Harry Reid: We’ll shut down government before we shut down Planned Parenthood funding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gamewell45 said:
We can do anything we want; the question is: will the government do anything additional to provide the the same level services that PP does, excluding abortions?
Click to expand...
Why does the government need to provide anything that PP does? Were their federal funds cut, they have a choice: cut abortion services or cut other services. Why is this the federal government’s fault/problem if PP decides to cut its women’s service because it would rather keep its abortion practice running?

This ruse that cutting federal funds to PP will force it to stop providing health services is getting frustrating.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
ishii

Clinton signed the final welfare reform bill after he got put back into it what he wanted.
Also, the democratic governors across the USA were putting pressure on him to do something about their welfare costs.

However, when it comes to abortion, Hillary went to the Cairo-5 summit and threatened any nation seeking aid from the US, that if they outlawed abortion, they wouldn’t get anything.

She was first lady, not the president yet she was stating how US tax dollars would be spent for abortion.

Jim
Click to expand...
This link shows the committment from both Obama and Hillary to spread their abortion rights agenda around the globe.

thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2764-obamacare-goes-global-hillary-clinton-announces

Here is an excerpt:

“The year 2015 is the target year,” Secretary Clinton said in her January 8 remarks. "Part of the reason we wanted to have this commemoration is not only to look backwards, but to look forward. What is it we will do between now and 2015? Remember what was expected of us. All governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right." (my bold italics).

Pretty chilling right? The thing to remember is that Obama is right there with her on this issue. Hillary’s and Obama’s committment to force other countries to fund abortions makes catholic’s support for them all the more morally reprehensible. They are always saying, “keep abortion safe, legal and rare.” Yet they are trying to force other countries to allow abortions. Again, there are catholics on this forum who proudly proclaim their support for Hillary Clinton and/or Obama. Do they realize that they are supporting the proliferation of abortions worldwide?

Ishii
 
ishii said:
This link shows the committment from both Obama and Hillary to spread their abortion rights agenda around the globe.

thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2764-obamacare-goes-global-hillary-clinton-announces

Here is an excerpt:

“The year 2015 is the target year,” Secretary Clinton said in her January 8 remarks. "Part of the reason we wanted to have this commemoration is not only to look backwards, but to look forward. What is it we will do between now and 2015? Remember what was expected of us. All governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right." (my bold italics).

Pretty chilling right? The thing to remember is that Obama is right there with her on this issue. Hillary’s and Obama’s committment to force other countries to fund abortions makes catholic’s support for them all the more morally reprehensible. They are always saying, “keep abortion safe, legal and rare.” Yet they are trying to force other countries to allow abortions. Again, there are catholics on this forum who proudly proclaim their support for Hillary Clinton and/or Obama. Do they realize that they are supporting the proliferation of abortions worldwide?

Ishii
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure how linked to Hillary Obama is. I watched their primary debates and also read Obama’s books. There have different views on abortion, that I can say.
Obama is more of a let the people chose.

Hillary doesn’t accept government of the people.

Also, keep in mind that it is Congress which appropriated the money for the Global Health Initiative, via Nancy Pelosi.

I’m not so concerned about Obama as I am Hillary.

If my gut feel turns out to be true and he decides not to run and she does, if the GOP doesn’t put up a viable female candidate, you can bet Hillary will become president.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I’m not so sure how linked to Hillary Obama is. I watched their primary debates and also read Obama’s books. There have different views on abortion, that I can say.
Obama is more of a let the people chose.

Hillary doesn’t accept government of the people.
Also, keep in mind that it is Congress which appropriated the money for the Global Health Initiative, via Nancy Pelosi.

I’m not so concerned about Obama as I am Hillary.

If my gut feel turns out to be true and he decides not to run and she does, if the GOP doesn’t put up a viable female candidate, you can bet Hillary will become president.
Jim
Click to expand...
Well, I have no reason to believe that Obama departs from Hillary in any significant way. They are very much pro-abortion rights. Both would ensure the highest certainty that their supreme court justices would uphold Roe V wade, for example. But I am wary of Hillary Clinton too. I don’t want either of them to be president next time around. The question is who would be a viable female candidate. I don’t think Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin can fit that role for a variety of reason that I think have been hashed out numerous times on this forum. You may underestimate the mood in 2012 too. I don’t think voters will be so quick to jump on the historical bandwagon as a reason to vote for a presidential candidate as they were in 2008. If the economy doesn’t rebound, and the unrest abroad continues, then the country might well settle for a male candidate who is conservative and has some gravitas in foreign policy - such as a senator or a governor who has lots of experience. We shall see.

Ishii
 
ishii
Well, I have no reason to believe that Obama departs from Hillary in any significant way. They are very much pro-abortion rights.
Click to expand...
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Obama has stated in writing and in his own words with the interview with Rick Warren, that he personally opposes abortion, but doesn’t believe he can force his belief onto others.

Hillary on the other hand, does not oppose abortion personally, and will force it on others.
There is no concept of pro-choice on any issue which Hillary’s wants.
Both would ensure the highest certainty that their supreme court justices would uphold Roe V wade, for example.
Click to expand...
Yeah but guess what, neither would republicans in general, nominate justices who would over turn Roe V Wade. Most all of them believe in the precedent of former rulings by the court.
The question is who would be a viable female candidate. I don’t think Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin can fit that role for a variety of reason that I think have been hashed out numerous times on this forum.
Click to expand...
I believe Michelle Bachman is going to run.
I thought Palin was, but from what I’m hearing lately, she may be content with making lots of money while she can, and then go back home.
You may underestimate the mood in 2012 too. I don’t think voters will be so quick to jump on the historical bandwagon as a reason to vote for a presidential candidate as they were in 2008.
Click to expand...
OH, I do. I believe Americans will vote for a women president, but it will depend on if Obama wins. I think even a woman GOP candidate could be Obama, if his popularity goes back up during the election season.
If the economy doesn’t rebound, and the unrest abroad continues, then the country might well settle for a male candidate who is conservative and has some gravitas in foreign policy - such as a senator or a governor who has lots of experience. We shall see.
Click to expand...
I think the people will stick with the devil they know first.

Jim
 
estesbob said:
I am not looking at them from a religious standpoint-i am looking at them from a moral standpoint. An organization that kills 400,000 children a year is EVIL and should not even be allowed to exist, more or less recieve public funding. There is no reason whatsoever that health care can not be provided to the poor without usiing such an evil organization to do so.
Click to expand...
Bob, when i hear the word “EVIL”, to me that indicates a religious context, however thats just my opinion and not likely the opinion of others in here.

Looking at it from a moral standpoint, the government funds other entities who kill people every day, so if i went along with the analogy that you presented, we would have to stop funding them as well.

And again as I indicated in a prior post, it would be nice if the government could fun medical services but given the cut and slash mentality in Washington DC, its most likely not a feasible option.
 
Suudy said:
Why does the government need to provide anything that PP does? Were their federal funds cut, they have a choice: cut abortion services or cut other services. Why is this the federal government’s fault/problem if PP decides to cut its women’s service because it would rather keep its abortion practice running?

This ruse that cutting federal funds to PP will force it to stop providing health services is getting frustrating.
Click to expand...
Aside from abortion, PP does have services which directly and indirectly save lives and is for the betterment of all mankind. Do you have an idea what PP offers aside from abortion?
 
gamewell45 said:
Bob, when i hear the word “EVIL”, to me that indicates a religious context, however thats just my opinion and not likely the opinion of others in here.

Looking at it from a moral standpoint, the government funds other entities who kill people every day, so if i went along with the analogy that you presented, we would have to stop funding them as well.

And again as I indicated in a prior post, it would be nice if the government could fun medical services but given the cut and slash mentality in Washington DC, its most likely not a feasible option.
Click to expand...
Just becuase the govt funds other EVIL enterprises does not mean we can not oppose it funding ANY evil enterprises. Again it horrifies me that poor women seeking govt funded health care would be directed to an organiaztion that has a vested interest in talking them into killing their child.
 
gamewell45 said:
Aside from abortion, PP does have services which directly and indirectly save lives and is for the betterment of all mankind. Do you have an idea what PP offers aside from abortion?
Click to expand...
“Other than that , how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?”
 
gamewell45 said:
Aside from abortion, PP does have services which directly and indirectly save lives and is for the betterment of all mankind. Do you have an idea what PP offers aside from abortion?
Click to expand...
From the words of PP founder and it is called eugenics:
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174
Click to expand...
.

Peace, Graubo
 
estesbob said:
Just becuase the govt funds other EVIL enterprises does not mean we can not oppose it funding ANY evil enterprises.
Click to expand...
Bob, don’t you think that it would be appropriate to cut funding from ALL EVIL enterprises/agencies that kill people and not just one?
 
gamewell45 said:
Aside from abortion, PP does have services which directly and indirectly save lives and is for the betterment of all mankind. Do you have an idea what PP offers aside from abortion?
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. Pulling the plug on federal PP funding does not change what services they can provide. Now PP can choose to forgo federal funding and provide abortion services at the expense of its other services, or it can drop its abortion services and retain federal funding. Don’t blame Congress for PP’s choices.
 
Suudy said:
That’s not the point. Pulling the plug on federal PP funding does not change what services they can provide. Now PP can choose to forgo federal funding and provide abortion services at the expense of its other services, or it can drop its abortion services and retain federal funding. Don’t blame Congress for PP’s choices.
Click to expand...
At least its (abortions) not being paid for with my tax dollars and they’ll still be able to provide non-abortions services. The only issue I have with PP is that tax dollars are being used to fund abortions; everything else they do I have no problem with.
 
gamewell45 said:
At least its (abortions) not being paid for with my tax dollars and they’ll still be able to provide non-abortions services.
Click to expand...
Sure they are. Say I want to throw a party and have only $80. I plan to buy 4 cases of beer (at $15/case) and spend $20 on food. My buddy gives me $20 and says “Here’s some money to help with the party, just don’t spend any of it on beer.” Well, I can now go out and buy 5 cases of beer and spend $25 on food.

Technically, I didn’t spend his $20 on beer, but somehow I got a lot more beer out of it. When my buddy shows up, don’t you think he’ll scratch his head and say “Hey! Were’d you get the extra beer? I told you not to use my money for it.”? Don’t you think he’d be a pit peeved when I told him “Well, technically I didn’t use your $20. I used my original $80 on beer, and spent your $20 on food.”
gamewell45 said:
The only issue I have with PP is that tax dollars are being used to fund abortions; everything else they do I have no problem with.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with funding of any sort going to abortion providing organizations. The fungible nature of money means they can just do a money shuffle and tell use “Well, technically we didn’t really use your tax dollars. We used our non-government funding on abortion, and spent your money on other services.”
 
gamewell45 said:
Aside from abortion, PP does have services which directly and indirectly save lives and is for the betterment of all mankind. Do you have an idea what PP offers aside from abortion?

estesbob;7684627 said:
“Other than that , how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?”
gamewell45;7684707:
Guess you don’t. 🙂
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nothing that an organization that doesn’t kill babies could offer. That would be actual health care instead of the slaughter of abortion that is deemed “health care” by some.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top