Court: Texas can cut off Planned Pare...

Court: Texas can cut off Planned Parenthood funds

There are 165 comments on the Rome News story from Aug 21, 2012, titled Court: Texas can cut off Planned Parenthood funds. In it, Rome News reports that:

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that Texas can cut off funding for Planned Parenthood clinics that provide health services to low-income women before a trial over a new law that bans state money from going to organizations tied to abortion providers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Rome News.

PATRIOT

Carmel, ME

#124 Sep 5, 2012
Planned Parenthood made a big trash talk in Austin, Texas, yesterday. Didn't want people to know that other heath agencies were picking up their slack, that the Fed cut off their funding in opposition to the State of Texas Legislature doing what it is required to do by Both US and Texas Constitution. What they did't expect is the women who showed up with horror stories about the way they were treated by PP staff. I personally liked the one where a pregnant college student walked in and to a staff member she had gotten pregnant. When the staff member began to discuss abortion as an option, the student said that was not an option, she wanted to keep the baby. The staff member then began treating her like the plague, to the point of not wanting to help her anymore.

Yes sir-ee. Planned Parenthood-the woman's protector. But only if a woman will to do it their way. Maybe that's why Ocean has so many stories to tell about the reluctance to tubal ligations. The procedure is more expensive and doesn't kill another human being. I mean, how much does a vaccum job cost?

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#125 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, week 7 is when there is a brain ... and yes, you are pushing to have the government take responsibility from women.
So are you now saying that after week 7 no abortions should be performed? Remember you said that the child has no rights until it has a brain. By that standard at 7 weeks it has rights.

Now how is my wanting people, not just women, to act responsibly prior to getting pregnent, "Pushing for the Government", to take responsibility away from the women?

I am in fact pushing responsibility onto the people involved.

It was you libs that got the Government involved in the first place. It stuck its nose into the entire thing with Roe V Wade and multiple other cases brought by Planned Prenthood.

So please explain how wanting to restrict killing children is taking responsibility away from women.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#126 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you now saying that after week 7 no abortions should be performed? Remember you said that the child has no rights until it has a brain. By that standard at 7 weeks it has rights.
Now how is my wanting people, not just women, to act responsibly prior to getting pregnent, "Pushing for the Government", to take responsibility away from the women?
I am in fact pushing responsibility onto the people involved.
It was you libs that got the Government involved in the first place. It stuck its nose into the entire thing with Roe V Wade and multiple other cases brought by Planned Prenthood.
So please explain how wanting to restrict killing children is taking responsibility away from women.
I would agree to a 7 week limit, yes. "Us libs?" Sorry, I'm a conservative, and from a completely conservative, in other words no religious nonsense, stand allowing abortions within reasonable limits saves a fortune for the tax payers, unless you want to interfere in people's lives more it is the only way, at least most are still paid for by the ones seeking them. Religious nuts may have taken over the label conservative, it does not change what true conservatism is, it's less government, which also includes less regulation, especially in personal matters such as this. You can pretend to be conservative and define it the neo-con way, it does not change what it really means. Outlawing abortion would be a liberal notion, not a conservative one, but hey, since the liberals want to act more like conservatives on the matter I will side with them ... on this one issue.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#127 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree to a 7 week limit, yes. "Us libs?" Sorry, I'm a conservative, and from a completely conservative, in other words no religious nonsense, stand allowing abortions within reasonable limits saves a fortune for the tax payers, unless you want to interfere in people's lives more it is the only way, at least most are still paid for by the ones seeking them. Religious nuts may have taken over the label conservative, it does not change what true conservatism is, it's less government, which also includes less regulation, especially in personal matters such as this. You can pretend to be conservative and define it the neo-con way, it does not change what it really means. Outlawing abortion would be a liberal notion, not a conservative one, but hey, since the liberals want to act more like conservatives on the matter I will side with them ... on this one issue.
Sorry but ypou may think you are a conservative but you are not. Conservatives value life more than they do money.
By your standard we should force abortions on to anyone that can not show they have the means to support a child on their own. That would save money would it not?
You say now 7 weeks should be the cut off? Why that is contrary to your claim of what a conservative is. The only concern is money so why cut it off at all? Have the abortions all the way to the day they drop them out of their vagina.
You see your argument doesn't hold water. You claim it is all about money but say a 7 week term would be fine with you. You claim that most abortions are paid for by those that receive them. If that is the case then why all the BS about PP and them offering them to low income people?
I would say if you look at the real facts you would find you are not a conservative at all.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but ypou may think you are a conservative but you are not. Conservatives value life more than they do money.
By your standard we should force abortions on to anyone that can not show they have the means to support a child on their own. That would save money would it not?
You say now 7 weeks should be the cut off? Why that is contrary to your claim of what a conservative is. The only concern is money so why cut it off at all? Have the abortions all the way to the day they drop them out of their vagina.
You see your argument doesn't hold water. You claim it is all about money but say a 7 week term would be fine with you. You claim that most abortions are paid for by those that receive them. If that is the case then why all the BS about PP and them offering them to low income people?
I would say if you look at the real facts you would find you are not a conservative at all.
Erm, all humans value life more than money, but money makes the world go round, so to speak. If we save money on something we can use that money to help people more. Conservative as a political notion is dealing mostly with the money and government, as in fewer regulations and less intrusion into our lives. You are voting for more intrusion and less accountability.

Planned Parenthood limited the term of abortion and required counseling, which is a very good requirement. It is also the service they provide the least of, most of what they do is preventative measures like birth control. Those are facts, and you are ignoring those facts. Another interesting fact you are ignoring is that most women who go through abortion find that they don't want to do it again, it becomes a weight with them, which leads to them becoming more responsible in the long run so they can avoid that trauma again. You are acting as if women have no conscience and would just go through an abortion every single pregnancy as a means of birth control when statistically this is not demonstrated anywhere. More facts, and you are ignoring those as well.

Here's another interesting fact, the more religious states have the higher abortion rates in the US. Like not a causation but it's an interesting fact.
PATRIOT

Carmel, ME

#129 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree to a 7 week limit, yes. "Us libs?" Sorry, I'm a conservative, and from a completely conservative, in other words no religious nonsense, stand allowing abortions within reasonable limits saves a fortune for the tax payers, unless you want to interfere in people's lives more it is the only way, at least most are still paid for by the ones seeking them. Religious nuts may have taken over the label conservative, it does not change what true conservatism is, it's less government, which also includes less regulation, especially in personal matters such as this. You can pretend to be conservative and define it the neo-con way, it does not change what it really means. Outlawing abortion would be a liberal notion, not a conservative one, but hey, since the liberals want to act more like conservatives on the matter I will side with them ... on this one issue.
Kitty, I've been a conservative for some time now. But let me ask you one question if I may? You side with liberals on the abortion issue, that's given. Do you side with liberals on the death penalty?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130 Sep 5, 2012
PATRIOT wrote:
<quoted text>
Kitty, I've been a conservative for some time now. But let me ask you one question if I may? You side with liberals on the abortion issue, that's given. Do you side with liberals on the death penalty?
I don't care about the death penalty at all. Either way it will cost money.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#131 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm, all humans value life more than money, but money makes the world go round, so to speak. If we save money on something we can use that money to help people more. Conservative as a political notion is dealing mostly with the money and government, as in fewer regulations and less intrusion into our lives. You are voting for more intrusion and less accountability.
Planned Parenthood limited the term of abortion and required counseling, which is a very good requirement. It is also the service they provide the least of, most of what they do is preventative measures like birth control. Those are facts, and you are ignoring those facts. Another interesting fact you are ignoring is that most women who go through abortion find that they don't want to do it again, it becomes a weight with them, which leads to them becoming more responsible in the long run so they can avoid that trauma again. You are acting as if women have no conscience and would just go through an abortion every single pregnancy as a means of birth control when statistically this is not demonstrated anywhere. More facts, and you are ignoring those as well.
Here's another interesting fact, the more religious states have the higher abortion rates in the US. Like not a causation but it's an interesting fact.
Sorry but I can not agree with you.
Your answer when posed the question about abortion was that it cost mre not to have them so we should have them. That places money above human life. When you abort a child you are terminating a human life. You stated that you side with the abortionists bsed on monetary reasons. That means you value money over human life.
I still do not understand where you are getting the notion that I want to relieve people of responsibility. I have repeatedly stated that I want to hold them responsioble for their actions. You on the other hand want to guve them a free pass for iresponsible.
Saving lives is not Government Intrusion. Sorry don't buy it at all.
Now as to your, "Facts".
PP only limited the term for abortion due to State Laws requiring it. Not their idea. The only reason that it is set at 20 weeks in some States that allow up to 24 weeks is because it is easier to set one guideline instead of multiples.
As to the BC issue with PP. Yes they do provide low cost BC but as has been p[ointed out here when confronted with a pregnant single woman they push the abortion like it is retroactive Birth Control. I have no problem with them providing low cost BC or other preventive services but when they use that as a camoflage for abortions and they are using my money then sorry fund it some other way. Besides no one has said they must close only that public funds can not be used for abortions and until they show that they are not then the public funds are gone.
I know some women that have gone through abortions and you do have a point that many do not want to have it happen again. However as to the cost savings let place one example before you. A friend of mine was a teenager, got pregnant, had an abortion after PP counseling. She then embarkes on a downword spiral that required years of counseling by therapists. Funny but PP didn't want to get involved in that even when it became claer that the reason she needed the counseling was due to her abortion. In addition I do feel it is a high price to pay. By your atndard I guess we all get one freebee and can kill someone so we will feel bad and not do it again.
Now not sure what you are calling Religious States but here are some facts for you.
The highest number of abortions by State were in the following states, NY, PA, VA, NC, GA, FLA, Oh, Mi, Il,And Tx.
So not sure which of those states are the bastians of religious zealots you refer to.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#132 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care about the death penalty at all. Either way it will cost money.
SO again the issue comes down to money with you.
I am not afraid to say it. I am for the death penalty. I am against the endless appeals and years between the sentence and the execution. That is the money that I object to spending.
One appeal then kill them. Should a mistake be made so be it.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#133 Sep 5, 2012
Here is an interesting fact to chew on for a bit.

Only Russia petrforms more abortions then tha USA.
What does that say for where we are headed?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#134 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but I can not agree with you.
Your answer when posed the question about abortion was that it cost mre not to have them so we should have them. That places money above human life. When you abort a child you are terminating a human life. You stated that you side with the abortionists bsed on monetary reasons. That means you value money over human life.
I still do not understand where you are getting the notion that I want to relieve people of responsibility. I have repeatedly stated that I want to hold them responsioble for their actions. You on the other hand want to guve them a free pass for iresponsible.
Saving lives is not Government Intrusion. Sorry don't buy it at all.
Now as to your, "Facts".
PP only limited the term for abortion due to State Laws requiring it. Not their idea. The only reason that it is set at 20 weeks in some States that allow up to 24 weeks is because it is easier to set one guideline instead of multiples.
As to the BC issue with PP. Yes they do provide low cost BC but as has been p[ointed out here when confronted with a pregnant single woman they push the abortion like it is retroactive Birth Control. I have no problem with them providing low cost BC or other preventive services but when they use that as a camoflage for abortions and they are using my money then sorry fund it some other way. Besides no one has said they must close only that public funds can not be used for abortions and until they show that they are not then the public funds are gone.
I know some women that have gone through abortions and you do have a point that many do not want to have it happen again. However as to the cost savings let place one example before you. A friend of mine was a teenager, got pregnant, had an abortion after PP counseling. She then embarkes on a downword spiral that required years of counseling by therapists. Funny but PP didn't want to get involved in that even when it became claer that the reason she needed the counseling was due to her abortion. In addition I do feel it is a high price to pay. By your atndard I guess we all get one freebee and can kill someone so we will feel bad and not do it again.
Now not sure what you are calling Religious States but here are some facts for you.
The highest number of abortions by State were in the following states, NY, PA, VA, NC, GA, FLA, Oh, Mi, Il,And Tx.
So not sure which of those states are the bastians of religious zealots you refer to.
So you care about them only before they are born, how sweet. Are you willing to pay the millions to care for them until they're 18 years old then? Not to mention, at least glance at your spellcheck, this is getting ... annoying. Anyhow, most of the states you listed are bible belt states, so yes, religious states have the highest number.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#135 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
SO again the issue comes down to money with you.
I am not afraid to say it. I am for the death penalty. I am against the endless appeals and years between the sentence and the execution. That is the money that I object to spending.
One appeal then kill them. Should a mistake be made so be it.
So you only protect the nonliving fetuses, but not the living people.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#136 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
Here is an interesting fact to chew on for a bit.
Only Russia petrforms more abortions then tha USA.
What does that say for where we are headed?
Ironic considering all the countries that allow them, no?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137 Sep 5, 2012
Oh, and Russia has fewer atheists than the US. How ironic is that?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#138 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
Here is an interesting fact to chew on for a bit.
Only Russia petrforms more abortions then tha USA.
What does that say for where we are headed?
And Canada, which has no restrictions on abortion at all, has fewer by percentage than the US.

Things that make you go "hmmmm".

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#139 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you care about them only before they are born, how sweet. Are you willing to pay the millions to care for them until they're 18 years old then? Not to mention, at least glance at your spellcheck, this is getting ... annoying. Anyhow, most of the states you listed are bible belt states, so yes, religious states have the highest number.
I will agree to killing the unborn when they are convicted of a capitol offense like the ones on death row.
Your statemnet is pointless.
There you go again saying I pay. No that is where responsibility comes in. I don't pay for them the ones that made them pay.
So PA, NY, IL, are all bible belt states?
You need to take a course in geography.
No need to use a spell chack as you seem to be able to figure it out just fine. Besides I don't find anyone on here worth the extra time.
As I always say when you have no substantive argument resort to spelling and grammar police.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#140 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you only protect the nonliving fetuses, but not the living people.
The living people have been cponvicted by a jury of their peers of a capitol offense. When you show me the same of an unborn child I will say go ahead and kill them.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#141 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic considering all the countries that allow them, no?
Not ironic at all as it simply shows the trend and dircetion this country is heading in.

Since: Feb 12

El Paso, TX

#142 Sep 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Oh, and Russia has fewer atheists than the US. How ironic is that?
There is a complex situation with atheism in Russia. According to a surveys of Levada Center, 22% of those surveyed self-described as non-religious, agnostic or atheist. Although there are 69% of Orthodox believers (and 5% Muslims) in Russia, just 10% regularly (at least once a month) attend the service

A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists

Don't know some how doesn't seem as clear cut as you would like us to believe.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#143 Sep 5, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a complex situation with atheism in Russia. According to a surveys of Levada Center, 22% of those surveyed self-described as non-religious, agnostic or atheist. Although there are 69% of Orthodox believers (and 5% Muslims) in Russia, just 10% regularly (at least once a month) attend the service
A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists
Don't know some how doesn't seem as clear cut as you would like us to believe.
You compared "non-religious" to "gnostic atheists." Not very honest of you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr zach 317,506
News Women Open up About Abortion in a New HBO Docum... (Aug '16) 12 hr WHITE TRASH TRAIL... 11
Questions about very late-term abortions Wed samcot 1
News Republican Report Blames Abortion for Illegal I... (Nov '06) Sep 19 Norbert of Norview 8
News Kentucky Could Become The Only State Without A ... Sep 19 Zeke 92
News National anti-abortion group aims to shut down ... Sep 17 Decent Woman 5
News Leftists Never Fight Sep 16 godless by choice 1
More from around the web