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.
Well, OK. Congress and/or states could indeed pass a law requiring that abortions be done in separate facilities - IOW, mandate the existence of abortion-only clinics. Maybe that's an argument we should have. If you want to make it, then the smart thing to do would be to contact all the medical facilities, public or private, in the region that would be affected by the law, and do a detailed survey of what they would think about such a law and how it would affect them. Because if you don't know what their concerns would be and find a way to address them going in, you will surely find out when the final draft is aired.
But until that happens, why should PP voluntarily submit to a non-regulatory requirement when no other abortion provider does?
Only outside the Hyde Amendment guidelines.
Many don't do abortions as forms of birth control.
The issue has never come up regarding hospitals because they do play by the rules.
PP doesn't.
You could just as well say that they have significant motivation to be squeaky clean. They are mission-driven, and they intend to operate indefinitely. The organization as a whole is not stupid (although they may hire stupid people sometimes), and they know they are under more intense public scrutiny than most organizations, profit or not-for-profit.
Getting caught selling baby organs and the fact that it was discussed pretty high up in the PP chain of command would suggest they are not nearly so careful as you presume. Since the info was obtained illegally, it won't lead to much. But where do you think the pro-life folks got the idea that such things were going on? Probably from former PP employees.
Quote:
I didn't follow up on this story. I note that this report was produced by an advocacy group. What happened after the report was released? Did a prosecutor pick up on it and charge and/or convict PP?
Same question. Has a prosecutor somewhere found this worth further investigation?
Simple answer to both: Who's going to prosecute them for misallocation of federal funds? Loretta E. Lynch, our present Attorney General. She is pro-abortion so no she's not going to take PP to task. Why would a pro-abortion Attorney General go after the biggest provider of abortions in the country?
Meanwhile Texas is using verified fraudulent practices in their own state-level process of defunding of PP.
I fully anticipate that such defunding processes or the lack thereof will follow Red-state/Blue-state lines going forward.
Quote:
Well, OK. Congress and/or states could indeed pass a law requiring that abortions be done in separate facilities - IOW, mandate the existence of abortion-only clinics. Maybe that's an argument we should have. If you want to make it, then the smart thing to do would be to contact all the medical facilities, public or private, in the region that would be affected by the law, and do a detailed survey of what they would think about such a law and how it would affect them. Because if you don't know what their concerns would be and find a way to address them going in, you will surely find out when the final draft is aired.
But until that happens, why should PP voluntarily submit to a non-regulatory requirement when no other abortion provider does?
It seems logical that any abortion-provider should fall under the same rule -- though such a rule has yet to be created of course. If a mother's life is in immediate danger or her health is in serious immediate threat, then by all means let the hospital or clinic perform the abortion. Otherwise, send them to an abortion clinic.
I really do see this as a win-win. The pro-life folks do not have the right make abortions illegal. Those performing abortions don't have the right to use federal money to pay for abortions. Making the abortion clinics completely separate would allow us to continue funding the good non-controversial services that PP and other medical facilities currently provide and would silence the GOP's attacks on PP.
Another thing I dont understand about conservatives: they care so much about unborn babies, yet they lose all interest once these babies are born.
Its because its a misconception. The "Conservative" who wants to be rid of all social safety nets is a straw man. I'm strongly Conservative and support programs that help the truly needy. I donate to local charities that directly help the poor, especially those with children. Churches are huge sources of aid to poor families, children and single mothers.
We don't lose interest in helping children once they're born. What we oppose is welfare fraud and abuse and want these programs significantly overhauled to address these problems. We oppose the generational poverty that is encouraged by easy access to these programs. We want those who truly need help to get it, while reducing the fraud and abuse that's taking money away from those who truly need it.
Yes it does. After the great lie, any new plan had all that female junk that PP gets funded for. Since I didn't want to pay for any of that I went uninsured, against the law. The fine is cheaper.
The ACA does not make medical care available to everyone. As Mark pointed out, there are still people who are uninsured, because they are not eligible for Medicaid because their income is too high and they do not make enough to buy subsidized private coverage. In addition, many doctors do not take Medicaid patients because the reimbursement is lower than the cost of providing the insurance. As Mark also pointed out, PP clinics are usually located in areas that do not have other sources of care.
The fine is cheaper until someone T-bones your car and puts you in the ICU or you have a heart attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
The big issue is, outside of abortions, is PP even necessary (or useful) anymore? Under O-care any woman can walk into any clinic (or DR.s office) and use her insurance to get contraceptives and any other health care. Those that don't have OC qualify for Medicaid, same story. Exactly what does PP offer that isn't available elsewhere, and at a facility that offers a wider range of services.
No, there are still many who do not qualify for either Medicaid or subsidized ACA insurance plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Bull. Any woman can walk into any Dr. office and get birth control or access to a OB/GYN easier than traveling to an aborton mill. And find s non-biased source to prop up your liberal talking points.
No, you cannot walk into any "Dr. office" and get birth control or access to an OB/GYN. Private providers expect you to pay: cash or insurance. Many do not accept Medicaid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians
actually, No... planned parenthood is the "big fish".. Planned parenthood does the most abortions by far. The argument that planned parenthood provides other services is a moot point. Why is it moot? Well, those services aren't planned parenthoods "bread & butter". Meaning, they make most of their $$ from abortions. Also, it is ridiculous that taxpayer $$ be sent to a private organization which provides abortions. Even though it is legal, it is not something that taxpayers should have to support... and most Americans do not. They are forced to! If you are really pro-choice then feel free to "choose" planned parenthood. By forcing others to pay for your "choice", you are taking away their choice... see how that works? Don't force others to pay for your choice. Also, since Obamacare covers all americans, and Obamacare covers womens health, then that should be the gov't #1 option. The gov't has spend billions of $$$ on Obamacare. If you are going to make it a law then it needs to be enforced. You can't have it both ways. Giving tax $$ to an outside agency (planned parenthood) is fraud, waste, abuse of OUR money!
Federal money is not used to fund abortions at PP.
Obamacare did not result in 100% insurance coverage in the US. See my response above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Actually, that's impossible. How do you separate federal dollars spent supporting a clinic from the abortion? Federal dollars keep the lights on and the rest of the utilities. Federal dollars pay things like property taxes and the rent/mortgage. Federal dollars pays for medical supplies. If federal money is paying for all those things for a clinic that performs abortions, then federal money is helping to pay for abortions.
If PP wants to continue to receive federal funding they can stop performing abortions and they can create separate clinics that do abortions. Only the abortion variety of PP clinic will receive no federal funding.
Anything less means that taxpayers actually are paying for abortions.
I've got no problem with PP doing everything else that they do. They're legally within their rights to run abortion clinics too. But we were told in no uncertain terms that taxpayer dollars are not paying for abortions in any way whatsoever. At present that simply isn't true.
No, it is possible to physically and financially separate abortion services from other services. PP is continually audited to make sure that is done. Here is a sample of such an audit:
It shows how the finances are kept totally separate. On days when abortion patients are seen, patients cannot come in for other services.
As far as the physical plant and utilities, taxes and other expenses are concerned, you are assuming no money collected for abortions or contributions for provision of abortion services are used to pay a share of those expenses. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?
In the audit above, salaries and other expenses allocated to abortion services, including rent and utilities, was properly identified. There is no need to have a completely different physical plant in order to separate abortion related expenses. Consider the abortion activity and non-abortion activities to be room mates sharing expenses.
why should they? to appease people opposed to abortion. it is unnecessary as abortion is legal.
Abortion is legal, true. But using federal dollars to pay for abortions is illegal. That is why PP should create separate facilities. Anything less and there is no certainty that federal money is not being spent to pay for abortions. Plus, if there are separate facilities then the non-abortion clinics can continue to receive federal funding.
I really do see this as a win-win. The pro-life folks do not have the right make abortions illegal. Those performing abortions don't have the right to use federal money to pay for abortions. Making the abortion clinics completely separate would allow us to continue funding the good non-controversial services that PP and other medical facilities currently provide and would silence the GOP's attacks on PP.
No, it is possible to physically and financially separate abortion services from other services. PP is continually audited to make sure that is done. Here is a sample of such an audit:
It shows how the finances are kept totally separate. On days when abortion patients are seen, patients cannot come in for other services.
As far as the physical plant and utilities, taxes and other expenses are concerned, you are assuming no money collected for abortions or contributions for provision of abortion services are used to pay a share of those expenses. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?
In the audit above, salaries and other expenses allocated to abortion services, including rent and utilities, was properly identified. There is no need to have a completely different physical plant in order to separate abortion related expenses. Consider the abortion activity and non-abortion activities to be room mates sharing expenses.
If PP clinics have to run on abortion and non-abortion days -- sure sounds like they'd be better off having separate facilities. Then they could each dedicate fully to providing their chosen list of services. No more need to have separate days for different services. Win-win!
As to the roommates analogy, it just leads back to the same problem: If federal dollars help pay for the rent or utilities or anything else, then federal dollars are paying for abortions -- which is illegal. If having separate facilities is unfeasable and the separated abortion clinic simply can't survive on its own, then it tells us exactly what I suspect is true: Tax dollars are being used to pay for abortions right now.
Abortion is legal, true. But using federal dollars to pay for abortions is illegal. That is why PP should create separate facilities. Anything less and there is no certainty that federal money is not being spent to pay for abortions. Plus, if there are separate facilities then the non-abortion clinics can continue to receive federal funding.
What's the downside?
so because a minority of people question PP it needs to reorganize? gee I question which wars I support. should we insist that the military budget be separate for what is deemed necessary and what is deemed by some to be unnecessary? you don't get to pick where your tax dollars goes.
Many don't do abortions as forms of birth control.
The issue has never come up regarding hospitals because they do play by the rules.
PP doesn't.
I can assure you that plenty of medical facilities, including hospitals, provide abortions that are outside of the Hyde Amendment.
And those that do use the same accounting practices as PP does.
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.
