I am not even concerned about the funding in the sense that if Congress wants to defund it, they are allowed to do that (I'd like them to have a plan for providing the services that PP currently does, especially in states where such services are scarce even with PP around, but that's just personal preference). The problem I have is the rhetoric around these videos, the misinformation and the presumption that PP must be doing illegal things and defunded immediately because of that without proper investigation (does anyone say immediately campaign to "Defund the Military/Police/Whatever Else" when there are allegations of misconduct and cover ups in the military/police/whatever else? No?). And then when the investigations turn up nothing, deny their validation and continue to investigate. Yes, investigate potentially criminal behavior. Yes, vote to fund/defund things, it is your job. But wait for the information and the verdict before making a determination and don't waste taxpayer dollars on endless investigations that seem more political than anything else.
PP makes cash by unnaturally terminating a lot of pregnancies. Some of my tax money is sent to PP. I don't want my tax money to enrich them. People should be responsible for their own actions. Charities should compete to raise funds to pay for those that legitimately cannot afford the meds/procedure. Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else's abortion. This matter will be resolved when competent adults STOP using the law as a weapon against other competent adults. Questions?
If that is true, then I do NOT oppose the current status quo of PP funding. Please remember that as a PA-C I have referred multiple gals to PP each and every one of the last 6 years. Often they received an abortion. Each remained my pt because I am groovy like that in RL. I am as opinionated as Zeus, but chill like a blizzard from Dairy Queen. Yummy.
Yeah, they are legally banned from using any taxpayer dollars for abortions, and so they don't. All the money is used for women's health services.
Couldn't be more wrong! most of PP money comes form taxes, jut not federal, federal is only about 10 percent of what PP receives, federal money is what cannot be used for abortion. Most their money comes from medicade 70ish percent I think, which guess where that money comes from> TAXES also state grants(taxes) are used and legally can be for abortions. So the vast majority of funding for abortion does in fact come from taxes, just not federal. Link that explains most funding for pp http://www.vox.com/2015/7/22/9013565/planned-parenthood-government-funding Tomorrow when I have time I will give quick simplified example of how the statement of no federal taxes are used in abortion means nothing anyway. Basically you just take money form one account move it to another and put the fed money in first account tada you funded more abortion but didn't use federal tax money. As always I find its important to use facts and not just use propaganda because of personal ideology. Also I am not against abortion, If someone wants to kill their unborn, have at it! I don't want to rule over anyone.
Don't believe that read this link, and remember medicade is tax money and so are state grants http://www.vox.com/2015/7/22/9013565/planned-parenthood-government-funding They are only legally banned form using FEDERAL tax dollars which is only about ten percent of their funding. Lots of peeps like talking smack about using facts and not following an agenda, but then toss them out as soon as it fits their agenda lol
I don't get it, who cares if tax dollars are used to make sure a large percentage of the population remains healthy? that's what taxes are for. "we love you dad" DarkJello's kids squealed in Delight rushing to hug him after a long day at work "and I do too" says his wife as she moves in for a kiss. but deep down, DJ doesn't Believe it 100%.
Well, I ASSUMED we were all talking about OPTIONAL Abortions, not ones that are medically necessary or in the case of ****? And as far as I know, no tax dollars, Federal or State, covers OPTIONAL abortions, in or out of PP. Additionally, such state tax dollars comes from Medicaid, however, and not directly from PP. What this means is that even if PP didn't exist, Medicaid STILL covers abortions in those instances - so it's not as though it is PP using tax dollars to provide abortions, it is Medicaid doing so. And, of course, Medicaid is also targeted at low-income individuals. ~ Also, no, 70% of PP's funding doesn't come from Medicaid, that's absurd. In fact, only about 40% of PP's budget comes from government sources according to the latest annual report: ~ So what are the circumstances in which abortions ARE covered? Well, 32 states and DC actually do allow the use of state taxpayer dollars for abortions "Involving Life Endangerment, **** and Incest" with 17 other states allow for "medically necessary abortions." Image Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf ~ As you can see, this is pretty limited and not some crazy loophole allowing PP to spend all kinds of tax dollars providing abortions. It's simply Medicaid covering a limited subset of abortions (for reasons that even most Republican politicians are generally ok with), whether those end up being provided by PP or not. ~ So allow me to amend by statement to be more explicit: There is no evidence that PP uses taxpayer money, state or federal, to provide OPTIONAL abortions. And what taxpayer money is provided for abortions, is covered under Medicaid, is not specific to PP and ONLY covers a limited subset of situations such as incest, life endangerment, or medically necessary abortions. You can read more about the Hyde Amendment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment Which is what generates all these nuances, but the basic premise of the Amendment was to prevent tax dollars from being used for abortions outside of these limited circumstances. ~ So, DJ, do you feel differently now? Do you think even these exceptions shouldn't be allowed to be funded by Medicaid? I would be surprised if you did feel differently, because I honestly didn't think we were talking about these exceptions.
I don't have much time right now, just wanted to touch on this. "And what taxpayer money is provided for abortions, is covered under Medicaid, is not specific to PP and ONLY covers a limited subset of situations such as incest, life endangerment, or medically necessary abortions." No- even in the information you posted that's wrong., so the ONLY must be taken out of that statement, its not just for **** incest, its for whoever wants one. 17 states allow for medicade to be used for ANY abortion not just a subset. Go to something like new yorks planned parenthood website etc. Look at the "state funding of abortion under medicade" chart sok posted, notice the 17 unchecked states, those do not follow the fed standard.. and lots of those are to cover high population areas like. new York, Baltimore, cali. look at far right column in same chart,"Funds all or most...." some states did it voluntarily most by court order. So lots and lots of taxpayer money is used for abortions when you look into the number of abortions in those states alone. Hyde amendment only blocked certain FEDERAL funds, not state. Summary 17 (high population) states, state funds/medicade can be used to fund any abortion. Not just **** incest etc
There's no evidence that Medicaid funds abortions without restrictions. Look at the far right column.. and read the ENTIRE thing instead of a part of it and notice the key words: "Medically necessary." Here's the text of the Alaska Senate Bill defining what constitutes "medically necessary" for Medicaid: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=SB0049Z&session=28 Certainly doesn't seem to cover "any abortion" does it? Even in the case of these states that allow for the "medically necessary" definition instead of the Federal definition, most required a COURT ORDER. While it is true that "legal abortions" have various definitions in various states (such as in New York, it is quite lenient), this isn't necessarily the same as Medicaid in those states covering ALL abortions. I am having quite a difficult time finding the specific definitions of what abortions Medicaid covers in each state, but in any case, it is important to keep in mind that Medicaid is not available to all persons, only low income individuals - in New York, for example, if you make more than $23,000 a year, you are not eligible for Medicaid. So while the state does have a high population, roughly 70-75% of those living in New York would not be eligible for Medicaid and therefore not be eligible for tax-funded abortions for any reason under Medicaid. That said, New York is "the abortion capital of the US" so I wouldn't be surprised if New York Medicaid does cover more than medically necessary abortions. The Americans United for Life group (a pro-life group) has this in their report card for New York: http://www.aul.org/states/new-york/ "New York taxpayers are required by statute to fund “medically necessary” abortions for women receiving public assistance." It makes no mention of state funding for "any" abortions. ~ And yes, the Hyde Amendment prohibited Federal Funds, which is what led to some States providing some amount of funds via Medicaid above and beyond what the Federal law requires. I think those who support States' rights would be ok with the premise that States can decide this sort of thing on their own.
can someone tell me why ssez keepts writing medicaid as medicade? is it something diffirent? can ssez not read?
I just came across this on facebook and think it vaguely applies to US goverment funding planned parenthoof.
How many happy men have American toddlers thrown off tall buildings? Beheadings? Drownings? Bombings in far away places? How many 10s of thousands of women/girls have American toddlers r8ped? Soldiers blown up? Social workers killed at a work party? Etc... Etc... Etc... The "joke" u shared in that pic is brutally unfunny.
If the people of a state vote for funding of abortion via Medicaid--or any other program they pay for--it is acceptable. I will never like the idea of abortion, but local control of funds is my target goal. It is a lot easier to switch states than countries, for example. You and ssez have provided a lot of info, and I have not yet done it all justice. I wonder how each state defines "medically necessary". R8p, incest, and life of the woman are game changers for me. Alaska is very, very independent minded compared to Texas, so referencing the law in AK might not help on this topic all that much. I will continue to ponder the matter. Did I miss any other questions from u or ssez?
