Btw, in order for this bill to pass to become law, it has to also be approved in the Senate ( unlikely ) & have a 2/3 majority of both houses to overcome a Presidential veto ( also unlikely---at least for now. )

what is the need for Planned Parenthood? Actually, the name should be changed to Un-planned Non-parenthood.

While I support abortion. However, given the deep moral controversy surrounding abortion, I feel it is just as inappropriate for tax dollars to be used to fund abortions as it is inappropriate to use tax dollars to enforce or support religious dogma.

No one has made any moves to limit access to safe and legal abortions. But the federal gov't will not be footing the bill for it. There is a significant difference between the two.

..these laws the govt wants passed are about lobbyist and corporations having a lot to gain.  When I could write laws that represent the people better than Washington because that would be my total objective.  Washington has become obvious in their direction, priorities, interest, and leaving office a rich man.  If the law and/or laws that get passed happen to work for the peoples benefit; it was an over site...nothing more

..there's a video I want to share and looking for feedback.  I might put it here.

Hold onto your reproductive organs, ladies.  Next thing you know, they'll be trying to outlaw abortion and birth control pills.  Which, of course is where this is headed.  I'm disgusted with the fact that people's religious beliefs are dictating public policy.  I know this isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.  It's part of a larger movement to strip women of their right to reproductive health care, and it will continue unless those who are opposed stand up.

What is this country coming to?

Never been there, but I see your point.  My apologies

You are right, of course but still.....this is chilling.

Do we really want the poor cut off from free or low cost birth control? Do we want to see that population continue to swell? Do we want to have STD's increase and spread throughout the population? These are arguments which are completely non-partisan and have nothing to do with abortion. They are also seperate from women's reproductive rights arguments.

I'm deeply dismayed this kind of illogical partisan "thinking" is driving politics these days.

If we are making up rights, I think the correct term here would be non-reproductive rights.  No one is preventing you from reproducing.  Those rights are intact and God given.  Just sayin'...

With GM foods being on your plate everyday for the purposre of not having the population Swell as you call it lol.Built in pesticide that is the modifaction.It is an endocrine blocker .Stops bugs from having babies and you too.Awesome .... Go Ana and live longer oy ,Lianna

going to get abortions without a taxpayer funded resource available to provide it.

Sins: PP is already prohibited by law from using Title X federal funds for abortions.  That's not what it's about.

Rani

They are ongoing and happening right under your nose...

Attempting to redefine rape, trying to make having a miscarriage a felony, etc.

You're trying to equate de-funding something the same as taking away someone's rights!!!!

What kind of screwed up thinking is that ?!?!?!

How about its a message that people need to be responsible for themselves!!!

So only RICH women have reproductive rights?

Poor women are going to be forced to have the child!

I'll tell you how they are going to get the abortions after you explain the logic of constantly rewarding irresponsible choices.

Poor women are going to pay for their poor choices. So will rich women, they just happen to have the means to do it.

It has been my experience tyhat most people are poor based on their own actions. There are exceptions of course, but generally it is based on personal bad life choices.

So why the hell should the taxpayers pay for other people's bad choices??

Deep thinking. Only one source is possible

arf, arf, arf!

...Not too good with words for a human, are you?  Can you spell "ridicule?"
Bark!  Probably not!  See...there's so much you can learn from a mere canine.

-- Modified on 2/27/2011 2:12:20 PM

Notphilsdog, notcharlie, and charlie

You also have confused admiration with ridicule!  Arf!  I guess some dogs just love attention even if someone is beating them with a belt!  Yap!

Yelp!  Thank you for quoting me!  Arf!

Yes we probably can but why? There will always be poor people as long there are inequalities  and society must find cost effective ways to deal with the poor. A really good way is population control via birth control IMHO. And yes Phil someone has to pay for it. Planned Parenthood is cheap and effective way to control population growth within the poor population.

I like the condom idea, I use them myself. But guess what Mein, Planned Parenthood provides training on how to use condoms as a service to the poor.

Good doggie!  Roll over!  Yark!

*Snore*

But you still have a total lack of original thought.

I think we should have the ruling class pay.  The lackeys will thereby be served by the masters.  

In 60 years, I don't know if anyone has said anything so mean and cruel.
And so clever.

...why not just start killing rich people? I figure why not, since they're already killing poor people. I figure once we burn our 100th corporate executive at the stake during the Sunday night football game, then we will cease to have any more homelessness in this country.