It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Planned Parenthood Just Responded to Paul Ryan's Threat to Defund the Health Organization

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Your argument is moot. Sex is a risk. It is a bet, whether or not a life will be made. Grow up and knock off the "sex is only for pleasure" nonsense.




posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

You need to climb out from under your rock and knock off the "sex is only for reproduction" medieval nonsense!



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The program has only grown under Obama. So yes.

The program COULD only grow under Obama since it was directly started by Bush at the end of his Presidency. Stating the obvious and blaming it on Obama is idiotic.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chadderson

You need to climb out from under your rock and knock off the "sex is only for reproduction" medieval nonsense!


Ironically, I'm sure that he has had sex for reasons not trying to procreate too.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yes, I live under a rock because I know the risks of sex... while you, claim sex is done for pleasure and we should have the right to destroy the life created. Grow up!



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: windword

Yes, I live under a rock because I know the risks of sex... while you, claim sex is done for pleasure and we should have the right to destroy the life created. Grow up!


Oh honey, somebody needs to grow up and it ain't WW. And I mean that in the nicest way.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

You're just mad from being hammered in a thread the other day



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
My work is done here.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

No please do go on! I think we are all anxious to see how much further you can stick your foot down your throat.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: windword

Yes, I live under a rock because I know the risks of sex... while you, claim sex is done for pleasure and we should have the right to destroy the life created. Grow up!


It's not my fault that you were born in the wrong century. Sex mostly happens for pleasure these days. it's very rare in this century for a woman to only have sex when and if she wants a baby, and even rarer for men to agree to such arrangements.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: angeldoll

You're just mad from being hammered in a thread the other day


Being hammered? I doubt that. If it was politics, people can get railroaded by the ATS gangs that are permitted now, but never hammered. And I'm not upset.

The world is changing in a way you might not agree with. You know "accept the things I cannot change".
The country is taking a little detour right now, into a self-centered and narrow view of our society, and people forcing their will onto others. But after a while (probably less than four years) everyone will see that a mistake has been made, and our society and government will be restored to it's natural state of freedom, and self-determination, having realized imposing one's values onto others is not sustainable.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I think this is all for show. I think Ryan knows he will lose the repeal and wait bill if they include this as a poison pill. Why wouldn't he want repeal? Because the reality of repeal and replace later is that it would cause absolute chaos. It is unbelievably stupid to do this and would not only destabilize individuals and force them off insurance, but would also destabilize the entire health care system of hospitals, healthcare workers, how care is delivered, increase ER visits for uninsured again, etc.

Repeal and replace later is just a bad bad bad way to handle their political feeding frenzy of anti-Obamacare rhetoric. They will KILL themselves politically when America sees the chaos this will create.

Most likely, they will choose ultimately to fund the stabilization of the insurance market now, which they refused to do under Obama's administration, calling it "bailing out the insurance companies" (like they don't regularly provide corporate welfare to lower costs for the American people?).

This will lower premiums and instantly fix the rise in payments upper middle class folks have had to make. (Betcha didn't realize it was the Reps who actually did that to you!). They will look like heroes! Which is why they didn't support it under Obamacare because they only wanted to undermine the law and his legacy. (They didn't care that it would cost you more.)

Anyway. The Planned Parenthood spoiler is there to give them some more time while they appear to attempt to appeal Obamacare. Everything is strategy, remember that.

AB



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I don't like paying for other people's irresponsibility.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

They are already backing off. Even some republicans are saying it's a terrible idea.

Besides, REPUBLICANS DON'T KNOW HOW TO GOVERN.

This has been known for decades. I think even THEY know it.

(Dang! They just said "Snow" on the news, and I live in one of those places where the word 'snow' can send hoards to the grocery store. I must go join them.)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Do you even know how the government funds PP? They're not giving them money to cover operating costs or anything. It means that the government reimburses them when someone comes in with Medicaid. A person with basic insurance can go to PP and they're visit will be billed to their insurance.

So by defunding PP it means that a person with Medicaid who would previously gone there now has to go to a hospital or other office. Both of which will almost definitely have a higher bill than PP. Thus causing the taxes to increase because the government now needs more money for Medicaid.

PP can still exist without government funding. They might have to close some more rural locations where most of their patients have Medicaid but they'll still be around.

The funny thing is that the ones hurt most by defunding PP are a demographic that is key to the GOP, the rural working class.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   






posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
It's simple. Planned Parenthood should be funded by private money anyway. Since when did it become a government organization in the first place?

If Planned Parenthood is supposed to exist then a lack of government money will be replaced by private money from people who believe in it. This isn't rocket science and it isn't that big of a deal. In fact, maybe it's good that the government gets their claws out of it. It's such a source of contention anyway. Make it private that way they can't f*** with it so much.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



Maybe with the exception of a rape victim, but other than that it was their choice to try and have a baby.


Do you think that all women are trying to have a baby when they have sex? Do you think all men, when they're having sex with women, are trying to make a baby?




Do I really have to explain that when you have sex, protected or not. There is a risk for pregnancy.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: gernblan

Once again, government funding of PP comes through Medicaid. Should hospitals just be privately funded to cover their Medicaid patients? OB/GYNs?



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



Maybe with the exception of a rape victim, but other than that it was their choice to try and have a baby.


Do you think that all women are trying to have a baby when they have sex? Do you think all men, when they're having sex with women, are trying to make a baby?




Do I really have to explain that when you have sex, protected or not. There is a risk for pregnancy.

No. I'm sure windword understands that perfectly. What about the teenage kids who are just starting to grow into their sexuality and know next to nothing about sex and its life changing consequences? If they knew and understood this then teen pregnancy wouldn't be as high as it it. That is a statement of fact.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join