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.

 

JUST IN: Trump defunds Planned Parenthood

page: 31
68
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Lol.. as if those crisis pregnancy centers you guys are probably hoping will get to move in and fill that void now that planned parenthood has opted out of title x are capable of providing decent prenatal care... or your little county run health clinic..
Planned parenthood was my first stop when I was pregnant with my first son..
They did a pregnancy test that confirmed I was pregnant.
Did blood tests to ensure I wasn't anemic, along with a few other tests that would have pointed to possible problems, like diabetes. I got my prenatal vitamins from them at least for a few months, maybe longer, cant remember really. And most importantly, they referred me to an ob/gyn who was willing to work with an uninsured person when it came to the financial aspects..
Your own general practitioner doctor will do the same if you get pregnant. Because he knows that it's best if the doctor who is delivering the baby is also the one who is monitoring the pregnancy throughout the nine months!
edit on 23-8-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-8-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: ketsuko




I find morally abhorent which is what federally funding an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood is.



And I find wars fought to enrich the corporate oligarchs morally abhorrent but the govt. has no compunction in sending young men and women to their death for profit.

Does the irony escape you? How about the hypocrisy?





How many wars has Trump got us into?



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight



We all know women's health has been largely ignored.

wow
that is just ignorant




Read the articles and learn.



Going forward, rigorous, collaborative and innovative research in reproductive health could lead to better birth control, safer clinical protocols and more personalized care. Filling these gaps is vital not just for the well-being of women but for the health of society.


www.scientificamerican.com...

The supposed ignorance just goes on and on.

www.scientificamerican.com...


Cool, but taking other people's money to pay for abortion services is a clear no no.
That's been made crystal clear.
Planned Parenthood have decided to defund themselves as they don;t want to play by the rules.
Blame them.



Who's rules?



Planned Parenthood, however, views abortion as a form of health care—and seems to see an advantage in escalating the fight over Title X. “I think the real audience for this is women who vote,” Murray said. “Here’s a very concrete example of what happens when you wage a war on women and women’s health. This is about sticking it to people who want abortions? Well, everyone is paying.” Indeed, in her statements about the organization’s decision to withdraw from Title X, McGill Johnson relied heavily on the language of battle. Planned Parenthood sees this rule as an “attack on reproductive-health care,” for example, and will “fight” it in court. “Our patients deserve to make their own health-care decisions, not to be forced to have Donald Trump or Mike Pence make those decisions for them,” she said. “This is the time for all who believe that a person’s zip code and income should not determine one’s access to health care to raise their voices.”


www.theatlantic.com...


THE rules.

The rule, which went into effect in May, bans Title X family planning providers from referring patients for abortion care and also requires facilities to financially and physically separate Title X services from abortion services, meaning abortion care must be billed separately and conducted in a separate physical space from the program’s family planning services.


Title X funding is not for abortions.
It's PP who have decided to defund themselves and thus reduce their capacity to provide non abortion services without getting new investment.
The funds they were gettingcan go to another provider of womens health services.

You're not fooling anyone. The shrieks of victimhood is ALL about abortion and blind support for Planned Parenthood, nothing more.


It is actually Trump's and his religious voters' rules.

No, it's the rules of a democratically elected Govt on how they spend the tax dollars of the people.
You can throw stones at people you disagree with all you like. It just reflects badly on you.
Your voice is at the ballot box.


The people voted to legalize abortion, therefore the people should decide whether or not those tax dollars should be spent on abortion as a physical/mental health measure not Trump or his religious community.

Anyway, this is not over because if PP can't afford to take in new patients, which 64% of all patients are at the poverty line, then the ballot box will be the place where voices will be heard.

In the meantime, legal challenges will be brought to the courts to strike down more of Trump's nonsense.


No ma'am, they didn't.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BTPowers

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight



We all know women's health has been largely ignored.

wow
that is just ignorant




Read the articles and learn.



Going forward, rigorous, collaborative and innovative research in reproductive health could lead to better birth control, safer clinical protocols and more personalized care. Filling these gaps is vital not just for the well-being of women but for the health of society.


www.scientificamerican.com...

The supposed ignorance just goes on and on.

www.scientificamerican.com...


Cool, but taking other people's money to pay for abortion services is a clear no no.
That's been made crystal clear.
Planned Parenthood have decided to defund themselves as they don;t want to play by the rules.
Blame them.



Who's rules?



Planned Parenthood, however, views abortion as a form of health care—and seems to see an advantage in escalating the fight over Title X. “I think the real audience for this is women who vote,” Murray said. “Here’s a very concrete example of what happens when you wage a war on women and women’s health. This is about sticking it to people who want abortions? Well, everyone is paying.” Indeed, in her statements about the organization’s decision to withdraw from Title X, McGill Johnson relied heavily on the language of battle. Planned Parenthood sees this rule as an “attack on reproductive-health care,” for example, and will “fight” it in court. “Our patients deserve to make their own health-care decisions, not to be forced to have Donald Trump or Mike Pence make those decisions for them,” she said. “This is the time for all who believe that a person’s zip code and income should not determine one’s access to health care to raise their voices.”


www.theatlantic.com...


THE rules.

The rule, which went into effect in May, bans Title X family planning providers from referring patients for abortion care and also requires facilities to financially and physically separate Title X services from abortion services, meaning abortion care must be billed separately and conducted in a separate physical space from the program’s family planning services.


Title X funding is not for abortions.
It's PP who have decided to defund themselves and thus reduce their capacity to provide non abortion services without getting new investment.
The funds they were gettingcan go to another provider of womens health services.

You're not fooling anyone. The shrieks of victimhood is ALL about abortion and blind support for Planned Parenthood, nothing more.




It is actually Trump's and his religious voters' rules.

No, it's the rules of a democratically elected Govt on how they spend the tax dollars of the people.
You can throw stones at people you disagree with all you like. It just reflects badly on you.
Your voice is at the ballot box.


The people voted to legalize abortion, therefore the people should decide whether or not those tax dollars should be spent on abortion as a physical/mental health measure not Trump or his religious community.

Anyway, this is not over because if PP can't afford to take in new patients, which 64% of all patients are at the poverty line, then the ballot box will be the place where voices will be heard.

In the meantime, legal challenges will be brought to the courts to strike down more of Trump's nonsense.


No ma'am, they didn't.


Someone must not be in reality, or drunk.
edit on 18CDT04America/Chicago03040431 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

they didn't, unless you consider that they voted in the presidents and congressmen (from both parties) that selected the justices who were sitting on the supreme court (again, justices nominated by presidents from both sides), who came up with the roe v wade decision (which wasn't a decision that was made with a strong division between conservative or liberal judges.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

they didn't, unless you consider that they voted in the presidents and congressmen (from both parties) that selected the justices who were sitting on the supreme court (again, justices nominated by presidents from both sides), who came up with the roe v wade decision (which wasn't a decision that was made with a strong division between conservative or liberal judges.



Yes, that is what I considered. Are you saying now that Roe vs. Wade is not valid depending upon who is President and who the justices are?



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!



And, still, women have no rights as to what they can do with their bodies.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!





And, still, women have no rights as to what they can do with their bodies.


Drama Queen.
Women have the same rights as men.
Instead of pearl clutching because someone else won't be paying for your abortions, maybe you should focus your ire on countries where women actually are oppressed.
edit on 23/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Well gee, if the women of today dont have any rights, then I dont see where they have anything lose. Gee.. why have I been on these boards all these years trying to reason with unreasonable people?



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!





And, still, women have no rights as to what they can do with their bodies.


Drama Queen.
Women have the same rights as men.
Instead of pearl clutching because someone else won't be paying for your abortions, maybe you should focus your ire on countries where women actually are oppressed.


I'd like to see how a man's opinion changes when he becomes pregnant and he does not want to be pregnant...I would suspect that we'd see an abortion clinic on every street corner.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Ok, but that's fantasy, not reality.

Regardless, why is that you think men don't value children?



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: InTheLight

Ok, but that's fantasy, not reality.

Regardless, why is that you think men don't value children?


Who said men don't value children?



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

It's the insinuation made by your post. That somehow men would be OK with aborting babies if your fantasy was real.

Clearly, this insinuates that men don't value children.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!





And, still, women have no rights as to what they can do with their bodies.


Drama Queen.
Women have the same rights as men.
Instead of pearl clutching because someone else won't be paying for your abortions, maybe you should focus your ire on countries where women actually are oppressed.


I'd like to see how a man's opinion changes when he becomes pregnant and he does not want to be pregnant...I would suspect that we'd see an abortion clinic on every street corner.


Not much of an argument - men can't get pregnant. You realise that, right?
What you suspect in some alternate reality scenario does nothing to underpin your proposterous claim that women have no rights over their bodies.
Anyway - the decision here is about using tax payers money to fund abortions, not the right to have an abortion.


edit on 23/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: InTheLight

It's the insinuation made by your post. That somehow men would be OK with aborting babies if your fantasy was real.

Clearly, this insinuates that men don't value children.


No it clearly does not, it's a game you and him are playing and it's getting very old, very fast.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!





And, still, women have no rights as to what they can do with their bodies.


Drama Queen.
Women have the same rights as men.
Instead of pearl clutching because someone else won't be paying for your abortions, maybe you should focus your ire on countries where women actually are oppressed.


I'd like to see how a man's opinion changes when he becomes pregnant and he does not want to be pregnant...I would suspect that we'd see an abortion clinic on every street corner.


Not much of an argument - men can't get pregnant. You realise that, right?
What you suspect in some alternate reality scenario does nothing to underpin your proposterous claim that women have no rights over their bodies.
Anyway - the decision here is about using tax payers money to fund abortions, not the right to have an abortion.



Indeed, therefore taking away women's rights to access abortion.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

no, but it is really amazing just how much things have changed over the years...
it wasn't a paritsan issue back then...
wasn't really even on the church's radar..
now, we have on party stacking the court just so they can overturn the decision.
and yes, preventing obama from filling court positions while he is president and then push any idiot who might agree with their political positions is stacking the courts!





And, still, women have no rights as to what they can do with their bodies.


Drama Queen.
Women have the same rights as men.
Instead of pearl clutching because someone else won't be paying for your abortions, maybe you should focus your ire on countries where women actually are oppressed.


I'd like to see how a man's opinion changes when he becomes pregnant and he does not want to be pregnant...I would suspect that we'd see an abortion clinic on every street corner.


Not much of an argument - men can't get pregnant. You realise that, right?
What you suspect in some alternate reality scenario does nothing to underpin your proposterous claim that women have no rights over their bodies.
Anyway - the decision here is about using tax payers money to fund abortions, not the right to have an abortion.



Indeed, therefore taking away women's rights to access abortion.


Nope. Doesn't do that either.
It takes away tax payer funding for abortions. You have zero right to expect someone else to pay for your abortion. That's true... but nor should you.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight




No it clearly does not, it's a game you and him are playing and it's getting very old, very fast.


This is why you don't engage in fantasies in a debate. Next time keep it within reality and couch asinine fantasies and you won't have this problem.



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: InTheLight




No it clearly does not, it's a game you and him are playing and it's getting very old, very fast.


This is why you don't engage in fantasies in a debate. Next time keep it within reality and couch asinine fantasies and you won't have this problem.


I don't have a problem your religion does. Get it right. Wait, we are talking fantasies, aren't we?
edit on 18CDT07America/Chicago02470731 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
68
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join