[TheAngel]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost (View Post) The tone in this thread makes it sound like all of the funding and costs should be the government's responsibility. If you have that mentality, then America might as well have state tv and only certain people can have access to computers and the internet. You don't have a choice of what kind of car you have either since you will be given a car issued by the government. Is that what you want? Why does the government have to foot 100 percent of the bill on abortions? Are donations not allowed anymore? If people are so supportive of a woman's vagina and what she can do with it, then they should put their money with their mouth is and step up the to plate and give their fair share for this cause. If you say health care is a right, does that mean people should get free plastic surgery? Should people be allowed to have their bodies enhanced for free? According to Cage the Elephant "Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked, Money don't grow on trees. I got bills to pay, I got mouths to feed, There ain't nothing in this world for free."

It must be interesting in your world.

I don't understand the point in having a conversation with you anymore. You blow things so out of proportion. There should never be "competition" when it comes to regular health care. That results in medical services being so exorbitant in price that no one can pay for them. I had to stay in the Emergency room for five hours in December because of a car accident. My medical bill was over $4,000. I didn't have any surgery. I had a couple Xrays, a little blood drawn, and I went home with a pair of crutches. I owe the ambulance company $800 for a ride to the hospital. Good thing the accident wasn't my fault and the other kid's insurance is going to have to pay for it.

Now imagine you're a poor, inner-city seventeen year old girl who was raped. You're pregnant and if you tell your parent/guardian. you know that you'll be beaten and kicked out onto the street but nowhere locally will provide an abortion for free and you can't afford one otherwise. But that's ok. It's alright for you to be beaten and kicked out. Because the life of your fetus is the only thing that matters, right?

[Avatar]

Comparing plastic surgery to abortion isn't comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing elephants to oranges. If you charge for a legal and safe abortion who will have it? Middle-class women and above. If you can't afford it then what? You're back to knitting needles in a back alley.

[Gray Ghost]

Hold on, I never said that poor people shouldn't be denied health care. People that depend on that stuff should probably have free access to it. I just don't see realistically how it would work for everyone in America to have free health care. It sounds like a good idea but how would it work?
Who's gonna foot the bill?

Competition is good. If you don't think that, you should go live in a Communist country and see how you like it. There's nothing wrong with having health care be both government funded and in the private sector.

America isn't suppose to be an entitlement nation or a welfare state. When you are guys gonna wake up and realize that?

[Cristofle]

Yeah, one of my biggest problems, as I've said, with these ultrasound rules is that unless the state decides to foot that bill, it's yet another expense on top of an abortion which working-class women can barely afford- and if they can't afford to have an abortion, they definitely can't afford to go through an entire pregnancy, so they're left with unsafe, non-medical, illegal abortion options. Hell, a lot of so-called middle class women live somewhat paycheck to paycheck and if their insurance doesn't cover abortion (good luck with that), they might be barely able to afford it too. Medical expenses in this country unless you're super rich and/or super well insured are just ridiculous, and reproductive issues are no exception.

Incidentally, I've been Googling around out of curiosity- an ultrasound without insurance seems to run between $500-$800 in the US, with the occasional $300. Not cheap. Not something working-class women can afford on top of the abortion.

[Gray Ghost]

Again, why should I have to pay a fee or tax for someone that wants to kill their baby? I'm poor and really can't afford it. Why does the burden of that fall on me? Entitlements are basically taking from one group and giving it to the other. No one learns anything. The same goes for making people pay if they don't have health insurance.
I'm sorry but I have no sympathy on the matter. If you don't want to have kill your baby, don't have sex. The man should be wearing a rubber or at maybe have a little self control on his equipment during sex. I shouldn't be forced to pay for that crap. I've got my own stuff to pay for. Ridiculous but this is what America is. People want handouts, war, and nation building.

[Cristofle]

My point was regarding forcing a woman to undergo an ultrasound in order to get an abortion- since she doesn't want one and didn't ask for one, I don't think she should be required to pay hundreds of dollars on TOP of getting an abortion in order to have a legal medical procedure. This is not a small or silly inconvenience for women who truly can't afford it.

[TheAngel]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost (View Post) Again, why should I have to pay a fee or tax for someone that wants to kill their baby? I'm poor and really can't afford it. Why does the burden of that fall on me? Entitlements are basically taking from one group and giving it to the other. No one learns anything. The same goes for making people pay if they don't have health insurance. I'm sorry but I have no sympathy on the matter. If you don't want to have kill your baby, don't have sex. The man should be wearing a rubber or at maybe have a little self control on his equipment during sex. I shouldn't be forced to pay for that crap. I've got my own stuff to pay for. Ridiculous but this is what America is. People want handouts, war, and nation building.

You already pay for it. Do you just not understand how the world works. You don't live in a little bubble. I pay for a hundred things that I don't agree with through taxes but you do it anyway because it's for the greater good, or some such crap. You're telling me that it's fine for your taxes to go to a war that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, but it's not ok for them to go to keep young women safe?

[sunnykerr]

Jacob, if what you care about is the taxpayer money, look at it this way. I'll bet you anything the foster-care system, underfunded and understaffed as it is, costs you a heck of a lot more than abortions ever will.

The burden falls on you either way.

It's called living in a society.

More to the point, though, I don't see how that connects to forcing a woman to have an abortion. Or how hundreds of women have no access to reproductive health services, the kind that could help them prevent this whole scenario from ever being a possibility in the first place.

[Gray Ghost]

TheAngel, your hostile tone toward me on this board is not necessary. However, I can understand why you do it. It could be that you just hate any type of opposition and you consider me the opposition. If that's true, that's sad but you can think whatever you want to think about me. It doesn't matter anyway.

No tax payer money should be going overseas right now to be honest. I woke up and opened my eyes on that one. If that makes me a flip flopper, then I'm guilty. Nation building and policing the world are some of the reasons why the economy blows in America right now. I don't think a woman having an abortion keeps her safe. I know that you think I'm the boogey man or whatever but that's your opinion and I have mine. Letting a woman take the easy way out and letting it be free sends the wrong message to society. I just laugh at some pro-choice supporters. They talk about safety and health yet they don't give a crap about unborn babies. Give me a break.
You're not gonna get any sympathy votes with that mentality.

In America right now, women are able to abort their unborn babies since abortion is legal. Freedom of speech is legal also I'm using my freedom to say that aborting unborn babies is wrong and basically murder. Of course, you don't like that so you're gonna throw everything at me to degrade, devalue, and insult my opinion. Common sense. To be honest, I could care less what the posters on this board and humans think about my opinions on anything. That brings up an excellent point. Why are human beings so defensive about everything? Is any of this crap going to matter in a 100 years? We will all be dead and life will still go on without us.
I know I'm going off on a philosophical tangent but humans including myself waste so much time doing crap like this. Posting on a message board is a waste of time. I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

Closing arguments - I think abortion is bad and wrong but I could honestly care less if it's legal or illegal. I'm not gonna cry or worry myself to death if women can or can't abort unborn babies.

[Cristofle]

For good news first- AWESOME.

Janet Howell, Virginia State Senator, Attaches Rectal Exam Amendment To Anti-Abortion Bill

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication. "We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?" The Republican-controlled senate narrowly rejected the amendment Monday by a vote of 21 to 19, but passed the mandatory ultrasound bill in a voice vote. A similar bill in Texas, which physicians say has caused a "bureaucratic nightmare," is currently being challenged in court. Howell said she is not surprised her amendment failed. "This is more of a message type of an amendment, so I was pleased to get 19 votes," she said. She pointed out that there are only seven women in the Virginia senate, and six of them voted in favor of her amendment, along with 13 male senators. Sen. Jill Vogel (R-Fauquier County), the sponsor of the mandatory ultrasound bill, voted against it. “I do believe that erectile dysfunction in this context is different from pregnancy,” she said on the senate floor. The Senate will formally vote on the mandatory ultrasound bill on Tuesday.

Finally, someone mentioning forcing a woman to not only undergo an unnecessary medical procedure she didn't ask for, but pay for it too.

And in the disappointing...

Komen For The Cure Halts Grants To Planned Parenthood

NEW YORK — The nation's leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates – creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women. The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams. Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress – a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups. The rupture, which has not been publicly announced as it unfolded, is wrenching for some of those who've learned about it and admire both organizations. "We're kind of reeling," said Patrick Hurd, who is CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia – recipient of a 2010 grant from Komen – and whose wife, Betsi, is a veteran of several Komen fundraising races and is currently battling breast cancer. "It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn't care if you're pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative," Hurd said. "Victims of cancer could care less about people's politics." Planned Parenthood said the Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, going to at least 19 of its affiliates for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services. Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it's the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has depicted Stearns' probe as politically motivated and said she was dismayed that it had contributed to Komen's decision to halt the grants to PPFA affiliates. "It's hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women's lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying," Richards told The Associated Press. "It's really hurtful." Reaction to the news was swift and passionate. On Twitter, it was one of the most discussed topics Tuesday evening, with some tweets praising Komen's decision and others angrily vowing never to give to it again. Two Democrats in Congress – Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and Rep. Michael Honda of California – issued statements denouncing Komen's action. "I am stunned and saddened," said Honda, whose longtime chief of staff, Jennifer VanderHeide, had breast cancer last year. "I call on Komen to reconsider this decision, stand strong in the face of political pressure and do the right thing for the health of millions of women everywhere." Anti-abortion groups, in contrast, welcomed the news. The Alliance Defense Fund praised Komen "for seeing the contradiction between its lifesaving work and its relationship with an abortionist that has ended millions of lives." A statement issued Tuesday evening by Komen made no reference to the vehement reactions, instead citing its new grant-making criteria and pledging to ensure there were no gaps in service to women. "While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a long-standing partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission," the statement said. Planned Parenthood has been a perennial target of protests, boycotts and funding cutoffs because of its role as the largest provider of abortions in the United States. Its nearly 800 health centers nationwide provide an array of other services, including birth control, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and cancer screening. According to Planned Parenthood, its centers performed more than 4 million breast exams over the past five years, including nearly 170,000 as a result of Komen grants. Komen, founded in 1982, has invested more than $1.9 billion since then in breast-cancer research, health services and advocacy. Its Race for the Cure fundraising events have become a global phenomenon. For all its mainstream popularity, however, Komen has been a target of anti-abortion groups since it began its partnerships with Planned Parenthood in 2005. Life Decisions International includes Komen on its "boycott list" of companies and organizations that support or collaborate with Planned Parenthood. In December, Lifeway Christian Resources, the publishing division of the Southern Baptist Convention announced a recall of pink Bibles it had sold because some of the money generated for Komen was being routed to Planned Parenthood. Aun, the Komen spokeswoman, said such pressure tactics were not the reason for the funding cutoff and cited Stearns' House investigation as a key factor. That investigation, which has no set timetable, was launched in September when Stearns asked Planned Parenthood for more than a decade's worth of documents. Stearns, in a statement emailed to the AP on Monday, said he is still working with Planned Parenthood on getting the requested documents. He said he is looking into possible violations of state and local reporting requirements, as well as allegations of financial abuse, and would consider holding a hearing depending on what he learns. Many of the allegations were outlined in a report presented to Stearns last year by Americans United for Life, a national anti-abortion group, which urged him to investigate. Democrats and Planned Parenthood supporters have assailed the probe as an unwarranted political ploy. Komen, while not publicly announcing its decision to halt the grants, has conveyed the news to its 100-plus U.S. affiliates. Richards said she was informed via a phone call from Komen's president, Elizabeth Thompson, in December. "It was incredibly surprising," Richards said. "It wasn't even a conversation – it was an announcement." Richards subsequently sent a letter to Komen's top leaders – CEO Nancy Brinker and board chairman Dr. LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr. – requesting a meeting with the board and asserting that Komen had misrepresented Planned Parenthood's funding-eligibility status in some states. According to Planned Parenthood, the Komen leaders replied to Richards with a brief letter ignoring the request for a meeting, defending the new grant criteria, and adding, "We understand the disappointment of any organization that is affected by these policy and strategy updates." Aun, in a telephone interview, said Komen was not accusing Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing. "We want to maintain a positive relationship with them," she said. "We're not making any judgment." Richards said Planned Parenthood is intent on raising funds quickly to replace the lost grants so that women in need do not go without breast-screening services. Already, the family foundation of Dallas oilman/philanthropist Lee Fikes and his wife, Amy, has donated $250,000 for this purpose, Planned Parenthood said. The Komen decision was perplexing to Dottie Lamm, a Denver newspaper columnist and breast cancer survivor. She has done fundraising for Planned Parenthood, participated in several Races for the Cure, and serves on an honorary advisory council for the local Komen affiliate. "It really makes me sad," said Lamm, wife of former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm. "I kind of suspect there's a political agenda that got to Komen ... I hope it can be worked out." Stephanie Kight, a vice president with Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, said her affiliate in Southern California received a Komen grant for 2011 and was able to obtain an additional grant of $120,000 for 2012 by signing the deal with its local Komen counterpart just before Komen's new criteria took effect. Under the criteria, no further grants will be allowed unless the pending House inquiry is resolved in Planned Parenthood's favor. Kight said her conversations with local Komen leaders indicated there was a shared sense of frustration over the national Komen decision. "One of the things these organizations share is the trust of women across the United States," Kight said. "That's what we're concerned about – not losing the trust of these women, who turn to both of us at their most difficult moments."

I have been buying "pink" products since I had allowance money. I have been donating to Komen for years. This cause is important to me- someone I loved died of breast cancer. I can guarantee they will never see another dime from me. Their money to PP went SPECIFICALLY to cancer screenings for working class women, and from their cutting off funding ALONE, hundreds of thousands of women may not get screenings. Women who cannot otherwise afford them. I am disgusted that political pressure matters more to them than those women.

[sunnykerr]

Okay, Jacob, we're talking about taxpayer money staying inside the United States to fund the foster-care system. For all those unwanted babies. You know, the ones who didn't get aborted.

Why are human beings so defensive about everything? Is any of this crap going to matter in a 100 years? We will all be dead and life will still go on without us.

As a matter of fact, it really, really will. And how do I know that? As you may or may not know, I'm studing Women in Ancient Greece and Rome this semester. And I just happened to read what survives of a doctor in the years straddling Year 0. And guess what he was writing about? The circumstances in which he and his colleagues deemed it appropriate to perform an abortion on a woman, taking the time to explain fully that abortion was a controversial issue and that the risks of survival significantly decreased if a woman wasn't assisted by a doctor in procuring an abortion. And this is centuries before notions of sterilizing instruments came to the light of the day, so you know the odds of surviving an abortion weren't good either way.

My point is this, if abortion was a common practice 2,000 years ago, my guess is it will continue to matter 100 years from now.

Cristofle Second hero of the week, after Sen Hagen, I now have Sen Howell!

And how nice is it to hear that the physicians of Texas are now saying that it's a superfluous exam that's clogging up the system. At least someone's noticed.

As for the Susan G. Komen thing... there's a new documentary up here about the "business" of research for breast cancer. I'm not casting aspersion on what the Komen foundation does, and I haven't seen the documentary yet... but it raises some good questions as to where our money goes exactly when we support these organizations. It's enough to have me rethink the way I do things anyway.

[Cristofle]

I was already disappointed with the Komen foundation because of their suing people for using "for the cure" (I mean like Mom and Pop cancer research foundations, which is really crappy), but this just sent me over the edge. I clearly do need to be more careful about who I give my money to, because it won't be going to people who want to de-fund PP's freakin' cancer screenings.

[sunnykerr]

In times of real economic crisis, I think it does behoove us all to examine where we put the money we donate to charity or how we finance certain organizations or causes by buying certain products that claim they'll pass on some of their profits towards causes.

To bring that notion back to the topic of abortion, I do think it would be fiscally more responsible to give women the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. Pregnancy has its inherent difficulties. And if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, I don't feel she ought to be forced to deal with being forced to stop working, whether for doctor's appointments or because of all the things that can happen when a woman is pregnant. Especially if her income is an important contributing factor to her household.

Moreover, I feel that putting people out of work because they work in a place that gives this kind of health care to women will not help strenghten the economy one bit, quite the contrary.

And, of course, none of this takes into account the real human aspect of the whole question, which is the right of an individual to make decisions about their own reproductive health, absent any undue judicial harrassment and invasions of privacy by the state.

[Cristofle]

Komen execs are resigning in protest:

Susan G. Komen Top Officials Resign As Backlash Gains Steam

Dr. Kathy Plesser, a Manhattan radiologist on the medical advisory board of Susan G. Komen for the Cure's New York chapter, said she plans to resign from her position unless Komen reverses its decision to pull grant money from Planned Parenthood. "I’m a physician and my interest is women’s health, and I am disturbed by Komen’s decision because I am a very strong advocate for serving under-served women," Plesser told The Huffington Post. "Eliminating this funding will mean there’s no place for these women to go. Where are these women to go to have a mammography? Do they not deserve to have mammography?" With her decision, Plesser joins Komen's top public health official, Mollie Williams, and the executive director of Komen's Los Angeles County chapter, Deb Anthony, both of whom also resigned in protest. Susan G. Komen, the nation's largest breast cancer charity, announced on Tuesday that it had adopted a new rule against partnering with organizations that are under investigation, and that it would therefore sever ties with Planned Parenthood, which is currently under investigation in Congress. The groups that prompted that investigation are anti-abortion advocacy organizations that have long criticized Planned Parenthood, primarily a women's health and family planning organization, over the fact that some of its clinics offer abortions. Komen has faced an increasing amount of pressure from the public, women's health groups, lawmakers and even some of its own regional affiliates to reverse the decision and continue its five-year partnership with Planned Parenthood. The $600,000 that Komen donated annually to the organization provided underserved women with free and low-cost breast exams. Planned Parenthood announced Wednesday that it had received $400,000 in donations in the 24 hours following Komen's announcement. In addition, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg said on Thursday that he would give $250,000 to Planned Parenthood to help make up for the loss. “Politics have no place in health care,” he said in a statement. “Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way." A spokesperson for Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) said that he personally called Komen founder Nancy Brinker to complain when he heard the news on Tuesday, and he and 22 other members of the House of Representatives have signed onto a letter asking her to reverse her decision. "This is an alarming development resulting from political pressure from anti-women’s health organizations," the letter says. "We ask – in the strongest possible terms – that Susan G. Komen reconsider its decision, as the health of millions of brave women everywhere demands the same kind of bravery exhibited the Komen Foundation." A similar letter was signed by two dozen senators. Komen maintains that pressure from anti-abortion groups and the recent hiring of vice president Karen Handel, who ran for governor of Georgia on an anti-Planned Parenthood platform as a Republican in 2010, had nothing to do with the decision. Founder Nancy Brinker went on the defensive Thursday during an appearance on MSNBC, saying that the decision was a result of a number of congressional and state investigations into Planned Parenthood, and that most people actually applauded the decision to defund the family planning provider. "All I can tell you is that the responses we're getting are very, very favorable," she told host Andrea Mitchell. "People who have bothered to read the material, who have bothered to understand the issues-- again, we work for a mission every day of our lives." Honda, whose chief of staff is a breast cancer survivor, said he is concerned that Komen's decision will set a precedent, in which any politician can simply open an investigation into a group they disagree with now in order to jeopardize that group's funding. "We know that breast cancer does not discriminate, nor should our support to vanquish the disease," he said.

Good for Bloomberg.

[sunnykerr]

Nice to see one politician who has his priorities on straight, though there seem to be more of them than I'm used to assuming there are.

Defunding Planned Parenthood is stupid and will achieve the opposite of what it's meant to "achieve." Not to mention that catering to one special interest group is not the way to run public policy... but whatever, it's their karma.