Feds stop funding Texas women's health program over abortion dispute

AUSTIN, Texas -- The federal government will withdraw funding for a Texas program providing more than 100,000 poor women with birth control and other health services because Planned Parenthood clinics are not allowed to participate, a U.S. Health and Human Services spokeswoman said on Friday.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the decision in Houston on Friday, prompting a furious response from Texas Governor Rick Perry, who called it an "egregious federal overreach."

Feds stop funding Texas women's health program over abortion dispute

The way I'm reading this is Ms. Sebelius is ceasing federal funding to women's health. I get the Texas part; it was dumb, but I get it. What I don't get is how does Ms. Sebelius think she's fighting against oppression of women's rights by...oppressing women's rights?

Are you guys sure this administration is really for women's "reproductive rights"? If Texas cut funding to Planned Parenthood, would you think that Ms. Sebelius would try to do something besides cut further funds?

What am I missing here?

/TOA

I don't think you are missing anything.

Kathleen Sillybus is a psychopathic maniac.

And, on top of that, she is an Obamamite.

These people have a much larger agenda in mind.

The entire nation is in extreme danger right now.

They keep coughing up new (previously overlooked) wild ideas by the day.

The cost over runs are staggering and this madness hasn't even gotten into full swing yet.

Pelosi was right, they needed to pass the damn thing to see what's in it.
(although with all the legal staff in Congress, anyone who actually believes they didn't know is crazy)
(They knew every last word and every loophole to exploit)

Actually "They needed to pass it so no one else would expose the corruption"
before they got their feet in the doors.

reply to post by The Old American


Hmmm... Imagine that. Strongarm tactics from the Whitehouse. Who woulda thunk it?

Do you think some people will finally see this whole debate is truly about the destruction of our Constitution and that Obama's team has no concern for "women's reproductive rights"?

If Texas wants to make their laws that oppress women, (Defunding Planned Parenthood and making women undergo unnecessary medical procedures to get an abortion) why should the government step in and pick up the slack?

If the US gov't takes care of the women of Texas because the state of Texas refuses to, there won't be any change. But if the state wants to make special medical rules for the women of their state, then they can pay for it all. That's how I see it anyway.

You didn't think Obama was just going to sit back and let the states treat women like they've been doing recently, do you?

This will show that states that choose to treat women like this will suffer consequences. Maybe the women of Texas will realize what the GOP is doing to them and vote them out. If the feds come in and take care of them, they'll never be motivated to change the state government.

That's my take anyway. If the states want to operate outside the federal medical laws, then they're on their own.
I approve this message.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Does Medicaid cover this ?

And if somebody can't qualify for Medicaid,
that might mean they can pay for their own wishes with their own money.

reply to post by xuenchen


You always ask questions that you can easily find the answers for yourself. I'm not your researcher. Read the OP source.

The Texas legislature last year voted to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood because the network of women's health clinics performs abortions. The federal government says that this violates rules of Medicaid, the health program for the poor.
...
The program provides free birth control and annual exams to women of reproductive age who do not qualify for the regular Medicaid program for the poor. The federal government pays 90 percent of the cost and Texas puts up about $4 million a year.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Cutting funding is just going to hurt the poor women. Why would the legislators care? They are mostly male, wealthy, and anti-abortion. They see it as a good thing, why would they change anything when the cuts aren't going to affect them?

The government should NOT be funding these sorts of things. It makes no sense, this should be a states issue, or a private sector issue.

Get the federal government out of your healthcare, your wallet and anything else you can. They should do nothing put provide essential services and deal with foreign and domestic affairs. The bare minimum.

Your country faces a 14 trilling dollar deficit, cuts need to be made and these frivolous programs are the ones that need to be cut first, along with the military.

The government should invest in things like NASA and other science/technology programs that actually help Americans.

~Tenth

reply to post by RealSpoke

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Cutting funding is just going to hurt the poor women. Why would the legislators care? They are mostly male, wealthy, and anti-abortion. They see it as a good thing, why would they change anything when the cuts aren't going to affect them?

The women will vote them out of office. That's why. The women will rise up and protest and make a big stink. I can't wait till the GOP sees what their antics will do with the vote this fall. The legislators don't think women's votes matter... but we've got some news for them....

Women's Votes Matter

If the election were held now, the most recent poll suggests it would be a rout for Barack Obama and the Democrats. And it would be because of female voters.

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last Monday, 46 per cent of all female voters prefer the Democrats compared to 39 per cent for the Republicans. But among sub-urban women - the influential soccer mom/hockey mom voters - the difference widens to 19 points, while male voters divide almost equally between the parties.

Read more: www.vancouversun.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


There are a ton of anti-abortion women and women only make up 50% of the population. You'd have to have large portion of pro-abortion males and females to vote for a change. Texas is kind of religious on top of it all.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Actually, more women vote than men. Did you read the source I posted? If the election were held now, Democrats would win by a landslide, and because women will stand up for their rights.

Gender Voting
More Women Vote Than Men
Since 1964, More Women Voters

Women will be motivated to come out even more to protect their rights - more motivated than men are eager to oppress them.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yeah, I read it. It doesn't even apply to this situation. It was speaking of the presidential race which is different than local candidates. But even if it weren't it still isn't reliable.

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last Monday, 46 per cent of all female voters prefer the Democrats compared to 39 per cent for the Republicans. But among sub-urban women - the influential soccer mom/hockey mom voters - the difference widens to 19 points, while male voters divide almost equally between the parties.

46 to 39% isn't really that large of a margin and can easily change depending on the candidate running. Especially since there are various factors that help a person get elected other than their political views. Such as what they look like and how well they can speak. Then you have to factor the person running against them, their potential scandals, etc. Its far too variable to even gather a conclusive assumption off of. Especially since the males are equally divided.

If the election were held now, the most recent poll suggests it would be a rout for Barack Obama and the Democrats. And it would be because of female voters.

Well this is just common sense. All the republicans are awful and have no mass appeal like Obama does.




Once you take something away or make it illegal its extremely hard to get it back.

reply to post by The Old American


I actually agree with this move, women in Texas in need of affordable health care in general not just abortions and birth control, will revolt against the GOP for this which women en masse are doing anyway. We even have women IN the GOP leaving their elected positions because they cannot follow the party line here. I honestly believe the GOP is intentionally shooting themselves in the foot here because they don't want the Whitehouse. It's classic politics that people are starting to wake up to, make things fail so people don't want them (Regulations, Affirmative Action come to mind).

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Get the federal government out of your healthcare, your wallet and anything else you can. They should do nothing put provide essential services and deal with foreign and domestic affairs. The bare minimum.

The problem here is that, The Pharmaceutical and Insurance Lobbies, lobbied/s our officials so hard and private health insurance is so astronomical in cost that it's becoming increasingly harder for average Americans to buy it. That is intentional because those industries wanted federal dollars as well as private dollars. States cannot afford to carry the whole financial burden, there's no way.

reply to post by Kali74


As they should not. The states actually, IMO should not be providing health care services to some and not to others if they are going to give private companies tax rebates or whatever it is they are set up to provide as far as government funding.

And if the states were left to govern themselves as intended, they would be in a much better place financially then they are today and probably could afford to create programs for their constituents that actually work for them as opposed to lining the pockets of special interest groups.

The over reach of the federal government has created a welfare country, where nobody can get by without having the federal government intervene. This is the crux of the problem.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree the fed has gone way too far, but I believe they were "pushed" probably by the dollars in their back-pockets from the Lobbies but all blame gets cast on the poor or ever more increasingly the middle class, the middle class is now being labeled entitlists. Ugh..some days I think we should scrap everything but the Constitution and start over.

I guess most of you have missed the part where it's the Obama administration, not the legislators, that are ceasing funding of women's health programs. Texas stopped the miniscule percentage that states fund, so now the federal government is stopping the gigantic portion that they fund. It's like the drought issue: the feds are making the people suffer for the sake of political maneuvering.

And you people want MORE government programs and control?

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Let us just consider for a moment the 3 females in this thread that agree with this move. Hey fellas, how about you stop worrying about our vaginas for a moment and do something about your penises.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This is good insight. I think part of the motivations as to why these State governments have gone ahead to implement such invasive laws on women have mainly stemmed upon the fact that they have little opposition in their own states, in particular by the women themselves. This may be an effective move but I'm still skeptical. Then again what's the use of marching against these state governments when the women aren't motivated to make a stand? So long as the federal government continues to enforce fundalmental rights, laws, roe v wade, then I guess this may be a method for them to wake up, by letting these states take these steps, and letting the impact sink.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Get the federal government out of your healthcare, your wallet and anything else you can.

Who says the majority of people want this? What percentage of the beneficiaries on medicare and medicaid do you think are willing to cut their benefits? Do you think most of the people benefitting from these federal programmes are there by choice? If seniors were able to qualify and receive private healthcare, do you think they'd stay on medicare? I don't think so.

Truth is, millions of americans depend on these federal health programmes. Return them to the states and you'll find that many states will cut them off and leave them to the mercy of the private markets. What private healthcare company will be willing to cover and take care of a 65 year old man with pre-existing conditions, or somebody on a minimum wage with 2 kids? Or a single teen mother? People talk about chasing the federal government out of your healthcare, as if there are choices out there for many folks.

Your country faces a 14 trilling dollar deficit, cuts need to be made and these frivolous programs are the ones that need to be cut first, along with the military.

I agree with you here tothetenth, but maybe not exactly to the way you see it. Withdraw troops from bases, from pointless wars, cut the military budget, fix the system that has made welfare, medicare so bloated, regulate who benefits, investigate who is cheating the system, focus on keeping jobs in this country, block any tax cuts to businesses who ship jobs overseas, reward domestic businesses for creating American jobs and american jobs alone, strengthen the borders. I don't believe however that we should be cutting social programmes completely, I think this will make the situaton, the economic state, far more worse.

The government should invest in things like NASA

I support NASA, have done so since I was a kid. However, I have question those folks who insist we should completely eliminate programmes like medicare, medicaid and leave those dependent on those programmes in the cold, and yet turn around and insist we continue funding a programme like NASA, a space exploration programme, which is not mentioned specifically in the constitution, and which is more of a programme for national pride than that to improve the economic situations of Americans.

Originally posted by xuenchen
I don't think you are missing anything.

Kathleen Sillybus is a psychopathic maniac.

And, on top of that, she is an Obamamite.

These people have a much larger agenda in mind.

The entire nation is in extreme danger right now.

They keep coughing up new (previously overlooked) wild ideas by the day.

The cost over runs are staggering and this madness hasn't even gotten into full swing yet.

Pelosi was right, they needed to pass the damn thing to see what's in it.
(although with all the legal staff in Congress, anyone who actually believes they didn't know is crazy)
(They knew every last word and every loophole to exploit)

Actually "They needed to pass it so no one else would expose the corruption"
before they got their feet in the doors.

edit on Mar-10-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

Nice misinterpretation and warping of Pelosi words but beside the point, I was wondering...

These people have a much larger agenda in mind.

What is this agenda you think they have?