U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 04:21 PM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,513 posts, read 6,520,299 times
Reputation: 12101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Girl View Post
They were NOT using federal funds for abortions. This has been explained time and time again.
Of course, they are. This explains things nicely for those who refuse to believe:

Quote:
Do state tax dollars pay for abortions?

Every state has the option to use their own funds to supplement Medicaid coverage for abortions, or to restrict it. As of 2017 there are 17 states required by state law or court order to pay for essentially all abortions for Medicaid recipients. Michigan once paid for half of all abortions in the state when our Medicaid program covered abortions on-demand. In 1988, 57 percent of Michigan voters affirmed a ban on Medicaid-funded abortions, dropping the number of abortions by 25 percent within two years.
Quote:
Does Planned Parenthood use taxpayer money on abortions?

Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million dollars in taxpayer funding every year. Much of their taxpayer money comes through Medicaid, which is jointly funded by federal and state taxpayers. Currently 17 states add their own state taxpayer dollars to pay directly for abortions. They also receive many taxpayer dollars through the Title X family planning program. There is zero meaningful separation of staff, facilities, and operational costs at Planned Parenthood clinics between government-funded services and abortions. Federal contract rules allow taxpayer funds to pay staff salaries, supplies, and facility costs on a “pro-rated” basis. It is merely an accounting gimmick; tax dollars literally pay the rent and energy costs to keep abortion clinics running and funds staff that help perform abortions. Planned Parenthood claims abortion is inseparable from their mission, and with half of their budget coming from taxpayers, it’s safe to say our tax dollars are inseparable from their abortion mission. Recent annual reports show Planned Parenthood’s dramatic increase in taxpayer funding has led them to expand abortion while cutting clients and other health services.
https://rtl.org/legislation/tax-doll...-for-abortion/

Put simply, Planned Parenthood practitioners perform both abortions and other services. Planned Parenthood would not have the presence it has today to offer widespread abortion services without the funding it receives from taxpayers. You can't separate the services provided by Planned Parenthood with a straight face
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Long Island
33,647 posts, read 14,177,148 times
Reputation: 7212
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Planned Parenthood is sickening. All this move proved is that they care more about murdering the unborn than providing other healthcare to women in need. Indeed, even under this rule (had they accepted funds), Planned Parenthood would still be able to perform abortions; they just wouldn't be able to "refer" women for abortions. But everybody knows that Planned Parenthood performs abortions and this rule wouldn't change that.

But this is good news. I'm hopeful that other organizations that don't support murder on demand will step up and apply for the funds that Planned Parenthood is leaving on the table
They already have the Hyde Amendment that bans the use of funds for abortions, that didn't halt abortions so they are picking away at R v W with this nonsense gag order. This is not good news unless you have no regard for poor women, PP shouldn't have to change their policy because of right wing GOP members that only mission is to damage PP.


Lost in all this is that over 50% of births are through Medicaid, but here we are with government prohibitions on referrals, that makes absolutely no sense, What exactly is the problem they are addressing with this modification to Title X. Around 75% of abortions are low income women yet you don't want to allow education and information.


I cant wait to see all those clinics stepping up to cover the loss of services, that is a fantasy of right wing fanatics.


Planned Parenthood accounts for around one third of all abortions, so is the next step a gag order for private hospitals or do you just want to make it difficult for poor women.

Last edited by Goodnight; Yesterday at 04:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:02 PM
 
3,064 posts, read 3,077,413 times
Reputation: 3652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
They already have the Hyde Amendment that bans the use of funds for abortions, that didn't halt abortions so they are picking away at R v W with this nonsense gag order. This is not good news unless you have no regard for poor women, PP shouldn't have to change their policy because of right wing GOP members that only mission is to damage PP.


Lost in all this is that over 50% of births are through Medicaid, but here we are with government prohibitions on referrals, that makes absolutely no sense, What exactly is the problem they are addressing with this modification to Title X.


I cant wait to see all those clinics stepping up to cover the loss of services, that is a fantasy of right wing fanatics.
Somehow I don't know if it registers that one half of all children in our great United States are born into families who qualify for medical care for poor people. Half of babies born poor. That doesn't sound like a very great country. (Apologies to Antoine de St-Exupéry)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Long Island
33,647 posts, read 14,177,148 times
Reputation: 7212
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge View Post
Somehow I don't know if it registers that one half of all children in our great United States are born into families who qualify for medical care for poor people. Half of babies born poor. That doesn't sound like a very great country. (Apologies to Antoine de St-Exupéry)
No it doesn’t sound promising but somehow restricting poor women information on abortion is some kind of victory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:50 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,216 posts, read 34,226,645 times
Reputation: 14473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Imagine having a doctor being blocked from providing medical options to a patient, this reminds me of behavior in some 3rd world countries with religious fanatics. I assume this funding cut will impact many low income women but I don't think the GOP really cares. Title X had bipartisan report and was initiated under Nixon and now 50 years later this administration welcomes its demise.

Why are some these groups cheering this as a victory, is it because they are denying service to poor women because it will not stop abortions.




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/h...sultPosition=1



All the money given by our government, can no longer be funneled back to Commie people running for office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:00 PM
 
5,854 posts, read 1,577,583 times
Reputation: 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Imagine having a doctor being blocked from providing medical options to a patient, this reminds me of behavior in some 3rd world countries with religious fanatics. I assume this funding cut will impact many low income women but I don't think the GOP really cares. Title X had bipartisan report and was initiated under Nixon and now 50 years later this administration welcomes its demise.

Why are some these groups cheering this as a victory, is it because they are denying service to poor women because it will not stop abortions.




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/h...sultPosition=1
All this proves is that they were using the money for abortions. They could easily keep accepting the money for all those services they keep claiming they provide that are essential.

Didn't Obamacare expand insurance to millions, including Medicaid to millions to low-income people? Why do they need to go to Planned Parenthood to get their pills or STD screenings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,625 posts, read 15,981,745 times
Reputation: 9963
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound View Post
All this proves is that they were using the money for abortions. They could easily keep accepting the money for all those services they keep claiming they provide that are essential.

Didn't Obamacare expand insurance to millions, including Medicaid to millions to low-income people? Why do they need to go to Planned Parenthood to get their pills or STD screenings?
And didn't many red states not allow for Medicaid expansion under Obamacare???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:30 AM
 
Location: El paso,tx
2,267 posts, read 860,103 times
Reputation: 3623
Planned parenthood doesnt need that money. They made over 77 million in profits last yr, and donate quite a bit to the dem party. Their affiliates donated over 20 million for 2018 midterm elections, and they themselves donate over a million...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...=1566368918696
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:17 AM
 
39,788 posts, read 41,146,672 times
Reputation: 16474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
They already have the Hyde Amendment that bans the use of funds for abortions,.

They get away with it through creative accounting, once again they have shared costs which allows them attribute a much larger and unnecessarily higher amount of those costs to the non abortion services.



Quote:

PP shouldn't have to change their policy because of right wing GOP members that only mission is to damage PP.

They could of chose to split off that side of the services they are providing to some other entity with separate billing, accounting, staff etc. The claim is no federal funding is used so that entity should be able to operate without any interruptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:27 AM
 
39,788 posts, read 41,146,672 times
Reputation: 16474
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
And didn't many red states not allow for Medicaid expansion under Obamacare???

There is no guarantee what percentage the feds will pay for that going forward. It started at 100% and will drop to 90 percent next year where it's supposed to stay. If funding is cut further the state will be on the hook to make up for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top