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.
"On any given day, there are approximately 415,000 children in foster care in the United States.
In 2014, over 650,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care.
On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and seven percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years."
You also apparently don't want PAP smears or treatment for STDs or any of the other services that PP provides.
What is going to replace it?
A lecture from far-right religious extremists (usually male) who want to decide what resources women should and should't have.
They have convinced themselves women must be denied choice ..because THEIR beliefs are paramount.
In the DECADES since Row v Wade they haven't eliminated the need for foster homes. They haven't built health care facilities. They haven't made sure every American child goes to bed fed and safe and hungry. They haven't eliminated child abuse or school shootings or the fact that MILLIONS of kids suffer from malnutrition. But they want to eliminate choice. They are ADAMANT about eliminating choice.
They aren't pro-life.
They are anti-choice.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 11-29-2016 at 08:37 PM..
Oh, wait, now you're going off on a tangent about how I supposedly claimed my taxes would decrease if there were fewer people.
Maybe you should be a little more clear with your posts then. You are the one saying that you need to "send" more money each time a "poor person" has a child. So I figured if you believe your taxes are raised each time a "poor person" has a child, then if they stopped having children, surely you wouldn't have to "send" so much money off to the government.
But of course you don't really have an argument, you would just rather see all the "poor people" starve to death instead of give them the temporary help they need to get back on their feet.
Maybe you should be a little more clear with your posts then. You are the one saying that you need to "send" more money each time a "poor person" has a child. So I figured if you believe your taxes are raised each time a "poor person" has a child, then if they stopped having children, surely you wouldn't have to "send" so much money off to the government.
But of course you don't really have an argument, you would just rather see all the "poor people" starve to death instead of give them the temporary help they need to get back on their feet.
LOL, "the temporary help they need." You're always a source of comedy and laughter for me.
A lecture from far-right religious extremists (usually male) who want to decide what resources women should and should't have.
They have convinced themselves women must be denied choice ..because THEIR beliefs are paramount.
This is why, by the way, the country has skewed dramatically more left as women were given suffrage. Women are experts at voting for money for themselves and they cherish their own personal financial safety being guaranteed more than they care about anything else like, for example, the Constitution.
No issues whatsoever with Planned Parenthood. Just think they should be a charitable organization who gets funding from donations and not tax dollars. Actually, have that viewpoint for all charitable organizations. So, I would have no issues with cutting their federal funding.
Congressional Republicans are aiming to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood early next year, according to GOP sources on and off the Hill, as social conservatives press for a milestone win under Donald Trump's presidency after years of thwarted attempts to defund the health care group.
Although the Senate passed a budget bill in late 2015 that eliminated federal money for Planned Parenthood and also repealed Obamacare, President Barack Obama vetoed the measure in early January. But with Trump in the White House next year, conservatives say it's just a matter of time before a defunding bill becomes law.
Good... if you want an abortion through PP, they will still be available. But, hopefully I won't be paying for it.
You don't pay for abortions already because the federal funds PP receives prohibits it. What are you talking about. I think so many, like you are misinformed. I'm not sure why everyone is so happy about funding being removed. Abortions represent only 3 percent of their total services. And if you don't think this is audited then think again. PP really helps the poor and middle class who wouldn't otherwise have access to healthcare. Or if they do it's too expensive.
What is with republicans wanting to take away healthcare from those less fortunate by defunding PP and repealing the ACA
Donald Trump dismissed the notion he is not a true conservative because he supports Planned Parenthood, insisting he is "just doing what's right."
Look, Planned Parenthood has done very good work for many, many -- for millions of women," Trump said in a news conference Tuesday night. "And I’ll say it, and I know a lot of the so-called conservatives, they say that’s really ... cause I’m a conservative, but I’m a common-sense conservative."
Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”
Speaking from Palm Beach, Fla., the real-estate mogul reiterated he would not fund the organization "as long as you have the abortion going on," but noted the "millions of people -- and I’ve had thousands of letters from women -- that have been helped."
"And this wasn’t a set-up. This was women writing letters. But I’m going to be really good for women, I’m going to be good for women’s health issues, it’s very important to me. Very important to me," he said.
Trump then conceded that "maybe that’s not a perfect conservative view." But he insisted he's "more conservative than anybody on the military, on taking care of our vets, on the border, on the wall, on getting rid of Obamacare and coming up with something much, much better and certainly getting rid of Common Core.
Trump has been all over the place as usual, the past few weeks he has softened his anti-PP positions, in September he stated he would defund them. His new HHS appointment is very anti-PP among other things.
Congress wants them defunded, we will see if he uses his first veto.
PPH should get taxpayer funding to promote & provide contraception, but not for abortions of convenience. For real physical health endangerment of the mother, then yes.
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.
