[quote]Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump privately signed a bill on Thursday that allows states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion services, including Planned Parenthood, a group frequently targeted by Republicans.
The bill, which the usually camera-friendly President signed without any media present, reverses an Obama-era regulation that prohibited states from withholding money from facilities that perform abortions, arguing that many of these facilities also provide other family planning and medical services.[/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/donald-trump-planned-parenthood-money/index.html[/url]
Does this mean Trump supports Unplanned Parenthood?
Isn't this an anti-abortion law, not specifically an anti-planned parenthood law?
[QUOTE=eldomtom2;52099304]Isn't this an anti-abortion law, not specifically an anti-planned parenthood law?[/QUOTE]
in the same way that me saying "people named eldentom with a number greater than 1 but less than 3 in their name are smelly dorks" isn't a direct insult to you, yes
Only states it's going to hurt are the ones where people support him.
[QUOTE=Plattack;52099323]Only states it's going to hurt are the ones where people support him.[/QUOTE]
Or where enough people support him, screwing over the rest there
fantastic news! now local abortion clinics will finally be able to compete against the horribly mismanaged corporation that is planned parenthood
[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52099505]fantastic news! now local abortion clinics will finally be able to compete against the horribly mismanaged corporation that is planned parenthood[/QUOTE]
Please be sarcasm, please be sarcasm...
[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52099505]fantastic news! now local abortion clinics will finally be able to compete against the horribly mismanaged corporation that is planned parenthood[/QUOTE]
You're either a master troll or you have some sort of weird view on how this all works.
[QUOTE=Mitchd247;52099505]fantastic news! now local abortion clinics will finally be able to compete against the horribly mismanaged corporation that is planned parenthood[/QUOTE]
Is this a joke?
Do you actually think the GOP are doing things like this to [i]"improve competition in the abortion market?"[/I]
[QUOTE=The Vman;52099537]Is this a joke?
Do you actually think the GOP are doing things like this to [i]"improve competition in the abortion market?"[/I][/QUOTE]
Actually, they may not have that intention but it is a possible result. Being pro-lifers, my wife and I often lament the fact that these little acts of chipping away aren't going to make a dent in abortion as a whole because it's a reality that was born of people, not government. Any exceptions or laws made against abortion will come with loopholes. And PP will take a minor hit at best since the rich left will re-aim their donations to what they think is a good cause.
If you support abortion, it's not going away with this bill. It will only go away when the people wholly reject it.
[QUOTE=Aathma;52099592]Actually, they may not have that intention but it is a possible result. Being pro-lifers, my wife and I often lament the fact that these little acts of chipping away aren't going to make a dent in abortion as a whole because it's a reality that was born of people, not government. Any exceptions or laws made against abortion will come with loopholes. And PP will take a minor hit at best since the rich left will re-aim their donations to what they think is a good cause.
If you support abortion, it's not going away with this bill. It will only go away when the people wholly reject it.[/QUOTE]
It may not go away, but it's going to make them harder to get, and potentially more dangerous.
I can understand that you may have a problem with abortion, but do you think it's better to force people to have children they don't want, or have dangerous abortions performed by people without the proper equipment and skill?
If abortion isn't going to go away, why not provide safer means to obtain one?
[QUOTE=Aathma;52099592]Actually, they may not have that intention but it is a possible result. Being pro-lifers, my wife and I often lament the fact that these little acts of chipping away aren't going to make a dent in abortion as a whole because it's a reality that was born of people, not government. Any exceptions or laws made against abortion will come with loopholes. And PP will take a minor hit at best since the rich left will re-aim their donations to what they think is a good cause.
If you support abortion, it's not going away with this bill. It will only go away when the people wholly reject it.[/QUOTE]
As Pro-Lifers, aren't you at all concerned that reducing access to Planned Parenthood (which DOES rely in large part on government funding to effectively operate) will only exacerbate the very issues that lead to the need for abortions?
Public funds were not being used to pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood. Those funds were being put towards subsidizing contraceptives, wellness exams, and counseling. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood [i]because they provide abortions[/i] is not actually cutting funding [I]used for abortions[/I]. Instead, what's at risk is convenient and affordable access to contraceptives and family planning services -- the very things that are critical in reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, and thus the number of abortions actually performed.
This legislation will make demand for abortions [I]grow[/I], while simultaneously reducing access to abortion services, leading to more dangerous and less regulated methods of terminating unwanted pregnancies -- putting women at risk.
You are not "Pro-Unwanted-Pregnancy" but "Anti-Abortion," I should assume. And, as you yourself mention, abortion will only go away when people reject abortion, and that simply isn't going to happen. Thus, shouldn't you agree that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? And doesn't the data show, conclusively, that the most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is by [B]increasing[/B] sexual education and awareness and providing cheaper and more convenient access to contraceptives -- especially fire-and-forget birth controls like implants, primarily available through institutions like Planned Parenthood?
This legislation is actively counter productive, and I don't understand why a Pro-Lifer would support it unless you are tacitly opposed to sexual intercourse as anything other than a means of procreation.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;52099321]in the same way that me saying "people named eldentom with a number greater than 1 but less than 3 in their name are smelly dorks" isn't a direct insult to you, yes[/QUOTE]
I'm very confused how you came to the conclusion that I support the law from that.
[QUOTE=eldomtom2;52099755]I'm very confused how you came to the conclusion that I support the law from that.[/QUOTE]
he didn't say that
[QUOTE=eldomtom2;52099755]I'm very confused how you came to the conclusion that I support the law from that.[/QUOTE]
didn't mean it like that, just an example
BDA, the voters who support this kind of action do not often understand what Planned Parenthood does with that money. They see Planned Parenthood as a baby murder factory and don't want those immoral abortions close to them. So even if the politicians supporting such actions know differently, they don't care much as long as they can retain their office.
I don't understand why these people would openly act against sex ed and preventing people from having kids they can't afford. You'd think they'd be in favour of saving the state money - it's not like there's corporate lobbying for crap like this, right?
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52113800]I don't understand why these people would openly act against sex ed and preventing people from having kids they can't afford. You'd think they'd be in favour of saving the state money - it's not like there's corporate lobbying for crap like this, right?[/QUOTE]
The diapers industry perhaps?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52099671]As Pro-Lifers, aren't you at all concerned that reducing access to Planned Parenthood (which DOES rely in large part on government funding to effectively operate) will only exacerbate the very issues that lead to the need for abortions?
Public funds were not being used to pay for abortions at Planned Parenthood. Those funds were being put towards subsidizing contraceptives, wellness exams, and counseling. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood [i]because they provide abortions[/i] is not actually cutting funding [I]used for abortions[/I]. Instead, what's at risk is convenient and affordable access to contraceptives and family planning services -- the very things that are critical in reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, and thus the number of abortions actually performed.
This legislation will make demand for abortions [I]grow[/I], while simultaneously reducing access to abortion services, leading to more dangerous and less regulated methods of terminating unwanted pregnancies -- putting women at risk.
You are not "Pro-Unwanted-Pregnancy" but "Anti-Abortion," I should assume. And, as you yourself mention, abortion will only go away when people reject abortion, and that simply isn't going to happen. Thus, shouldn't you agree that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? And doesn't the data show, conclusively, that the most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is by [B]increasing[/B] sexual education and awareness and providing cheaper and more convenient access to contraceptives -- especially fire-and-forget birth controls like implants, primarily available through institutions like Planned Parenthood?
This legislation is actively counter productive, and I don't understand why a Pro-Lifer would support it unless you are tacitly opposed to sexual intercourse as anything other than a means of procreation.[/QUOTE]
Not to put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure he's Catholic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
