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.

 

Trump expected to cut Planned Parenthood funding

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Really? You fall to that level??

Simply put, the NRA doesn't receive Federal funding. PP does. Tax payer money shouldn't be going to political campaigns.

The very fact you'd use such a disingenuous analogy wipes out any headway you might have gotten on PP.

I'm done with you.




posted on May, 17 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The healthcare industry in general receives federal funding and they're the biggest lobbying group there is.

What about all the federal funding that goes in to banks? Or the oil industry? Or the defense industry? These sectors tend receive a lot of money from the government and are also big campaign contributors.

Why do you only have a problem when PP does it even though the amount of money they receive is a pittance compared to these other examples?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Those other industries should not be getting my tax dollars either.
The federal government has been overstepping for generations. They are wasteful with our money.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Clearly you can't math or you think that situations that are happening today will happen forever or something. In either case you are still making a dumb point. That source you just posted's most extreme estimation is a 14% Muslim population by 2050. That is still not that many Muslims.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Fools

Clearly you can't math or you think that situations that are happening today will happen forever or something. In either case you are still making a dumb point. That source you just posted's most extreme estimation is a 14% Muslim population by 2050. That is still not that many Muslims.


Ok goob. Keep on with the keep on.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




NRA Public Range Grant Funding

Established in 2009, this matching grant program encourages city and county governments, and state or federal agencies, to work with NRA on efforts to build and improve public ranges across the United States. At the NRA's sole discretion, grants are awarded to assist with the acquisition, development, and improvement of public shooting facilities. Grants can also be awarded to assist qualifying agencies or local governments with projects designed to improve community relations and to address environmental issues related to range operations.

rangeservices.nra.org...


it's a partnership program, between the NRA and city, county governments, state and federal agencies, to work together to build and improve public ranges... matching grants... meaning the gov'ts, or gov't agency shells out money and the NRA matches it. basically what probably happens is that NRA members want to have a public range closer to them to play on, the NRA bribes various gov't officials with political contributions, and they get their range at half the cost with the taxpayer paying the other half.
it's the same concept that is often utilized when a new sports stadium is built, or a new community airport is built in a community that doesn't even want an airport, or a bridge to no where... whatever...

medicaid and title x also needs partnerships, they need providers willing to work with them to provide services to those who cannot afford those services. the providers will take the patients medicaid information, or their financial information and determine if they are eligible for title x, they will provide the services, and just like they would do for any insurance card carrier, they will submit a request for reimbursement through the proper channels that details what services were provided. if the provider was a cosmetic surgeon who occasionally performs cosmetic surgery on poor deformed kids, while most of his business was elective surgery for aging housewives who refuse to surrender to their fate, would you be trying to block the poor deformed kid from having a face that looks a little more normal just because some of the services he provides aren't covered by medicaid? and there are many providers, many pharmacies, that are in this partnership, that provide some services and drugs that aren't covered by the government just like there are lots of stuff that aren't covered by your basic health insurance policy, it doesn't mean that your tax money is being used for the things that aren't covered!!

I really don't care if the gov't works in partnership with the NRA to build and maintain shooting ranges, it sounds like a heck of a better idea than letting a bunch of people who know nothing about guns lose on the streets with guns! I am just pointing out that if you chose to disqualify planned parenthood from it's partnership because of the fact that they make contributions to political campaigns, they well.... you should do the same to not only the NRA but a large group of drug companies, healthcare provides, heck the defense industry and other big corporations, sports teams, and oh so much more!!!

another argument is that well, planned parenthood gets plenty of money in private donations. you want to go that route, well, then more than likely, you own little hospital in your city might have a problem since they probably accept medicaid, and they also probably are operating another program that collects donations that they use to help offset the cost of care for those others who are just falling through the cracks when it comes to medicaid, that operates more on a sliding scale according to income. and oh, ya, that little hospital of yours might find itself doing an abortion from time to time also... so, should we end the partnership with that hospital and expect money that have coming in from donations to cover all of the poor and needy in your community?

our university hospitals are not only a great place for medical research, but they are also a place where many of our future doctors and nurses get much of their training. they are also where many doctors will refer patients for specialized testing. and yes, they are in this partnership also... and guess what... many of the also perform abortions, elective abortions. so, should we deny the kid who needs specialized testing to find out why he is having seizures because his parents are poor and on medicaid, or maybe they aren't really that poor it's just that his healthcare costs are so high... because... oh my god, there are abortions being done there!!!

or is it more that there is really no good justifiable reason to end the partnership with planned parenthood, or any of the many other providers, and they are really just trying to pressure the providers into refusing to performs abortions and thus using a back alley method to effectively remove the freedom of choice???



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Depends on what right we are talking about, right? To me, unless it was a product of rape or incest, both parents should have equal say.
The main question is should she have the right to terminate a life (or potential life, depending on your stance)

If the baby has the potential to harm or kill the mother, should she have that right?
If there is a chance the baby will come out horribly mutated, physically or mentally, should she have the right then?
If she didn't choose to be pregnant, should she have the right?

It's all impossible for everyone to agree.
I for one, don't like the idea at all, but as long as it is legal, we should have a place to do it safely.
Shouldn't be government funded, though.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

The healthcare industry in general receives federal funding and they're the biggest lobbying group there is.

What about all the federal funding that goes in to banks? Or the oil industry? Or the defense industry? These sectors tend receive a lot of money from the government and are also big campaign contributors.

Why do you only have a problem when PP does it even though the amount of money they receive is a pittance compared to these other examples?


First, I have zero use for an organization that holds one gender above another. It is the divisive mentality that the left engenders and promotes. All the others you cite are inclusive.

Next,if one looks at other groups or organizations that provide services to the poor, be it a church organization or a 'Red Cross' styled operation, one doesn't see politicized activities that PP obviously does.

No 'Mother Teresa's' in PP that I can see.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I'll do just that. It's really nice and stress free not being scared of my own shadow and not being paranoid of people different than me all the time. I actually pity your types who are scared of everything and are addicted to fear porn.
edit on 17-5-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

PP also provides services to men. It's just that most reproductive health related issues fall on the women's side of things. Should OB/GYN's not be allowed to receive federal funding because they cater strictly to women?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Never thought of it that way.
Obviously, no. We should not punish women for having a miscarriage.
Honestly, I don't know when a fetus is a life. Heartbeat should be a good indicator, in my opinion.
Your right, nobody will be able to agree when it is actually considered a human with rights.
Fact of the matter is, whether I agree with it or not, it's going to happen and we should have a safe way to do it.
Just not funded by the government.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

fist, those religious organizations let their religion dictate the care they give to the poor...
ie... pregnant women has cancer, needs to have a c-sections, would also be very advisable for her to take precautions so she dosn't get pregnant again.. she opts to have her tubes tied. doing this while she is having a c-section would put a heck of less stress on her body, which is weakened by the cancer. only the only hospital nearby is a catholic hospital. not only do they refuse to do the tubal litigation while they perform the c-section, they won't even give her any advice or prescribe any type of birth control to her!!! and, oh ya... if she has a medicaid card, they will be reimbursed for the c-section with taxpayer dollars.... and if she goes somewhere else to have the tubal, there will be another reimbursement for the tubal, and the taxpayers will be paying considerably more!!!

and as far as the christian groups not having any political activities....
you have got to be kidding!!!



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: NorthernLites

While I support and applaud the decision, don't expect too much actual debate here.

Those for abortion will never change their minds, those against abortion will never change theirs.

It's a sad reflection on society as a whole that this is happening.






This is a slightly different argument, I think.
Putting aside whether a person is for or against abortion (and all the nuances of those positions), isn't this more about whether tax payers should be funding others people's abortions?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Planned Parenthood doesn't pay for abortions with tax payer money.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

The government provides less than half of PP's funding and none of that money goes to abortions. So it would seem you already have your wish.


That's just accounting.
Funding will help all areas of their business.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: NorthernLites

While I support and applaud the decision, don't expect too much actual debate here.

Those for abortion will never change their minds, those against abortion will never change theirs.

It's a sad reflection on society as a whole that this is happening.






This is a slightly different argument, I think.
Putting aside whether a person is for or against abortion (and all the nuances of those positions), isn't this more about whether tax payers should be funding others people's abortions?


Once you start talking about "who" is paying for abortion, then the "act" of abortion, the discussion, the legitimacy of it, becomes a moot point.


Yes, I know it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I think it is murder.

We look at an act, like abortion, and instead of changing our behavior to eliminate abortions, we change our laws to justify the behavior.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Yes, I know it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I think it is murder.

We look at an act, like abortion, and instead of changing our behavior to eliminate abortions, we change our laws to justify the behavior.

At what point do you get to dictate the morality of someone else?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Planned Parenthood doesn't pay for abortions with tax payer money.


Nonsense.
Tax dollars are used for staff costs, supplies and facilities. They are inseparable between the various forms of services provided.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Planned Parenthood doesn't pay for abortions with tax payer money.


Nonsense.
Tax dollars are used for staff costs, supplies and facilities. They are inseparable between the various forms of services provided.

You saying otherwise doesn't make it true.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Yes, I know it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I think it is murder.

We look at an act, like abortion, and instead of changing our behavior to eliminate abortions, we change our laws to justify the behavior.

At what point do you get to dictate the morality of someone else?


I'm not dictating. Just making a statement.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join