Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people who qualify for Medicaid and Title X. It's not like there's a taxpayer line item in the budget for PP. They're just providing federally funded service like any hospital. Oh, and hospitaabortions as well...

"The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people"

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.

But the feds don't give PP cash to buy equipment. They're also a non-profit organization so it's not like profit from a health screening could be used to offset abortion costs.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The thing is, most of the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is from preventative care reimbursements for people"

The other thing is, and you know this, is that cash is liquid, so if the feds give PP $100 to buy mammogram equipment, that's $100 more that PP can free up to fund abortions. That's why if this wasn't about funding abortions, liberals would embrace the conservative notion of defunding PP, but diverting every cent of that (thus no cuts to overall funding) to clinics that don't perform abortions. Problem solved. But liberals won't get on board, and there's only one reason why. It's about abortion.

Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...ned-parenthood

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Texas did eliminated funding for PP and replaced it with a Pro-life organization, how well did that work.
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...ned-parenthood

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That doesn't look like it worked. Doesn't mean it can't work. One woman failed to start up an effective clinic in one place. Does that mean we should stop trying.

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is the kind of stupid merry-go-round that can be stopped by hitting the federal off button.

Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really. Push it to the states and you either have taxpayers still funding it or poor people having children they don't want increasing abortion or worse illegal abortion. Title X is a Republican policy I'd note.

Perhaps you have not noticed. Not all states act the way Spence thinks they should or would. And states can't print money. They have tighter budgetary restrictions. And its amazing how most people are able to do things like having less children or "afford" contraceptives when there is no sugar daddy paying for it.

And abortion and the burden or joy of having children are individual and state by state concerns. They are not, constitutionally, federal concerns.

I asked you a few times before if you believe states are necessary. If it would be better, more efficient, if we dissolved state governments, state sovereignty, and have only one unitary state, the so-called federal government. We could even do away with the Constitution, which limits the central government, and have the all powerful government which can do whatever is required to make life good and comfortable for us all.

Care to give an opinion on that question?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Problem is they think they can impact abortion by going after legitimate family planning services. The net result is people without means can't afford contraception and the rate of unintended pregnancies goes up and the burden on taxpayers goes up.

"The net result is people without means can't afford contraception"

Please tell me, who can't afford condoms? I keep hearing of all these people who can't afford birth control, and it makes no sense.

"the burden on taxpayers goes up"

If it means keeping babies alive, raise my taxes.