House votes to defund Planned Parenthood

[bennychico11]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html

 

The House just approved Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, checking off a hot-button social issue even as it set up a bigger showdown over defunding the health care law.

 

The vote was 240-185 with 11 Democrats voting for the amendment, and seven Republicans voting against. One member voted present. A group of Republicans on the floor applauded when the vote hit 218.

 

That amendment managed to suck up three hours of often emotional debate time Thursday night, which is a big part of the reason the health care law defunding votes got pushed into today.

 

Pence, of Indiana, touched off a vicious back-and-forth Thursday night in which Republicans insisted the organization is too aggressive about performing abortions and several Democrats charged that the GOP was waging a “war on women.”

 

Pence said the amendment captures a rough public consensus that they accept legal abortions, but don't want to pay for them.

 

He did get House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to weigh in on his side, declaring, “The time has come to respect the wishes of the majority of Americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions.”

 

Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler called the amendment a “bill of attainder”- saying it was unconstitutional as such because the legislation was targeting a specific group.

 

“[An attainder is] a legislative enacted penalty, in this case no funding, directed at an identifiable person or organization to punish them for something. Article I Section 9 says ‘no bill of attainder or ex post facto should be passed.’ Fundamental foundation of constitutional law. If Planned Parenthood or anyone else is doing terrible things and ought to be punished, that’s up to the courts,” said the California congressman.

 

A longtime anti-abortion crusader, Pence has three times previously tried to cut off legislative funding, called Title X, for any group that provides abortions.

 

The money cannot be used to pay for abortions, and Pence has not argued that Planned Parenthood has used the funds to do so.

 

But he argues that cutting off support for millions of women’s health clinics would cut off their ability to perform the procedure.

 

“We should end the day when the largest abortion provider is the largest recipient of [Title X] federal funding,” he said.

 

“What’s clear to me, if you follow the money, you can actually take the funding supports out of abortion. We then have a much better opportunity to move forward to be a society that says yes to life.”

 

Planned Parenthood estimates it received a quarter of the $317 million in Title X funds appropriated last year. They use the money for pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling, among other things.

 

Pence took his fight against Planned Parenthood to the next level after the release of a series of videos by the group Live Action –videos that they say show Planned Parenthood employees advising actors posing as pimps on information on how to get abortions, STD testing and birth control for their underage prostitutes.

 

Cantor said last night that Planned Parenthood had been caught “red-handed.”

 

Anti-abortion Democrat Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts said last night that in spite of his beliefs, he supports the organization.

 

“This is about the ability of Planned Parenthood to conduct women's health care, to offer services that are deeply needed in many communities where no other source of health care is available…. I don't have many friends in the Planned Parenthood community. They don't support me. I am pro-life. But I respect the good work that they do,” he said.

[huskerjack23]

The Free Market will solve this! Gotta love a good staircase.

 

(Oh man I'm going to the hell I don't believe in)

[gobiggergoredder]

One program down that our tax money shouldn't go to, 654,237 to go.

[bennychico11]

One program down that our tax money shouldn't go to

 

I disagree

[krill]

It's a good thing there's no long term social consequences with unplanned pregnancies, particularly of the low income, single parent variety.

[knapplc]

Since the low income among us cause disproportionate upheaval to the country, let's just off them, too. We'll call it "abortion + 18-35 years" so it'll be perfectly legal. Think of all the social consequences we could alleviate.

[strigori]

By law, Federal money can't be used for abortions. This is defunding things like birth control, cancer screenings, and general obgyn things. One of the congressmen was on record comparing birth control to abortion. I, for one, am all for birth control. I would think most men would be. How much sex would any of us get if the pill and condoms were done away with? And really, whats cheaper? A prescription for birth control or condoms, or a bunch more kids that are likely to end up on welfare and medicade?

[knapplc]

The law may prevent them from directly using Federal Funds to finance abortions, but any money they get allows them to funnel other monies to their "health care" wing, which does the actual abortions.

 

I am all for birth control. Preventive measures are far better than getting pregnant then offing the child. I know I was overly facetious in my post two posts up there about "abortion plus 18-35," but nobody will ever convince me that abortion isn't murder. I feel strongly about it, but I'm wise enough to know it's not a black-and-white issue.

 

Abortion is just a horrible thing for all concerned. I have a couple of friends who had abortions going on 20 years ago. One never EVER talks about it, and the other told me she's still upset about it all these years later. When you're young and "in trouble" and you have that option, sometimes it's easy to make the decision to have the procedure, but you don't know the consequences. It's a life-altering decision for many people.

 

I remember very clearly the week after two of my best friends had an abortion. It was a horrible, horrible time for both of them.

[muzicman0]

The law may prevent them from directly using Federal Funds to finance abortions, but any money they get allows them to funnel other monies to their "health care" wing, which does the actual abortions.

 

I am all for birth control. Preventive measures are far better than getting pregnant then offing the child. I know I was overly facetious in my post two posts up there about "abortion plus 18-35," but nobody will ever convince me that abortion isn't murder. I feel strongly about it, but I'm wise enough to know it's not a black-and-white issue.

 

Abortion is just a horrible thing for all concerned. I have a couple of friends who had abortions going on 20 years ago. One never EVER talks about it, and the other told me she's still upset about it all these years later. When you're young and "in trouble" and you have that option, sometimes it's easy to make the decision to have the procedure, but you don't know the consequences. It's a life-altering decision for many people.

 

I remember very clearly the week after two of my best friends had an abortion. It was a horrible, horrible time for both of them.

 

+1

 

totally agree.

[bennychico11]

Abortion is just a horrible thing for all concerned. I have a couple of friends who had abortions going on 20 years ago. One never EVER talks about it, and the other told me she's still upset about it all these years later. When you're young and "in trouble" and you have that option, sometimes it's easy to make the decision to have the procedure, but you don't know the consequences. It's a life-altering decision for many people.

 

I agree that abortion is a horrible thing and shouldn't be a knee jerk choice when someone gets pregnant. I'm pro-life for myself...but I don't think it's right to impose my ideals on someone else. It's your body, your child, your life decision (or non-decision is some cases). You should be able to choose what you do with it.

But I don't think doing away with "medically safe" abortions is going to fix the issue. If there is a will, there is a way. And it usually will be the more dangerous way.

 

However the recent issue isn't whether abortion is right or not. It's whether defunding this health organization is justified. I think calling this a bill of attainder is fair. Especially if you're specifically targeting them in hopes they won't do abortions anymore. I think there are probably many other unnecessary funds going to places that we could cut first.

[muzicman0]

 

I agree that abortion is a horrible thing and shouldn't be a knee jerk choice when someone gets pregnant. I'm pro-life for myself...but I don't think it's right to impose my ideals on someone else. It's your body, your child, your life decision (or non-decision is some cases). You should be able to choose what you do with it.

But I don't think doing away with "medically safe" abortions is going to fix the issue. If there is a will, there is a way. And it usually will be the more dangerous way.

 

However the recent issue isn't whether abortion is right or not. It's whether defunding this health organization is justified. I think calling this a bill of attainder is fair. Especially if you're specifically targeting them in hopes they won't do abortions anymore. I think there are probably many other unnecessary funds going to places that we could cut first.

so, you admit it's a child, with that in mind, what possible circumstance would it be OK to kill that child? Even if your life is in danger, would that justify murdering a child?

[knapplc]

Yeah, definitely abortions won't go away if we defund PP, or even if we make them illegal. "Where there's a will there's a way" is definitely true. If you haven't, read up on some of the horrible things women have done to themselves to affect abortions throughout history. Awful stuff. Women have been put through the wringer over reproduction throughout history. Women have my sympathy over reproduction, big time.

 

The caveat to the idea that "don't think it's right to impose my ideals on someone else" is, what of the child? Isn't the woman imposing her ideals on someone else? It's not only the woman involved in the situation - the child has a stake, too.

 

The crux of abortion right/wrong lies with the question of "when is it human?" I believe it's a human when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Many people feel it's much later than that, and that disagreement is where the debate lies. If it's a human at conception, abortion as a method of birth control can only be defined as murder. If it's later, we have to define why it's later, and when it's human. If it's only after the child is born, then third-trimester abortions should be perfectly legal and moral - but they're not. The question of "viability" comes in to play, but then you have to ask, is a newborn "viable?" What makes something "viable?"

 

 

EDIT - added "as a method of birth control" up there, because it's a gray area.

[knapplc]

so, you admit it's a child, with that in mind, what possible circumstance would it be OK to kill that child? Even if your life is in danger, would that justify murdering a child?

 

 

Ick. The gray area. If the mother's life is in danger, doesn't it then become a choice? Too often there are situations where the mother's life is in danger, and almost any procedure will seriously jeopardize the child, or kill the child, or kill the mother. A choice has to be made at that point and there is no right answer. Someone will suffer, or die, as a result of whatever choice is made. I cannot find fault with a person in that situation. How could you? It's just a sh**ty situation, and sometimes sh**ty decisions have to be made.

[muzicman0]

Ick. The gray area. If the mother's life is in danger, doesn't it then become a choice? Too often there are situations where the mother's life is in danger, and almost any procedure will seriously jeopardize the child, or kill the child, or kill the mother. A choice has to be made at that point and there is no right answer. Someone will suffer, or die, as a result of whatever choice is made. I cannot find fault a person in that situation. How could you? It's just a sh**ty situation, and sometimes sh**ty decisions have to be made.

I guess I don't find it so gray...danger doesn't imply that the mother will die...only that it is a possibility. Also, I can't remember where I read this, but the statistics say that there is ALWAYS another choice to save the mothers life. Always. Whether that's true or not, I can't say with authority, but what I can say is that it is probably extremely rare for abortion to be the ONLY alternative.

 

mm0

[knapplc]

I have no idea of the statistics on those situations, either. I do know there are gray area situations which preclude a discussion of legal/illegal, though. We cannot and should not say "You can NEVER have a legal abortion." That doesn't mean I like it, though.

 

 

Actually, as I type this I remember that when our friends had their first child the mother's womb "ripped" or something like that. She hemorrhaged VERY badly and the doctors were having the discussion of what to do because the baby was in the birth canal, and surgery was tricky/dangerous/something. Everything ended up OK, but our friend was within minutes of bleeding out. Today their girl is seven years old, mom is fine (and they have two more children) and my wife and I are that girl's godparents - but it's possible they could have had to make a decision that would have killed the mother or the child during birth. So it's not impossible that these situations could arise. That's why I say there's an icky gray area.