[Newsbot]

Title: Planned Parenthood Defunded In New Hampshire
Category: Political
Posted By: DerbyX
Date: 2011-07-13 06:21:25

[DerbyX]

$1:

The three Councilors who voted against funding for Planned Parenthood said they did so because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though those abortions are entirely privately funded. Councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester added that he opposed funding for birth control and condoms altogether.

"If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he told the Concord Monitor last week.

F*cking retard. Lets make all STD treatment illegal while we are at it that way we can make all those people who avoided pregancy pay as well.

"I won't tolerate abortions so I'll make contraceptives all that more harder to obtain." Brilliant strategy. And yet to people like psudo it is the pro-choice people who are refusing to compromise because we won't allow the anti-abortionists to continue their assault on a basic right unchecked.

Meanwhile in Alabama they are trying to make miscarriages punishable by law.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/0 ... l-charges/

[Brenda]

Retards.

[OnTheIce]

I don't get why the government should pay for people who opt to have unprotected sex.

You don't have to have unprotected sex, provide free condoms and cut out the birth control pills.

[Brenda]

I don't get what you are saying here, OTI.
You would provide free condoms but not birth control pills? You would provide free condoms, but not treat urinal tract infections? You would provide free condoms but not screen for cervix cancer etc by providing free PAP-smears?

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't get why the government should for people who opt to have unprotected sex.

You don't have to have unprotected sex, provide free condoms and cut out the birth control pills.

Should what?

If you mean "should provide free abortions" then that is incorrect. The article states that the abortions are funded privately not through their funding but personally I believe abortions should be provided free of charge no different then any other medical service.

You'll often find that the most ardent anti-abortionists are also against contraceptives as this article has shown.

[Brenda]

DerbyX DerbyX:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't get why the government should for people who opt to have unprotected sex.

You don't have to have unprotected sex, provide free condoms and cut out the birth control pills.

Should what?

If you mean "should provide free abortions" then that is incorrect. The article states that the abortions are funded privately not through their funding but personally I believe abortions should be provided free of charge no different then any other medical service.

You'll often find that the most ardent anti-abortionists are also against contraceptives as this article has shown.

AND want to have sex every day. I highly doubt they are celibate.

[DerbyX]

Brenda Brenda:

AND want to have sex every day. I highly doubt they are celibate.

Nope. These are the "family values" candidates that invariable get caught cheating on their wives with their mistress or get caught with gay prostitutes.

[raydan]

This is starting to sound like Québec, when the Catholic Church controlled pretty much all aspects of sexuality...

- no sex outside of marriage
- you married, you stayed married, no matter what
- NO contraceptives, even abstinence when married was a no-no
- 1 kid a year rule, if not, it meant you were having sex for pleasure, so you got a visit from the priest
- no abortions, even if you were raped (I'm not sure about this rule if the father of the child was your priest)

[dino_bobba_renno]

$1:

The three Councilors who voted against funding for Planned Parenthood said they did so because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though those abortions are entirely privately funded. Councilor Raymond Wieczorek of Manchester added that he opposed funding for birth control and condoms altogether.

"If they want to have a good time, why not let them pay for it?" he told the Concord Monitor last week.

Holy cow, talk about ignorance. While they're at it they should change the name from "Planned Parenthood" to "Unplanned Parenthood". I really have to shake my head at some of the recent "one step forwards, two steps back" approach the US has been taking with some of it's policies lately. It's like some strange rash of ultra- conservatism has swept that country.

[Scape]

Doesn't PP do pap smears?

[Brenda]

Scape Scape:

Doesn't PP do pap smears?

Yep. They did. But they can't afford it anymore without funding.

$1:

About 42 percent of women in the state who qualified for family planning subsidies sought care at one of the state's six Planned Parenthood clinics. Frizzell said many patients were drawn into the clinics to fill a birth control prescription, and would then agree to an annual pap smear or STD testing. Abortions accounted for only three percent of PPNNE's services.

Funny fact (well, not so much) is that the 3% of the PP's services provided (the abortions) are privately funded, and that must show in the books. There is no taxpayers money going to abortions here.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

I don't get what you are saying here, OTI.
You would provide free condoms but not birth control pills? You would provide free condoms, but not treat urinal tract infections? You would provide free condoms but not screen for cervix cancer etc by providing free PAP-smears?

The goal is to prevent pregnancy,infections and disease. Providing pills does only 1 of those and that's prevent pregnancy.

You're encouraging irresponsibility but pushing pills.

On top of that, the pills have a ton of side effects like acne, weight gain, etc.

Providing and encouraging the use of condoms will have a more profound effect.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I don't get why the government should for people who opt to have unprotected sex.

You don't have to have unprotected sex, provide free condoms and cut out the birth control pills.

Should what?

If you mean "should provide free abortions" then that is incorrect. The article states that the abortions are funded privately not through their funding but personally I believe abortions should be provided free of charge no different then any other medical service.

Really? I can't get chiropractic care or physiotherapy witout paying out of pocket for it. You want me to pay for something that is an ABSOLUTE necessity for me(physio) through something that was no fault of my own, then expect me to pick up the tab for some bimbo that doesn't "want that thing inside her"?

Get real! Pregnancy due to rape should be covered, but other than that, unless deemed a medical necessity by a doctor, NOT the one that's pregnant, then it is an elective procedure and NO provincial health plans cover elective procedures AFAIK.
"Oh gee, my big, bent of shape, ugly nose is ruining my social life, OHIP should have to pay for me to get a nose job".

"Oh no, my tits are too small and it's damaging my fragile self-esteem, OHIP should pay for me to have bigger boobs."

"Damn, even though we've been taught in school for years how NOT to get pregnant, I'm stupid and had unprotected sex anyway, OHIP should pay for my abortion."

Sorry, not buying it, no matter how badly you want me to pay for it.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

I don't get what you are saying here, OTI.
You would provide free condoms but not birth control pills? You would provide free condoms, but not treat urinal tract infections? You would provide free condoms but not screen for cervix cancer etc by providing free PAP-smears?

The goal is to prevent pregnancy,infections and disease. Providing pills does only 1 of those and that's prevent pregnancy.

You're encouraging irresponsibility but pushing pills.

On top of that, the pills have a ton of side effects like acne, weight gain, etc.

Providing and encouraging the use of condoms will have a more profound effect.

Do you use a condom OTI?