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.

 

Supreme Court deals blow to two states' attempts to cut Planned Parenthood funding

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
This is one of things that people are ALWAYS going to disagree on, and no one is going to change anyone's mind. Some people believe abortion is murder. Some people don't. That's the bottom line.

In my opinion, Planned Parenthood is extremely important and most definitely shouldn't be defunded, it does too many good things for women. Without a doubt, it should stick around.

As for the abortion fight, I look at it from a scientific viewpoint on when abortion should no longer be an option: If the woman in question were to deliver by C-section this very second, would the fetus/baby be able to survive without being hooked up to tons of machines? If so, the fetus shouldn't be aborted, unless medical reasons threatening the mother make it a necessity. If, however, the fetus would not survive outside of the mother, then it is not a living being (yet) and abortion should be an option.
In a way, none of that matters though. Firstly, because it's only my opinion. Secondly, because the youngest premature baby (on record) to survive was born at 21 weeks, and roughly 99% of abortions (give or take a couple decimal places) occur before 20 weeks.




posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
You know, its a shame the Roe v Wade was based on a lie.


Work up a legal challenge if you feel the ruling is in error.


Its not about feeling.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

I very much agree with your post. Wanted to give you a shout out in addition to a star.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
So you like tax payer funded murder of innocence. Got it.

Some murder we like, some we don't. If you don't like abortion, just think of it as sending children to Jesus, away from this corrupted world.

Matthew 19:14 (KJV)
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Rape? Rape wasn't an issue in the Roe V Wade ruling. Privacy was the issue. Crying rape in order to be allowed an abortion back in the day, is a good reason to keep abortion easily accessible and legal.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

I think you are quite quick to judge on knowing my abortion and gun law stances.

Also to your note, Medicaid is federally funded. Abortions are covered under Medicaid. Abortions are federally funding. Fine in that aspect. Planned Parenthood abortions are not allowed to use any federal funding dollars. Planned Parenthood abortions are not free. If you do not wish any of your tax dollars go to a organization that also preforms abortions (or anything else for that matter), that is a whole different topic.

And as I mentioned earlier, I will argue all day that someone having a late term abortion just because they changed their mind is horrifically different than a woman having a late term abortion for medical purposes. Not everything is black and white. Choosing your own life over another's is not murder to me.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Rape? Rape wasn't an issue in the Roe V Wade ruling. Privacy was the issue. Crying rape in order to be allowed an abortion back in the day, is a good reason to keep abortion easily accessible and legal.


Uh no?

The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, based primarily on the right to privacy. In later trimesters, state restrictions could be applied.

It was about legality, much more so than privacy.

ETA: The issue now is who pays for it. Go ahead and get an abortion. But do not use the money I pay through taxes to do so.
edit on 10-12-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Using your same logic, I'd like to express my opinion: Go ahead and go to war, just don't use the money I pay through taxes to do so.

It's all opinion at this point.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Using your same logic, I'd like to express my opinion: Go ahead and go to war, just don't use the money I pay through taxes to do so.

It's all opinion at this point.


Agree. Lets go back to funding the government through tariffs.




posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

I think you are quite quick to judge on knowing my abortion and gun law stances.

Also to your note, Medicaid is federally funded. Abortions are covered under Medicaid. Abortions are federally funding. Fine in that aspect. Planned Parenthood abortions are not allowed to use any federal funding dollars. Planned Parenthood abortions are not free. If you do not wish any of your tax dollars go to a organization that also preforms abortions (or anything else for that matter), that is a whole different topic.

And as I mentioned earlier, I will argue all day that someone having a late term abortion just because they changed their mind is horrifically different than a woman having a late term abortion for medical purposes. Not everything is black and white. Choosing your own life over another's is not murder to me.



They are allowed to use federal dollars in certain circumstances. Like if the mother is in danger, or rape/incest.
That leaves it pretty open to claiming danger or rape/incest and getting a federally funded abortion.

If they do not do so, and PP abortions are not free, then why are their facilities almost always placed near low income neighborhoods?



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Okay, but "rape" didn't play into the ruling, therefore, the ruling was not based on a lie. The fact that an abortion could only be obtained, in some states, if a woman cried rape, is a good reason to keep the "right to choose" out of the state's purview and under federal protection.

As far as who pays for it, the Hyde Amendment prohibits using federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life threatening health issues. What individual states decides to do with their tax dollars is the "States' Rights".



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Okay, but "rape" didn't play into the ruling, therefore, the ruling was not based on a lie. The fact that an abortion could only be obtained, in some states, if a woman cried rape, is a good reason to keep the "right to choose" out of the state's purview and under federal protection.

As far as who pays for it, the Hyde Amendment prohibits using federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life threatening health issues. What individual states decides to do with their tax dollars is the "States' Rights".



And I suppose there is some vetting at Planned Parenthood to determine if it was rape/incest before they perform the procedure? Hmm that wouldn't be very private.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: headorheart

abortions are not covered under medicaid unless there is a real health problem associated with the pregnancy!

got look it up on the gov't site for medicaid if you don't believe me!



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

I never say this to ATS members but you get the honor.

I don’t think I like you very much. You seem very ignorant and intolerant of others life choices.
Sorry but not really bro



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


I wouldn't imagine that the "vetting" done at Planned Parenthood is any different than the vetting done at any other doctor's office or clinic. But, that's not what this is about. It's about defunding Planned Parenthood, et al, for everything except abortion, simply because they also perform abortions. The lower courts sided with Planned Parenthood, et al, against the states, and SCOTUS decided not to overrule the lower courts and let the decision stand, as is.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

there are charitable groups that help women pay for abortions, the lilith foundation is one.
and, planned parenthood caters to the lower incomers, have a sliding scale for those who slip through the cracks and aren't covered by anyone providing birth control, pregnancy tests, pap smears, ect.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Its not about feeling.


Well then by all means get that legal challenge going to a 50 year old Supreme Court ruling.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wardaddy454


I wouldn't imagine that the "vetting" done at Planned Parenthood is any different than the vetting done at any other doctor's office or clinic. But, that's not what this is about. It's about defunding Planned Parenthood, et al, for everything except abortion, simply because they also perform abortions. The lower courts sided with Planned Parenthood, et al, against the states, and SCOTUS decided not to overrule the lower courts and let the decision stand, as is.




Yes, that's what I'm alluding to. The defunding of Planned Parenthood. Do they provide mammograms? If not, that's a glaring oversight in the care provided to women is it not? Nor are they a primary care provider.

Then we have instances like Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

The entire business model of PP revolves around abortion.

Hell, PP might as well be a PAC.

Again, if anyone wants an abortion they can go get one. We don't need PP anymore for that.

BTW, if its a states rights thing what they decide to do with their money, why is any court siding with PP on anything? Seems like the opposite of states rights. Especially if it only effects PP and not ones ability to have an abortion at all.

$180 most places to have an abortion. Don't give me that line about low incomers when poverty these days includes $399-$499 Xboxes.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Its not about feeling.


Well then by all means get that legal challenge going to a 50 year old Supreme Court ruling.


I don't have to do anything. According to many here on ATS, Kavanaugh will be doing it.




posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: SR1TX

I never say this to ATS members but you get the honor.

I don’t think I like you very much. You seem very ignorant and intolerant of others life choices.
Sorry but not really bro



Pro-life vs pro-choice. One is gonna seem intolerant to the other.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join