Gingrich Vows To Defund Planned Parenthood

[inunionwithrome]

There may all be things that we like and dislike about Mr. Gingrich. However, he has been in politics for long enough and I think that he is truly sincere about this. Why? I have been praying for him to change his views on pro-life. I believe he has a strong record and will do what is right for all peoples. But, this is not to turn into a political thread. It is the pro-life thread and how he views life. I am very happy about this and pray that many more politicians will turn around their viewpoints and stand on this issue as well!

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327446003' post='2374658']
Right. And by that reasoning the government is also indirectly funding Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, and numerous other heretical and heathenistic groups. And since your religious faith won't allow you to permit poor women to get health care if it means indirectly funding abortions I'm sure that, being the sincere Catholic that you are, you won't take the federal student funding that helps propagate false doctrines that leads innumerable lost souls to hell and away from the Salvic truths of the Holy Roman Church.
[/quote]
I'm confused. I think you have that backwards. I was agreeing with Jlol that the same argument that I presented to stop funding PP could also be applied to stop funding the Catholic Church. I was also agreeing that since the same argument could be used, I would be willing to live with the consequences of losing some funding for the Church. I'm not saying that the gov't is giving out "dirty money" and that I shouldn't accept it. I'm saying that if the consequence of cutting funding to PP means I can no longer receive gov't money, then so be it. But I honestly do not find a problem accepting the money because it isn't dirty money. Also, by accepting the money, I am (in a very small way) guaranteeing that less money goes toward funding abortion and am putting money towards stopping abortion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Tony' timestamp='1327370289' post='2374188']
nah they dont care who's getting aborted, it's all about the paycheck.
[/quote]
Standards have indeed fallen.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327445581' post='2374653']
The money is not secretly going to abortions. The money they get from the federal government goes towards providing those services to women. None of which funds abortions.
[/quote]
By that logic, funding the Nazi Party would be perfectly razzle dazzle too. Just so long as the money only goes to support their work towards helping German families, rather than their concentration camps.

[quote] Abortion is a constitutionally protected right. [/quote]
Thus spake the Emanation of the Penumbra.

Screw what the Constitution actually says.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327434801' post='2374559']
Federal funding of abortion is illegal (and has been for decades). If the federal government cuts their funding to Planned Parenthood they are not cutting money for abortions. They are cutting money for lower-income women to get free health services.

Once again, the republicans use people concerned about moral issues to dump all over the poor.
[/quote]

There are other organizations besides Planned Parenthood that help the poor, such as Catholic Charities.

Or, at least there would be more if the Obama-Sebellius machine hadn't imposed the contraception mandate in Obamacare (as well as the California mandate). We'll see what happens later this year.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327448004' post='2374674']
By that logic, funding the Nazi Party would be perfectly razzle dazzle too. Just so long as the money only goes to support their work towards helping German families, rather than their concentration camps.
[/quote]

it was only a matter of time before someone invoked Godwin's law.

[Papist]

I missed it. How does the government fund the Catholic Church?

[StMichael]

Defunding needs to be done, no question, but without a repeal of Obamacare, PP will be in every hospital and part of our insurance. Obamacare is mainstreaming PP. All of us who have health insurance now pay for someone else's contraceptives, abortion pills and will be paying for their abortions.

Soft tyranny.

[kujo]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1327527671' post='2375332']
Defunding needs to be done, no question, but without a repeal of Obamacare, PP will be in every hospital and part of our insurance. Obamacare is mainstreaming PP. All of us who have health insurance now pay for someone else's contraceptives, abortion pills and will be paying for their abortions.

Soft tyranny.
[/quote]

Is that what you call it? "Soft tyranny?"

Because I call it a law enacted by a democratically-elected Congress, for which I plan to vote against them at the earliest possible occasion.

But, hey! Tomato toMAto, right?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327468217' post='2374871']
it was only a matter of time before someone invoked Godwin's law.
[/quote]
You invoked it. I didn't mention it.

I'm not comparing those who disagree with me to Hitler or Nazis - I'm using the Nazis because they're about the only example I can use that everyone will agree are evil.

The point - which no one has addressed - is: can one give money or other support to an organization that commits ongoing mass-murder on a huge scale and excuse themselves on the basis that they are not funding the murders themselves?

I argue that it is never acceptable to fund an organization that murders innocents as part of its daily business.

Much less should the government force me to fund a murderous organization with my tax dollars.

Regardless what you think of Newt or his sincerity here, what he says is absolutely right: Planned Parenthood should not be funded with taxpayer dollars.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327535315' post='2375409']
Is that what you call it? "Soft tyranny?"

Because I call it a law enacted by a democratically-elected Congress, for which I plan to vote against them at the earliest possible occasion.

But, hey! Tomato toMAto, right?
[/quote]
Tyrants can be democratically elected.

[arfink]

Gingrich can safely huff and puff all he wants right now, with no fear of repercussions. I doubt any of the GOP candidates except perhaps Ron Paul seriously believe that they have a prayer against Obama's second term ambitions, and so they probably don't believe they'll ever have to be held to their fantastic promises.

I would be far more likely to believe Gingrich if he had always been beating the drum about defunding planned parenthood, but last time I checked this is a new phenomenon. There are, on the other hand, some candidates who play like broken records, constantly calling for the exact same things, year after painful year. These are the types whose determination I can actually trust.

EDIT: I would really like to believe people like Gingrich can change. I have seen people like him change. If he actually took such a stand when the pressure was on I would trust him. But right now I'd rather vote for a candidate who I feel I can trust than the candidate who I wished I could trust.

Edited January 26, 2012 by arfink

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327540969' post='2375454']
Tyrants can be democratically elected.
[/quote]

But can they be voted out, like many of the Dems who voted for Obamacare were, and like Obama will (hopefully) be this November?

There's a gigantic difference between "tyranny" and stuff you don't like.

[arfink]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327543659' post='2375481']
But can they be voted out, like many of the Dems who voted for Obamacare were, and like Obama will (hopefully) be this November?

There's a gigantic difference between "tyranny" and stuff you don't like.
[/quote]

I think there needs to be a new word to describe the modern situation. It's not traditional tyranny, or even a "soft tyranny," but it is extremely problematic and almost as bad as hardcore tyranny. What can we call a government which is run by two warring factions which control the vast majority of all electoral spending, electoral media, and even the names that get printed on the ballots? What can we call a system which pretends to offer choice but actually produces the exact same results no matter which party gets the majority? What can we call a system that allows elected representatives to be turned from their electoral constituencies by small interest groups with large sums of money? What can we call such a system that has managed to self-perpetuate for decades, and arguably for well over a century?

I can tell you what I call it: Broken. Very.

EDITED FOR BORKEN GRAMMAR. Note that some borken may remain anyhow. Oh well.

Edited January 26, 2012 by arfink

[kujo]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1327544146' post='2375489']


I think there needs to be a new word to describe the modern situation. It's not traditional tyranny, or even a "soft tyranny," but it is extremely problematic and almost as bad as hardcore tyranny. What can we call a government which is run by two warring factions which control the vast majority of all electoral spending, electoral media, and even the names that get printed on the ballots? What can we call a system which pretends to offer choice but actually produces the exact same results no matter which party gets the majority? What can we call a system that allows elected representatives to be turned from their electoral constituencies by small interest groups with large sums of money? What can we call such a system that has managed to self-perpetuate for decades, and arguably for well over a century?

I can tell you what I call it: Broken. Very.

EDITED FOR BORKEN GRAMMAR. Note that some borken may remain anyhow. Oh well.
[/quote]

IAWTC

Well said.

EDIT: Another term that could be used to describe this miasma is FUBAR. Google it.

Edited January 26, 2012 by kujo

[arfink]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327545507' post='2375504']
IAWTC

Well said.

EDIT: Another term that could be used to describe this miasma is FUBAR. Google it.
[/quote]

I know of this FUBAR. But thanks.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327540969' post='2375454']
You invoked it. I didn't mention it.

I'm not comparing those who disagree with me to Hitler or Nazis - I'm using the Nazis because they're about the only example I can use that everyone will agree are evil.
[/quote]

now you are getting into semantics.

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler [/size][/font]approaches[/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] 1."[/size][/font][/color]

[size=4][color=#000000][font=sans-serif]you dont have to call someone hitler to invoke Godwin's law.[/font][/color][/size]


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327503578' post='2374985']
I missed it. How does the government fund the Catholic Church?
[/quote]

Catholic private schools are at least partially funded by the government. that is what i was referring to. And i suppose not paying taxes counts a bit too.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[IcePrincessKRS]

I think it's safe to move this to the debate table now...

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327549779' post='2375524']
Catholic private schools are at least partially funded by the government. that is what i was referring to. And i suppose not paying taxes counts a bit too.
[/quote]

[size=4]To equate that to the [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]government funding the Catholic Church is a big stretch.[/font][/color][/size]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327551216' post='2375536']
To equate that to the [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]government funding the Catholic Church is a big stretch.[/font][/color]
[/quote]

I was mostly talking about Catholic schools. and that isnt a stretch at all to say that they are government funded.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327434801' post='2374559']
Federal funding of abortion is illegal (and has been for decades). [b]If the federal government cuts their funding to Planned Parenthood they are not cutting money for abortions. They are cutting money for lower-income women to get free health services.[/b]

Once again, the republicans use people concerned about moral issues to dump all over the poor.
[/quote]

If PP doesn't have to pay part of their administrative costs or a bunch of their free services because the feds are paying it, that means they have more money in their non-federal funded budget to put towards abortions (or anything else they choose).

This happens virtually [b]everywhere[/b]. You get a federal grant for something you really want, and then you take the money you WERE going to fork over for it, and put it somewhere else...