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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


It's simple, and not a case of true or false, it's just simply reality.
The funding they get goes towards the running of their business, including staff costs, facilities, property, supplies.

If none of the money was going toward abortions - which is impossible - then the answer is simple.
Close all abortion practices within PP clinics, open up a sub-brand with new clinics focusing on abortions only and restrict the use of funds from the federal govt paid to PP so that none can be legally passed to the sub brand.

If none of the money is currently going to abortions then this would cost nothing.




posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


It's simple, and not a case of true or false, it's just simply reality.
The funding they get goes towards the running of their business, including staff costs, facilities, property, supplies.

If none of the money was going toward abortions - which is impossible - then the answer is simple.
Close all abortion practices within PP clinics, open up a sub-brand with new clinics focusing on abortions only and restrict the use of funds from the federal govt paid to PP so that none can be legally passed to the sub brand.

If none of the money is currently going to abortions then this would cost nothing.

What's simple is that Planned Parenthood isn't using the money to fund abortions and the existence of accountants means that it is totally possible to compartmentalize funding to make sure this is the case.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

So why don't you accept this statement?
U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You want to position PP with extant industries, have at it.

I place them with volunteer services, not industry. Another wannabe organization suckling at the Federal teat. Our tax money is better off invested in job creation, or at the least, non-biased groups other than PP.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

So why don't you accept this statement?
U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade


The quantity of murders has reduced.

*shrugs*

I stand by what I said.

We aren't changing behaviors, we're legitimizing current behaviors.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


It's simple, and not a case of true or false, it's just simply reality.
The funding they get goes towards the running of their business, including staff costs, facilities, property, supplies.

If none of the money was going toward abortions - which is impossible - then the answer is simple.
Close all abortion practices within PP clinics, open up a sub-brand with new clinics focusing on abortions only and restrict the use of funds from the federal govt paid to PP so that none can be legally passed to the sub brand.

If none of the money is currently going to abortions then this would cost nothing.

What's simple is that Planned Parenthood isn't using the money to fund abortions and the existence of accountants means that it is totally possible to compartmentalize funding to make sure this is the case.


How do you compartmentalise the salaries and facility costs?
Are there abortion beds, abortion rent, abortion salaries?

If there is no money going towards abortion services, then like I said, they could separate completely, open up specific abortion clinics and have completely separate staff, facilities and supplies. They wouldn't do that because it would hurt their profits - i.e. it would cost them money - hence tax dollars are currently being used to pay for abortion services.

Here's another little example...
I have $100. I need to buy groceries for $100 but also want a $100 phone. You give me $100. I say, thanks for buying my groceries, but remember you didn't pay for my phone.
I got my groceries and my phone because you gave me money, regardless of how I account for your gift, you put money towards my phone, in fact, you enabled me to buy it.
edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

They're not getting a lump sum of cash from the government to use however they wish. They get funding from the government through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. When they perform a procedure that is covered by these programs they submit the bill. They then get reimbursed by the government for the amount that has been negotiated. In many cases PP breaks even at best.

If you're arguing that the government is funding abortions then you're also arguing that a company like Cigna is funding abortions since PP also accepts them as insurance.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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?


I don't see OB/GYN's moving into the political realm, whatsoever. Nice try.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

They're not getting a lump sum of cash from the government to use however they wish. They get funding from the government through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. When they perform a procedure that is covered by these programs they submit the bill. They then get reimbursed by the government for the amount that has been negotiated. In many cases PP breaks even at best.

If you're arguing that the government is funding abortions then you're also arguing that a company like Cigna is funding abortions since PP also accepts them as insurance.


...and because they are getting subsidies for one part of their service they are able to fund another.
the subsidies go towards the costs of staff, facilities and supplies.

It doesn't matter how it is accounted for, the subsidy enables them to more easily (and cheaply - for them) provide abortion services.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: BlueAjah

the proper term is abortion, a lawful medical procedure and therefore not murder.
the gov't is not allowed to provide federal funds for most abortions.
planned parenthood has been investigated out the wazoo through the years for many different reasons, how many times has it been discovered to have sought reimbursement for abortive services?

the gov't is also not allowed to provide federal funds to the promotion of any religious views.
and yet, catholic charities receive millions in gov't grants to assist them in the various services they provide. and no, I am not saying that they are promoting their religious views while providing those services, at least the little catholic charities in my hometown didn't. but, well, I would be willing to bet that they aren't scrutinized nearly as much as planned parenthood is and so you will just have to take their word for it, and mine, that they aren't misusing those tax dollars...

in my opinion though, the catholic hospitals are though when they allow their religious beliefs to justify removing treatment options from their patients which they do...
it's a blatant infraction of the laws and shouldn't be allowed. should they also be barred from getting reimbursements from title x, medicaid, medicare, and whatever other funds they are receiving from the gov't?


So you believe the government should force Catholic hospitals to murder unborn children? That's about as sick as it gets.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
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!!!



And those 'Christian' groups doing services for the poor receive no Federal funds.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

So why don't you accept this statement?
U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade


The quantity of murders has reduced.

*shrugs*

I stand by what I said.

We aren't changing behaviors, we're legitimizing current behaviors.


But your desired result is occurring anyways. I mean you do accept that there is no possible way to get to zero abortions right?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


It's simple, and not a case of true or false, it's just simply reality.
The funding they get goes towards the running of their business, including staff costs, facilities, property, supplies.

If none of the money was going toward abortions - which is impossible - then the answer is simple.
Close all abortion practices within PP clinics, open up a sub-brand with new clinics focusing on abortions only and restrict the use of funds from the federal govt paid to PP so that none can be legally passed to the sub brand.

If none of the money is currently going to abortions then this would cost nothing.

What's simple is that Planned Parenthood isn't using the money to fund abortions and the existence of accountants means that it is totally possible to compartmentalize funding to make sure this is the case.


How do you compartmentalise the salaries and facility costs?
Are there abortion beds, abortion rent, abortion salaries?

If there is no money going towards abortion services, then like I said, they could separate completely, open up specific abortion clinics and have completely separate staff, facilities and supplies. They wouldn't do that because it would hurt their profits - i.e. it would cost them money - hence tax dollars are currently being used to pay for abortion services.

Here's another little example...
I have $100. I need to buy groceries for $100 but also want a $100 phone. You give me $100. I say, thanks for buying my groceries, but remember you didn't pay for my phone.
I got my groceries and my phone because you gave me money, regardless of how I account for your gift, you put money towards my phone.

It's clear you aren't an accountant if you think its that simple.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So then you would argue that any facility that performs abortions, like many hospitals, should not accept Medicare and Medicaid?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

In a roundabout way they do, since they're not paying any kind of taxes.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Accountants can attribute money to their heart's content, but to the question of whether federal dollars funds PP abortions, it really is that simple.

Subsidies reduce their costs and they use those savings to fund their abortion practice.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Again. You can say otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm sorry, but catholic hospitals DO GET medicaid reimbursements just like planned parenthood.
religious orientated family planning centers, DO GET title x reimbursements for some of their services.
unless you can show me otherwise, my research has shown that planned parenthood only gets medicaid/title x reimbursements for the qualifying services they provide and a very, very small amount for a program that involves speaking at area schools in the area of sex education.
now, you have a choice to either do some research yourself, real research, and find some other funding that is provided to them. or accept that I don't believe you!!



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

So then you would argue that any facility that performs abortions, like many hospitals, should not accept Medicare and Medicaid?


No, I am saying it's nothing more than PR management to suggest that PP do not get subsidised for their abortion practice, just like many hospitals do.

I am not even saying that they shouldn't be funded - just that the lies and obfuscation to try and make people believe no tax dollars goes towards abortions doesn't fly.


edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

if the only alternative is to wait around while the patient suffers needlessly and allow infection to set in and endanger her life....YES!!!




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join