Depends. Did u think it was cray cray funny? Or genius and deep thinking funny? I am still seething about the cops ambushing the ranchers in OR, so my fun-meter is broken.
I thought it was ridiculous and good satire at the same time. I like my humor ridiculous. Want to make a thread about it?
I think you misunderstood when you read or were told that ISIS throws gay men off buildings. no it isn't.
Keep reading and you will find its pretty much any abortion. Suddock is superior court judge. The article 49 you posted with description has already been struck down by supreme court- it doesn't exist that is definition that they were trying to change. article to full story http://www.alaskacommons.com/2015/08/27/alaska-superior-court-strikes-down-medicaid-abortion-restrictions key component right here “The legislation’s sponsors argued that mental health considerations can never justify an abortion,” said Suddock. “But a countervailing body of medical researchers regards that view as a canard.” He elaborated further, arguing that expert testimony from physicians, provided by the plaintiff (Planned Parenthood, et al.), “established that an abortion can in fact resolve psychiatric symptoms of women with anxiety, depression or obsessive-compulsive disorders.” “Simply put, an unwanted pregnancy is a crisis for any woman,” Suddock wrote. “To an impoverished woman without recourse to an abortion, the crisis may be extreme.” So what does that mean, the definition they/alaska have been going by for like 50 included psychological health/welfare not just physical. In essence doctor who is to perfume abortion is only doctor that needs to approve. He asks will this baby cause you anxiety or depression ? person answers yes, tada! all done just proved it was medically necessary. You can see that in the simple quote above, from first posted link. This link below is to full ruling from superior court judge of Alaska which pretty much decribes it all and strikes down the article 49. if you want the short version skip to very last page, pretty much sums it up and has definition of medically necessary which includes psychological health, and has this very important line. "....means as a practical matter that virtually all indigent Alaskan women seeking abortions will receive state Medicaid funding...." that line is written by Suddock of supreme court of alaska Ruling from superior court 53 pages covering it all and what definition means etc http://acmedia.alaskacommons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PLANNED-PARENTHOOD-14-4711CI.pdf Tldr -- .means as a practical matter that virtually all indigent Alaskan women seeking abortions will receive state Medicaid funding...." supreme court of Alaska So yea pretty much any - and that means taxes are what covers those abortions. cant get more proof than the supreme court of Alaska ruling.
Except not... Here's the order: It doesn't say "any and all," instead, it says "necessary to prevent the death" or "to ameliorate a condition harmful to the woman's physical or psychological health." In both of these cases, it is at the discretion of the "treating physician." i.e. the woman doesn't just up and decide "I am going to get an abortion today" and walk into a abortion clinic and it is covered by Medicaid even with this order This order, it seems to me, is intended to not limit the definition of medically necessary to a specific set of circumstances in a list, which, in the opinion of that Court, is too rigid and leaves too little room for interpretation and practically does not allow for evaluation of the patient's mental health. This seems like a reasonable argument to me. So they put in a different definition that, at least to me, largely preserves the spirit of the idea of "medically necessary". I am not sure how it works out in the real world though, I have never tried to get Medicaid for an abortion in Alaska. The reason the court order talks about the poor in the manner that it does (saying they would have access to abortion) is that without Medicaid covering abortions, it makes it very difficult for them to afford it even when it's medically necessary. But that's another discussion altogether.
Nope, and that's what I thought you would say. Which is why my original discussion was really geared towards "What happens if Congress removes federal funding (the one they control) for PP?" Well, it wouldn't have any effect on abortions, because those funds aren't used for abortions even in these cases. That said, the discussion and information of individual states is quite interesting to discuss.
Agree, and QFT. I especially appreciate the precision, logic, and respect-icality. (For you, that is par for the proverbial course).
Back on topic: CMP has issued their rebuttal: http://www.centerformedicalprogress...s-sales-invoices-charge-thousands-of-dollars/ To sum up, what they are saying is: "Psst, investigators, they probably hid the issue on their books." I don't know the details of the investigations into PP or CMP. I did hear a rumor that some of the investigators/people in charge of calling for them didn't actually watch any of CMP's videos, which seems off to me, but it might not be true anyway. It wouldn't shock me at least in terms of those that are political. Personally, I don't know what all to think about it all. I think the investigations into PP ended rather quickly considering the allegations, but it could simply be that PP is that squeeky clean. I don't like Planned Parenthood. It was founded on racism and eugenics, and I don't particularly feel like it needs to have federal funding above and beyond other organizations that offer similar services (including or minus the abortions). I also think that it has a lot of clout behind it within (the leadership of) both parties. But then that's largely because I think it's an organization favored by some of the special interests that both parties get involved with. That said, CMP is obviously biased, and may be intentionally misinterpreting what the subjects of their undercover investigations stated. Still, I doubt they are fraudsters. The issue remains that the unedited versions of most of their videos are published alongside the ones edited for ease of watching/etc. *shrug* But like I said, I dunno. I currently don't have the time to really investigate this as much as I'd need to.
out of curiosity, ohmin- if i were to say "i don't like the US, it was founded on racism and slavery", would you agree that it's a terrible country or
Yes and no. It's not the founding principle of the nation, though it was part of it at the time of it's founding. The founding principle of Planned Parenthood was for the sake of Eugenics. Essentially, it was the re-branding of it after Hitler made Eugenics look even worse. I don't think PP is necessarily still following that founding principle, so it might be a decent organization now, but I still see no reason to play favorites with it in terms of funding. Sanger and her cadre were looking for a way to reduce population growth (especially of the poor and minorities, and especially poor minorities), so that was part of what Planned Parenthood set out to do to begin with. In the US' founding, many involved were flat out against Slavery, and preserving that tradition was not the reason for it's founding, though it was part of it's economic growth certainly. It was, however, primarily based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal. Unfortuantely, there was a stubborn part that didn't consider Black Slaves "men." But it wasn't fully agreed upon and there were ostensibly "more pressing matters" such as getting England to stop abusing the colonies. It's enough of a nuance to make a difference. But again, there's no particular reason to believe that PP's current organizers care about Eugenics or Race, save perhaps on a personal level. That said I do think the continued acceptance (for a time) of Slavery in the US was certainly terrible, as was the racism and discrimination that persisted for another century even after that institution failed. But I also know it's changed a lot since then.
This is what makes me laugh when I listen to right-wing productions. They will say stuff like this: "PP is about the Democrats exacting control over the population of minorities!" And then in the next breath say, "Democrats have aborted all their babies, that's why they need to import minority voters who usually vote Democrat!" It's like... are you even listening to the fact that you do not have a coherent story about the alleged motivations of the people you are criticizing? (Note: I am not saying you said this, ohmin, just reminded me of something I heard on the radio a few weeks ago.)
Do you think PP is actually getting "funding above and beyond other organizations that offer similar services?" In fact, I'd go as far as to say it seems to me that PP actually gets relatively little federal funding as far as organizations go (though I don't know of any other similar organization on the national scale, so I am not sure what to compare it to exactly), and faces hurdles in most states in the country that attempt to impede its missions. It might even be reasonable to assume that each year, politicians spend as much or more of your tax dollars fighting and obstructing PP than PP actually spends of that tax money.
