Quote:CHARLESTON, S.C. – As Congress races toward its long summer recess, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is confident that he’ll get a vote to bar any taxpayer funds going to Planned Parenthood.
“There’s a nationwide movement that we’ve been leading,” Paul said in an interview, after participating in a town hall with military veterans. “We will probably send a million emails out on this subject. I think by motivating the grassroots, there’s a very good chance we’ll get a vote on this.”
Paul’s confidence came just a day after a special Sunday session of the Senate seemed to put the lid on any wishlist conservative amendment. July has been a most cruel month for that sort of thing, and especially cruel to Paul’s presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). After Cruz accused Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a “flat-out lie” to save the Export-Import Bank from phasing out, he watched colleagues line up against him and with the leader.
For Republicans, the politics of abortion are far less fraught than the politics of a New Deal-era investment bank that’s backed by the Chamber of Commerce. The release of undercover interviews with Planned Parenthood executives, in which they antiseptically discuss the sale of fetal body parts, has elevated the cause of defunding the group. And Paul has a much better relationship than Cruz with McConnell, his state's senior senator.
Paul said he didn't think his amendment would happen on the highway bill, but that he'd submitted a discharge petition that is a separate request for a new bill. "I think there’s a very good chance that’s going to happen,” he said.
Planned Parenthood’s defenders have accused Republicans of misrepresenting what the organization does, pointing out that it is illegal for taxpayer funds to pay for abortion. Paul said it was unclear whether the law was being followed.
“I think it should be investigated,” he said. “The problem here really is not just whether it’s illegal to buy and sell the organs, but whether the taxpayer dollars should be going to a group that is sort of manipulating and turning the baby around to get access to organs. I think most people were horrified by them.”
That raised another question: Whether it should be legal, at all, for the bodies of aborted fetuses to be sold for science. “I think that there should not be any financial incentives to get an abortion,” said Paul. “Now, they would argue that it just covers the cost, but any time money changes hands – even if it’s to a nonprofit group – that is a real question. Really, we probably shouldn’t be doing research on these babies, because you would hate to think there is any kind of incentive for that to occur.
"Donating tissue when you die is an incredibly noble thing. I’ve worked with donated corneas to give people back vision. But this baby really didn’t have a choice. Some people are horrified by the idea of having factories where you’d grow babies for their body parts. Will technology allow that? Technology probably almost already does allow that. But should a civilized society allow that? I don’t think so,” he said.
The battle to defund Planned Parenthood has become a major focus of America’s anti-abortion movement. Paul said he did not see the need to go further and challenge Title X funding for family planning.
One of the arguments against Planned Parenthood getting any money, he said, is the level of spending on other forms of government care. He pointed to funding for community health centers, which surged under both President George W. Bush and President Obama. "Community health centers do everything Planned Parenthood does, except for abortion. So, you also have Obamacare. You’ve got free contraception everywhere in the country now. You’ve got free health insurance," he said. "I really don’t think there is a role for Planned Parenthood to get any money. Many times, when they say ‘we do this or that function,’ they refer that to community health centers. I do think that we’ve got plenty of other government venues without this.”
(07-27-2015, 11:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, this is a great way to not get women who are independents to vote for your party in 2016. Beyond stupid.
I think how it's messaged is important. The democrats have hurt their cause in the abortion debate by admitting they support aboetions up until birth. That won't sit well with even pro choice women . At least the majority of them.
(07-27-2015, 11:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The democrats have hurt their cause in the abortion debate by admitting they support aboetions up until birth.
(07-27-2015, 11:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They have??!
Most americans think abortions up until moments before birth is unacceptable. Debbie W. Schultz said the democrat position is abortions up until birth.
(07-27-2015, 11:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Most americans think abortions up until moments before birth is unacceptable. Debbie W. Schultz said the democrat position is abortions up until birth.
She didn't, and even if she were to come out now and say that, she is a very insignificant person, just as Reince Priebus is.
(07-28-2015, 12:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She didn't, and even if she were to come out now and say that, she is a very insignificant person, just as Reince Priebus is.
Ofc she did. She said as long as the doctor said it was ok. And she speaks for the Democrat party and their platform.
(07-28-2015, 12:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ofc she did. She said as long as the doctor said it was ok. And she speaks for the Democrat party and their platform.
She did not. She was asked a hypothetical question from Rand about a 7 pound unborn baby and she deflected and said "Our position is pro choice". Breitbart probably told you she did. If you want me to give you a quote from the transcript, I will happily do so.
She could have clarified that most Democrats do not support late term abortions or just repeated the official party line (from their platform) of "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. "
Roe v. Wade says no later term abortions, so the official party platform is no late term abortions.
Pretty clear here... She doesn't agree with states limitations and its between a woman and her doctor. So if the doctor and her decide 8 months and 25 days into the pregnancy then The Dems are ok with that... They just don't agree with those states limits.
(07-28-2015, 01:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pretty clear here... She doesn't agree with states limitations and its between a woman and her doctor. So if the doctor and her decide 8 months and 25 days into the pregnancy then The Dems are ok with that... They just don't agree with those states limits.
(07-27-2015, 11:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also, this is a great way to not get women who are independents to vote for your party in 2016. Beyond stupid.
Doesn't matter. The Republican leadership will never let Cruz, Carson, or Paul run as a Republican. Anyone who thinks the people still get a say in this is fooling themselves. Anyone they put up will be just like McCain and Romney--liberals working for the other side. The liberals have won, again, no matter who gets to be President.
(07-28-2015, 01:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pretty clear here... She doesn't agree with states limitations and its between a woman and her doctor. So if the doctor and her decide 8 months and 25 days into the pregnancy then The Dems are ok with that... They just don't agree with those states limits.
"We do not support rolling back the protection... established in Roe v Wade"
"[Women should not have 3rd trimester abortions] on a whim"
I'm not sure what that video was suppose to reveal, but it sounds like you're wrong.
(07-28-2015, 11:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "We do not support rolling back the protection... established in Roe v Wade"
"[Women should not have 3rd trimester abortions] on a whim"
I'm not sure what that video was suppose to reveal, but it sounds like you're wrong.
When asked where life begins she doesn't say along with saying it should Be left up to the woman and her doctor. So given that.... If doctor and mother want an abortion anytime before the birth they are ok with that ..... She even mentions being against the state's limitations on abortions . Which further shows the support of non limited abortions.
(07-28-2015, 11:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When asked where life begins she doesn't say along with saying it should Be left up to the woman and her doctor. So given that.... If doctor and mother want an abortion anytime before the birth they are ok with that ..... She even mentions being against the state's limitations on abortions . Which further shows the support of non limited abortions.
Yea, she thinks that a doctor should be able to recommend abortions at anytime if they are in the best interest of the mom. At no point does she say no limitations.
Again, because Breitbart said so doesn't make it so.
(07-28-2015, 11:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When asked where life begins she doesn't say along with saying it should Be left up to the woman and her doctor. So given that.... If doctor and mother want an abortion anytime before the birth they are ok with that ..... She even mentions being against the state's limitations on abortions . Which further shows the support of non limited abortions.
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: strawman.jpg]](http://www.cruxcatalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/strawman.jpg)
