Friday, July 06, 2012

And on the other side

Well, after some good news on the life front from yesterday, it seems Steve Cohen and the Democrats have been able to put over 1 million taxpayer dollars into abortion provider Planned Parenthood in Memphis.

While Republicans have control of the budget strings in the US house things like this and Obamacare should not make it out of the blocks.

22 comments:

  1. So sad to see this. I thought the actions you had taken would prevent this from happening...

    Oh, well, at least things are looking up in Knoxville!

    ReplyDelete
  2. More from the anti-Life and anti-United STATES administration.

    KM

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do Democraps like to kill unborn black babies???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do white people not care about homeless black adults???

      Delete
  4. so the state didn't fund them and then the feds take money (gotten from us as state citizens) to fund something the majority of our leaders didn't want to fund.

    so much for state's rights to self govern

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is there not anything you can do to stop this, Stacey?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry. That is federal money. It is up to our US reps and senators to stop that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, this is the dreaded Obama goal of taxpayer-funded abortions.

    I have worked so hard for so many years. I don't want the taxes I pay to go for abortions!

    How do we get this ungodly man out of office?

    ReplyDelete
  8. That money is not allowed, by law, to be used for abortions. So, Stacey crows about less abortions (by force, not by lowering unwanted pregnancies) while restricting funds to pay for heathcare and birth control. Abortion is disgusting but actively working to ensure there are more pregnancies AND less money for poor pregnant women and mothers is also disgusting.

    Alex Fowler
    Farragut, TN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all a shell game. Just like if I provided for all the money and needs a drug addict has. The other money he earns isn't used for rent, food, power, etc. Its used for drugs.

      Same with abortion providers. When they don't have to pay rent, heat, gas, employees, advertising guess where the money goes?

      Cheap or free abortions.

      Delete
    2. This is the most often cited reason for denying PP funding. But abortion is only 3% of their budget, so denying the funding is not stopping any abortions, but it's effecting the 97% of their operation like contraception and cancer screenings. If you want less abortion, which is an honorable goal, better access to healthcare, education and contraception is the best way. Or, you could simply make abortions harder for women to get, and we end up with unwanted children that Republicans don't want to help. How is that better?

      Alex

      Delete
    3. Horse hockey.

      First, The money would not disappear. It could go to a county health provider who would do all the exact same things PP does without the abortions.

      Next, Planned parenthood get a ton of money from abortions. It is their cash cow. They hide it by saying the other services don't produce money. They also say it is a small part of their business by counting things like answering a phone is one service. Responding to a question on the phone is another service. Giving directions to their location is another service. That is 3 services and an abortion is only one service.

      Its another numbers shell game. Entire books have been written on it (Lila Rose and others exposed it years ago)

      But lets go with the ridiculous argument and say it were only 3% of their income and a small part of what they do and even go with they reeeeeaaaallyy don't want to do it. They would rather stop it before its an issue.

      OK. Fine.

      Now, if they were going to lose millions of govt dollars they could use to help people stop from getting pregnant or keep a 3% of income on a lightly used service that they reaaallly don't want to do what would be the reasonable choice for them to help the most number of people?

      Be honest.

      Delete
    4. Also...

      Thank you for bringing up Lila Rose. She tried to attack PP by having fake pimps with fake underage prostitutes going to PP.

      How did that turn out?

      "Planned Parenthood reported to the FBI at least 12 visits to its clinics by the man in the video several days after the videos were recorded but prior to their public release"

      Looks like a lot of people working at PP want to uphold the law.

      Delete
    5. Woah! A county health provider? You want to actually make government bigger?? As I live and breathe! If this is a legit option why is PP still around? We could have increased federal money for poor people's healthcare a long time ago, which the GOP is bad. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, you would support such Socialism.
      And the whole "answering a phone is a service" is laughable. If you want to count just total patients vs abortions, it's still only 10%.

      Delete
    6. Lila has spoken on this. After her famous busts in far off lands (Like Memphis) where she caught on video PP employees telling what they thought was a 14 year old girl to lie to the judge and helping to protect a child predator she said her face was literally on the walls when she went in to do her stings at other clinics. That is why she stopped doing them.

      As far as county health providers the money spent by government is the same the difference is a co health provider doesn't subsidise abortion. As for your numbers, again they are skewed.


      I see you did not respond to my question.

      Delete
    7. I will post your other comment when you respond to my questions.

      Delete
  9. "While Republicans have control of the budget strings in the US house things like this and Obamacare should not make it out of the blocks."

    I agree, but since from the very beginning Republicans have allowed it even with control of congress, senate and white house, and even on Obamacare Bohner says they will repeal AND REPLACE it (with RomneyCare), what's a conservative voter to do? Voting the party ticket ain't cuttin' it.

    We've got Bailout Bob Corker spending millions on radio and TV telling us we need to send him back to control the reckless spending of Congress. Lamar! is allegedly retiring, but running radio ads to remind us of how great a job he is doing voting for all the bailouts and begging the federal government to take more Tennessee land away.

    The Republican party, if it really believed in its platform, would never put these guys in the blocks in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric,

      I believe it is time for a change... it is coming in 2014.

      Delete
  10. I've asked many politicians from both sides of the aisle about this. What is your response?

    "An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as an alternative to single-payer health care. From its inception, the idea of an individual mandate was championed by Republican politicians as a free-market approach to health-care reform. The individual mandate was felt to resonate with conservative principles of individual responsibility, and conservative groups recognized that the healthcare market was unique. Stuart Butler, an early supporter of the individual mandate at the Heritage Foundation, wrote:
    "If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance."" ( --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate; sources footnoted on website)

    ReplyDelete
  11. One thing I have learned in politics that one quote out of context does not mean a bunch.

    Was it at the state level or the federal level they were talking? Were they saying this was one option offered (but they did not necessarily support it). Did they say it was the only way to fix health care or the only way with our current mandates?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Campfield,

    The poster gave you a source. Here is another source, clearly you do not know the history of the individual mandate.

    Conservatives supported it in the 80s.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stacey, it's kinda like changing the name of global warming to climate change....calling totally federal controlled single payer healthcare an 'individual mandate'. Even the weak wiki reference notes it was considered "an alternative to single-payer". Kind of like choosing which limb to have cut off. A false dilemma.

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1