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

[HomerJS]

I don't get it. Congress wants to defund PP for participating in something Congress made legal for them to do?

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fi...-to-intact-fetuses/ar-BBlogDo?ocid=spartandhp

New video out, talks about altering procedures to get whole fetuses and PP isn't saying a word...tell me again how this is ok?

So what? a dead fetus is a dead fetus, whole or in parts. If those remains can advance medical science I have no problem with them being sold. no rational person would.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Why are you getting squeamish about it all of a sudden? It's just a bunch of meat after all, just pretend it's some obscure ethnic food you haven't tried before. Have some more heirloom tomato non-GMO ketchup with them if you must. After all like your side says you're saving us the cost of supporting yet more unwanted future welfare babies that would vote Democratic someday anyway.

And here it is folks; a real monster.

 

[Sonikku]

Planned Parenthood is unnecessary except for providing govt funded abortions. There's a ton of other govt funded health care clinics, far more than PP and they do everything and more than PP except one thing.

PP exists for one reason only, we all know it.

Fern

I propose a compromise; Going forward at least 97% of services PP provides has to be unrelated to abortion. Additionally, what abortions they do provide can't be paid for by Federal funds.

What do you think?

 

[Annisman*]

So what? a dead fetus is a dead fetus, whole or in parts. If those remains can advance medical science I have no problem with them being sold. no rational person would.

just disgusting dude.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So what? a dead fetus is a dead fetus, whole or in parts. If those remains can advance medical science I have no problem with them being sold. no rational person would.

Human tissue should not be sold for profit ever.

 

[sandorski]

Human tissue should not be sold for profit ever.

Ok.

 

[glenn1]

And here it is folks; a real monster.

So what part of "a fetus is just meat" or a "clump of cells" are you now disagreeing with? This is a prime business opportunity for someone like the Koch Brothers for arbitrage. Buy the fetus meat by the pound, maybe with a premium for black fetuses which could be actively solicited for harvesting. That inner city poors need culling after all since they no longer have the natural predators they once did to thin the herd and keep numbers in check. Package it as "non-GMO, free-range, no trans-fat or MSG," sorta like foie gras but without the moral concerns of force feeding geese. Heck, maybe they can sell it back to the government and have it added to the menu of reduced price school lunch programs.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote. In my example groceries=abortion and dinner=other services. Your wife's part time job isn't paying for more groceries(abortions), it's paying for more nights out (other services).

I got that because it is still one bank account. If we really wanted to spend more for dinner and the wife picked up an extra job, then putting the money in the bank makes a "pool" of money. Withdraw from it however you want. Just because my wife put $50 in the bank and says it is for dinner only, who is to say that it couldn't be used towards groceries when needed.

That's how I got that from what you said. Dank's analogy was better. Sorry if I misunderstood yours but it was cleared up. It is odd that PP is ONE company and we have to trust that company not to shuffle funds around to support something the gov't money isn't supposed to.

 

[dank69]

I propose a compromise; Going forward at least 97% of services PP provides has to be unrelated to abortion. Additionally, what abortions they do provide can't be paid for by Federal funds.

What do you think?

Can we try to keep it realistic? No point dragging the conversation into crazyland.

 

[Pens1566]

I got that because it is still one bank account. If we really wanted to spend more for dinner and the wife picked up an extra job, then putting the money in the bank makes a "pool" of money. Withdraw from it however you want. Just because my wife put $50 in the bank and says it is for dinner only, who is to say that it couldn't be used towards groceries when needed.

That's how I got that from what you said. Dank's analogy was better. Sorry if I misunderstood yours but it was cleared up. It is odd that PP is ONE company and we have to trust that company not to shuffle funds around to support something the gov't money isn't supposed to.

And the example provided earlier was most likely a very simplified version. There is obviously more to it than that... separate accounts, likely separate entities within the overall organization as well.

 

[werepossum]

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.

That is mind blowingly dishonest. To have any sort of legitimacy, it requires the assumption that government funding for PP is not only desirable but necessary, to the point that not funding PP is equivalent to taking a person hostage with the accompanying threat to his or her life. Even by your "standards", that is amusing.

Planned Parenthood is unnecessary except for providing govt funded abortions. There's a ton of other govt funded health care clinics, far more than PP and they do everything and more than PP except one thing.

PP exists for one reason only, we all know it.

Fern

You have a point, but I don't think it is quite as simple as that. Planned Parenthood is heavily into abortion. That costs money, which must be robbed from other services or be self-supporting. If PP was simply robbing the money from other services, then non-abortion clinics should be more competitive and non-abortion services should have shifted away from PP. Since PP still spends aproximately 85% of its money on other services, I am guessing that there isn't much competition for those services, either by price or by access or both. Give that PP serves a poor clientele, probably it's a lack of competitors. PP isn't going to stop providing abortions, so lack of government funding probably means higher prices or closing marginal clinics, at least sometimes meaning longer commutes, longer lines, and higher prices for those with very little discretionary income.

 

[werepossum]

I got that because it is still one bank account. If we really wanted to spend more for dinner and the wife picked up an extra job, then putting the money in the bank makes a "pool" of money. Withdraw from it however you want. Just because my wife put $50 in the bank and says it is for dinner only, who is to say that it couldn't be used towards groceries when needed.

That's how I got that from what you said. Dank's analogy was better. Sorry if I misunderstood yours but it was cleared up. It is odd that PP is ONE company and we have to trust that company not to shuffle funds around to support something the gov't money isn't supposed to.

Money is by definition fungible so that if we fund an entity, we fund everything that entity does. Problem is the solution is for PP to break off its abortion business. Assuming it does that, then there is increased overhead in managing two companies assuming that the abortion business is self supporting, and greatly increased costs for abortions if not. At best abortions become more expensive, which may seem attractive but will result in some mixture of more unwanted births and some shift in donations toward those services PP provides which we supposedly all support. That seems to me a high price to eliminate a polite legal distinction in a city full of such artificial distinctions, but if we want to go down that road of purity, there are probably better targets than Planned Parenthood.

 

[fskimospy]

That is mind blowingly dishonest. To have any sort of legitimacy, it requires the assumption that government funding for PP is not only desirable but necessary, to the point that not funding PP is equivalent to taking a person hostage with the accompanying threat to his or her life. Even by your "standards", that is amusing.

It's called an analogy. I think we both know that your perception of what is honest extends exactly as far as what you find ideologically convenient, so I don't think you're in much of a position to determine what is and is not dishonest. (have you switched back to taking everything literally again? You need to have some sort of indicator.)

All that aside, the analogy does not relate to the outcome but the tactics being used, which are unarguably hostage taking. It's the same thing as with the ACA before. "Unless you give in to me on this policy concession that I am unable to achieve through the normal legislative process I will stop the normal functioning of government."

If Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood or repeal the ACA, win some more elections. Until then, they should at least try to act like responsible adults.

 

[Jaskalas]

If Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood or repeal the ACA, win some more elections. Until then, they should at least try to act like responsible adults.

With the requirement to do anything at 60 Senate votes, you don't have to worry about "winning elections", for even winning means nothing.

 

[dank69]

That is mind blowingly dishonest. To have any sort of legitimacy, it requires the assumption that government funding for PP is not only desirable but necessary, to the point that not funding PP is equivalent to taking a person hostage with the accompanying threat to his or her life. Even by your "standards", that is amusing.


...

Haha, maybe this will blow your mind some more:

PP isn't the hostage. The government is. If Dems don't give in to the demand (a budget that does not fund PP) the hostage dies (gov shuts down).

 

[Jhhnn]

That is mind blowingly dishonest. To have any sort of legitimacy, it requires the assumption that government funding for PP is not only desirable but necessary, to the point that not funding PP is equivalent to taking a person hostage with the accompanying threat to his or her life. Even by your "standards", that is amusing.

Defunding PP would undoubtedly result in the deaths of women from a variety of gynecological causes.

You have a point, but I don't think it is quite as simple as that. Planned Parenthood is heavily into abortion. That costs money, which must be robbed from other services or be self-supporting. If PP was simply robbing the money from other services, then non-abortion clinics should be more competitive and non-abortion services should have shifted away from PP. Since PP still spends aproximately 85% of its money on other services, I am guessing that there isn't much competition for those services, either by price or by access or both. Give that PP serves a poor clientele, probably it's a lack of competitors. PP isn't going to stop providing abortions, so lack of government funding probably means higher prices or closing marginal clinics, at least sometimes meaning longer commutes, longer lines, and higher prices for those with very little discretionary income.

And again with suppositions & numbers that can't be substantiated along with the idealized shoulda's.

What part of "Women have a Constitutional Right to abortion" is so incomprehensible, anyway? Why should health care providers draw a line to please the implacable & to serve classist ends, anyway? In times past, wealthy women just popped off for a "holiday" to some place nice like Sweden to obtain abortions, something that the vast majority of women can't do.

 

[Jhhnn]

With the requirement to do anything at 60 Senate votes, you don't have to worry about "winning elections", for even winning means nothing.

How did it come to be that way, other than the adoption of a radical agenda by Republicans?

The govt has been funding PP since 1970 with the proviso of the Hyde amendment since 1976. It is and has been a significant part of our healthcare system for decades.

But defunding it isn't radical, is it?

Couldn't be!

 

[fskimospy]

With the requirement to do anything at 60 Senate votes, you don't have to worry about "winning elections", for even winning means nothing.

While I agree the filibuster is stupid, I didn't see you complaining when it was used to block countless liberal policies.

Regardless, conservatives already have large institutional advantages when it comes to the Senate. Even today where Republicans hold about 8 more seats than the Democrats do they represent 6% less of the population. Right: even with a fairly significant Senate majority they still represent a minority of the population. Conservatives already have the deck stacked in their favor and now you are complaining it's not stacked even more?

 

[HomerJS]

If conservatives want to put up an honest vote the bill would make fetal tissue research illegal.

 

[theeedude]

If conservatives want to put up an honest vote the bill would make fetal tissue research illegal.

It was put up, and McConnell voted to make it legal.

 

[HomerJS]

It was put up, and McConnell voted to make it legal.

oops

 

[fskimospy]

It was put up, and McConnell voted to make it legal.

What vote was this? Was this the recent 'defund planned parenthood' bill? If so, McConnell didn't actually vote against the bill, he was strategically voting to preserve his ability to file a motion to reconsider.

 

[thraashman]

What vote was this? Was this the recent 'defund planned parenthood' bill? If so, McConnell didn't actually vote against the bill, he was strategically voting to preserve his ability to file a motion to reconsider.

I believe he's referring to the bill in like 93 that McConnell voted for.

 

[theeedude]

What vote was this? Was this the recent 'defund planned parenthood' bill? If so, McConnell didn't actually vote against the bill, he was strategically voting to preserve his ability to file a motion to reconsider.

He specifically voted to allow harvesting fetal tissue for research:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...e-donations-abortion_55b28329e4b0074ba5a479d1

McConnell was one of many Republicans who voted to lift a ban on fetal tissue donations after abortions in 1993 -- the very move that legalized Planned Parenthood's actions.
In 1988, the Reagan administration began a moratorium on fetal tissue from elective abortions being used in scientific research. But Congress lifted that ban in 1993 when it passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which allowed research on human fetal tissue regardless of whether the tissue came from a voluntary abortion. McConnell voted for that bill, as did Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), all of whom have condemned Planned Parenthood in the past two weeks for its involvement in the practice.

Vote for something, then throw a fit when what you voted for happens.