The GOP really loves their women

[GMDino]

(01-09-2017, 03:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Medicaid is not the only way funding goes to PP. But, in some areas, Medicaid or not, PP is the only available place for a women to get reproductive health care without private insurance. My area is one of those areas, and PP is an hour away. Without children, you aren't going to get Medicaid in Virginia, anyway, and the free clinic (which has very limited gynecological services) has such a low max-income threshold that there are many people unable to go there that can't afford insurance. As a result, there are many women in this area that rely on PP for their reproductive health care. By cutting funding to PP, the closest clinic will likely close or they won't be able to provide as many services at the reduced prices these women deal with.

I can tell you that, without any doubt, cutting federal funding to Planned Parenthood will deny thousands of women access to reproductive health care.

But god and babies and stuff....

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 03:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Medicaid is not the only way funding goes to PP. But, in some areas, Medicaid or not, PP is the only available place for a women to get reproductive health care without private insurance. My area is one of those areas, and PP is an hour away. Without children, you aren't going to get Medicaid in Virginia, anyway, and the free clinic (which has very limited gynecological services) has such a low max-income threshold that there are many people unable to go there that can't afford insurance. As a result, there are many women in this area that rely on PP for their reproductive health care. By cutting funding to PP, the closest clinic will likely close or they won't be able to provide as many services at the reduced prices these women deal with.

I can tell you that, without any doubt, cutting federal funding to Planned Parenthood will deny thousands of women access to reproductive health care.

This sounds like a state issue and medicaid coverage. But it won't stop folks from rallying behind it.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2017, 03:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: But god and babies and stuff....

In truth, I just think a lot of people do not have the life experiences that would lead them to know this information, and the people defending PP don't do a very good job of providing it. When the information is provided, it often gets dog-piled on by partisan hyperbole.

I wouldn't know all of this had my wife's experiences not caused me to look more into this. Before we married she worked two part-time teaching jobs, adjuncting. No health insurance, not enough money to buy it on here own because we are terrible at compensating our public employees, and too much money to go to the free-clinic. Her only place to get an annual gynecological exam and renew her BC prescription (which was more for controlling her cycle than anything else) was the PP an hour away. Then, of course, she had to pay retail for the prescription.

It's having seen that experience that has informed my understanding of the purpose and need for PP. Before that, I was one of those that saw PP and thought of nothing but abortions. But the fact is that they do far more and serve a population that will be ignored without their presence.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2017, 03:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This sounds like a state issue and medicaid coverage. But it won't stop folks from rallying behind it.

Oh, I do not deny tat at all. I am just laying it out there that cutting federal funding to PP will, in fact, prevent women from receiving medical treatment. I don't bring up much state level around here, though, since there aren't many of us Virginians about.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I do not deny tat at all. I am just laying it out there that cutting federal funding to PP will, in fact, prevent women from receiving medical treatment.

I'll take you at your word; as you proclaim to have first had experience. I will say reproductive health care seems to be a pretty big umbrella and sounds more severe went lumped under medical treatment.

[Griever]

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

the link mentions the video of fetal sales which turned out to be false, so its a tad old, but i think the numbers are relatively the same today

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2017, 03:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take you at your word; as you proclaim to have first had experience. I will say reproductive health care seems to be a pretty big umbrella and sounds more severe went lumped under medical treatment.

I would argue that medical treatment is an even larger umbrella, but whatever.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would argue that medical treatment is an even larger umbrella, but whatever.

And I would agree. That's why I said reproductive health services would go under it.

[Benton]

(01-09-2017, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  I don't bring up much state level around here, though, since there aren't many of us Virginians about.

If there were more virginians we might not need PP.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously I am in the minority in this forum, but I just have a issue with enabling folks to do as they please, instead of putting the onus on them to be responsible for their own actions.

I have no issue with Planned Parenthood; however, I'm not against it being totally privately funded or the funds directed toward education; but assume what you will.

You hate us for our freedom!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: I will.
Of course in the end I don't really know.
It's just... your way of argueing seems so forged - as if it were a disguise, a cloak of assumed rationality, so to speak.

As for rationality. I really fail to see the connection between free birth control and "enabling folk to do as they please".
To do what?
I also really fail to see the connection between free birth control and the "onus to be responsible for their own actions".
What actions?
Is the answer to both questions simply pipelaying?


Birth control might be free, but people still would have to choose to use it. Would it show more responsibility if they had to actually pay for it too?
In short, fine ok people obviously have sex and all, but at least they shouldn't have it for free without the chance of an offspring stemming from the act... that's what you seem to be getting at.
And that to me sounds like someone who thinks sex should always be performed under the aspect of procreation. And if it isn't, at least it should cost people then. Like some kind of indulgence. 
It sounds - religious, disguised as worldly concerns. Plus you brought up outlawing abortion. Hence the assumption.

To prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 03:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take you at your word; as you proclaim to have first had experience. I will say reproductive health care seems to be a pretty big umbrella and sounds more severe went lumped under medical treatment.

More severe? What does that mean?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 03:54 PM)Griever Wrote: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

the link mentions the video of fetal sales which turned out to be false, so its a tad old, but i think the numbers are relatively the same today

I found this in the article . . . 

Quote:"CBO also expects that some of the services that would not be used if S. 1881 was enacted would include those that help women avert pregnancies and deliveries. Reduced use of such services would be expected to lead to additional births, increasing federal spending, primarily for Medicaid. In addition, some of those children would themselves qualify for Medicaid and possibly for other federal programs."

I guess the CBO is just a bunch disrespect liberals who think women will act irresponsibly if they don't get their free stuff. We all know only irresponsible women reproduce asexually thus men don't share in this lack of responsibility because we all know men will go buy a condom and use it 100% correctly 100% of the time when they don't get their free contraception. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 03:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all, you, nor anyone in this forum knows how much federal funding goes into providing abortions. In addition to rape, incest, and life of the mother that allows for Federal Funding 17 states have laws that allow it for "medically necessary" abortions,

The source of those funds are from the state level, not federal.

Secondly, I have heard of no cuts to medicaid, so no one is denying anyone medical treatment. The whole hating women thing is just a ploy to get the libs fired up.

False. Under Obamacare the states were to expand Medicaid, many Republican controlled states have voted the Medicaid expansion down hurting poor families and individuals who are too poor to afford to buy an Obamacare policy on an exchange, but make too much to qualify for Medicaid so they are still falling through the cracks. 

Finally, maybe they just hate California, as over half the $500 million the governemnt gives to PP is spent there.

I would like to see that source.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 06:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: More severe? What does that mean?

Getting a free condom = Medical Treatment

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 06:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

No where did I say states didd't pay for their exceptions, that why I differentiated between the Federal and state; however, the money still comes from public funds. I also seem to remember Obama passing a mandate saying states could not vote to not fund.

Are we talking about Planned Parenthood defunding or Obama Care?


No link to a study, just this reference from a paper mad about defunding (I had no reason to assume they were not being forthright):

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article124977729.html#storylink=cpy

But the crusade will hit home hard if President-elect Trump – whose new head of White House health policy is a former Republican Senate staffer who has claimed, falsely, that contraception causes abortions – acquiesces to his party’s true believers in Congress. Of the $500 million Planned Parenthood gets each year in Medicaid reimbursements, contraceptive discounts and other federal funding, about $260 million goes to health centers in California.

Without that money, which donations can’t come close to making up, most of the state’s 115 clinics could be threatened with closure, Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, told a Sacramento Bee editorial board member.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article124977729.html#storylink=cpy

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2017, 06:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Getting a free condom = Medical Treatment

Yes, because that is what reproductive health care is all about, handing out free prophylactics.

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 06:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, because that is what reproductive health care is all about, handing out free prophylactics.

...and that's why I said the defunding seems more severe when you say denying women medical treatment. 

Are you agreeing with me on purpose or by accident; that's twice. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 06:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Getting a free condom = Medical Treatment

Still as clear as mud.   I don't recall anyone claimed getting a free condom is a medical treatment until you you made that leap.  However, getting a prescription for OCPs, a birth control implant, or an IUD all require a provider visit and/or a procedure. So I still don't understand the more severe comment. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-09-2017, 07:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Still as clear as mud.   I don't recall anyone claimed getting a free condom is a medical treatment until you you made that leap.  However, getting a prescription for OCPs, a birth control implant, or an IUD all require a provider visit and/or a procedure. So I still don't understand the more severe comment. 

Matt and I discussed it just above your post. Sorry we were not clearer.