So are Republicans going to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

[JSt0rm]

It'd be the Republican's fault for voting no in opposition of the budget.
This case is the opposite of your scenario.

Democrats should vote yes for the budget, whether Planned Parenthood is on it or not.

So the political parties should use the budget as a weapon to get the results they want?

What happens if the dems did the same thing?

 

[theeedude]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politic...anned-parenthood-is-the-opposite-of-pro-life/

Sounds like "pro-life" GOP is going to kill (or, if you prefer, indirectly result in deaths of) tens of thousands of women whose breast and cervical cancers won't be detected in time, and result in hundreds of thousands of additional abortions by blocking funding to reproductive health. But hey, they are pro-life, right?

 

[JSt0rm]

Jaskala: Should republicans vote for the budget whether planned parenthood is on it or not?

 

[theeedude]

This would be a winner for Republicans if they just used it to rile up their idiot base without getting into the particulars.
But if it causes a shut down and has to endure deeper scrutiny and debate, it turns into a big loser. We are talking about denying millions of women the ability to see the doctor they have been seeing, to get cancer screenings, birth control, etc.
It's going to be a big winner for Hillary though, since it puts women's issues at the forefront, and she already has an ad out to capitalize:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1_WjeNOCM

 

[feralkid]

http://www.theonion.com/article/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex-20476

 

[glenn1]

This would be a winner for Republicans if they just used it to rile up their idiot base without getting into the particulars.
But if it causes a shut down and has to endure deeper scrutiny and debate, it turns into a big loser. We are talking about denying millions of women the ability to see the doctor they have been seeing, to get cancer screenings, birth control, etc.
It's going to be a big winner for Hillary though, since it puts women's issues at the forefront, and she already has an ad out to capitalize:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1_WjeNOCM

PP does all those things for the same reason McDonald's sells salads - to give them the appearance of being somewhat wholesome so that people are distracted from their otherwise simply repulsive core product. Trying to make it out like PP is some kind of holistic 'women's health' organization instead of about abortions is like the southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

 

[Jhhnn]

PP does all those things for the same reason McDonald's sells salads - to give them the appearance of being somewhat wholesome so that people are distracted from their otherwise simply repulsive core product. Trying to make it out like PP is some kind of holistic 'women's health' organization instead of about abortions is like the southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Here's how PP spends its money-

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

You might want to consider facts in the formulation of opinion. Not likely.

Question what you believe. No matter how you look at it you don't get the right to lie about it, especially to yourself.

 

[hawtdawg]

The GE is still 15 months away. The average American attention span is MUCH MUCH shorter so.....

You forget that the GOP will drag non-stories out over several years. Benghazi for instance.

 

[sm625]

I wish they would shutdown the govt over planned parenthood. But why would they? They love the fact that 75% of aborted fetuses would have voted democrat had they not been aborted.

 

[PokerGuy]

Here's how PP spends its money-

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

You might want to consider facts in the formulation of opinion. Not likely.

That chart doesn't appear to say anything about how they spend their funds. It shows the breakdown in terms of "number of services" provided. So basically, they provided 11 million "services" to roughly 3 million people, and roughly 3% of those "services" were abortions. That doesn't tell us anything about how the budget is actually spent, and we also don't know what constitutes a "service".

It's hard to find good numbers because it's such a polarized issue and there's a lot of fud and misinformation provided by anti and pro groups. As near as I can tell, roughly 15% of PP funding (from all sources) is used for abortions.

 

[CitizenKain]

PP does all those things for the same reason McDonald's sells salads - to give them the appearance of being somewhat wholesome so that people are distracted from their otherwise simply repulsive core product. Trying to make it out like PP is some kind of holistic 'women's health' organization instead of about abortions is like the southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

glenn1 lying again, what a surprise.

Nothing appears to upset poorly educated republicans like affordable health care for women.

 

[fskimospy]

glenn1 lying again, what a surprise.

Nothing appears to upset poorly educated republicans like affordable health care for women.

What's weird is that I bet finding out that he's wrong about Planned Parenthood will likely only enrage him further, even though you think he would be happy to realize that it is in fact a holistic women's health organization.

 

[HomerJS]

glenn1 lying again, what a surprise.

Nothing appears to upset poorly educated republicans like affordable health care for women.

and if you cut their funding for contraception the number of abortions will rise. Is that what they really want?

 

[Jaskalas]

Jaskala: Should republicans vote for the budget whether planned parenthood is on it or not?

Anyone voting "no" on the budget is responsible for "shutting down" government.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone voting "no" on the budget is responsible for "shutting down" government.

Don't be ridiculous. This is the same line that Republicans tried to use in the past where they tried to make repealing the ACA part of any budget and then blamed Democrats for 'shutting down the government'. It failed miserably, because everyone can see through that transparent crap.

As always, the person trying to take hostages is the one at fault for a hostage situation. This will always be how it is.

 

[K1052]

Anyone voting "no" on the budget is responsible for "shutting down" government.

The public seems to disagree with you there. The GOP took by far the largest share of the blame in the last shutdown and earlier this year when they held DHS funding hostage the polling indicated the same outcome.

Any party that attaches poison pills to CRs or agency funding is going to take the heat…and eventually loose.

 

[Mxylplyx]

and if you cut their funding for contraception the number of abortions will rise. Is that what they really want?

Thats the real head scratcher. Many conservatives espouse a seemingly unwavering revulsion to the idea of abortion, but when presented with policy prescriptions that are PROVEN to reduce the number of abortions performed, they will quickly reject them if it violates other ideological sensibilities, ones you would think should be much more flexible when weighed against the prospect of an actual abortion. If giving free contraceptives to low income or at risk mothers reduces the chance of them getting pregnant and having an abortion, why not support this policy? Perhaps conservatives value the need to wag their fingers at some undesirable caricature of a welfare queen more than they truly value the life of an unborn fetus.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Anyone voting "no" on the budget is responsible for "shutting down" government.

lols. That logical fallacy that nobody was buying worked so well during the last Republican shutdown, didnt it?

 

[cabri]

lols. That logical fallacy that nobody was buying worked so well during the last Republican shutdown, didnt it?

Yet the voter memories were so long that they punished the Republicans during the 2014 electinos^_^

 

[flexy]

Republicans:

ALWAYS making emotional, relatively "non-issues" a subject.

* Abortions and the right for it or not are NOT a pressing problem America has. It's a "further we have" issue which is sort-of irrelevant.

YET...republican candidates MUST use those subjects, along with "they coming from Tijuana to rape our kids and wives!" since emotional crap like is like an universal language that everyone, even those with a low IQ, can "understand". (Emotions don't require thinking).

Crap like this is ONLY used because the multi-billionaire knows that a vast majority of conservatives is receptacle for this emotional crap, it's a way to catch votes, nothing more.

I am still waiting for Trump to open his mouth one day and address actual problems and present REAL solutions for them. (Something which I would expect from a potential future pres).

 

[shira]

Thats the real head scratcher. Many conservatives espouse a seemingly unwavering revulsion to the idea of abortion, but when presented with policy prescriptions that are PROVEN to reduce the number of abortions performed, they will quickly reject them if it violates other ideological sensibilities, ones you would think should be much more flexible when weighed against the prospect of an actual abortion. If giving free contraceptives to low income or at risk mothers reduces the chance of them getting pregnant and having an abortion, why not support this policy? Perhaps conservatives value the need to wag their fingers at some undesirable caricature of a welfare queen more than they truly value the life of an unborn fetus.

Because "free contraceptives" for low-income women implies (to conservatives) "sex for pleasure" and (even worse) out-of-wedlock sex. They could probably (barely) live with "sex for pleasure" on the public dime, but even the barest hint of an implied approval for out-of-wedlock sex is a big no-no for those courting the religious right.

 

[glenn1]

Thats the real head scratcher. Many conservatives espouse a seemingly unwavering revulsion to the idea of abortion, but when presented with policy prescriptions that are PROVEN to reduce the number of abortions performed, they will quickly reject them if it violates other ideological sensibilities, ones you would think should be much more flexible when weighed against the prospect of an actual abortion. If giving free contraceptives to low income or at risk mothers reduces the chance of them getting pregnant and having an abortion, why not support this policy? Perhaps conservatives value the need to wag their fingers at some undesirable caricature of a welfare queen more than they truly value the life of an unborn fetus.

I for one would support a large increase in federal funding to PP if they got out of the abortion business altogether, and this would allow them to truly positively impact public health. Since others say abortion is "only 3%" of their business the impact would be minimal.

But you and everyone else knows that PP would never take that deal. They would and have shut down facilities in Texas and elsewhere when legal restrictions have made abortion provision impractical. If they can't provide abortions they typically lose interest in providing their other services also. Like I said earlier, abortion is the paramount consideration for PP and everything else they do is just an adjunct.

Which is why the PP defunding should have been done instead as a redirection of federal funds to organizations providing healthcare that doesn't involve abortion, with a healthy increase in money to boot. PP should be actively shunned by the federal government.

 

[Mxylplyx]

But you and everyone else knows that PP would never take that deal. They would and have shut down facilities in Texas and elsewhere when legal restrictions have made abortion provision impractical. If they can't provide abortions they typically lose interest in providing their other services also. Like I said earlier, abortion is the paramount consideration for PP and everything else they do is just an adjunct.

Everything you just said is a flat out lie. PP clinics in Texas shut down because the state government slashed funding for family planning, rejecting $30M a year in federal funding in order to do so. This has led to many thousands of unplanned pregnancies in a state where half were already unplanned...and guess what that's going to lead to more of? Despite your misguided belief that 97% of planned parenthood's operations are merely a cover to justify the 3% of their operation which is abortion services, which they obviously immensely enjoy since abortion is so fun, it's just not true, but then again I'm sure you find inconvenient facts boring and will quickly brush them aside, so carry on.

 

[Jhhnn]

That chart doesn't appear to say anything about how they spend their funds. It shows the breakdown in terms of "number of services" provided. So basically, they provided 11 million "services" to roughly 3 million people, and roughly 3% of those "services" were abortions. That doesn't tell us anything about how the budget is actually spent, and we also don't know what constitutes a "service".

It's hard to find good numbers because it's such a polarized issue and there's a lot of fud and misinformation provided by anti and pro groups. As near as I can tell, roughly 15% of PP funding (from all sources) is used for abortions.

Gawd. The splitting of the finest hairs, combined with a puffed up wild ass guess as to how much PP spends on abortion.

Even what you offer puts the lie to Glenn1's claim.

 

[DrPizza]

PP does all those things for the same reason McDonald's sells salads - to give them the appearance of being somewhat wholesome so that people are distracted from their otherwise simply repulsive core product. Trying to make it out like PP is some kind of holistic 'women's health' organization instead of about abortions is like the southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

This looks like a very biased, partisan, uninformed post. And, it appears that the Republicans are banking on people remaining as ignorant as you were when you made this post. I see later in this thread, you've back-pedaled a bit. I'm curious why anyone should take your opinion on this seriously when this post indicates how grossly misinformed you are. Your post is a perfect example of how pathetic certain sectors of our society have become - zero fact checking.

However, if the Republicans start pushing this more and more, the reality of this matter will start to be noticed by more and more people.
1. 3% of their services are abortion related.
2. Absolutely ZERO percent of federal dollars are used for abortion related purposes.

I think it's a losing proposition for Republicans to continue down this path.

That you think they should drop abortion services altogether is like saying to an auto shop, "I think you should fix everything except brakes. If someone comes here for auto services, you should send them somewhere else for brakes." I mean, how shortsighted does one have to be to think that a place specializing in reproductive services should limit themselves in that way?

That chart doesn't appear to say anything about how they spend their funds. It shows the breakdown in terms of "number of services" provided. So basically, they provided 11 million "services" to roughly 3 million people, and roughly 3% of those "services" were abortions. That doesn't tell us anything about how the budget is actually spent, and we also don't know what constitutes a "service".

It's hard to find good numbers because it's such a polarized issue and there's a lot of fud and misinformation provided by anti and pro groups. As near as I can tell, roughly 15% of PP funding (from all sources) is used for abortions.

But, ZERO percent is from federal tax dollars, by law. It's been that way since the 1970s.