directly or indirectly funding abortions. The politicains would never go for it, as it would reduce their power by having less of our wealth to redistribute as they please.

 

[mike182d]

yochumjy:

But just because someone makes statements that are found later to be inaccurate/false does not mean they were lying. It just means they were wrong.

When the Jews in antiquity said that the earth was flat and the “heavens” were an actual “dome” above the ground that seperated the water above from the land below…they were clearly all liars.

 

[mike182d]

Philip P:

I remember when I first heard Chaput’s remarks on Catholic voters and following Church teachings, my first reaction was “great, he’s just disenfranchised the entire Catholic electorate.” Strictly applied, the “non-negotiables” approach makes participation in public life impossible, even as a voter.

The non-negotiables argument was concerned solely with individuals who were directly in contradiction with fundamental Church teaching. If a candidate that was pro-life had on his staff a member who was pro-choice, this would not negate the pro-life stance or position of the candidate and thus the “non-negotiables” argument would not warrant opposition to the candidate as his “support” of the pro-choice movement would be indirect, at best.

The same applies here: Bush has not directly supported abortion or those who perform abortions, and thus the “non-negotiables” argument is not in conflict. While Planned Parenthood is clearly an evil organization, they are not an abortion provider but an abortion supporter - albeit a prime one. If we applied this faulty line of reasoning to the rest of the Title, do we need to research every corporate medical entity and institution receiving funding to ensure that those entities don’t support abortion, homosexual marriage, contraception at all? Did anyone research any of the other organizations mentioned in the Title to see if they support abortions, or just Planned Parenthood?

The non-negotiables argument concerns itself with direct support, not indirect/unintentional support; ergo it still holds up in this situation.

 

[Zachary]

I have to say that my first thought reading the first post was that I couldn’t believe Bush would fund Klanned Parenthood. Thx to all who did research and know how this all works. I’m Canadian and I don’t really know much about the system down there.

2nd, this is for oat soda - if you’d like to prove a point, stop name- calling and start fact-giving. You are not helping your cause at all. In fact, you are only taking any credibility you might have had in the first post and tossing it out the window of a moving train (ie you can’t get it back without much effort.)

 

[wabrams]

abcdefg:

you know liberals use whatever methods to achieve their goal.

No, politicians in general use whatever methods to achieve their goal.

 

[BillyT92679]

mike182d:

The non-negotiables argument was concerned solely with individuals who were directly in contradiction with fundamental Church teaching. If a candidate that was pro-life had on his staff a member who was pro-choice, this would not negate the pro-life stance or position of the candidate and thus the “non-negotiables” argument would not warrant opposition to the candidate as his “support” of the pro-choice movement would be indirect, at best.

The same applies here: Bush has not directly supported abortion or those who perform abortions, and thus the “non-negotiables” argument is not in conflict. While Planned Parenthood is clearly an evil organization, they are not an abortion provider but an abortion supporter - albeit a prime one. If we applied this faulty line of reasoning to the rest of the Title, do we need to research every corporate medical entity and institution receiving funding to ensure that those entities don’t support abortion, homosexual marriage, contraception at all? Did anyone research any of the other organizations mentioned in the Title to see if they support abortions, or just Planned Parenthood?

The non-negotiables argument concerns itself with direct support, not indirect/unintentional support; ergo it still holds up in this situation.

Well, to be fair, I believe the non-negotiables deals with exactly this situation. Politicians don’t necessarily fund abortion mills themselves, they fund Planned Parenthood which doles out the dough to the mills as well as provides contraception. This is a flawed piece of legislation and the President should stand up and say that. I think he and the Congress are derelict in their duty in this regard. That doesn’t make me a bad Republican. I’m a Catholic far and away first and then a Republican. The Republican Party isn’t great; it’s simply the lesser of two evils.

 

[Brad]

oat soda:

i can’t believe the loyalty people have to bush and the republican party on this web site. they believe that he can do no wrong. makes me sick…

first off, while title X does fund number of preventive health services, it also “***is designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons.” ***

---

further, bush has increased the budget on title x from $245 million in FY01 to $288 million in FY05 -an increase in 43 million dollars!!! the bottom line is more of our tax money is going to be spent on contraception - a mortal sin - which will further the culture of death by encouraging the separation of sex from its procreative and unitive function and indirectly cause abortions.

That website you referenced makes me sick. It’s completely anti-Bush. Plus, the article was written in February. This is just plain propaganda.

 

[oat_soda]

As has been pointed out, in life and in politics, there are often no easy solutions

ahhh, spoken like a true politician. there are no absolutes, just gray areas. did you ever think that the whole reason we have rampant abortions, homos, broken families, STDs and violence, is precisely because of contraception.

Pope Leo 13th (i think) pointed this out when the lambeth conference first allowed contraception in marriage. he predicted all of the evil consequences of seperating sex from its life giving function. but i guess for most catholics and republicans, it’s easier just to say “the u.s. isn’t a theocracy” and just focus on the good things the republican party is doing.

contraception will prove to be the downfall of the west unless we recognize it for what it is -deadly to soul and society.

Title X isn’t intrinsically evil. (Telling lies, OTOH…) As you yourself have been forced to admit, Title X does more than merely fund contraception (and its funds cannot be used for abortions at all). Or are we to believe that screening for cervical cancer is intrinsically evil?

your absolutely wrong. by the fact it pays for and promotes contraceptives, it will always be intrinsically evil no matter what else it does. by your line of reasoning i can justify anything if some good results in it. like homo-marriages because it promotes stability.

Unsurprisingly, you do have the ability to call people names and tell lies. For examples of the latter:

what lies?? there is not one lie in my original posting. you read into it or misinterpreted what it says.

That website you referenced makes me sick. It’s completely anti-Bush. Plus, the article was written in February. This is just plain propaganda.

case in point. republican first, catholic second.

The Republican Party isn’t great; it’s simply the lesser of two evils.

i totally agree. this is why i voted for and defend bush for the good things he has done. but i will also point out his many flaws.

 

[Zachary]

Oat, much better post, but still too much name calling. And you try getting votes a being the leader of the free world when everyone hates you. Bush is the beat thing to happen to your country since Canada.

One thing I’d like to comment on your comment:

“…did you ever think that the whole reason we have rampant abortions, homos, broken families, STDs and violence, is precisely because of contraception.”

I thought all those bad things were because of the 7 deadly sins? Contraception is just a means to and ends. It’s saying bullets are evil becuase they kill people. In fact, people make the decision and the bullet is the instrument with no free will. Contraception is wrong, true enough, but IT isn’t the problem.

 

[mlchance]

oat soda:

ahhh, spoken like a true politician. there are no absolutes, just gray areas.

:tsktsk:

And there’s another lie. I never said there are no absolutes.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TPJCatholic]

The republicans are NOT prolife. I have been saying that for well over a year now. The republicans are very smart and they are using the prolife issues to help themselves get elected…yet they are not truly prolife. No-one should be surprised that Bush has increased funding to the evil PP, it is his status quo.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

The republicans are NOT prolife. I have been saying that for well over a year now. The republicans are very smart and they are using the prolife issues to help themselves get elected…yet they are not truly prolife. No-one should be surprised that Bush has increased funding to the evil PP, it is his status quo.

Ok. Let’s vote Hillary Clinton in . Then all will be well.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

Come on, can we be reasonable please.

We need uncompromising leaders. We will never see the end of abortion so long as these games are played by our leaders. Bush knows full well that he is authorizing abortions by increasing funding to PP…yet he did it anyway. We will not get anywhere until “we” prolifers take an unmovable stance that abortion is the murder of babies and that we just flat out won’t accept words…we will only accept actions. Slavery would still be legal if this nation did not finally reach a point where action had to be taken.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Brad,

Bush has the so-called bully plupit, if he really believes in life, then he should bring that to the people every chance he gets. He is not ever running for office again, he has nothing to lose and he could be become a hero of historical proportions if he chose to do something real. Increasing PP funding is not exactly what I would call a brave choice. I like President Bush, I voted for him twice and I think he is a far better President then Kerry would have been on his very best day. Yet, Bush and the republicans have truly turned their backs on doing something real for life…sorry but Social Security and taxes are not even remotely close to the importance that life is, yet Bush spent all his political captial on those issues…what a wasted chance.
My point is this: our leaders need to know we are unbending regarding the slaughter of our most precious and most vulnerable. If we give in to them, then they will give into the dems and to the judges. This is a war and we MUST act like it is.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

Come on, can we be reasonable please.

We need uncompromising leaders. We will never see the end of abortion so long as these games are played by our leaders. Bush knows full well that he is authorizing abortions by increasing funding to PP…yet he did it anyway. We will not get anywhere until “we” prolifers take an unmovable stance that abortion is the murder of babies and that we just flat out won’t accept words…we will only accept actions. Slavery would still be legal if this nation did not finally reach a point where action had to be taken.

I am being reasonable. Division in the party as you are suggesting will result in the progress that is being made to take an abrupt backwards movement. We need to hold them accountable but the alternative has to be reasonable. The risk of a Clinton winiing is real and must be the primary focus of our energies. You do harm to that cause by criticizing the Republican party every chance you get even when the information is extremely doubtful and skewed.

 

[Brad]

TPJCatholic:

Brad,

Bush has the so-called bully plupit, if he really believes in life, then he should bring that to the people every chance he gets. He is not ever running for office again, he has nothing to lose and he could be become a hero of historical proportions if he chose to do something real. Increasing PP funding is not exactly what I would call a brave choice. I like President Bush, I voted for him twice and I think he is a far better President then Kerry would have been on his very best day. Yet, Bush and the republicans have truly turned their backs on doing something real for life…sorry but Social Security and taxes are not even remotely close to the importance that life is, yet Bush spent all his political captial on those issues…what a wasted chance.
My point is this: our leaders need to know we are unbending regarding the slaughter of our most precious and most vulnerable. If we give in to them, then they will give into the dems and to the judges. This is a war and we MUST act like it is.

Ummm. I am.

SC nominees.

Your issue, I believe, is with fellow Republican voters moreso than Bush and the senators. There are just too many Republican voters that are not pro-life.