Md. lawmakers push for funding for Planned Parenthood

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2017/03/09/maryland-lawmakers-push-funding-planned-parenthood/98947810/
Democratic lawmakers demonstrated their support Wednesday in Annapolis for legislation to continue funding Planned Parenthood’s health care services if the federal government guts its backing of the program.

Republicans in two U.S. House of Representatives’ committees submitted a draft Monday of their plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

One key component of the bill would defund Planned Parenthood, which nationwide receives about $500 million of federal money.

The organization currently receives grant money under Medicaid and the Title X Family Planning Program.

Title X is a federal program dedicated to family planning and preventative health services, including cancer screening, STI testing and contraception. It cannot be used for abortions.
Maryland receives about $4 million in Title X funding annually, but Congress could undercut the amount Planned Parenthood receives with the new bill.
PPH should be funded. IMHO,
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
Conservatives should focus more on pragmatism instead of idealism. Want to reduce abortions? Increase easy access to sex ed and contraceptives. It may feel dirty to them, but it's the most effective way.
But that goes off the notion that they sincerely have any type of beliefs (GOP politicians, not voters) instead of using "God, Guns, Gays (and abortion)" as a tactic.
 

haxrnick

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
530
1,937
Seattle
If the far right could just drop the issues of abortion and gays I wonder what kind of shift we would see in voting since so many simple minds are single issue voters.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
Conservatives should focus more on pragmatism instead of idealism. Want to reduce abortions? Increase easy access to sex ed and contraceptives. It may feel dirty to them, but it's the most effective way.
Agreed. And I don't mind if sex education covers abstinence as long as it is pointed out that this relies on will power that can fail. I also do not mind if information about putting kids up for adoption is given, including issues such as legal rights of the kid, the adopting parents, and the biological parents. And, if it were me, condoms would be handed out for free at every drug store, for they are not just about reproduction but also STD's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlliFlowers

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
This is a huge misnomer. PP is not funded, so there is nothing to "defund." There is no line-item in the federal budget for PP, so there is no line item to cut or remove. The whole "defunding" conversation is a farce.

Whenever a politician talks about "defunding" PP, what they really mean is prohibiting PP from being reimbursed for services it provides. All qualified healthcare providers can be reimbursed for services they provide. These lawmakers want to put in a specific exception, that despite the fact that PP qualifies for reimbursement under every law, PP would not be reimbursed for providing these services. This isn't defunding, it's just a spiteful exception.

Politicians call it "defunding" because they want the public to think, incorrectly, that PP is funded by tax dollars. It's not. PP is reimbursed for providing healthcare just like every other healthcare provider is. In order to be honest they would have to call it "exempting from reimbursement." But this narrative doesn't sell well because it implies politicians can expand the "exception" list as they see fit in the future for political reasons.

For example, if the Mayo Clinic launches a PR campaign about something one party doesn't agree with, that party can try "defund" the Mayo Clinic as retaliation. This is only possible if they start making exception lists naming specific healthcare providers. They are aiming at PP first because it's morally compelling to the religious pro-life right. Make no mistake though, the actual long-term goal is to start a list of healthcare providers exempted from reimbursement for political reasons. Both republicans and democrats would be able to use and abuse such a n exception list.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
if abortion is the path to guilt free sex then I would say they are doing it wrong....
birth control is. the pro lifers tend to want to do away with birth control sex education too. well the hard core ones do.
[doublepost=1492454146][/doublepost]
I understand why someone would not want Planned Parenthood to get government money. I just don't get trying to attack abortion from a legal standpoint.

And....no. People who are against abortion are not against women having guilt free sex. ;)
because they roll planned parenthood up into one ball and it is all evil. hard core christian pro lifers are every much against birth control they are against any sex outside marriage and the whole nine yards that go with it.
of course most of them never managed to do that but it does not stop them from expecting others to manage it. the catholic church is against birth control and most fundamentalist churches too. thats why they want to get rid of planned parenthood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
I understand why someone would not want Planned Parenthood to get government money. I just don't get trying to attack abortion from a legal standpoint.

And....no. People who are against abortion are not against women having guilt free sex. ;)
Because even if no federal money is used for abortions, the fact they offer the service wants the GOP to spite PPH by taking away money for other services they provide to women( that in fact may prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the amount of abortions).
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
I understand why someone would not want Planned Parenthood to get government money. I just don't get trying to attack abortion from a legal standpoint.

And....no. People who are against abortion are not against women having guilt free sex. ;)
I'm against abortion 100% but am all for women having guilt free sex. I'm also for paying for your own contraception. If you can't afford a rubber then don't have sex. I can't afford a trip to Paris right now so guess what, I'm not going to Paris.

upload_2017-4-17_14-38-34.png


These condoms at Walgreen's cost $16.79 for a box of 36. That comes to $0.46 per lay. If you can't afford $0.46 then you shouldn't be having sex. Spare me the "What about people who can't get to the store" or "I'm the women, why should I have to pay for condoms when the man doesn't buy them". If the dude you want to plow you doesn't have the GD consideration to pay $0.46 for a condom you probably shouldn't let that scumbag into your house, let alone your panties.
[doublepost=1492454574][/doublepost]
birth control is. the pro lifers tend to want to do away with birth control sex education too. well the hard core ones do.
[doublepost=1492454146][/doublepost]
because they roll planned parenthood up into one ball and it is all evil. hard core christian pro lifers are every much against birth control they are against any sex outside marriage and the whole nine yards that go with it.
of course most of them never managed to do that but it does not stop them from expecting others to manage it. the catholic church is against birth control and most fundamentalist churches too. thats why they want to get rid of planned parenthood.
I want people to pay for their own birth control. I also don't want any more government subsidized baby dismemberment inside the womb.
 
Last edited:

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
I want people to pay for their own birth control. I also don't want any more government subsidized baby dismemberment inside the womb.
I want a million dollars so who will get what they want first? abortion has been happening since the beginning of time it is not up to what you want or what the church want.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,797
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
because they roll planned parenthood up into one ball and it is all evil. hard core christian pro lifers are every much against birth control they are against any sex outside marriage and the whole nine yards that go with it.
of course most of them never managed to do that but it does not stop them from expecting others to manage it. the catholic church is against birth control and most fundamentalist churches too. thats why they want to get rid of planned parenthood.
You do realize that there are many non-Christians who are against abortion right? There are secular arguments against it.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
Because even if no federal money is used for abortions, the fact they offer the service wants the GOP to spite PPH by taking away money for other services they provide to women( that in fact may prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the amount of abortions).
penny wise & dollar stupid, the GOP way :(
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
This is a huge misnomer. PP is not funded, so there is nothing to "defund." There is no line-item in the federal budget for PP, so there is no line item to cut or remove. The whole "defunding" conversation is a farce.

Whenever a politician talks about "defunding" PP, what they really mean is prohibiting PP from being reimbursed for services it provides. All qualified healthcare providers can be reimbursed for services they provide. These lawmakers want to put in a specific exception, that despite the fact that PP qualifies for reimbursement under every law, PP would not be reimbursed for providing these services. This isn't defunding, it's just a spiteful exception.

Politicians call it "defunding" because they want the public to think, incorrectly, that PP is funded by tax dollars. It's not. PP is reimbursed for providing healthcare just like every other healthcare provider is. In order to be honest they would have to call it "exempting from reimbursement." But this narrative doesn't sell well because it implies politicians can expand the "exception" list as they see fit in the future for political reasons.

For example, if the Mayo Clinic launches a PR campaign about something one party doesn't agree with, that party can try "defund" the Mayo Clinic as retaliation. This is only possible if they start making exception lists naming specific healthcare providers. They are aiming at PP first because it's morally compelling to the religious pro-life right. Make no mistake though, the actual long-term goal is to start a list of healthcare providers exempted from reimbursement for political reasons. Both republicans and democrats would be able to use and abuse such a n exception list.
PP receives grants as well as reimbursements. Also your take on the word "funding" is a bit strange. Paying up front or afterwards is still a form of funding. For example if the KKK started a health clinic that received reimbursements but also held funded speeches promoting hate crimes against blacks in the same building you would be potentially funding their entire operation by allowing the reimbursements.

Also I'm sure the wording to "defund" will be to restrict any orgs that provide abortion services. If abortions are truly self sustaining (they aren't) they can start a new organization dedicated to that and maintain separate staff and facilities to conduct the operations.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
There hasn't been government subsidized abortion since the beginning of time so I'm pretty certain I will get what I want before you get what you want.
well you got it already then stop whining. I thought you said any abortions I did not see you were arguing for what is not happening my bad.
[doublepost=1492455624][/doublepost]
I've yet to meet a woman who had an abortion that didn't regret it.
well maybe you should get out more huh?
http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/
Ninety-five percent of women who have had abortions do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnancies, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at UC San Francisco's School of Medicine, and from the university's division of biostatistics.

Its conclusions come after a three-year research period in which nearly 670 women were regularly surveyed on the subject of their abortions. The sample group was diverse with regard to standard social metrics (race, education, and employment) and on the matter of what the study calls pregnancy and abortion circumstances. Financial considerations were given as the reasons for an abortion by 40 percent of women; 36 percent had decided it was "not the right time;" 26 percent of women found the decision very or somewhat easy; 53 percent found it very or somewhat difficult.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Because even if no federal money is used for abortions, the fact they offer the service wants the GOP to spite PPH by taking away money for other services they provide to women( that in fact may prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the amount of abortions).
The solution should be simple then, provide abortions under another organization that is self sustained under its own funding. Since they aren't using any tax payer money for anything related to abortions this should be easy, unless they are using the same facilities and staff paid for by tax money to perform these operations.

If abortions was a money generating or net neutral business I would have expected to see more commercial entities in this space.