Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what they have accomplished with this vote is to grant states the right to prohibit funding for low women at PP Clinics. Many millions of low income women will now have no alternative to the health care provider they use, they will also be denied access to education and birth control.
Does this make any sense at all, any?
It makes absolutely no sense. Not sure when they will figure that out but maybe it will be after they have communities filling with poor children and poorer parents.
Yes, women who seek abortions are stupid, immoral, or irresponsible. How dare women do anything that YOU disapprove of? Punish them for having sex, I say, punish them severely!!!
No need for the melodrama. At present we are giving individual states freedom of choice as to whether or not they fund the single largest abortion provider in the US.
For a bunch of folks who claim to be in favor of choice there sure seems to be a lot of resentment.
No need for the melodrama. At present we are giving individual states freedom of choice as to whether or not they fund the single largest abortion provider in the US.
For a bunch of folks who claim to be in favor of choice there sure seems to be a lot of resentment.
I don't resent them, I think they are very shortsighted. Evangelicals have been targeting Planned Parenthood for years. They have their scalp now. Blue states will still fund Planned Parenthood locally, because they understand that helping poor people to plan their families is better for everyone including the communities they live in. Saving a dollar to spend millions later makes no sense. But red states will take the path of filling their communities with children born from unplanned pregnancies and making poor people even poorer parents, filling the schools with very poor children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
Looks like welfare recipients will be increasing in the red states (more than usual).
No need for the melodrama. At present we are giving individual states freedom of choice as to whether or not they fund the single largest abortion provider in the US.
For a bunch of folks who claim to be in favor of choice there sure seems to be a lot of resentment.
The fact that PP provides abortions really has nothing to do with the service they are defunding, and by the way they are not the only abortion provider. The foster care system in many states is in deplorable shape, do they plan on stepping up funding for more social services to accommodate more unwanted births, are they going to build some new facilities to provide health care services to cover for PP.
Are you saying the federal government should force a business to operate? Should I request a Lamborghini dealership as well? How about a steel mill? What other businesses do you think the federal government should force? And how do you think the federal government should force a business to be, well, in business?
If there is a demand for services, there will be a supply, this is basic economics.
I am still wondering how this restricts your freedom of choice. No one is stopping you from getting an abortion. If there is not a business offering this service, then the demand just is not there, and you will have to travel for the service, just as everyone does with other services.
I knew someone who had to travel over a 1000 miles for cancer treatment, and do this every six weeks for five rounds. No hospital in the area offered such specialized service. So I guess according to your logic, the government should have forced a business to operate at a loss due to a lack of demand? Or is your logic that abortion clinics should be everywhere like 7/11s are?
If you have a RWNJ legislature and a bunch of half-wit holy rollers running your state, getting an abortion might be financially difficult when all of the possible providers have been threatened and driven out, compared to living in NYC where a dozen low-cost abortion providers are a 10 minute subway ride away.
I feel sorry for your friend who had cancer. It must be a real PITA to live in a crap hole with limited health services.
It would be even nicer if you could get an abortion (vaginal slushie) at a 7-11, while waiting for your Giant Slushie!
Last edited by TheEmissary; 03-30-2017 at 04:47 PM..
I don't resent them, I think they are very shortsighted. Evangelicals have been targeting Planned Parenthood for years. They have their scalp now. Blue states will still fund Planned Parenthood locally, because they understand that helping poor people to plan their families is better for everyone including the communities they live in. Saving a dollar to spend millions later makes no sense. But red states will take the path of filling their communities with children born from unplanned pregnancies and making poor people even poorer parents, filling the schools with very poor children.
Yes, it's completely predictable.
Well if funding Planned Parenthood actually prevented all you claim it does we wouldn't have any of these problems. How long has PP been receiving government funding?
Well if funding Planned Parenthood actually prevented all you claim it does we wouldn't have any of these problems. How long has PP been receiving government funding?
you might want to look at the stats. abortions and unplanned pregnancies are at an all time low.
If you have a RWNJ legislature and a bunch of half-wit holy rollers running your state, getting an abortion might be financially difficult when all of the possible providers have been threatened and driven out, compared to living in NYC where a dozen low-cost abortion providers are a 10 minute subway ride away.
I feel sorry for your friend who had cancer. It must be a real PITA to live in a crap hole with limited health services.
It would be even nicer if you could get an abortion (vaginal slushie) at a 7-11, while waiting for your Giant Slushie!
That is up to the people of the state to decide by way of voting. There are many restrictions on what people do. Look at marijuana for example, where some states have made it legal. Look at alcohol, where some states have more restrictions than others.
Does the state threatening a service violate the law? It should, and that is a different problem to address. However, localities have threatened all kinds of businesses before, so I do not see how abortion providers should be so special.
Again, it is ultimately how the people of the state to decide through their vote. That is also why we have a constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority.
And I still do not see what this has to do with federal funding. The business should be able to operate fine with donations and local government funding if available.
Friend did not live in much of a crap hole, it was Jacksonville, but had to go to Chicago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
