Planned Parenthood Ever So Quietly Defunded

This aspect of what Congress passed yesterday, failed to get the attention it deserved. I wonder why it has been so downplayed as to go unmentioned on ATS.

House Votes To Topple ObamaCare, Defund Planned Parenthood

Bill stops abortion funding

Pro-life advocates praised the bills elimination of funding for Planned Parenthood.

“We commend the House, which by this vote has – for the third time – voted to end taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s most profitable abortionist,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kevin Theriot.

WaPo Link

Congressional health-care bill ‘defunds’ Planned Parenthood
The health-care bill passed by the House brought Republicans closer to their goal of erasing Obamacare from the books. But it also revived another long-
cherished aspiration: cutting off the flow of federal funds to Planned Parenthood.

I'm looking right now and not finding this story coursing through MSM coverage. I don't get it.

MSM will wait until they get their marching orders from TPTB. If it isn't on the news yet, it's because they're either not sure how to play it yet, or they need to hold off for a few days.

They're holding it until they need a distraction story.

a reply to: lordcomac

Not just MSM, it is all the news. It is screened, cut up and filtered so it is easy to digest for the little people.


My question is who and and how is the news (free press) controlled?

I am surprised there is not a protest and march somewhere about this with its own special hat.
Guess all the cool kids are keeping people from speaking at college venues.

Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation and your gifts are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. So, for all those that are upset at the prospect that it may no longer being federally funded should make their individual personal choice to donate to them. Those that don't agree with their policies can make the personal choice not to donate. No need for the federal government to make these choices for individuAls.

Honest question here: This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place. Was this some kind of subsidy or something? If a subsidy, was it viewed as somehow necessary for the nation's well-being?

Been my question for years would love an answer.

a reply to: PrairieShepherd

Its a good thing they're de-funding PP, because did you know that abortions are just a tiny, Tiny, TINY fraction of the services they provide. They are also responsible for such evil as preventative women's health screenings (mammograms, pap-smears, birth control, etc) for low income or financially limited women.

At last some common sense truly godly folks are in control to reign in this abhorrent evil.

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place.

a reply to: Bennyzilla


It happened through Lobbyists or other private interest groups who had $$$$ to persuade legislators and get what they wanted. That's how our country works, didn't ya know?

originally posted by: FamCore
That's how our country works, didn't ya know?

Not to drive the thread too far off the OP, but it is not lost on me that our country was supposedly founded on the idea of a government of, for, and by the people. The idea that everyone should have a say. And yet here we are, some 240-odd years later, still beholden to the interests of those who have the real power - money.

a reply to: Wayfarer
This is a fair point - and I say that from the perspective of someone who is VERY anti-abortion. Do you know, Wayfarer, if those services you have listed are available for low-income women at other places, or have somehow been provided for in the rest of the GOP bill?

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Honest question here: This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place. Was this some kind of subsidy or something? If a subsidy, was it viewed as somehow necessary for the nation's well-being?

Eugenics?
That was the original intention of the founder of Planned Parenthood.
But people keep ignoring that.

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Honest question here: This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place. Was this some kind of subsidy or something? If a subsidy, was it viewed as somehow necessary for the nation's well-being?

PP gets funding from the government primarily in the forms of Title X and Medicaid funding.

The Title X Family Planning Program, officially known as Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs”, was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. Title X is legally designed to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) who might not otherwise have access to these health care services. These services are provided to low-income and uninsured individuals at reduced or no cost.[1] Its overall purpose is to promote positive birth outcomes and healthy families by allowing individuals to decide the number and spacing of their children. The other health services provided in Title X-funded clinics are integral in achieving this objective.

en.wikipedia.org...

So you can thank Nixon for Title X.

Many health related non-profits receive medicaid funding.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Honest question here: This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place. Was this some kind of subsidy or something? If a subsidy, was it viewed as somehow necessary for the nation's well-being?

Eugenics?
That was the original intention of the founder of Planned Parenthood.
But people keep ignoring that.

Oh, for God's sake, eugenics was NOT the original intention of Sanger or of Planned Parenthood.

Conservative propaganda is amazing.

a reply to: PrairieShepherd

Not that I'm aware of. In many (usually rural or low-income areas) Planned Parenthood is the ONLY provider of these services.

Uh how do you stop funding abortions when we have Hyde Amendment already? The bill makes no sense.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Honest question here: This may be sheer ignorance, and if so I'll own that, but I'm curious how the federal government ended up funding PP in the first place. Was this some kind of subsidy or something? If a subsidy, was it viewed as somehow necessary for the nation's well-being?

Eugenics?
That was the original intention of the founder of Planned Parenthood.
But people keep ignoring that.

Interesting, did not know that.

I remember that women also sought abortions anyway and since doctors who swear a Hippocratic oath refused the 'service', women sought alternative means, sometimes resulting in horror stories about abortions provided by back alley practitioners with coat hangers, resulting in sometimes death from infection, etc.

What I remember anyway. Probably also manufactured for sentimental reasons, in order to start the Eugenics Program.

The bill stipulates that for “the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,” the “Prohibited Entity” and its affiliates, subsidiaries and successors may not receive money from Medicaid and certain other mandatory federal funding streams.

The “Prohibited Entity” described by the bill is a nonprofit that provides abortions and receives more than $350,000,00 per year from Medicaid.

In its analysis of the bill, CBO said these criteria apply only to Planned Parenthood.

“CBO expects that, according to those criteria, only Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates and clinics would be affected,” said CBO. “Most federal funds received by such entities come from payments for services provided to enrollees in states’ Medicaid programs.”

The report on this bill that was submitted to the full Congress by the House Budget Committee included “minority views” presented by the committee’s Democrats. These views cited the other mandatory spending flows that Planned Parenthood would be denied—for one year—under the bill.

www.cnsnews.com...

the report they are pointing to is this...

www.congress.gov...

which is dated march 20, 2017 and you can read it myself but it doesn't sound to me like they were sure that planned parenthood would be the only organization not affected..
there's a university hospital in ny called Upstate Medical Center... it's a non-profit, it has abortions listed as one of it's services, and it has reported revenues of over a billion dollar... and it also has stated that over 50% of it's patients are on gov't funded programs like medicaid, medicare, chips.. I haven't been able to track down just how much they get yearly in medicaid payments, but it if it is over that $350,000,000 million they would also be affected.
considering that just about every doctor in the area are referring patients here for specialized testing and treatments..
this could very well harm way more than just a few poor women who wish to not be pregnant!!!

the gov't isn't taking funds from planned parenthood, it is taking away options from women and children who rely on medicaid for their healthcare! possibly children like my son, who needed to be tested when he was a baby for cystic fibrosis, children who HAVE cystic fibrosis, or children who have conditions that cause siezures..
both of which have been reasons for me to visit this medical center!

oh, ya, they could just stop doing the abortions, but they are also a training center... and weather you like or not, there will always be a valid need for women to have abortions, only then there might not be anyone trained to do them if your wife, mother, sister, or daughter's life depends on it!!!

a reply to: intrptr

while sanger was imprisoned for distributing literature that informed women how to prevent conception, the eugenicists were lobbying congress to implement sterilization programs aimed at reducing the number of the unwanteds in the country...
ya see, it's perfectly fine for them to decide just who should or shouldn't reproduce, but no, that decision shouldn't be in the hands of the women who actually do the reproducing!!!

good. i use condoms, it works brilliantly. no stds (zippo, get checked for everything) and no kids. my money is spent on my adventures lol, not some kids. condoms are great, if only women would use condoms instead of abortions for birth control.