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 only offers Abortions?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar
Our Catholic hospitals aren't the only options in a dramatic amount of places in America--I just recently read on average that Catholic (or Catholic-affiliated) hospitals equate to 10% of the nation's hospital beds, but can be as high as 20% in some areas. That still leaves 80%-90% of hospital beds (an indication of non-Catholic hospitals) available that will perform emergency abortions.

Your comparison between emergency abortion necessity (which is a very rare occurrence when you put the emphasis on "necessity") and the right to protect one's self from an imminent threat is a false equivalency, and these religiously guided hospitals are, as of the latest rulings I've read, legally exempt from being forced at the hand of government to provide abortions.

I do agree that it would make sense (if it's not a law already) to force Catholic hospitals that are outside of a certain mileage from another hospital that will perform emergency abortions to do so in the interest of the life of the mother, but I do not think that a blanket law forcing such services at all Catholic hospitals is appropriate.

I read some of the stories from your link, and they are terrible, but they are not statistically common occurrences. I have also read many stories of praise for Catholic hospitals by women who are glad that they didn't immediately get an abortion because of complications, and now they have a healthy child that they otherwise wouldn't have in hospitals quicker to do abortion procedures. So, you have to take anecdotal stories with a relative grain of salt--they are generally meant to serve the means of appealing to emotion.

But again, there's always an in-between that is generally a better option than the extreme of removing a religious organization's ability to practice the beliefs of their religion or the extreme of allowing them to let pregnant women die or become permanently injured because of said beliefs. A heavy government hand isn't a good thing on either side.

 


a reply to: dawnstar
I fully understand how federal reimbursement for healthcare works.

I also fully understand by talking with multiple people who directly deal with Medicare/Medicaid claims is that the federal government is often the last to pay and the worst at approving payment for procedures.

What you're doing by providing links to private charitable organizations helps bolster my oft-said opinion that entities running the gamut from private organizations and individuals through state governments are fully capable of funding the poor and lower-income people who truly need the help. The federal government should get out of the health-insurance industry altogether.

But, you know what they say about opinions, and you may think that mine stinks. It's the nature of the beast.
edit on 3-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

in some areas of the country, the only hospital within a hundred miles is catholic...
and while the complaints are made that planned parenthood doesn't provide mammograms, these hospitals do put women at risk by refusing to provide what is basically considered the best method of care for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. so, now you are saying that planned parenthood's participation in the medicaid program shouldn't be because because they also accept donations and teams up with other charity organizations like the lillith foundation...
but tell me, is there any non-profit organization more well endowed than the catholic church with it's vaults of riches and treasures seized through the centuries from all across the globe???

neither you or anyone else is saying that all funding that is aimed at providing healthcare for the poor should be cut though, are you?? no, that is never said... nor is it ever attempted in the halls of congress... so neither yours or mine opinions matter much at all...
what you need to justify is why it's appropriate to provide taxpayer money bomb those precious little children when they happen to be in countries that our gov't has decided to portray to us (most of the wars we've been in have been based at least partially on lies they've given out as facts) as posing a danger to us.. and yet, not appropriate to provide to healthcare providers that happen to also provide abortions as one of it's services when in fact... a preganacy, even one that seems to be normal, probably poses more danger to the mother than iraq's imaginary wmd's did!
or why the salary of planned parenthood's ceo warrents it's removal from the medicaid program but the salary of trinity's healthcare's ceo is much, much higher, and not a word is spoken about it!

I've read some of the laws that they've written to try to get planned parenthood out of the program...
I've kind of come to the conclusion that they don't want ANY health provider who might refer or perform an abortion from being in the program... which kind of gives me the impression that the only providers standing for the poor maternity patients would be those like in the catholic conglomerates...

the justifications don't hold up unless you look at the world with your rose colored glasses that hide most of the realities in the world...
the only difference between a pregnant women who choses to abort a baby because she is afraid that it will send her and her family into proverty and a nation that would chose to drop depleted uranium onto a nation has decided that it wants to sell it's oil for something outside of US dollars is the number of lives that are destroyed!!!



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




This video makes me wonder.


One has to wonder about the whole issue to begin with.

Why would anyone support a thing as essentially killing off future voters.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

I am personally pro-choice, but I understand corruption. Why are we as taxpayers funding this organization that is questionably nothing but an abortion provider? From what I have seen online, this reminds me of a personal story. Many years ago without doing any research, my wife suggested we donate to PETA...and we did. Later on I discovered the violent, repulsive actions of this group and have regretted donating. Live and learn I guess.

Is Planned Parenthood the same? 500 million in tax payer dollars sure gives a business a reason to lie, especially on top of the agenda that abortion is a good thing.


I worked for PP as a volunteer and I have used their services. They provided me with free screenings, breast exams, pregnancy tests, pre-natal checkups and affordable birth control pills at a time when we were very poor. In addition, they also check for STDs (whether male or female.)

In addition to abortion, they ALSO recommend (and help women with) adoption procedures. In my experience, the number of patients requesting abortions was far, far smaller than those requesting other services (birth control seemed to be the #1 request in the time I was there.)

It is difficult for the poor to get medical help at this, the riskiest time of a woman's life. There are some municipal clinics and others that take those who can't pay. PP is one of the few safe choices a woman in poverty has.

If you dare, go visit a clinic yourself. See for yourself.
edit on 3-5-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

so, now you are saying that planned parenthood's participation in the medicaid program shouldn't be because because they also accept donations and teams up with other charity organizations like the lillith foundation...
but tell me, is there any non-profit organization more well endowed than the catholic church with it's vaults of riches and treasures seized through the centuries from all across the globe???

I'm saying that the federal government should get out of the business of providing medical insurance, period--across the board. Let state governments on down to individual citizens fund it instead.

But comparing the Medicaid program to the Catholic church's sources of income is a false equivalency. But, if you want my opinion, churches should be taxed at the same rate of other businesses--churches are not what they used to be, they are businesses now.


neither you or anyone else is saying that all funding that is aimed at providing healthcare for the poor should be cut though, are you?? no, that is never said... nor is it ever attempted in the halls of congress... so neither yours or mine opinions matter much at all...

While it's true that our own individual opinions don't matter much in the halls of Congress, I will remind you that I advocate for the federal government to stop subsidizing healthcare across the board. But, that doesn't mean that states can't and shouldn't have their own similar type of subsidizing of healthcare costs for the poor, but the closer the governing body gets to the actual individual, the better run the program will generally be, usually equating to lower costs for the average individual.

Usually.


what you need to justify is why it's appropriate to provide taxpayer money bomb those precious little children ... (snip) ... and yet, not appropriate to provide to healthcare providers that happen to also provide abortions as one of it's services when in fact... a preganacy, even one that seems to be normal, probably poses more danger to the mother than iraq's imaginary wmd's did!

Number one, I don't need to justify anything, but I will comment in the spirit of civil discourse.

The simple answer is that the Constitution enumerates that one of Congress' duties is to fund the military. What the Constitution does NOT enumerate is the duty of Congress to fund private healthcare facilities. So, there's your justification, since my argument is about what the federal government should not be funding, and it generally is based on an appreciation for the 10th Amendment and a deeper-than-general understanding of the Constitution and the powers that it LIMITS (not provides) concerning the federal government.

And for the record, I disagree with why we were in Iraq, why we even went to Iraq instead of a country actually associated with the 9/11 attacks, and the basis of why my wife had to deploy to Iraq in 2006. Your appeals to emotion are unnecessary with me, as I'm already against why we're in the ME and think that we need to bring our guys and girls home and worry about our own borders. But that's a derailment, so I return to the topic at hand.


or why the salary of planned parenthood's ceo warrents it's removal from the medicaid program but the salary of trinity's healthcare's ceo is much, much higher, and not a word is spoken about it!

I have never argued this, so why you're directing your ire concerning this issue at me makes no sense. But, logically speaking, I would guess that anyone making that argument is basing it on their morals and ideology.

Personally, I don't care what CEOs make, because as far as the business goes, they've probably earned it over many years of climbing "the ladder," personal sacrifices, education, and honing skills.

And no, I don't mean Jacob's ladder.


the justifications don't hold up unless you look at the world with your rose colored glasses that hide most of the realities in the world...

And what rose-colored glasses are those, exactly?


the only difference between a pregnant women who choses to abort a baby because she is afraid that it will send her and her family into proverty and a nation that would chose to drop depleted uranium onto a nation has decided that it wants to sell it's oil for something outside of US dollars is the number of lives that are destroyed!!!

Again, a false comparison, but something that you ALWAYS leave out are the destroyed lives of the babies in an elective abortion. But you hopefully know my stance on abortion by now, and I know yours, so let's not get into another argument over when life begins and yaddayaddayadda.

Fear makes people do irrational and unnecessary things sometimes; fear is not a justification for elective abortion, in my opinion. But what we should be talking about (based on the OP) is whether or not Planned Parenthood is deceptive in its search for funding, not whether or not your perceive my opinion as being tainted by glasses of any color.

We certainly shouldn't be comparing Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood to funding wars--the what-about-the-children argument can go both way in this discussion.
edit on 3-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

If you dare, go visit a clinic yourself. See for yourself.


And risk having one's bias disproved?

Perish the thought!



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Seems to me more people would be for planned parenthood since prevention is a huge part of their business. Women can go there get birth control and prevent the whole issue from ever occurring. Cant have an abortion if you dont get pregnant.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Do what you want, but do yourself a favor and look up the founder of PP, Margaret Sanger, before you go next time. And then let it sink in that they hand out the Margaret Sanger Award, which people like Hillary Clinton (super-predators) have won.
edit on 3-5-2017 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nobody cares about Margaret Sanger anymore. Only anti-abortion people care about her. You guys pretend like she's this evil and magical witch that taints all of PP just because. Never mind that she is dead and different people with different philosophies are running PP now.
edit on 3-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nobody cares about Margaret Sanger anymore. Only anti-abortion people care about her. You guys pretend like she's this evil and magical witch that taints all of PP just because. Never mind that she is dead and different people with different philosophies are running PP now.


Then why do they still hand out awards with her name on it.

Current Year arguments are weak.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Margaret Sanger was a saint. She saw her mother's body be worn down to a pulp after having so many kids. She was determined to help poor women have an option out of the misery of having kid after kid after kid after kid. Margaret was big on birth control, God bless her.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: dfnj2015

I guess that is one way to look at it. Just curious...how many pregnant Arabs have we killed? I'll simply assume zero until you enlighten me. A link would be nice also.


According to some of the pro-abortion arguments I've noted (in this very website), up until just about the day the water breaks, there's no 'baby', it isnt a living 'thing' until its born.


B*llocks you have. Show me one post or one person who has ever said that.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I would imagine PP services vary by location.

I would assume States(like Texas) that hate PP, would choke it's funding, thus less services provided at those locations.

So jokes on you, you hate abortions and choked PP funding, now it's all they can afford to offer.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Margaret Sanger was a saint. She saw her mother's body be worn down to a pulp after having so many kids. She was determined to help poor women have an option out of the misery of having kid after kid after kid after kid. Margaret was big on birth control, God bless her.



So her work on Eugenics doesn't bother you?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

RE: Why are we as taxpayers funding this organization

The right doesn't like their tax dollars going to abortion clinics. Some on the left don't like their tax dollars going to bombs used to kill pregnant Arab women in the ME. It all balances out in the end.

Except they sure funded those bombs a lot under Obama. So I guess the left does like it.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454




Researcher Alex Stern, author of the new book Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in America, adds:

“In the early 20th century across the country, medical superintendents, legislators, and social reformers affiliated with an emerging eugenics movement joined forces to put sterilization laws on the books. Such legislation was motivated by crude theories of human heredity that posited the wholesale inheritance of traits associated with a panoply of feared conditions such as criminality, feeblemindedness, and sexual deviance. Many sterilization advocates viewed reproductive surgery as a necessary public health intervention that would protect society from deleterious genes and the social and economic costs of managing ‘degenerate stock’.”

www.pbs.org...


so, while the top medical superintendents, legislatures, and social reformers we busy writing laws forcing sterilizations onto those groups of people that they viewed as being undesirable...
a few decided to take another route...
to give women the knowledge and ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies..
and... for some reason, the powers that be decided that the use of force was far better than having women choose...so of course, women like margaret sanger were jailed while others were free to write their laws and create a system of forced sterilizations that hitler used as an example of a great example of controlling the breeding of the people...

no, margaret sanger wasn't an eugenist and neither is planned parenthood.
one involves choice and free will, the other denies that choice from the women who should be making it and puts it into the hands of people hitler admired so much!



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




This video makes me wonder.


One has to wonder about the whole issue to begin with.

Why would anyone support a thing as essentially killing off future voters.


You've got an interesting point there! The left does anything to get votes. Allowing illegals, criminals, etc. Wanting refugees and lying to black people to get their vote. Hell...raising the dead to vote too. So why in this case do they turn down what are likely poor potential children who would likely support them (out of a desire for more entitlements)?

I really can't figure it out.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Byrd

If you dare, go visit a clinic yourself. See for yourself.


And risk having one's bias disproved?

Perish the thought!

Are you giving me crap about bias? Me??? I completely support a Woman's right to choose...pro-choice! I think that during the course of any woman's pregnancy, they should receive any and all medical, counseling, etc. But I don't trust a multi-million dollar business, whose sole purpose for existing is to profit (eg. pay themselves) to make a moral values decision vs. caving to whatever is required to get free money.

Call me cynical if you wish but corruption runs deep. And to take up a little liberal policy...why not spread the wealth? Why does PP get so much while other, just as valid and helpful organizations get next to nothing? That reeks of corruption in itself. I thought redistribution was a good thing?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Not you specifically, no. People in general. Apologies for not being more clear.

It always makes me wonder why people who seem to have an issue with something that is, frankly, easily proven or disproven don't want to do prove or disprove it. We're not talking about chemtrails or JFK or 9/11. One can pick up the phone and call multiple planned parenthood clinics in a matter of minutes if one is so concerned about what services they provide.

At a minimum I think it would quickly disprove the slant on the video in your OP, which is that they ONLY provide abortions. My point was that most people won't pick up the phone and call, but they'll believe a video on YouTube.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Margaret Sanger was a saint. She saw her mother's body be worn down to a pulp after having so many kids. She was determined to help poor women have an option out of the misery of having kid after kid after kid after kid. Margaret was big on birth control, God bless her.



So her work on Eugenics doesn't bother you?


You've fallen for the right-wing propaganda. Think of any famous person that you personally admire from that same time frame and I can pretty much guarantee that they were in favor of the same eugenics ideology - it was extremely popular at the time, and it had nothing to do with her actual work, which was to allow women to have normal sex lives without having to worry about unwanted pregnancies.

time.com...

Black women had no reason to look at Sanger as an enemy. She was their hero and advocate, as she was for all women. Sanger's biggest enemy was the Catholic church.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join