jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (134 posts)

Do you favor planned parenthood?

  1. emdi profile image72
    emdiposted 5 years ago

    I am interested to know  the general public opinion about planned parenthood.
    It is a hot topic as the government shut down is very much connected to this topic.

    Just one more thing to add: I found out that planned parent hood is more about funding millions for early and late term abortion clinics (more than the so called women's health)

    1. Jean Bakula profile image95
      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The R's are lying and the D's don't have the "stones" to call them on it.

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. goldenpath profile image81
        goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is the "ideal" purpose of this type of organization.  However, they do support abortions.  We've got PP clinics right up here in Omaha, Nebraska that do them.  Abortion is still a hot topic and any advocation by the government should be avoided at all costs.  Even politically.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
          Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh okay, thanks for explaining to me Goldenpath.  To be honest, when I came onto this thread, I thought we were talking about the concepts of planned parenting leading into abortions, and NOT a government program of some kind.  However, when I read some of the hubbers responses referring to it, as a name for some government program, then that's why I deleted my comment originally.  Knowing now that I'm thinking about more of a concept rather than what you guys are talking about.  lol.  However, I do appreciate you pointing out what this program is, as I had no idea that it even existed until now.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            stevennix,
            Family planning basically means birth control (preventive primarily).
            It also means prenatal care.
            And education surrounding sexuality and getting pregnant (or not) and having healthy pregnancies.
            And also a broader spectrum of women's health issues including PAP smears and mammograms.

            Ignorance and misinformation about the facts of life still persist. We are born with the biological capacity to become parents. But we are not born with the knowledge of how our bodies work and how to have responsible sex. That's really what PP is all about.

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
              Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ah I see.  Thanks MM.  I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. Well it does sound like a great program to educate people on the practice of safe sex, as I think ideally preventing an unwanted pregnancy before it even happens is the best means for both parties.

            2. emdi profile image72
              emdiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really? Are u really sure about it? Here is an interview with a lady who worked for Planned Parenthood.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMYCKsAp … re=related

            3. DTR0005 profile image86
              DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              MightyMom, you mentioned "education: That is going to turn the far Right off like stink on a wedding dress.

        2. emdi profile image72
          emdiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I was actually wondering why a government has to shut down over planned parenthood. Is our government really concerned about the health of young women?  what I found out is that, it is not for the health of young women these people are fighting on, but the big business run under the  cover of planned parenthood.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Emdi, it doesn't have to shut down over planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood is just the scapegoat being applied to the situation, from one aspect.

            The reason for the shutdown is because it cannot keep printing money, using debt system of monetary policy and continue operations. However, you're not likely to hear that from the government.

            In other words, the politicians are trying to force others, to give into an agenda that oppresses individual rights, while the politicians continue to play games in their official position.
            Not really. They are more inclined on breaking woman and their individual right to live their life, however they choose to live.
            Big business? It's not compared to the Major "BIG" Business already going on. wink

    3. pylos26 profile image75
      pylos26posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course...its planned parenthood or additional welfare fodder.

    4. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I strongly support Planned Parentlhood. It serves 1 in 5 American women.

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where did you find that out? You have been misinformed.

      Do you favor unplanned parenthood? Seems like there's quite a bit of that these days.

  2. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    It is a good program and to cut off federal funds is ridiculous.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think a lot of people are unaware that the financial aspects of the budget compromise were resolved.

      The government is being held hostage over planned parenthood. Radicals ( teabaggers) want to ban abortion a little at a time. They don't care who gets hurt in forcing their conservative agenda on everyone.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Doug,
        Do you have any recent information on the budget aspects?
        When I saw Harry Reid's press conference this morning he said everyone had agreed on a number.
        The number was $78 billion -- more than double what had been disclosed just yesterday.
        But then, at 4am, he got an email saying the GOP (meaning the Tea Party) were now rejecting the financial deal.

        It simply boggles my mind that to forward this one agenda item -- which I know to them is important, but in the grand scheme of all the issues Congress has to deal with is miniscule -- the Tea Party are willing to hold government hostage.
        How will they explain to our brave servicepeople that they won't be getting paid for risking their lives?
        Is it me, or is there an irony here centering on the word "FREEDOM"?????

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why is it ridiculous? I need to pay to keep some girl from abusing her body? Let her take responsibility for her own actions!

      1. 60
        33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Government never has nor will it ffund abortions.  Planned Parenthood is much more than that.  How about this, that same young girl who wants to step up to her responsibility and get some pre-natal care because the best job she can get is Wal-Mart, shouldn't that sacred unborn child be afforded care?  Where would she go if there were no planned parenthood?

        That's not even touching on the fact that I am pretty sure that you are a dude, so why would you think that you have any right to judge what a woman does with her body? 

        Lastly on the pay part, i will give you the benefit of the doubt on that, even though it is less than 1% of your so called tax dollar.  That is part of being an American.  I live in a city and don't think that my tax dollars should go to farm aid,, foriegn war, and many others, but you can't opt out.  More importantly, just like in war, you can't leave folks behind.  After all, we all are supposed to be proud Americans, right?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          whoa - I said nothing about abortions.

          I just said "responsibility"

          "That's not even touching on the fact that I am pretty sure that you are a dude, so why would you think that you have any right to judge what a woman does with her body?  "

          What the hell matter what sex or gender I am. The lady who wants to use this service is claiming a right to use my money.

          it's my money, not theirs.

          1. 60
            33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is really weak.  The whole my money argument implies that you actually have a choice in what te government funds.  You don't even have a clue how much of "your money" goes to planned parenthood.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It matters not "how much of my money" pays for X, the simple fact that they claim a right to my money is BS.

              --
              Quote:
              "The whole my money argument implies that you actually have a choice in what te government funds."

              Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the mind of a liberal:

              'The government is you and me.... but we don't have a choice in what the government funds'.

              ---
              Quote:
              "That's not even touching on the fact that I am pretty sure that you are a dude, so why would you think that you have any right to judge what a woman does with her body?"

              Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the mind of a liberal!

              'Men and women are equal... but I'm allowed to tell men how to spend their money, but when they say they don't want to pay for it, I ignore it because they have a Y chromosome'.


              --
              PS - I'm an anarchist, not a Republican. I make fun of both sides.

              1. 60
                33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So with your twisted logic, you dont want to pay for services for a rape victim, but are fine with paying for free housing and healthcare for the person who committed the rape?  Just asking, because those services are provided... planned parenthood.  Also no one is claiming rights to your .0001% of your tax dollar.  It likely wouldn't be enough for a bag of chips.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  no, health care and and housing are a waste of my money as well.

                  I would consider donating to charity, but instead my government just steals my money from me, and then threatens to throw me in jail.

                  I don't like rapists, but planned parenthood isn't about rape victims. --- nice try, though.

                  http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

                  "If you don't think women are intelligent enough to be responsible for their own bodies, then you must like rapists!"

                  ... really, nice try!  I guess "rapists" are the new "race card".

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's incredible how any group can wrap themselves in the flag when the basic premise of the group is that they are too cheap to pay their share of taxes. That you don't think anyone should pay taxes gives it a populist twist, but it still boils down to children who never could play well  with others growing up unwilling to  share.

          2. 0
            Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yet, you never mind that corporations like AIG and Goldmann are given your tax dollars in a sum that makes Planned Parenthood funding look like bubble gum change. Oh yeah...you are a shill for corporations. I've forgotten. Your priorities show through more and more with every post. Very sad actually. Do you need a snuggie for your soul? I can send you one.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              the hell are you talking about? I complain about those things constantly!!!

              Texas - you respond to me a lot. I expected a better reply than that. you KNOW that I complain about bailouts CONSTANTLY.

              Really, Texas, I expected better from you.

              edit - yeah, re-reading what you wrote, that was pretty pathetic, Texas. You have read my previous posts, and you can easily read my hubs. You know I don't support bailouts at all.

              If I were a corporate shill, then I sure as hell wouldn't be in Grad School trying to become a teacher.

              Really pathetic argument, there, Texas.

              1. 0
                Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But you support Rand Paul, who consistently throws out pro-corporate/at the sake of the safety of the people, opinions....like just the other day, he didn't want to regulate for black lung because it would just be too expensive for coal companies. He blames the administration for being too rough on BP after the oil spill. I don't get it man. You are an admitted shill for the Pauls, so what gives?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  He doesn't want government regulating these industries because it doesn't need to regulate the industries.

                  Here's how I will show you that you're a hypocrite.

                  Right now, you're clamoring that "evil companies" are killing people by not making Black Lung less common through million dollar investments.

                  But guess what?! The coal industry gets an astronomical amount of money from the government! Here's an article discussing it from the Sierra Club -- aka, Hippy-Uberalis.

                  http://sierraclub.typepad.com/mrgreen/2 … idies.html

                  So, anyway, because mining coal is dangerous (or so your argument goes) we NEED to make it less dangerous.

                  ...

                  ...

                  but here's the most hilarious part!! Coal mining isn't even that dangerous of a job compared to others!!!

                  http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-m … 010-3?op=1

                  Yeah, sure, Rand Paul doesn't want to blow money lowering the Black Lung rate... but why aren't you clamoring about other, more dangerous jobs?!?!

                  Also, acc'ding to Wikipedia, the rate of Black Lung has gone down by about 90% over the past 40 years. Sure, it's not to 0%, but that's a HUGE improvement!

                  "In the 40 years since the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 became law, the proportion of miners with black lung disease has gone down by about 90%."

                  Because Coal is a major part of Kentucky politics, this is clearly nothing more than an attempt to make Paul look ridiculous.

                  But unfortunately, people who look around BEYOND what is presented in the media can easily see that it's a BS argument.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well look behind the figures you cite as proving coal mining isn't so dangerous.
                    You present the figures for work related accidents, not work related disease.

                  2. 0
                    Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Evan, you are one of the biggest shills for big business I have ever seen. The little article you want to use as a resource, HAS A SOURCE. Did you look at it? Obviously not.

                    http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2007h.pdf

                    You will see that your article had the highest percentage listed as 29.4, not listing a single coal worker right? Well, read the actual source. What are coal workers at? 29.4%, and the support workers in the coal industry are ALSO at 29%. So, what didn't it list them? Oh yeah, you got it from a BUSINESS JOURNAL. There is no push to regulate the safety of roofers. There IS a push to regulate the safety of coal mines, which mean more overhead for those who own them...thus, the shill game begins. You see, your resource is bunk. You didn't even read it.
                    Additionally, this resource only includes on the job incidents, not black lung, which is a man made hazard that can be prevented, but isn't considered on the job. Today it is estimated that 1500 workers die from black lung a year. How much would that number be skewed? Well, we have 29.5% based upon 103 deaths...add 1500 to that number and then tell me who is far and above the highest on that list. Roofers were the highest on your list with 79 deaths at 29.5% (the same as coal btw). Add 1500 to coal and tell me what you have.
                    You are a shill. Period.
                    The rate has gone down 90%...and WE STILL HAVE 1500 A YEAR DIE! You claim it isn't a problem, but you (as proven here) don't read your own sources, or even acknowledge that the source you gave DOESN'T INCLUDE BLACK LUNG!
                    Now, my source for 1500 a year might be skewed as it is from a proponent of fighting black lung. I'll admit that. So, you used wikipedia. Okay. I'll use wikipedia. It says in the last 10 years, 10,000 workers have died from black lung. That is 1000 a year, by YOUR source. Add that to your figures. How did we get it down from the even more horrible past? REGULATION!
                    The fact is Evan, you ignored the numbers that were presented BY YOU! You tried to pick and choose what you wanted to prove your point. THAT MAKES YOU A SHILL DUDE! You aren't ignorant...we all know that, which leaves only 1 other option sir: you are a liar/propagandist for Paul and corporations. Period.
                    I dismantled your argument in about 3 minutes of research. That is really sad Evan. Do you want to go back to arguing that the South was right in the Civil War like you normally do too? Seriously...what a sad stained soul.

  3. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I agree with the ideology of assisting people with regards to Planned Parenthood.

    However, I've not dug into this topic much. I do know it's more focused on what services are actually provided and how funding is applied.

    Cutting funding for this type of service, shouldn't be done. However, it goes to show that the majority of people fail understand their own life, so they must take out their own confusion out on other people.

    Just my thoughts. wink

  4. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    I have a problem with politicians saying we're helping 'the American people', so basically what they mean is, 'except those Americans who benefit from the services of Planned Parenthood'.

    @cags, all humans are imperfect.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image95
      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe Planned Parenthood provides several very important functions, although the R's are doing their best at lying and trying to characterize it as an "abortion mill." Many of the working poor women go there to get their yearly cervical cancer pap smears and mammographies, to be sure they do not have cervical or breast cancers. When a woman makes a mistake and is pregnant with an unplanned child, this should be a moral and health issue, not a political one. R's want to keep all women barefoot and pregnant. But even before they are born, again, a woman and the unborn child need prenatal care, special vitamins and such. Some can only get that thru PP. Then the R's want to cut WIC (Women, Infants and Children) which provides formula and milk to keep a poor child alive. They also want to cut Head Start, so there will be no daycare or nursery school, forcing the woman to have no childcare so she cannot leave the child to go to work, plus the child is having educational serivces much later than the average child. So the R's can't have it both ways. If they want women to be baby making machines, they have to help support the babies once they are alive and here in the world. They basically just hate women.

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And your point? hmm

      1. Jean Bakula profile image95
        Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think you are teasing? The man does not have to carry a child for nine months, eat property, abstain from alcohol and drugs (not street drugs, but ones t hey may need if they are ill). But PP provides birth control and family planning. Sometimes they are all a woman has. I do not believe life begins at conception, and if a child is to be born, it deserves health care. Goldenpath, what can a woman do if there are no daycares and she cannot work? Many young men just run in this situation and she is alone. All through history women have died trying to abort unwanted children. So a woman deserves to die for making a mistake when she slept with someone who didn't take responsibility for birth control? It's always the woman's problem, but boy, I bet the Gov't. pays for Viagra. This is making me sick. I don't think any man has the right to tell any woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Period. And to carry a child to term and let it be adopted is so devastating to some women they never recover. It's like having a miscarriage. If  you are married or have kids, I bet your wife went for her monthly checkups all nine months, had prenatal care, and whatever she needed. Why deny people who may not be as well off? You know, some children have such miserable and poor lives they are better off not coming into this world. Would you rather force women to have babies so they come into life with a bad start and once that happens it rarely gets better? And to force a woman to bear a child of rape is just raping her all over again. To say PP is part of a Gov't. plot is just disgusting and insane. How many children are you responsible for?

  5. goldenpath profile image81
    goldenpathposted 5 years ago

    All the "good" that Planned Parenthood has done is still a whitewash of the root or foundation of the organization.  They rely on federal funding to further their agenda which is to devalue life.  There are enough of us out here that place enough value on life that should demand that our tax dollars not fund these empires.  I don't care how anyone feels about abortion.  PP endorses it, so does the government and my dollars are being stripped from me and my interests to support the termination of life.

    Go deeper.  The government likes this because to devalue life is to raise the number of government dependence.  This in turn manifests in socialism.

    1. Daniel Carter profile image91
      Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, I think you've got it in reverse. PP isn't just about abortion. It's about responsibly planning for and caring for a family. That seems to increase value of families and individuals, not devalue it.

      More education to demystify what it takes to be sexually and morally responsible is what PP is about. Abortion is an option not considered lightly. It is a real alternative, when it's right for the persons involved. Who are you to judge that abortion is not a right alternative? Even your religion condones it in certain cases!

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nice to you care about the living and not just yourself? roll

      1. goldenpath profile image81
        goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Kindly elaborate.  I've bit my tongue for months while the wall posters attack.  To kill over a stupid mistake is wrong.  There is a point where one must live up to there responsibility.  If you fear child birth because of that mistake - tough.  Do it and present that child for adoption by worthy parents who will love and support that child.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's comments like this that make me REALLY wish men could get pregnant. "Fear childbirth" you say?
          Why don't you try going through it, sir?

          1. goldenpath profile image81
            goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Completely not the point.  I'm talking responsibility.  Also, as stated I don't deny the good they've done but the political power they retain is rooted in the abortion debate.  Under no circumstances other than life threatening medical condition, rape or physical unsustaining of the life of the child should abortion be advocated or tolerated.

            The pockets go real deep in this issue.  Deep enough to retain their floor space in Congress.  Government dependence gives them power.  To advocate the health and prosperity of the people by the government is to advocate smaller government and the self reliance of the people.  This is the ideal situation but is not what's going on at the present time.  This has been the trend since 1900.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly the point. You can take responsibility for your body.

              Not that of a stranger.

              1. goldenpath profile image81
                goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That's just as strange as Cags response.  About as long too.  Please elaborate.

                1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                  Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The battle over abortion rights is nor about the virtue of abortion. There is no virtue in it. But in some circumstances it is the lesser of two evils. The entire argument is over who should decide if an unwanted pregnancy should be aborted in the early stages.

                  Thus my point. You can decide for you. Be responsible for YOUR BODY. Not somebody else (unless they have assigned you that right in a document,as a spouse might in a living will).

                  1. goldenpath profile image81
                    goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Cool! smile

                  2. Cagsil profile image60
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The crux of the argument is about individual rights/choice versus morals application.
                    Agreed. Be responsible for your body, physical - emotional and mental.

            2. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, and I'm talking responsibility, too.
              If you've never been pregnant -- which you clearly have not -- you have no idea what personal responsibility feels like.
              It IS taking responsibility to make the decision that is appropriate in MY situation.
              It is not my place to judge how you take responsibility for your life. So please don't judge my decisions -- or any woman's without even knowing what they are.

              1. goldenpath profile image81
                goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, truly reflective of what I initially said....

                Please don't get defensive about your situation.  I didn't even know you had a situation and frankly it's not my business.  We are talking in generalizations here.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I was speaking generally as well.
                  I do not personally have a "situation."
                  But if I did, I certainly would not be advertising it here on the HP forums!

                  I am talking about responsibility, too.
                  Being RESPONSIBLE means having RESPONSIBLE sex as opposed to unprotected sex.
                  Now don't tell me that my definition of responsible doesn't count....

                  1. goldenpath profile image81
                    goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Finally we agree on something! smile

        2. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, I've actually wrote a hub about "rights" vs "morals". And, your comment actually over steps your authority as an individual and should be noted.
          Comparing me to a troll? Isn't increasing your value and claiming an attack is coming, before one actually happens, last time I checked, was called paranoia. So, do be careful.
          This proves you lack understanding of choice or rights. And, because you lack understanding, then you've not a clue on why a woman would retain her individual rights, over any moral value. Yes, what is killed is a human organism, but should you use the term "child", "baby", "fetus" or anything else, like saying it's a "human being", then apparently you lack understanding of those words as well.
          Is always about responsibility. However, what you fail to see is that once a woman is pregnant, the only course directly results in another human being being born. Once the process begins, individual choice must be and remain with the woman. The Medical community/establishment offers a "choice". I don't care whether or not you agree with the offering of the service, and to be honest, you don't have to agree. You do have to understand it is a choice and that choice IS NOT yours to make. It falls upon the individual. Since you're a man, then you will never have to worry about using it or having one.
          Child birth is feared, most of the time. What is feared is ALL junk that comes with it? The thousands of other responsible actions that are warranted. It's crushing to those who truly are not ready. Forcing a woman to have a child when she isn't in the right frame of mind, is just destructive beyond repair. Thus, she makes the child's life difficult or becomes unfit. At which time, two lives are destroyed, because you want to oppress women's rights.
          This should be a different choice. Before this choice becomes available- the birth must happen. Sorry to say, but the woman's individual choice supercedes all before birth occurs.

          1. goldenpath profile image81
            goldenpathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting and thanks for your reply.  The common thought in all of them is "rights."  This still goes back to the division between rights and responsibility.  I favor responsibility.  That is what will build character and self esteem more than the bitter protection and self definition of "my rights."  Whether one believes it to be alive or not there are vast numbers of us out there who believe that child has the right to live.  In fact, in my opinion once two people have "joined" without protection they are advocating the right of a child to be born and to live.  That's IF they are truly responsible people.  In other words, responsibly, they agree that their action MIGHT result in a child.

            Self perception?  I never called you a troll.  You did that yourself.  I don't call people names just groups.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Did YOU have a choice in being born? Rights are tied to choices. See Hub for explanation.
              Actually it's nothing to do with rights and responsibility. It is rights versus morals.
              You favor oppression of women. Sorry, ain't happening.
              Actually, I would beg to differ, but since you like to stomp on woman, I'll leave you with "education" is the key. Not your self-imposed belief in responsibility, when you fail to understand the word itself.
              See hub, like I said. No child has a right to life/live, because it's not a choice it gets to make.
              Education is key. Rights are not given until born. And my hub explains why. The "advocating the right" of a child to be born is foolishness and absurd. It's been proven if a couple has unprotected sex, a child is most likely to be the result. Ignorance is never justified. But, that ignorance doesn't eliminate choice or rights of the individual already born/living.
              Actually, doing what is in your best interest is where responsibility comes into play. To ensure future life for self, is what matters. The individual born/living/existing already retains their rights.
              Duh, only the ignorant don't know a child would be the result.
              I didn't say you called me a troll. Please re-read what I said with regards to that. wink

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I disagree that Planned Parenthood devalues life. Quite the contrary. PP exists to provide needed women's health and family planning services to wome who otherwise could have have access to or afford them.

    Use of federal funds to perform abortions is already outlawed.

    I simply do not understand how anyone who calls himself or herself "pro-LIFE" could turn their back on the vital LIFE saving and quality-of-health/life services PP provides.



    That is not true. The government does not want to raise the number of government dependence. The government wants to its citizens to be healthy.

    1. 69
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Shouldn't we have the willingness, the desire, the motivation, the intelligence to be healthy on our own without the governments interference?
      Why are my tax dollars being spent on Planned Parenthood?  I thought the Democrats had solved all our healthcare issues when they passed Obamacare last year.
      Just as our tax dollars should never have been or never should be used to bail out the morons that run the companies that nearly drove the world to bankruptcy, using tax monies to support Planned Parenthood or and other similar organization is wrong as well.  If those that support Planned Parenthood want to send them money, more power to you. I agree birth control and family planning are noble endeavours. I have no problem with that.  I really don't care what PP does with funds that are willingly given.  I myself, might even consider donating, voluntarily.  But when I am forced to turn over money, at government point, that I have busted my ass to earn, so they can spend it on something to make them feel good then I have a problem with that.
      Goes for viagra as well.  Don't know what moron thought having the government pay for that was a good idea.  Even worse is when they provide it to prisoners. 

      Bottom line, is we can't save everyone.  I know, I'm cruel, cheap, blah, blah blah.  Wrong again.  I would like to save everyone. It's just not possible.  I would like everyone to be happy, healthy, well to do.  But I live in the real world.  If you jump in to save a person from drowning, and they try to take you with them, do you keep trying so you both drown?  Or do you do the best you can until you have to let them go so you can survive?  I can't and I wouldn't force anyone to pay for  a choice that I made.  They shouldn't force me to pay for choice's they make.  Figuratively or literally.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's not only untrue. It's ridiculous.

  7. prettydarkhorse profile image66
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    I approve of any program regarding reproductive health - all pertaining to women's health and appropriation of budget for it. I stand in what IPPF stands for. However expenses incurred from abortion should be shouldered by the woman's insurance. (except when abortion is due to incest or rape). Emergency contraception should be available to women upon approval by a doctor. Sex education, safe sexual health should be taught in school approved by parents and PTA.

  8. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago

    Rights, schmites.
    PP is about EDUCATION and prevention of unwanted, damaging consequences, not personal "rights".

    Rights these days amount to whatever the person feel they are entitled to. Hence the big drama about government and everything else.

    Get down the basics and keep "rights" out of PP, and realize it's about education and prevention of potentially harmful consequences.

    Protests and picket lines are about advertising "rights."

    roll

  9. Mikeydoes profile image80
    Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago

    I would be more in favor of a planned parenthood not involved with the government.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      wurd to that.

    2. 60
      33rdn8thposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why?  I would just like to understand.  If the federal government didn't fund it, then it would fall to the states, which are already strapped, or to bands of non profit organizations.  The problem with either, is that areas of the country would not provide the services of Planned Parenthood, and then we have more of a bill down the road. 

      My two cents, but I think thying to de-fund planned parenthood is shortsighted, and does more harm than good.

      1. Mikeydoes profile image80
        Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The Government was great in it's hay-day, but some things just need to be left to society and don't need to be the deciding factor for our government.

        There are certainly ways with or without money to accomplish what Planned Parenthood does. Obviously it is easier said than done. With the internet and social networking(and whatever else the future may hold) I can certainly see things changing. But it will be in due time I suppose.

        Abortion is something that should not be decided by our government. It is a hard and touchy subject, but you don't think we can't figure it out without it being involved with our gov't? Certainly would make it so people would have to be more careful with where they put their special units.

  10. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    wurd - waz zat?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i agree.

  11. 60
    RagnarLodbrokposted 5 years ago

    Well I don't know much about the connection between the money taxing and swindling and gun taxing and stealing of the Obama administration and planned parenthood.  All I know is that the offices have become a den of liars and thieves and only by coincidence are a few of these liars and thieves friendly towards planned parenthood. 

    That being said, there's really nothing any of us can pin on planned parenthood.  They sell birth control and push for abortion legalization? So what? Are family planning precausations a crime? Of course not.  There are billions upon billions of people on this planet, land resources and ecosystems are being stretched to their limits.  Forms of birth control need to be left open as options and euthanasia open as a normal medical practice, if we are to deal with this.  Margaret Sanger first founded the organization with really good intentions...having to do with reversing both social problems and enviromental problems.

  12. melbel profile image93
    melbelposted 5 years ago

    Planned Parenthood is not just a place for young women to go when they are pregnant. The only health care I receive, besides walk-in clinic stuff when I'm really sick, is from Planned Parenthood. They have a wide range of services available for people from all walks of life. While I pay full price for the services (they base it off your income), I don't mind paying the full price knowing that if I didn't have much money they would provide me services regardless of my ability to pay.

    I stand with those fighting to keep this program funded. Personally, I am offended that a program like this could be ended, while large corporations like GM are receiving tax refunds. I feel that those fighting to end funding for programs such as Planned Parenthood are taking advantage of our financial situation to push an agenda that would otherwise NEVER pass.

  13. Roger Rabbit profile image60
    Roger Rabbitposted 5 years ago

    I say give free abortions for everyone! Hooray! I think we should even start doing 168th trimester abortions!

  14. cat on a soapbox profile image82
    cat on a soapboxposted 5 years ago

    I think it is something than be greatly streamlined rather than eliminated as we face necessary budget cuts.

  15. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    Of course, some poor unwed mothers do make ends meet all on their own.

    From CNN -

    "Daughter Bristol Palin made serious cash from the Candie’s Foundation-a group that promotes abstinence to teenagers, according to a 2009 tax return from the group first posted by the blog Palingates and reported by several media organizations.
    So what’s the going rate for an abstinence promoter these days?

    Apparently $262,000, according to the tax returns..."

  16. DannyMaio profile image60
    DannyMaioposted 5 years ago

    Planned parenthood was busted so many times it isn't even funny! this is more aiding the young then helping. attached at the bottom are a few of the bad things about PP. I personally do not care what woman do with their bodies but in no way should the government have anything to do with abortions! they are shewd they do not use the actual government money on abortions but the money they have goes to it, without the government handout they would not be able to do as many abortions. I do not believe in abortions but you woman can do what you want and may have to deal with your actions later. Not my problem I just do not want to help. some woman use abortion as birth control! this young group has exposed a lot about this group!

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planne … -sex-ring/

    http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archi … again.aspx

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_HoM6213kc

    http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/0 … ed-videos/

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I just want to highlight that I don't really care one way or the other whether people abort the baby or not.

      I have my own views on this, and am not even talking about this when I debate the Planned Parenthood program.

      I just don't want to fund these things with my money. My money is being taken from me by force.

      ... and, apparently, it's being used inappropriately by the people at Planned Parenthood. These videos illustrate this nicely.

      1. DannyMaio profile image60
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I too do not want my tax dollars going to this organization. I personally do not care if they stay open on their own accord or by donations. They may do things differently if they were not getting over 300M from the government. I doubt it though as you seen from the videos they are scoundrels. I would like to see any of these mothers being OK if their 13 year old daughter went there being pregnant by a 23 year old guy and they will not know about it! They are sleaze bags and about 90% of the business is abortions. they do not give mammograms as Reid is trying to put out there, call and ask for a mammogram appointment and see what they say.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I take it then Evan that you will never work in state run or sponsored education.

        Bit tough on all those poor but eager to learn kids who can't afford private education isn't it?

        Oh by the way, if you don't want to contribute to society, there is no need for you to take part in it, just stop earning more than subsistence and you'll live tax free.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I love the way that "not wanting my money stolen from me by government" translates, in your mind, to "I don't want to partake in society".

          This explains why you'll never understand what I espouse.

          Why shouldn't I work as a teacher in a public school? I use public roads, public police, public *you name it*.... I PAID FOR IT.

          I don't want the government taking my money, but I might as well get what I pay for. And part of that is me being employed in the profession I choose.

          (But, believe you me, I'm looking for a private school job).

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well how on earth do I translate it?
            Does it not strike you that you don't actually pay 100% for everything that you use, if you are successful in landing a job in state education you won't be taxed at 150% of what you earn, which would be a more realistic estimate of what your employment would cost your fellow tax payers.

  17. brimancandy profile image81
    brimancandyposted 5 years ago

    You know, I find it strange that the same group of right to life people, are the same people who bitch and piss and moan about the amount of money that the country spends on welfare, and food stamps that support the children of unwed mothers. So, they want the child to be born, but they don't seem to give a shit what happens to it after that. And, bitch about their tax dollars going to pay to feed that child that they just saved from the wicked abortion.

    I got news for you right to lifer. If you eliminate the right to  abortion, you are going to be paying ten times more in taxes to feed all of the welfare babies that will result from it. So, if you are going to continue fighting abortion, then you better start giving your full support in the effort to raise that child, and quit bitching about something that you are creating, by thinking that you as a group have a right to decide what anyone can do with his or her own body. And not only the living, but a fricking cell that is so all important to you until it means nothing again, when it's dead thrown away like yesterday's garbage. Yet, you keep fighting.

    Also the same people who are against same sex marriage. Who knows maybe when the political cash cow that all of this has become ends, the politicians will walk away from it, just like they have any other issue that is no longer popular or generating campaign contributions. You'll see, it will fade away, and then come back again when republicans decide that they have drained the money from another hot button issue. Please, do you think after all this time that they really care?

  18. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    and you forgot to add, early childhood education.  Part of the budget cuts involve decreasing federal funds to the Head Start Programs that educate and feed a healthy lunch to low income children, and provide health screenings. Less children will be able to benefit from the program, teachers will lose their jobs.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I write about this in a hub.

      Every hour a kid spends in school in the US costs tax payers about 15 bucks (give or take).

      Each student, Each hour, 15 bucks.

  19. ForkArtJunkie profile image61
    ForkArtJunkieposted 5 years ago

    I don't have any problem with them being in business, but I'm against providing them with federal funding. They appear to think being funded by tax dollars is some kind of entitlement. We are broke - I wish our government would stop funding this organization -- but unfortunately, that probably won't happen.

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We are broke, but do you really believe we won't get broker if low income women lose their access to the low cost birth control, prenatal care, and yes, abortion services, that Planned Parenthood offers?

      You'll end up with more children on welfare, more in food stamp and Head Start programs, more in need of government assistance in general.

      Even if you cut all those services too, you end up with higher health care costs because women who don't receive prenatal care are much more likely to have complicated births and babies with various defects, so hospitals will have more expensive pro bono cases and will pass on the costs to you.

    2. 2besure profile image82
      2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Many people never though about this issue until the Republics starting harping on it and if we do not make sure that low-income and poor women do not have access to birth control, your tax dollars will go to taking care of their children for 18 years.  You choose!

  20. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    First of all, to say we are broke is baloney! Any time we need money--bingo! we get it. Hello, Libya---
    AND--IF we were seriously broke, how come GE paid NO tax, AND got money back???
    Where'd that money come from?
    How come they passed the big tax break for trillionaire's? SOMEone has to make up for that money they are taking out of the pool. Where's it going to come from?
    If we're so broke, how come these teatards still make $174,000 a year? COULND'T that be cut...to "Save" America?
    And you are so right Jean...all these men complaining about PP--WE pay for their viagra!
    And, no on ever takes me up on my idea: If you hate abortion so much, give all the little boys a vasectomy. Then, when they want to have a baby--they can go in front of a board--religious if you like, or anarchist, if you like! Prove to that board that he is ready, willing and able to care for that kid, and voila* reverse the vasectomy!!
    Of course, it would put the onus on men for a change, and also restrict their freedoms tremendously...they may feel that  other people have no right to be in their personal business...but after all--controlling others lives is what you want, is it not?
    Now, if you say "I don't want to pay for it!"--you better take that up with the business owners...tell them they have to start paying a living wage, because you don't want to keep helping people who are poor.
    They are poor for a reason: Not a lot of money!!! PAY them more, if you want them to leave you alone!
    And finally--stop the LIES. STOP it.

    Planned Parenthood is 0.008% of the budget. That is HARDLY cutting the budget. You people are governing on a religious ideology, which hurts women.
    Church does not belong in state.
    Also--MR Repub...can't think of his name.He said 90% of PP is abortions! It is not. Abortions are 3% of PP.3%. AND--they are not funded by gvt! The Hyde amendment has been in place for a LONG time. And your hated president, Obama--continued it....for YOU.
    NO tax dollars pay for abortions...you GOT your way--now you want to go further? You want to tell women what they can do with their OWN money! Freedom...har har.

    Yes Jean..it is war on women. Sorry you don't like paying to keep your fellow citizens healthy and cancer-free.
    Tough. You sure don't threaten to shut down the gvt over viagra!!!
    And once again...0.008% of the budget...are you kidding me?
    That's a morning snack for execs at GE.--whom YOU are subsidizing!!!

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute. " There are two kinds of people...those who have...and those they took it from.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. Has been since the beginning of time.
        At LEAST, gvt has to divvy it up, and for 30 yrs, they have divvied to the detriment of 90% of us.

        Gvt made all these corps get rich and leave here. They allowed it.
        Gvt can fix it.
        Gvt is us.

    2. Jean Bakula profile image95
      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Chris, for understanding it's a war against women and children. Nobody wants to help raise these unwanted children once the woman is forced to bear them. What the hell are we doing in 3 wars now, nobody says the truth, we should cut the military budget, mind our own business, and get our country in shape. And just to clarify, I like men, I've been married for 31 yrs and have been blessed with one son I adore. I was not able to have more children.

  21. prettydarkhorse profile image66
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    remember that IPPF local PP is catering to women's health specifically reproductive health, Family planning, check up, pap smear etc. Women's overall reproductive health is very important bec. still the women are the caretaker at home. Plus the budget for the PP is just a miniscule one comparing to the budget in other high falutin areas. We are really way behind, in Aus, UK and our more developed counterpart, these are not problems. Repeat, women don't just go at PP clinics for abortion, they go there for counseling about their reproductive health, check ups and get contraceptives. About one in five women here in the US go to PP. This is an assault on women's overall health and welfare. Plus PP also caters to men - they provides condoms, counsel on safe sex (men and women), HIV testing, STDs, sexual health in general.

    1. emdi profile image72
      emdiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think u have been deceived by PP guys. Here is an interview with former planned parenthood director.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMYCKsAp … re=related

      Or do you also know that PP is racist?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibZIXYckADk

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, for god's sakes....here we go!!!!

        Hey--I though there was no such thing as racism?
        Isn't that what we are always told?

        Just keep throwin em out, throwin em out...

        Here's one for you:

        George W Bush had 2 girlfriends who utilized their Constitutionally guarenteed medical services to have abortions.

        I'm geussing they were right and proper ladies, since he was in the upper class.....

        Umm, where was his responsibility? Why did he have unprotected sex? Or maybe it was protected, and it broke. Or maybe it just happened, as these things do.

        But, you see---if he had used MY idea, he would have been vasectomized, and no egg would have been ignited!
        My way works!!

        1. Jean Bakula profile image95
          Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My friend's daughter was attending NE University in Boston the second time Bush got elected. Or the first, you know.........But anyway, they did a study, and found that the median IQ of R's was lower. I have to ask her for a copy. While vacationing in Jamaica, I've met many people from other countries. They ask "Why does the US like war so much?" We had to say, it's not  the people, it's the Govt. Which is sad, the Govt is supposed to work for the people. You know, "Of the people, by the people, for the people." and all that.

      2. prettydarkhorse profile image66
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I visit a PP clinic here at Tx for pap smear (once a year) and I worked as a researcher/writer in a university catering to population and demographic related researches. We evaluated programs at international and local level in conjunction with United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). IPPF International (International Planned Parenthood Federation) work in some developing countries helping women women with reproductive health problems where their culture and gov't can't help them. In developing countries, abortion is clandestine and women die doing it. IPPF also helps women in their overall general reproductive health. They just ask donations from women who can't really afford the costs.

        1. emdi profile image72
          emdiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          help in 'reproductive health', 'basic health',' do mammogram', these are the key words they use to force women to do abortions (I still can't understand how can women support abortions even few days before due date), I call this murder. PP call it 'reproductive health.

          LIES OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD

          1.  They don't do  basic health care (as claimed in their website)
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkFhO2pooeA

          2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIXHrusvMDw

          3.  THEY DON'T DO MAMMOGRAMS http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ … story.html

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image66
            prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            know what, I go to their clinic and I observe and know their doing basic health reproductive health care.  I observe and talk to women there. Being inquisitive and it is my interests, I always ask random questions, thus I know that they are there not only for abortion.

            Women will sort to risky abortions, doing it on their own if they don't know where to go for the services, and they risks their lives more. Abortion is illegal depending on the states, up to a certain viability (mos).

            2besure said she gets her mammogram there.

  22. prettydarkhorse profile image66
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    Actually you can live on your own like Tarzan, devoid of social and political dynamics. Is Tarzan even real? HEHE!

  23. aware profile image71
    awareposted 5 years ago

    It against fed law for  Title X  money to be use on  abortions . the money  that's given  is for pap smears  , birth control ,  education ect . not a dime from what Ive read is allowed to fund a actual abortion.
    Ray

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Only in certain cases determined by the TWO individuals involved, but, fool me once... Abortion mainly for victims of sex crimes, not wholesale like Suzie went out a few nights back, and, oopsie! It has been abused by careless, promiscuous people who can't exert a little personal control or preventative measures. In the case of the husband and wife, it should be refused if the determination is made that they are capable of financially raising the resultant child. If they don't want it, then, after the child is born, it is adopted out, BUT then biological parents still have to give financial support until the age of majority, or, graduation from college. Works in divorce cases.

      1. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "In the case of the husband and wife, it should be refused if the determination is made that they are capable of financially raising the resultant child."

        Seriously? There are completely legitimate reasons a couple might not want to go through a pregnancy they can financially afford beyond simply not "wanting" it. Pregnancy and childbirth are major physical burdens for the mother - the degree of risk is obscured by modern medicine, but of the five friends I have who have given birth in the last five years, two had complications that are potentially life-threatening (pre-eclampsia in one, gestational diabetes in the other). If they'd lacked good prenatal care, they would have been life threatening.

        Forcing a woman to risk her life for an unwanted pregnancy isn't just cruel, it's barbaric.

        Even if you don't have serious complications, the hormonal changes during and after pregnancy can wreck absolute havoc on a marriage, and physically, your body is never really the same again after you've given birth.

        Why don't you give people some credit and assume that they know what's best for themselves?

  24. 2besure profile image82
    2besureposted 5 years ago

    That is where I get my mammograms.

    1. DannyMaio profile image60
      DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      can you please post where you received a mammogram from planned parenthood which city, state etc... because it is proven they do not do mammograms? thanks

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ … story.html

      http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-pare … m-exposed/

  25. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Which is sad, the Govt is supposed to work for the people." It does -
    the top 1%.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      BS

      http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factshee … ct-alt.pdf

      In 2008, over $600 billion was spent on welfare-esque programs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy200 … tegory.png

      Look at how much of that pie is dedicated to helping the lower class.

      Stop the BS. The government is helping the rich and poor.

    2. Jean Bakula profile image95
      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Knolyourself,
      You are so right, it is only the top 1 percent who have all the money, and control everything in the US. This thread gets more and more ridiculous all the time. Why aren't rich corporations paying taxes, when poor individuals must? Rich women go to fancy clinics for abortions, it's just kept quiet and they aren't labeled as "promiscuous" or "low class." Their sexual mistakes are private, since they can afford a regular doctor who will say she had a D&C or was in for a checkup. Money and lies change the picture, even though it's a woman in the same situation.

  26. BobbiRant profile image61
    BobbiRantposted 5 years ago

    So if we say, ban Viagra, will all the men hop on board and say "yes, yes' ban it, it's no good anyway?  Sure, sure they will.  But womens topics seem to be up for debate by plenty of men.  Notice that?  No more screening for prostate cancer too then?  We ban planned parenthood many women will die of cancer, but that's fine?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why would those things need to be banned?

      I just don't want my tax dollars taken from me.

      If we were talking about Viagra, I'd be saying the same thing: "I don't want my money stolen from me to give some 60 year old nut-job a stiffy".

  27. BobbiRant profile image61
    BobbiRantposted 5 years ago

    But our tax dollars do go for veterans to get health care, and yes, they do prescribe viagra sometimes.  The issue isn't viagra, as I'm sure you well know, it is womens issues and denying such things as free cancer screening.  Being cheeky is not the way to debate, as I'm sure you know too. We do not debate any money guys get from government for many things.  Why do we feel women need to be 'controlled' in health care or anything else?

  28. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Maybe they believe woman are not as perfectible as men and therefore inferior.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ya THINK????!!!!!

  29. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I don't know if they still do this, but United Way used to have check off boxes. When you donated you could identify specific programs you wanted your donation to go to (come to think of it, colleges do the same thing in their annual giving appeal).

    Would it make a difference if, on your tax return, you could check off a box stating that you categorically do NOT want YOUR tax dollars going to fund ___________ (whatever -- PP, corporate tax breaks, Afghanistan war, etc.)???

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I assume your talking to me? Please reply to posts, not to the forum.

      Taxes are theft.

      If I willingly donate money to anyone, then it's charity.

      Taxes are not charity because they are not paid voluntarily.

      Thus, if I'm forced to be "charitable", then it's nonsense.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What words would I use to describe someone who takes full advantage of the benefits of a modern society and doesn't want to pay...?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Free rider?

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Didn't Red Skelton have a character "Freddie the Freeloader"?

            I found it.

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4896257_f248.jpg

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image80
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ***pssst - I AM paying. Thus I can't be a free-rider!!!... remember English? it has words with meaning!! ***

          what do i call someone who wants something but makes other people pay?

          ... a thief?

          I'd rather be a "free-rider" --even though i AM paying (duuuuhhhhh) -- than a thief.

          Nice try though.

  30. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Force women to have abortions?

    WOW.
    Well, how's this: You don't like PP. Too bad. Women are American citizens, just as much as anyone else. Tax dollars can be spent on them just as well as anywhere else. 0.008% of a budget is not hurting anyone.

    In America--you are not allowed to govern on religious philosophy.

    In fact, I would say the churches ESPECIALLY have no say, as they are TAX EXCEMPT.

    Look in the mirror. The forcing end of this equation is you.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lovemychris - I love women. In fact, I'm marrying one, and my mother happens to be one.

      But I hate theft.

      I would gladly donate a lot of my money to help these two women (and probably a few more). But the government wants to force me to pay for everyone.

      That's theft. Sorry. I can't buy into that. Even if it's only 0.0000000000000001% of "the budget" (which... keeps getting bigger and bigger... except this year).

      1 penny that is taken from me against my will is still theft.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well Evan...let's go after the Big Thiefs, shall we?
        The amount of money spent on PP is a pittance compared to the overcharging of Haliburton and KBR.....
        The money we give to XE, to run a child-prostitution ring? My my my.
        Fund illegal drugs?
        Illegal weapons?
        Give money to other countries to kill people?
        Kill people ourselves.....

        Why pick on Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and other small fish in this big pond?

        Seems to me it's a war on women and poor people.

        After all--as I stated before, 0.008% is like a morning snack for GE execs....and they got money from you!!
        Imagine...a billion dollars of profit, and STILL they take from you!! For what? A villa in France? High-class living for a few?

        And PP helps women who are cash-strapped....

        You would have much more credibility with me, if you went after GE, Haliburton, Xe and KBR.

  31. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    And I would point out: 2 people have TOLD you they get their mammograms and pap smears at PP.

    Are they lying?

  32. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Oh yeah...and NPR--which provides quality tv and radio for those who can't afford cable, or satellite radio.
    Oh and the Repubs also want to stop Obama's plan of giving internet access to rural poor communities.....and community colleges...


    All these little things are being targeted, while the Big Kahunas keep on slippin their hands in your pocket....

    It's odd.
    Almost like down is up and up is down.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image95
      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Like we are living in Alice in Wonderland.

  33. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Fox and friends said this morning; "Who needs Planned Parenthood? You can get a pap smear at Walgreens."
    --Stephanie Miller Show

    ahahahaha.....

  34. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Stephen Colbert:

    "Senator Kyle said abortions are 90% of what Planned Parenthood
    does. The actual percentage is 3. Hey--he made an honest mistake...he rounded it up to the nearest 90!"

    hahahaha
    I cannot BELIEVE these are elected officias shucking and jiving like this for their Masters!!

    It's almost embarrassing if I do say so myself.
    How's that fakey-birthy-thing workin fer ya?

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Jon Kyl uses Paul Wolfowitz's saliva to style his hair"

  35. SparklingJewel profile image68
    SparklingJewelposted 5 years ago

    government should not be supporting organizations of any kind with taxpayers money, especially moral hot-button issues...there are plenty of people out there with the funds to support any organizations' programs to help people...of their choosing!!!!

    government needs to be out of running healthcare or anything else...and focus on their Constutional duties, period.

    there really is no ground to stand on and talk about anything...just follow Constitutional decree.

    and stop making decisions for people

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Planned Parenthood is not making decisions for anyone...they are providing a health service for women. And men!
      The Christian Coalition/Moral Majority/Right-Wing/Tea-Baggers are wanting to make decisions for people.

      Who they can love legally
      What they do with their bodies
      Who they must bow down to: Their God.
      Who has their hand in their pocket: Big Busines/Corporations

      You peeps have it all backwards.

  36. prettydarkhorse profile image66
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago
 
working