As you may have heard, House Republicans are looking to solve our nation’s economic problems (not) by defunding Planned Parenthood. What you may not know is that there are currently over 4,000 anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers” around the country, more than five times the number of abortion providers. These largely “faith-based” operations, known for disseminating medically-dubious advice, received at least $60 million under the Bush administration. (You’ll recall the many Republicans who howled about that instance of deficit spending, no? Hmm… neither do I.) So, in a sense, Unplanned Parenthood already exists, and this cartoon is merely absurdist exaggeration. I hope.
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled April 24, 2024And there's a written version! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/24/zionism-seder-protest-new-york-gaza-israel [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled April 24, 2024Naomi Klein on how Zionism has become a false idol. https://youtu.be/U75KcMUjMyI?si=uZuV_UNZkWXNFYG3&t=198
- Untitled April 24, 2024The Leader of All Manhood has issued his ruling: It's gay for men to love sex with women. Guys: If you hate sex with women, you can do it and be straight. But if you love sex with women, that's gay. If you want to be straight, fuck men instead. Sorry, but that's the rule.
- Untitled April 24, 2024
If liberal administrations can pour money into liberal initiatives, then conservative administrations can pour money into conservative initiatives.
I wish people on either side would see that and think “damn, in that case maybe we should get the gummint out of the money-pouring business”, but instead they always think up reasons why their partisan preferences are actually just good sense.
The government has no business funding Planned Parenthood or the Jesus House For Unwed Mothers. But having opened the door for one, there is no coherent justification other than raw preference, i.e., political power and who holds it at the moment, for denying anyone who can put a figleaf of “social service” on their desires.
Robert, are you really suggesting that these “pregnancy crisis centers” are somehow equal to Planned Parenthood in the benefits they provide to society at large? I mean, I can conceive of a case where both sides’ approaches have merit and deserve funding, but abstinence education and all that are demonstrably worthless.
Demonstrably worthless, from a certain point of view. (Puts on Alec Guinness hat.) Quite worthwhile, from another.
Note that from the point of view of pro-lifers – of whom there are tens of millions – much of what Planned Parenthood is socially destructive. From THEIR p.o.v., even if they accepted your characterization of the valuelessness of crisis pregnancy centers, the balance would be “does actual harm vs. does nothing”.
My point is not to measure (or argue) the effectiveness or lack thereof of the alternatives, my point is that things the government has no business being involved with are things the government has no business being involved with, regardless of the opinions of various subpolities about the (de)merits of what the government may fund.
Robert, are you saying that the government should provide no social services?
Depends on what you mean by “social services”.
If you’re asking, “Robert, do you think the government should get out of the abortion and birth control business? As well as the you-should-totally-have-a-baby counseling and your diaphragm is a tool of Satan business?” – then, yes.
I could make an argument that “abortion and birth control” are important medical services (because being pregnant can be dangerous) and that if a government is going to provide general medical care to a population (through programs such as Medicaid) then such services should be included…
Arguably. And counseling, too. So put such funding in Medicare/Medicaid, as a voucher (the way all MediX funds should be provided), and let people make their own choices and fund the healthcare that they want/need with the charitable resources we decide to provide at whatever level.
Let’s face it – if Planned Parenthood instructed on and provided the various forms of birth control, counseled people on pre- and post-natal care, etc., but did not provide abortion services, objections to Federally funding them would be much less intense. There are tens of millions of people (or maybe even at the > 100 million level) for whom abortion != health care. The concept that it can be considered health care because pregnancy in general is dangerous is repugnant and even disgusting to a whole lot of people.
I think Robert well argues his point, which I agree with. If either Planned Parenthood or the Jesus Home for Unwed Mothers provide socially desirable services to people who cannot afford them, let people who approve of the provision of those services contribute money to them. If insufficient people so approve to the point that those agencies fail, I don’t see a rationale why the Federal government should step in and take money from people by force to make up the deficit.
And that whole lot of people clearly don’t understand the definition of health care. Substitute almost anything for the first half of that sentence (“The” through “dangerous”) and you can see why that’s not a convincing argument.
This is what representative government is all about. Enough people approved of the provision of those services to mandate federal funding of PP. Maybe one day there won’t be enough people who approve. When that happens, the ginormous gubmint stops funding PP.
Actually, no – I don’t take your point here.
Do you hold that the Federal government should fund anything that a majority of people think should be funded? And be able to tax people to whatever extent it takes to fund that?
When that happens, the ginormous gubmint stops funding PP.
But correct me if I’m wrong, don’t you believe there’s a “right” to health care?
If citizens have a right to care then how do we democratically say “no, not this care”?
I don’t have this problem because I don’t believe in a right to care, but I don’t see how you can hold up “representative government” as a remedy for people not wanting to pay for something. Abortion or genetic counseling for moms-to-be, it’s all one.
It seems to me that voucher-based care, rather than government picking winners and losers of who gets Federal money, would provide the most actual healthcare to people that they want, whether that’s abortion or flu shots or cancer therapy. And then representative democracy can play its part by setting the quantity of the vouchers we want to provide to the poor, or to everyone, from zero on up.
No, I don’t. Not in the sense of a constitutional right.
As long as that thing that the federal government is funding is constitutional, yeah. For example, if people want to have federally funded single payer healthcare the government should be able to tax people to whatever extent it would take to fund that. For example(2), if the people want to have federally funded internment camps for everybody over 6′ 7″ the government should not be permitted to do that at all.
Chocolate is repugnant and even disgusting to a whole lot of people.
That isn’t a strong argument to eliminate federal funding from PP just because they hand out chocolate to some of their patients. Substitute any word or phrase for “chocolate” and your argument is just as weak. “A whole lot” isn’t very meaningful without further definition.
It is a strong argument, however, that there is a significant (if we can be permitted to interpret “a whole lot” that way) number of people who are repulsed by chocolate. That’s not the argument you were trying to make, though.
Apropos to nothing, according to this cartoon I’m apparently a lesbian.
Me too!
@Silenced and @Robert – According to *Unplanned Parenthood* you are lesbians. They fail to comprehend Maddow’s universal hotness.
We can be lesbians if we want to be. Don’t oppress us with your heteronormativity.
Ha!
Pingback: UN-Planned Parenthood: Life After The GOP Pulls The Plug | Being Pregnant