Not one abortion by PP in Louisiana - ever, but LA Repubs want to defund it anyway

[Atomic Playboy]

The woman wouldn't have a black eye if she just listened to her husband?

It's your fault you got shot; I just wanted your wallet, and you had to be such a negative Nancy.

 

[dainthomas]

You are confusing business operations with a real person.

I thought corporations were people? Maybe I'm getting my fascist talking points mixed up, but it's hard to keep them straight when they have no basis in logic.

 

[Cozarkian]

The woman wouldn't have a black eye if she just listened to her husband?

Ooh, ooh, I get to use the forum's favorite word - straw man!

The republicans aren't punishing democrats by passing a law that shuts down the government, they are refusing to pass a budget that funds PP. Similarly, the democrats refuse to pass a law that doesn't. It's like playing chicken except it isn't their cars that will get wrecked.

 

[dainthomas]

Ooh, ooh, I get to use the forum's favorite word - straw man!

The republicans aren't punishing democrats by passing a law that shuts down the government, they are refusing to pass a budget that funds PP. Similarly, the democrats refuse to pass a law that doesn't. It's like playing chicken except it isn't their cars that will get wrecked.

Since planned parenthood is overwhelmingly supported by the general public, who would get blamed for another shutdown that costs everyone billions?

No wonder republicans are going to get trounced in the next presidential election. Again. The American people realize they need a democratic president to keep a lid on the right-wing crazies infesting congress.

 

[shira]

Really?

When did pp start delivering children instead of killing them?

If a woman is going to go to a clinic let it be a full service clinic.

I'm asking you a question of principle: Should a state be able to shut down a business solely because of the political affiliation of the business owner?

It's a very simple question.

 

[Cozarkian]

Since planned parenthood is overwhelmingly supported by the general public, who would get blamed for another shutdown that costs everyone billions?

No wonder republicans are going to get trounced in the next presidential election. Again. The American people realize they need a democratic president to keep a lid on the right-wing crazies infesting congress.

That is a separate issue. It isn't accurate to state the Republicans want to shut down the government and to imply the Democrats are helpless victims simply because you anticipate the Republicans will bear the bulk of the political consequences.

If a motorcycle is willing to play chicken with an SUV, I doesn't mean the motorcyclist wanted to cause an accident and the SUV didn't. It just means the motorcyclist poorly evaluated the probability and consequences of an accident.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Ooh, ooh, I get to use the forum's favorite word - straw man!

The republicans aren't punishing democrats by passing a law that shuts down the government, they are refusing to pass a budget that funds PP. Similarly, the democrats refuse to pass a law that doesn't. It's like playing chicken except it isn't their cars that will get wrecked.

But Planned Parenthood has been in the budget for decades. It's the status quo. The Republicans are trying to change the status quo based on absolutely nothing, and threatening the shutdown if they don't get their way.

To continue your "cars playing chicken" analogy, the Democrats are driving along a long stretch of highway, listening to Steely Dan and thinking everything is basically hunky dory. The Republicans see that car approaching and think "I know a game we can play!," and swerve into the Democrats' lane. The Democrats see this happen and think "what are these maniacs doing?" But apparently it's both parties' faults when the crash happens. If you didn't want to play chicken, you should never have gotten in a car to begin with!

Now, granted, that's not how logic works in the world of traffic accidents when it comes to police reports, or insurance claims, or even just general perception. And, lo and behold, it's also not how public perception works when it comes to threatening to shut down the government over petty budgetary squabbles. But if you're an ideologue who puts party ahead of logic, I can see how you might miss that distinction.

 

[Cozarkian]

But Planned Parenthood has been in the budget for decades. It's the status quo. The Republicans are trying to change the status quo based on absolutely nothing, and threatening the shutdown if they don't get their way.

To continue your "cars playing chicken" analogy, the Democrats are driving along a long stretch of highway, listening to Steely Dan and thinking everything is basically hunky dory. The Republicans see that car approaching and think "I know a game we can play!," and swerve into the Democrats' lane. The Democrats see this happen and think "what are these maniacs doing?" But apparently it's both parties' faults when the crash happens. If you didn't want to play chicken, you should never have gotten in a car to begin with!

Now, granted, that's not how logic works in the world of traffic accidents when it coumes to police reports, or insurance claims, or even just general perception. And, lo and behold, it's also not how public perception works when it comes to threatening to shut down the government over petty budgetary squabbles. But if you're an ideologue who puts party ahead of logic, I can see how you might miss that distinction.

Are you suggesting that it is always wrong to eliminate funding and that government budgets should solely ever consider adding new programs without re-evaluating old ones?

The democrat are driving down the highway in the wrong direction. A republican pulls onto the freeway and thinks "that nut is going the wrong way, surely he'll realize that and swerve." Meanwhile, the Democrat thinks "I was in this lane first - status quo - better move buddy."

 

[Atreus21]

Just in case you had any doubts that Republicans had any integrity at all when it comes to women's health, just consider the saga of Planned Parenthood in Louisiana. PP's two LA clinics there have never offered abortion services in PP's entire 30 year history there. So you'd think that LA Republicans wouldn't have any issues at all with PP. Think again.



In summary: Who gives a fuck about actual women's health? Who cares if 5,000 poor Louisiana women lose their access to reproductive health care? What much more important is pretending that Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood has something to do with abortion (even though PP doesn't actually provide abortions at all in LA), to stir up the right-wing base to show that I, Bobby Jindahl, am a genuine fire-breathing conservative.

You guys would do much better if you focused on the merits rather than trying to cast Republicans as evilly conspiring to gradually ratchet back women's access to health care under the guise of restricting abortion.

That PP doesn't do abortions in Louisiana doesn't mean that they don't do a majority of the nation's abortions. The claim is that they should be defunded as much as possible because of their callous treatment of unborn children. If Louisiana can deprive them of whatever they get from Louisiana, it's a step in that direction.

There are tons of clinics that provide comprehensive women's health care that aren't operated by PP.

 

[shira]

Are you suggesting that it is always wrong to eliminate funding and that government budgets should solely ever consider adding new programs without re-evaluating old ones?

The democrat are driving down the highway in the wrong direction. A republican pulls onto the freeway and thinks "that nut is going the wrong way, surely he'll realize that and swerve." Meanwhile, the Democrat thinks "I was in this lane first - status quo - better move buddy."

Eliminating funding for PP has nothing whatsoever with reducing the budget. Republicans promise us that low-income women will have access to exactly the same services as from PP, albeit from another provider. And those other clinics all charge what PP does - the allowed prices defined by Medicaid.

So what on Earth is Louisiana's motivation to remove PP as a Medicaid provider in the state? Abortions? No, PP-LA doesn't do any. Saving money? No, since LA women will (according to LA) still get the same services from other providers.

So what's left? Oh, let's guess: POLITICS. Imagine that.

 

[dainthomas]

You guys would do much better if you focused on the merits rather than trying to cast Republicans as evilly conspiring to gradually ratchet back women's access to health care under the guise of restricting abortion.

That PP doesn't do abortions in Louisiana doesn't mean that they don't do a majority of the nation's abortions. The claim is that they should be defunded as much as possible because of their callous treatment of unborn children. If Louisiana can deprive them of whatever they get from Louisiana, it's a step in that direction.

There are tons of clinics that provide comprehensive women's health care that aren't operated by PP.

As someone else pointed out, the state of women's health care in Louisiana is particularly dismal. So it seems like you'd want to at least maintain the number of providers rather than cut them for political reasons.

If anyone can make a case that this won't harm poor women, I'm willing to listen.

 

[shira]

You guys would do much better if you focused on the merits rather than trying to cast Republicans as evilly conspiring to gradually ratchet back women's access to health care under the guise of restricting abortion.

That PP doesn't do abortions in Louisiana doesn't mean that they don't do a majority of the nation's abortions. The claim is that they should be defunded as much as possible because of their callous treatment of unborn children. If Louisiana can deprive them of whatever they get from Louisiana, it's a step in that direction.

There are tons of clinics that provide comprehensive women's health care that aren't operated by PP.

This thread is about PP in Louisiana. This thread is about Louisiana's Medicaid Plan. Do you have any evidence at all that money from Louisiana is used by PP in other states to perform abortions?

And all that is beside the point: It is ILLEGAL for Louisiana to remove a clinic's Medicare provider status without cause. It is ILLEGAL for State or Federal governments discriminate against a business solely on the basis that they don't like their political affiliation.

And if you don't like the fact that abortions are LEGAL in the U.S., then pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it ILLEGAL. Failing that, stop breaking the law to deprive women of their rights.

 

[Jhhnn]

You guys would do much better if you focused on the merits rather than trying to cast Republicans as evilly conspiring to gradually ratchet back women's access to health care under the guise of restricting abortion.

That PP doesn't do abortions in Louisiana doesn't mean that they don't do a majority of the nation's abortions. The claim is that they should be defunded as much as possible because of their callous treatment of unborn children. If Louisiana can deprive them of whatever they get from Louisiana, it's a step in that direction.

There are tons of clinics that provide comprehensive women's health care that aren't operated by PP.

And what of Women's constitutional right to abortion?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Are you suggesting that it is always wrong to eliminate funding and that government budgets should solely ever consider adding new programs without re-evaluating old ones?

The democrat are driving down the highway in the wrong direction. A republican pulls onto the freeway and thinks "that nut is going the wrong way, surely he'll realize that and swerve." Meanwhile, the Democrat thinks "I was in this lane first - status quo - better move buddy."

The Democrats aren't driving down the highway the wrong way though; we're getting into the matter of opinions, which aren't set in stone (unlike traffic lanes, which literally are). And threatening a complete shutdown if you don't get your way is not good governance; that's something a child does when you tell them that they can't have ice cream before they finish their broccoli. Or do you also blame the parents for unreasonable temper tantrums? Well they should have just immediately capitulated to that absurd request, because avoiding conflict is the only measure of success.

 

[Cozarkian]

Eliminating funding for PP has nothing whatsoever with reducing the budget. Republicans promise us that low-income women will have access to exactly the same services as from PP, albeit from another provider. And those other clinics all charge what PP does - the allowed prices defined by Medicaid.

So what on Earth is Louisiana's motivation to remove PP as a Medicaid provider in the state? Abortions? No, PP-LA doesn't do any. Saving money? No, since LA women will (according to LA) still get the same services from other providers.

So what's left? Oh, let's guess: POLITICS. Imagine that.

The above post was on reference to a related issue that was brought up in this thread. For my thoughts on the LA - PP issue, see my various posts in the first two pages agreeing this is a bad law.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys would do much better if you focused on the merits rather than trying to cast Republicans as evilly conspiring to gradually ratchet back women's access to health care under the guise of restricting abortion.

That's pretty much exactly what the result of their actions is, so it seems worth calling out, no?

That PP doesn't do abortions in Louisiana doesn't mean that they don't do a majority of the nation's abortions. The claim is that they should be defunded as much as possible because of their callous treatment of unborn children. If Louisiana can deprive them of whatever they get from Louisiana, it's a step in that direction.

There are tons of clinics that provide comprehensive women's health care that aren't operated by PP.

As a state with one of the worst reproductive health records in the nation you would think Louisiana would want all the help it can get.

It's this kind of politics before medicine attitude that has gotten Louisiana into this state, I would imagine.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, it isn't. You can argue the inseminated egg has a right to life that trumps any right to abortion and still acknowledge that this is a bad law.

Hogwash. All anti-choice arguments & legislation attempt to sidestep the Constitutional rights of women in a variety of catch 22 ways.

It's a perpetual diversion into the quixotic quest to ban abortion w/o amending the Constitution & the chumps fall for it every time.

The Louisiana legislature is now part of that great chickenshit crusade against those rights. They don't care what PP has or has not done in their state. They're marching in the Army of the Lord. Don't try to paint it any other way.

 

[Cozarkian]

The Democrats aren't driving down the highway the wrong way though; we're getting into the matter of opinions, which aren't set in stone (unlike traffic lanes, which literally are). And threatening a complete shutdown if you don't get your way is not good governance; that's something a child does when you tell them that they can't have ice cream before they finish their broccoli. Or do you also blame the parents for unreasonable temper tantrums? Well they should have just immediately capitulated to that absurd request, because avoiding conflict is the only measure of success.

The Republicans believe the Democrats are driving down the highway the wrong direction, the democrats believe they are driving in the right direction. They will argue their case to the jury/voters.

It is fair to argue on the merits that the Republicans should relent and avoid the collision, but it is utterly inaccurate to make the claim that the Republicans want to shut down the government - that is not their goal.

 

[Cozarkian]

Hogwash. All anti-choice arguments & legislation attempt to sidestep the Constitutional rights of women in a variety of catch 22 ways.

It's a perpetual diversion into the quixotic quest to ban abortion w/o amending the Constitution & the chumps fall for it every time.

The Louisiana legislature is now part of that great chickenshit crusade against those rights. They don't care what PP has or has not done in their state. They're marching in the Army of the Lord. Don't try to paint it any other way.

You better go tell the Supreme Court that their argument that the right to life trumps the right to an abortion at the point of viability is an attempt to sidestep constitutional rights without an amendment.

I wouldn't normally engage in such a blatant appeal to authority, but since your own argument is just an appeal to your own authority, it seemed appropriate.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It is fair to argue on the merits that the Republicans should relent and avoid the collision, but it is utterly inaccurate to make the claim that the Republicans want to shut down the government - that is not their goal.

It's not their goal, but it is their tactic, and that's what people take issue with. If I threaten you with violence unless you perform a task, my goal is not to be violent, it's to get you to do something that you potentially don't want to do. The tactic is the problem. Similarly, when the Republicans threaten to shut down the government if they don't get their way, they are using an extremely immature tactic to attempt to achieve their goals. You placing the blame for the outcome of that tactic on both parties is pure bullshit; blame the people who brought it to the table in the first place.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Republicans believe the Democrats are driving down the highway the wrong direction, the democrats believe they are driving in the right direction. They will argue their case to the jury/voters.

It is fair to argue on the merits that the Republicans should relent and avoid the collision, but it is utterly inaccurate to make the claim that the Republicans want to shut down the government - that is not their goal.

Oh, please. Republicans have been tearing down the govt for decades & have done their best to prevent proper functioning ever since they lost the presidency to that black usurper in 2008.

Here's what Grover Norquist, one of their most respected ideologues, said long before that, in 2001-

I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Temporary shutdowns are just a means to that end & the ultimate goal of a government that only provides corporate services & a propaganda platform.

 

[Jhhnn]

You better go tell the Supreme Court that their argument that the right to life trumps the right to an abortion at the point of viability is an attempt to sidestep constitutional rights without an amendment.

I wouldn't normally engage in such a blatant appeal to authority, but since your own argument is just an appeal to your own authority, it seemed appropriate.

Nice dance. I have not questioned any SCOTUS rulings wrt viability of the fetus. Those rulings limit & condition women's rights rather than denying them entirely.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How the hell do you replublitards look yourself in the mirror each day?

 

[sandorski]

How the hell do you replublitards look yourself in the mirror each day?

If things don't appear as you believe them to be, your eyes are deceiving you.

 

[CitizenKain]

You guys would do much better if you focused on the merits rather than trying to cast Republicans as evilly conspiring to gradually ratchet back women's access to health care under the guise of restricting abortion.

That PP doesn't do abortions in Louisiana doesn't mean that they don't do a majority of the nation's abortions. The claim is that they should be defunded as much as possible because of their callous treatment of unborn children. If Louisiana can deprive them of whatever they get from Louisiana, it's a step in that direction.

There are tons of clinics that provide comprehensive women's health care that aren't operated by PP.

Would this be the same list that claimed a dentist's office provided child care?