2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

There's a lot of illogic to this whole debate to me. Among many quandaries: How do you choose between an late term abortion where it really is a baby just still in the womb (whenever you think that is). Or telling a woman she must give birth to a child she doesn't want to. Both are immoral IMO.

And when does a fetus turn into a baby? I'd say based on pure logic (which may not apply here), have a study determine at what brain activity is considered "sentient" for a fetus/baby. But it seems to me both sides are scared about what that answer might be, so they argue the extremes: "conception" vs. "partial-birth-abortion".

Planned parenthood is full of, for lack of a better word, confusion to me.

1. Talking about government funding in your post above. It's good that we apply the "all or nothing" approach to organizations and educational entities. They must follow federal law on civil rights, mandates on quality of care or education, or they lose all funding. So why does Planned Parenthood get a pass on the "all or nothing" requirement when it comes to funding abortion?

2. It seems like the name Planned Parenthood is just a PR move. It's not really wrong, people frame debates all the time by calling someone pro-abortion or anti-choice. It just strikes me as disingenuous that they name themselves after a situation they aren't needed in: a planned parenthood. Contraception, abortion, STDs apply in any case parenthood or not, isn't what their name implies. Fertility clinics, conception aids, and birth centers are what an organization named "planned parenthood" would be about, IMO.

3. The statistics being tossed about. I really have no idea what's the truth. On Planned Parenthood's website, they say "One in three women has an abortion at some point in her life. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion?" Yeah, but 1-3 seems high to me. Does the "1 in 3 women get abortions" ratio sound high for where you live, or about right, or an underestimate?



edit: And what is going on here? Is abortion mandated "all or nothing" here?

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that a Texas law excluding Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program violated federal rules, meaning the program would no longer receive any federal funding.

The Texas law, which went into effect this week, prevents patients using the Women's Health Program from going to any clinic that has an affiliation with an abortion provider, including a shared name, employee, or board member.

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

So Planned Parenthood can't separate funds and get federal money either, as long as they fund abortions. Right?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

I deal with federal monies fairly regularly at work. I can tell you this, we're very strict about what is appropriated for X may NOT be used for Y. I'm not working on anything near as controversial as that -- but money is put in seperate pools that cannot be touched by other processes. Fairly strict record keeping behind all of those accounts. I don't have any direct knowledge of this particular situation, but there are ways of seperating funds established and enforced in other areas.