Law The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas can strip taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood

hillelslovak87 said:
And none of those funds go towards abortion, per the Hyde amendment. You can talk about funds being allocated towards abortions, but federal money is not allocated towards such. Many states investigated PP a few years ago, and found none of what you are asserting.
Click to expand...
Then why did The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rule that Texas can strip taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood
 
I am your real dad said:
Then why did The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rule that Texas can strip taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...

Because it seems somebody wants PP defunded, not just disallowed from utilizing abortion services.

read the Hyde amendment, and learn about all the states that performed investigations regarding the edited sting tapes and found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood......
 
I'd gladly pay more in taxes if it meant women could have safe and affordable access to abortions.
 
BEER said:
I'd gladly pay more in taxes if it meant women could have safe and affordable access to abortions.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing. PP's budget is but a mere drop in the bucket for what they provide communities nationwide, yet none of that tax money even goes towards the abortions.

It is a clear cow towing to a religious agenda by people who see souls in a petri dish, and think they can legislate their morality to the rest of this secular nation.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
Well, that's the thing. PP's budget is but a mere drop in the bucket for what they provide communities nationwide, yet none of that tax money even goes towards the abortions.

It is a clear cow towing to a religious agenda by people who see souls in a petri dish, and think they can legislate their morality to the rest of this secular nation.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm aware. PP performs necessary functions outside of abortion. The Hyde act (I think it's called) was a shitty "middle ground" after Roe v Wade.

I have and will continue to donate to Planned Parenthood because safe and affordable access to all of their services, including abortion, is a good cause.
 
BEER said:
Oh, I'm aware. PP performs necessary functions outside of abortion. The Hyde act (I think it's called) was a shitty "middle ground" after Roe v Wade.

I have and will continue to donate to Planned Parenthood because safe and affordable access to all of their services, including abortion, is a good cause.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm on the anti back alley abortion side as well.
 
ppl shouldn't have to pay for women bad life choices , so most of these abortions are from women riding the c..k carousel then they get pregnant and want ppl to pay for it, i say let's allow it only in case of rape or if the woman risks dying
 
I am your real dad said:
allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services allows other funds to be reallocated for abortions. Late in 2016, the Obama administration issued a rule effective in January 2017 banning U.S. states from withholding federal family-planning funds from health clinics that give abortions, including Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...


If you have any evidence of that, then you should contact your local prosecutor. It would be criminal
 
In the future, post the actual decision from the court, and not a retarded summary from the Federalist.

That is, if you give a shit about accuracy, which the TS never has.
 
BEER said:
I'd gladly pay more in taxes if it meant women could have safe and affordable access to abortions.
Click to expand...

Thank you for being a reasonable and decent human being, seriously.
 
7437 said:
No, that has been specifically illegal for 40 years.
Click to expand...

I know that, but I am not sure how it all works.
So, when they receive federal funding for initiatives, services, etc, would that not just free up finances to be redirected toward, for instance, abortion services?
 
AgonyandIrony said:
planned-parenthood-services-2013-14_chartbuilder-2-_custom-2c71379b77e7eb35a5d6357662032d86fa0ef32a-s300-c85.png


Everything's bigger in Texas, especially the genital warts.
Click to expand...

Regarding the 3% statistic:

 
If you want to kill your own baby, you pay for it yourself.
 
PrinceOfPain said:
I know that, but I am not sure how it all works.
So, when they receive federal funding for initiatives, services, etc, would that not just free up finances to be redirected toward, for instance, abortion services?
Click to expand...
Generally, no, because that's not how nonprofit financing works. They provide services that you have the grants for. There's no slush fund. You get 10k for xyz this year, you provide 10k worth of xyz this year. They don't have a quota of STD testing they need to meet. There's always a demand for their other services, too.
 
hillelslovak87 said:
Because it seems somebody wants PP defunded, not just disallowed from utilizing abortion services.

read the Hyde amendment, and learn about all the states that performed investigations regarding the edited sting tapes and found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood......
Click to expand...
Where theirs smoke theirs fire, women can get any of those things done at the health department, no need for PP pushing abortions on women and being a burden on the tax payer. You can ignore the evidence if you want to I did not fabricate any of the information I posted.
 
Quipling said:
Generally, no, because that's not how nonprofit financing works. They provide services that you have the grants for. There's no slush fund. You get 10k for xyz this year, you provide 10k worth of xyz this year. They don't have a quota of STD testing they need to meet. There's always a demand for their other services, too.
Click to expand...

Okay, so bear with me if you would. I think I’m just being slow today.

I apologise in advance if the below analogous story fails on every level, but life’s easier for me to understand life when it’s explained through analogies.


Say Paul Peterson (PP) has a part-time job. It doesn’t really earn him enough to cover all of his monthly needs, and so his parents subsidise him with an allowance. Their only stipulation is that he not spend any of the money that they give him on drinks, drugs or cigarettes (abortion); he should only be spending the money on necessities that he would otherwise have to pay for out of his own earnings – clothes, lunch, social activities, etc.

How are Paul’s parents making sure that Paul is not buying cigarettes with his private earnings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,968
Messages
55,457,830
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top