Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

Whereas, if you read something in LifeNews.com, it MUST be true despite the lack of any supporting evidence. Everyone ELSE is just repeating stuff they heard though.

Proving a negative. Are you saying that one penny WAS? If so, show your work because a lot of people would love to hear it.

Well, technically people would yawn about 99% of that stuff since that's not how 'funding abortion' is classified any more than 'funding religion' is classified for federal grants to faith-based charities.[/quote]

[sm]Edited, Apr 13th 2011 10:07pm by Jophiel

For what? Is there anyone who hears the name "Planned Parenthood" and doesn't immediately associate it with abortion? It is by far the largest single provider of abortion services in the US. As I stated earlier, businesses stand out for what they do that others don't, not the other way around. There are lots of health clinics which do not perform abortions (most of them in fact, since they refer their patients elsewhere). Meanwhile Planned Parenthood refers many of the services they provide to other health care providers (other than abortions, which are largely performed on sites owned by Planned Parenthood). Why is that? Because those other services can be obtained almost anywhere, so where it's cost effective, Planned Parenthood will refer rather than undertake the overhead for the care themselves. But they're pretty much it in terms of abortion services.


That's why I said what I said. It's what they do, so to speak. It's certainly what they are known for most. We can quibble over total numbers of services and visits and whatnot, but that really just sidesteps the larger issue, doesn't it?

Vague statements about public perception is almost as good as real factual, sourced information. Good job!

"Assuming there isn't" is meaningless, especially since "isn't" isn't a violation of the law. If you want a change to the law, then support it by offering evidence that the current law doesn't work. In other words, prove to us that funds are actually being used in violation of the law.

Why do I have to defend not being convinced by logical fallacies that rely on me proving a negative rather than you making an actual case?

Hahaha, that's quite the citation.

Expecting you to show a violation of the law before supporting a change to the law is weak? Well, if you say so.

There's also Fetus Flusher, and Baby-B-Gon.

I'll note that the linked article also says:
Planned Parenthood already keeps separate records. You can see an example in this audit conducted by the state of Texas.

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8589943023

(board code doesn't like that format of URL)

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 10:56pm by Jophiel

gbaji is basically saying that, if the University of Florida (where I work) wants to host a convention (like our yearly convocation for the graduating class), they need to make a separate organization entirely to buy food. Why? Because state and federal funding cannot be used to purchase food here. Even that wouldn't work though, because the same people who work at UF would need to also work for this new organization. They would receive two paychecks, and a separate job form would need to be filled out for the new organization. And even though state funding could be used to rent the building or pay the salaries of the workers, this separate organization cannot receive it. Because they're buying food, and you can't really prove that it's not the federal funds being used, right?

Luckily, the real world does not work like this, because it's fucking idiotic. Instead, organizations receiving federal funds are required to show separate accounts. Funds from the government can be applied only to specific categories (like overhead or building rental). One of the categories that cannot be covered is anything directly related to the abortion process. Like the University of Florida, PP follows these rules because if they didn't they would not only lose their funding but could also would be sued for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

The point being, they can prove that government funds aren't being used for abortion procedures. I don't even know why gbaji tried this argument. What he should be saying is something like "well, the same doctors who give out condoms perform abortions and they get paid through federal funding!" Thing is, that's perfectly legal (same as us getting paid by government funding despite me using another fund to buy food for events).

The proper way to combat this, as I said before (and gbaji ignored or missed), is to pass legislation against it. The Hyde Amendment already dictates that this process is to be used. A budget, or a CR, is not a place to change policy. I mean, unless you like attaching unpopular measures to must-pass legislation.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 8:37am by LockeColeMA

I knew about that, I was asking what Obama's lie was. He said he lied about the certificate. There is no way in hell the dems would run a candidate that wasn't born in America, that would be even more idiotic than believing they would.

Not gay, but supportive...who the hell do you think created rainbows?