Here those "conscientious Conservatives" go again. Next they will probably follow up by cutting welfare for Mom's that could not get access to birth control, abortions, etc...
As the Liberals say.. The GOP only cares about a child's life while it is in the womb... After that it is someone else's problem. Thoughts?
DS Ohio Defunds Planned Parenthood
HP "Moderate" Kasich
CNN Kasich signs
As the Liberals say.. The GOP only cares about a child's life while it is in the womb... After that it is someone else's problem. Thoughts?
DS Ohio Defunds Planned Parenthood
HP "Moderate" Kasich
CNN Kasich signs
13 comments:
Seeing as how a Democrat sponsored the bill and approves of the provision, I'm somehow not seeing the problem. Seems the only entity damaged here is PP, and then only because of their own actions.
In the last post you argued that we need to give people more choices.
Now you argue that only PP is harmed when that choice is made less available.
Make up your mind.
More Info
Hopefully PP Ohio can find enough private funding to continue their good work.
PP has the choice. They can fund abortions out of their own pocket or stop doing other things, or stop doing abortions. It depends on their wishes and they have the responsibility to protect their business, NOT the taxpayer.
If it were just a matter of "women's health," as PP and its supporters claim, that is covered in the legislation, giving additional support to other women's health clinics, thus giving women MORE choices.
Now did you notice that only 4% of their business had to do with emergency contraception and abortion services... And that 96% had to do with health and pregnancy prevention...
As I often say, the Far Right and Far Left are very similar in many ways. Both want to use government to force their values on other citizens and reduce personal freedoms/ choice.
They can fund abortions out of their own pocket or stop doing other things, or stop doing abortions
The choice they made was to fund abortions out of their own pocket. As is so often the case, the right refuses to take yes for an answer. But since the money that went to Planned Parenthood will now go to different entities that provide the same services Planned Parenthood provides without controversy there is no problem. Or is there?
==Hiram
"Both want to use government to force their values on other citizens..."
So, the Left wants to FORCE taxpayers to spend their money (channeled through government) on the murdering of unborn children, while the majority of taxpayers want to FORCE PP to fund abortions from voluntary donations or user fees. Hmmm. I'm not seeing the moral equivalence.
And money has no moral values; it's fungible. Once PP has the taxpayer money, they can SAY they do not spend it on abortions, but that's just a bookkeeping entry.
"And money has no moral values; it's fungible. Once PP has the taxpayer money, they can SAY they do not spend it on abortions, but that's just a bookkeeping entry."
Let's remember two things here. First, a large majority of the taxpayer money that PP receives is reimbursement from Medicare/Medicaid/other government health programs in reimbursement for services performed. Second, PP has to follow stringent rules to demonstrate their compliance with federal and state laws regarding funding of abortions. Saying "it's fungible" is a fudge, and in fact, not really true.
Sean, I'm not sure how one "proves" that a certain stack of money didn't go to something other than intended. If PP receives X for this and Y for that, and Y is cut off, doesn't X have to increase to cover this AND that? Conversely, If PP receives X+Y, which part of X+Y goes into this, and which into that? How do we know that only Y funds that, except by arbitrary bookkeeping? Not saying it can't be done, but supposedly Medicare fraud isn't possible, either.
"The Left wants to FORCE taxpayers to spend their money (channeled through government) on the murdering of unborn children."
The NeoCons want to use tax money to fund carpet bombing civilians in other countries.
The tree huggers want to use tax money to over regulate businesses.
The money that is collected by the government via taxes is NO LONGER OUR MONEY... The government spends it's money on many things that individual tax payers disagree with. What is your point?
My point would be that we would object if government wanted to carpet bomb the US. We would object if the government tried to burn down the National Forests. Why should we not object when our government murders unborn children? Government can spend on things individual taxpayers disagree with, it's true and court tested. But at what point does government need to consider the conscience of millions of us in deciding what actions it CHOOSES to take? And what actions it should not undertake for simple common sense reasons, especially if they are the same?
It is not murder until after the point of viability.
Better to abort a young fetus than neglect a child.
Many many millions of citizens were against invading Iraq, I didn't see the neocons slowing down.
"Better to abort a young fetus than neglect a child." --The modern Chinese state.
We have laws against child neglect or abuse to protect the child. Then we have, more or less, laws permitting abortion on demand past the point of viability. Then we have the eugenics-like notion that some wise bureaucrat can decide arbitrarily, pre-birth, that some parents are unfit to raise a child properly and it is better to kill the "potential human life" than to try to put up "guard rails" and assure its proper nurture.
I dislike moral equivalence; there are just too many variables. It would be nearly impossible to invade Iraq and extinguish every innocent life there. Invading a womb is 100% fatal.
Post a Comment