Hey Congress! Focus on Jobs, Not on Us!

[Monika]

If the opera companies can make it, the abortion clinics can make it too. Maybe they work with lower-cost medical staff. Maybe they ask their medical staff to see X number of patients each week for free. Maybe some of the clients that use the clinic are at an income level where they can pay at least part of their fees. Then again, being non-profits, they can always solicit more donors, and apply for grants. 

I fail to see the similarities between an opera company and abortion clinics, Milo.

Here's an idea: All the Americans who want to make free abortion available can get together, pool their money, and start a foundation that provides grants to health clinics specifically for the purpose of abortion services.

Then I suggest you do the same when it comes to funding wars.




To me, this is all just a smoke screen for covering up for pro-life supporters. The government should base their decisions on science and facts, not on religious arguments.

[milomorris]

I fail to see the similarities between an opera company and abortion clinics, Milo.

The similarity is in the business model. They are all not-for-profit business enterprises, and as such, there are business practices that can be applied to both.

Then I suggest you do the same when it comes to funding wars.

Defense is mandated by the Constitution, abortion is not.

The government should base their decisions on science and facts, not on religious arguments.

No, the first priority of government is to work within the boundaries established by its Constitution. The next priority is to act based on the will of the voters. I agree with you that how government does what it does should be based on science and facts. But I don't see how that relates to this kind of legislation.

[Monika]

The similarity is in the business model. They are all not-for-profit business enterprises, and as such, there business practices that can be applied to both.

The dissimilarities are bigger than the similarities. An opera house is important, sure, but an abortion clinic provides an important service that is vital for women's health.

Defense is mandated by the Constitution, abortion is not.

Still, the funding of wars can still be discussed, can't it?

No, the first priority of government is to work within the boundaries established by its Constitution. The next priority is to act based on the will of the voters. I agree with you that how government does what it does should be based on science and facts. But I don't see how that relates to this kind of legislation.

Because the pro-life people often base their arguments in religion.



You won't ever succeed in making me want to support any antiabortionist messures, Milo.
I think it´s important that the federal government supports women´s access to abortion clinics because they save human lives. That´s a very good use of tax money, if you ask me.

[milomorris]

The dissimilarieties are bigger than the similiarities. An opera house is important, sure, but an abortion clinic provides an important service that is vital for women´s health.

You're talking about the function offered to the public. I'm talking about how the non-profit is run. I think my suggestions are sound in that regard, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some abortion clinics not only surviving, but thriving if they implemented some of the things I suggested, or something similar.

I think abortion should be available to low-income women who need them. I just don't think its the government's job to pay for it.

Still, the funding of wars can still be discussed, can´t it?

Yes. Congress decides whether or not to declare war. Congress also decides how much to spend on the military. And they discuss, and discuss, and discuss.

What is not up for discussion is where the money comes from. Government must fund the military.

Because the pro-life people often base their arguments in religion.

It really doesn't matter whether the voters get their ideas from science, or from religion, they still have the ability to elect Congressmen who will support their position.

As a matter of fact, there are some atheists out there who don't like abortion too. So religion is not the only motivator on that side of the fence.

[Front-Ranger]

May I interrupt here?

The Hill publication wrote a story yesterday saying, “Groups opposed to abortion rights are pressuring the Senate to act on a bill passed by the House last week that would prohibit health insurers from offering abortion coverage if any of their customers receives federal subsidies.”

"...the House-passed bill would make it nearly impossible for women to exercise their legal right to an abortion. The legislation would place "unprecedented restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own private dollars in purchasing health insurance," according to Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce oversight panel is investigating Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Stearns last month wrote to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards asking her to provide documents demonstrating that her organization is handling its federal funding properly.

"At a time in our country when women rely on Planned Parenthood more than ever for essential health care, this invasive and baseless investigation is all the more reprehensible, and is an abuse of your oversight responsibilities," a responding  letter states. "We urge you to immediately cease this investigation ... [It] amounts to no more than a witch hunt, and is a waste of resources at a time when the American people have asked that Congress come together and focus on job creation and economic growth."

My thoughts exactly.

[milomorris]

May I interrupt here?

The Hill publication wrote a story yesterday saying, “Groups opposed to abortion rights are pressuring the Senate to act on a bill passed by the House last week that would prohibit health insurers from offering abortion coverage if any of their customers receives federal subsidies.”

"...the House-passed bill would make it nearly impossible for women to exercise their legal right to an abortion. The legislation would place "unprecedented restrictions on how a woman with private insurance can spend her own private dollars in purchasing health insurance," according to Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce oversight panel is investigating Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Stearns last month wrote to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards asking her to provide documents demonstrating that her organization is handling its federal funding properly.

"At a time in our country when women rely on Planned Parenthood more than ever for essential health care, this invasive and baseless investigation is all the more reprehensible, and is an abuse of your oversight responsibilities," a responding  letter states. "We urge you to immediately cease this investigation ... [It] amounts to no more than a witch hunt, and is a waste of resources at a time when the American people have asked that Congress come together and focus on job creation and economic growth."

My thoughts exactly.

Well, since this thread started out with a pretty broad statement, I thought the OP was referring to the Title X subsidies. I had no idea that there is pending legislation that would effect private insurance companies. I don't agree that government should be involved on this kind of micro-level.

What I will say is that Planned Parenthood should be investigated for misappropriation if there is probable cause.

[Front-Ranger]

Well, since this thread started out with a pretty broad statement, I thought the OP was referring to the Title X subsidies. I had no idea that there is pending legislation that would effect private insurance companies. I don't agree that government should be involved on this kind of micro-level.

The do-nothings in Congress are using the strategy called "Death by a Thousand Cuts" to effectively render abortions illegal and drive poor women back to the black market dens and desperate strategies of my youth. Knitting needles, drinking quinine, etc.

What I will say is that Planned Parenthood should be investigated for misappropriation if there is probable cause.

I agree with you...but there is no probable cause!! Believe me, it's like testing Lance Armstrong for drugs...he's been tested thousands of times and they haven't come up with zip! And PP has been investigated near to death!!

[milomorris]

The do-nothings in Congress are using the strategy called "Death by a Thousand Cuts" to effectively render abortions illegal and drive poor women back to the black market dens and desperate strategies of my youth. Knitting needles, drinking quinine, etc.

That's a leftist scare tactic. There are people who want abortion banned, but nobody want to see that again.

I agree with you...but there is no probable cause!!

We'll see.

[serious crayons]

to effectively render abortions illegal and drive poor women back to the black market dens and desperate strategies of my youth. Knitting needles, drinking quinine, etc.

That's a leftist scare tactic. There are people who want abortion banned, but nobody want to see that again.

Wait, what? "Leftist scare tactic"??

Oh, maybe you're saying that there's nobody literally declaring, "I want abortion outlawed -- let 'em use coat hangers." In which case, you're probably right (though my "everything under the sun" philosophy states that there are probably even people saying that).

But if there's anyone who "wants abortion banned" but doesn't "want to see that again" -- "that" being women using desperate, dangerous and potentially fatal measures to terminate pregnancies -- they're either pathetically uninformed, incredibly ignorant about human nature, or able to abide with an astounding level of cognitive dissonance.

[milomorris]

Wait, what? "Leftist scare tactic"??

Oh, maybe you're saying that there's nobody literally declaring, "I want abortion outlawed -- let 'em use coat hangers." In which case, you're probably right (though my "everything under the sun" philosophy states that there are probably even people saying that).

But if there's anyone who "wants abortion banned" but doesn't "want to see that again" -- "that" being women using desperate, dangerous and potentially fatal measures to terminate pregnancies -- they're either pathetically uninformed, incredibly ignorant about human nature, or able to abide with an astounding level of cognitive dissonance.

What I'm saying is that the people who want abortion banned don't want the coat hangers either. Whatever you might think of them, they have no malicious intent. They think there is a way to craft a society where neither of those two evils exist.