Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

I figured you'd say something like this. You're also assuming that health care overall is elective.

Hardly.

So you don't care to answer the question?

I do not have a lot of time at the moment, so I apologize that I can not respond to all the points in your post, gbaji. However, I would like to respond to this one:



I think the 40% statistic regarding unwed mothers isn't a tell-all since not all unwed mothers require financial assistance. If you could show the link between unwed mothers and required government assistance, then I may be able to agree with your point.

Additionally, I do not think we are speaking of increasing the amount of birth control and/or sex education as a solution to fix a growing population. The statistics will not be able to distinguish how the outcome would have played out were the birth control/education not already in place. The situation is more along the lines of "Will the rates of birth increase in groups who previously had access to those services once those services are removed?" It's a subtle difference, but an important one when trying to compare against history.

Edited, May 12th 2011 12:42pm by ChanchanXI

So let's talk about the modern organization rather than trying to reach back nearly a century to score points.

I disagree. You're factually inaccurate about the abortion funding and your premise isn't particularly convincing.

You don't need the lights to punch someone in the stomach.

Do you think those that want cancer screen should be given it (assuming at an appropriate age, on a yearly/biyearly/etc schedule)?

Yeah, but basing it on cancer screens is so petty that it makes you a small monster. Like a gremlin or maybe a Muppet.

Except that it's not just health services that Republicans find unacceptable, is it? Didn't Obama spend a hell of a lot of time insisting that not one dime of health care money would be spent on abortion? Heck. Haven't *you* argued that there's no problem because no tax dollars will fund abortion? If it's just Republicans who think that's important, they why not stand on your principles and insist that tax dollars should fund abortion? But you don't, do you? And neither does Obama, and neither do the majority of Democrats either. So let's stop pretending that this is all about what Republicans want, ok?

So... given that we're all agreed that tax dollars should not fund abortions, then why the opposition to insisting that the organization restructure in a way that allows us to ensure that this is actually the case? If the claims are true, then you should have no reason to oppose this. The *only* reason to oppose what Daniel's has done is if you both believe that PP does use tax dollars to fund abortions *and* you think that they should.

Why not be honest and admit that then? Or be honest and admit that what Daniel's is doing is perfectly in line with your own position on the issue? You kinda have to pick one.

The rate has increased by a factor of 13 over that period of time. Are you suggesting that an unwed mother is only 1/13th as likely to require government assistance today as she would have back in the 50s? Why? That just seems like wishful thinking to me.



Not a "growing population", but a "growing population in need of government services". Remember when I insisted that we clarify your hypothesis:



Your assumption is that by funding birth control, we are decreasing the amount of funding we have to pay for social services to support the children which would otherwise be born. Your argument is exactly about using birth control as a means to solve the problem of a growing population of children born poverty. You do remember your own argument, right?




Sure. But as I stated before. If your reason for supporting government funding for birth control on the grounds that it will reduce the cost to government to support the children who would otherwise be born, it's clear that the data simply does not support that reasoning at all. There's no evidence at all that handing out birth control is having any effect on the rate at which children are born into the conditions most likely to result in them needing government assistance. None at all. We assume this because the "obvious" assumption is that birth control helps "control birth", and thus empowers people to avoid that condition.


But it's clear that for whatever reason, it's not working. Can we at least agree therefore that spending money on providing birth control isn't the solution to that problem? I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons for doing it. I'll point out that I'm not arguing against funding birth control. Despite appearances, what I'm arguing against is doing it for the reasons you are claiming. You just stated what I saw as a week/false argument for providing birth control. That's it.

I do. I'd rather a one time payment than to have to possibly pay for that family on welfare forever.

Edited, May 12th 2011 7:58pm by Uglysasquatch

I honestly don't care if they do or not. But the law says that they can not and so PP keeps separate records and undergoes regular audits. I've linked to samples of those audits in the other thread.


And, as I pointed out, you were wrong when you said it and linked to examples of how religious charities can use the same building for both religious and charitable functions, share staff, etc. All the same stuff you cry about Planned Parenthood doing (although PP probably does a much better job of keeping them separate).

The day the GOP starts fighting for all government funded charities to be purely secular with no religious ties is the day I start accepting that their interest in PP is based on anything beyond forcing social ideology.