House votes to bar all federal funding for Planned Parenthood - Polidicks

[quote]The Republican-led House approved an amendment Friday that would prohibit federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The measure, which passed the House 240 to 185, blocks Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds for any of its activities. The organization already is banned from using federal funds to perform most abortions. Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest provider of abortions and a longtime target of abortion foes. Through the evening, the House continued to go over hundreds of amendments to the spending bill to fund the government through Sept. 30. The bill makes more than $60 billion in cuts for the remaining seven months of the fiscal year. A final vote on the measure was possible late Friday. The spending bill must also be passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate and signed by President Obama. Failure to enact a bill by March 4, when the current funding expires, could lead to a federal shutdown. - Tribune Washington Bureau [/quote] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021807444.html[/url] Best way to prevent abortions is to cut off one of the biggest provider of contraceptives and reproductive health advice. Good idea there, GOP. Hopefully it won't pass the Senate but hell who knows. Just to point out what PP does, here's a nice little chart: [img]http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/planned%20parenthood%20budget.JPG[/img]

:'(

Oh for fuck's sake :doh:

Money for 34% of funds used wouldn't be used if people kept it in their pants.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28142050]Money for 34% of funds used wouldn't be used if people kept it in their pants.[/QUOTE] oh my god do the unthoughtful things you say know no limits? is there just a lump of coal where you heart is supposed to be? do you not have a mom?

I keep telling you people, a backwoods yet corporate nightmare. [B]A[/B] [B]BACKWOODS YET CORPORATE NIGHTMARE[/B].

Not sure how I feel about this, it seems like a good service to have around, but is it necessary? I'm not really sure whether it is or not. Guess it all boils down to opinion.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28142050]Money for 34% of funds used wouldn't be used if people kept it in their pants.[/QUOTE] People wouldn't get sick if they just covered their mouth when they coughed and washed their hands, why should we help sick people.

Well, it would certainly help lower spending. Even though it is a great service, it's rather unnecessary to have on the federal budget. [QUOTE=thisispain;28142076]oh my god do the unthoughtful things you say know no limits? is there just a lump of coal where you heart is supposed to be? do you not have a mom?[/QUOTE] He/she/it is mostly right though, you really don't have to worry about contraceptives, and unwanted babies if people didn't have sex all the time. But, what am I saying? That wouldn't happen in a million years; sex is popular amongst the people.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28142107]People wouldn't get sick if they just covered their mouth when they coughed and washed their hands, why should we help sick people.[/QUOTE] To be fair, it's a lot easier to keep from getting fucked than it is from getting sick.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;28142164]To be fair, it's a lot easier to keep from getting fucked than it is from getting sick.[/QUOTE] You're just saying that because you ain't getting any. :smug: And neither am I. :smith:

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28142155]Well, it would certainly help lower spending. Even though it is a great service, it's rather unnecessary to have on the federal budget.[/QUOTE] "Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($349.6 million in the 2008 fiscal year)" So this makes up like less than 1% of the entire budget cuts. For such a useful service that's not that much money. [QUOTE=evilweazel;28142164]To be fair, it's a lot easier to keep from getting fucked than it is from getting sick.[/QUOTE] People get STDs in other ways too, being born with then, blood transfusions, etc. There are also a ton of people who don't even know they have them and unknowingly infect others. Unless your/his solution is to just not have sex ever, then... whelp.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;28142164]To be fair, it's a lot easier to keep from getting fucked than it is from getting sick.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Billiam;28142177]You're just saying that because you ain't getting any. :smug: [/QUOTE]

This is stupid.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28142181] People get STDs in other ways too, being born with then, blood transfusions, etc. There are also a ton of people who don't even know they have them and unknowingly infect others. Unless your/his solution is to just not have sex ever, then... whelp.[/QUOTE] Not saying that, just pointing out how your comparison didn't exactly make too much sense to me.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;28142216]Not saying that, just pointing out how your comparison didn't exactly make too much sense to me.[/QUOTE] I was just pointing out that just because a person made a poor choice or got into an unfortunate situation doesn't mean they shouldn't get help.

you made one mistake therefor your entire life has to suck

I'm so glad the adults are in charge.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28142050]Money for 34% of funds used wouldn't be used if people kept it in their pants.[/QUOTE] Guys, just ignore mbutler here, he's an idiot. He believes in objectivity, and "knows" he's objectively right.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28142155] He/she/it is mostly right though, you really don't have to worry about contraceptives, and unwanted babies if people didn't have sex all the time. But, what am I saying? That wouldn't happen in a million years; sex is popular amongst the people.[/QUOTE] that's all good and well but sexuality is an important part of human development [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] plus you know you kinda need it to get childeren fyi

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28142155]Well, it would certainly help lower spending. Even though it is a great service, it's rather unnecessary to have on the federal budget. He/she/it is mostly right though, you really don't have to worry about contraceptives, and unwanted babies if people didn't have sex all the time. But, what am I saying? That wouldn't happen in a million years; sex is popular amongst the people.[/QUOTE] You do realize that if we weren't as sexual as we are(which is natural and not a perversion of modern day society, being puritan is unnatural to us) we'd be a lot worse off? Sexuality and sex is a good thing, and as long as people do it carefully these days, or even if they don't, it's really only on them, and it's a natural human function, we can't judge.

you know i'm just gonna limit my posting to snide remarks because humanabyss has everything else covered

This is fucking retarded.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28142155]Well, it would certainly help lower spending. Even though it is a great service, it's rather unnecessary to have on the federal budget.[/QUOTE] I don't see why the poor should have to pay for the fuckups of the rich.

There'd be a lot better government funded programs to cut funding of. This is too much of a political move by the republicans to get their core supporters to approve of them. It's a way of saying "we are cutting the budgeting and also stopping abortions".

Is it just me or has the House of Representatives been having a diarrhea of shitty bills?

There are SO. MANY. BETTER. THINGS that could be cut back on than this.

[QUOTE=mbutler2;28142050]Money for 34% of funds used wouldn't be used if people kept it in their pants.[/QUOTE] Have you no decency sir?

My understanding is that PP gets federal funding via the Title X program, which has been around since 1970 to support family planning and related preventive health services. Nowhere have I found where such funding can be used for abortions. So unless I am getting this wrong, Republicans want to punish PP by killing the Title X program, simply because they decry some of the other procedures that a major recipient of Title X funding receives. And FTA, they're also upset over mandatory insurance requirements that limit enrollees to programs that include abortion services. What the article doesn't say is if these insurance plans cover elective abortions or only abortions that are required because of health risks to the mother. If it is the former, you could just simply require that mandatory enrollment offer a choice of plans that include elective abortions over those that do not. Instead, it appears as if they want to repeal the mandatory requirements altogether. Given that Title X was enacted during the Richard Nixon1 (R) presidency, later lived through the Gerald Ford (R), Ronald Reagan (R), George Bush (R) and George W. Bush (R) presidencies, I'm somewhat doubtful that it will be repealed under our current Democratic administration. Personally, it simply sounds like a vocal part of the Republican Congress is simply making a bunch of noise to distract us over the fact that social fiscal matters are the only fiscal thing they know, given that they aren't proposing jack squat to realistically control spending. Given that both Title X and the EPA were enacted under the Nixon administration, I'm sure Fox News will remind us that he was in fact a Democrat. Because no real Republican would ever create a massive federal department like the TSA that would massively increase the size of government.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28142155]He/she/it is mostly right though, you really don't have to worry about contraceptives, and unwanted babies if people didn't have sex all the time.[/QUOTE] but sex is sorta you know important non-procreative sex is [I]really[/I] important to the vast majority of functioning human beings on this planet trying to fight unwanted pregnancy and stds by telling people to not have sex is like trying to stop obesity by telling people not to eat [editline]18th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;28142436]you know i'm just gonna limit my posting to snide remarks because humanabyss has everything else covered[/QUOTE] oh yeah alternate reply :goonsay: eat shit sexhavers