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.

 

California Democrat Jackie Speier had an Abortion?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
Receiving an abortion is not an entitlement.


Expecting other people to pay for it is an entitlement.

The rest of your post is complete rubbish, as has been demonstrated on other threads.




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Planned Parenthood Info

It says here only 3% of their services were abortions. So much money wasted right?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
Now stopping these funds does what to the deficit?


Reduces it...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Look at the other posts. Federal money is most likely used minimally for abortions. In 2008 Planned Parenthood took in $966.6 million and of that only $349.6 million is government money. Of all the cases Planned Parenthood does only 3% of them are abortions. This is not an entitlement. We don't even know if ANY of that $349.6 million is used for abortions.

Yes the bills are rubbish because of their content. Could you explain to me how you think they are? Other than being just plain stupid.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Look at the other posts. Federal money is most likely used minimally for abortions. In 2008 Planned Parenthood took in $966.6 million and of that only $349.6 million is government money. Of all the cases Planned Parenthood does only 3% of them are abortions. This is not an entitlement.


I don't care if it's ten dollars, the government has no business forcing people to help pay for someone else's abortion. Do you know what an entitlement is? Expecting someone else to pay for your abortion is certainly an entitlement.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


So you'd rather go after the smallest of reductions than go for real money savers? Like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, trimming the defense budget, or fixing the tax code? Go beyond the talking points.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Look at the other posts. Federal money is most likely used minimally for abortions. In 2008 Planned Parenthood took in $966.6 million and of that only $349.6 million is government money. Of all the cases Planned Parenthood does only 3% of them are abortions. This is not an entitlement.


I don't care if it's ten dollars, the government has no business forcing people to help pay for someone else's abortion. Do you know what an entitlement is? Expecting someone else to pay for your abortion is certainly an entitlement.


Even though we can't prove that government pays for abortions? You just don't want to see through the rhetoric. You know Republicans want to cut the government funding of Planned Parenthood by 75 million? That's it. That really goes a long way. This is nothing but a social agenda masquerading as economic reform and it's sad that you refuse to see that.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
So you'd rather go after the smallest of reductions than go for real money savers? Like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, trimming the defense budget, or fixing the tax code?


Trust me if I were king I'd take a meat cleaver to the federal budget and the IRS would be abolished.

However, this thread is about government dollars going to help pay for abortions. I don't support it. I'm confident a non-profit would immediately step in to make up the difference anyhow (and you could send them a donation if you're so inclined).



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
You know Republicans want to cut the government funding of Planned Parenthood by 75 million? That's it. That really goes a long way.


They should cut every cent that goes to planned parenthood in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


You're ignoring the fact that we can't prove that government money is being used for abortions.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
You're ignoring the fact that we can't prove that government money is being used for abortions.


You're ignoring the fact that I DON'T CARE... all government funding of planned parenthood should be cut.

If you want to send them a donation knock yourself out.

edit on 18-2-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Whatever, I guess. When faced with facts we say "I don't care". Part of the problem. Still you didn't tell me how those bills are "rubbish" but I guess I'll never know.

edit on 18-2-2011 by Throwback because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
Still you didn't tell me how those bills are "rubbish" but I guess I'll never know.

edit on 18-2-2011 by Throwback because: (no reason given)


Refer back to the threads you started on those topics...



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
The real question is what do abortions have to do with the economy or jobs, which Republicans ran on. I wish they would stop trying to push their crazy social agenda and push a sensible economic agenda. That won't happen though.


Has quite a bit if the Federal Government is providing MONEY to pay for Abortions.

Whether you agree with the legality of it or not, the Federal Government should NOT be paying for them. Regardless of reason.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


I didn't start any threads...What are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Once again, we don't have proof that federal dollars are paying for abortions.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Once again, we don't have proof that federal dollars are paying for abortions.


Ok, so then there should be a law plainly detailing under no circumstances is federal funding to be used for an abortion, nor may any organization that does them receive any federal funds.

Issue resolved.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

What does her experience have to do with the government paying for abortions?


Just as much as this new ammendment has to do with the government paying for abortions. They are trying to cut funding to Planned Parenthood in general, not stop funding for abortions because that is already settled.


The answer is... NOTHING.


It had everything to do with what she was responding to. I suggest you watch the entire exchange if you can find it.


The issue is a funding issue, a government role issue etc. etc. her experience is irrelevent.


The issue is trying to cut funding for healthcare provided to many of our less fortunate. I am not sure why Planned Parenthood has been so well painted as an abortion clinic but that is just ONE of the many many many many many many many many healthcare services they provide to women who cannot afford real heathcare. Cutting all funding to Planned Parenthood to stop federal funding of abortion would be the same as closing down every hospital in the country to prevent people from getting prescriptions.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join