Texas to Scrap Women's Health Program

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news...rticle=9806549

The Texas Women's Health Program is being shut down by the Department of Health and Human Services, because federal rules say the state doesn't have the authority to deny funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, even if the groups don't use the tax money for abortion activities, 1200 WOAI news reports.
DHHS attempted to cut out Planned Parenthood from the groups receiving women's health funding under the program, but the federal government said the state is banned from 'picking and choosing' which clinics can and which cannot participate in the program, which is designed to provide family planning advice and care to poor women.
So under a law passed by the Republican dominated Legislature last year, the state is required to scrap the entire program, rather than use tax money to fund abortion providers.
"I think we are probably going to see potentially more clinic closures ahead, and there is no doubt that there will be more women who don't have health care services as a result," Sarah Wheat, co-director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, told 1200 WOAI news.
If the groups can't reach agreement, the women's health program will shut down at the end of March.
Wheat says the Women's Health Program actually works, and cutting it will damage taxpayers as well as poor women.
"Texas is choosing to cancel a program that has been unbelievably successful in saving money for taxpayers," she said.
She says the program provided preventative health programs, screening for breast cancer, STD testing, and other programs. Wheat says if no agreement is reached, the state will end up spending millions more, as women show up at hospital emergency rooms suffering from breast cancer and other conditions.
It didn't take the Texas Democratic Party long to use the decision as a fundraising pitch. The party sent out an e-mail Thursday night asking for donations to 'combat the Republican war on women.'
"Today's decision is absolutely indefensible, and every Texas Republican should be ashamed!" wrote party comptroller Sarah Joyner.

~~I understand the issue of not wanting fed funds for abortion but the consequences reach farther than just abortion. IMHO.

I guess you will need to go to a church to get with any feminine health issues taken care of.

Quote:

---

Seven states filed a lawsuit Thursday to block the federal government's requirement that religious organizations offer health insurance coverage that includes free access to contraception for women.

The attorney generals of Texas, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina jointly filed the lawsuit in a Nebraska US District Court.

Two private citizens, two religious non-profit organizations and a Catholic school also joined the lawsuit against the contraception mandate, which is part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin the government from enforcing the requirement.

The states filed the suit despite a compromise announced by Obama earlier this month in which religious organizations with objections to the law will no longer be required to offer free birth control to female employees next year.

Under Obama's new approach, insurance companies, rather than religious organizations, will be obligated to offer contraception for free to the institutions' employees.

"The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions."

The Obama administration did not comment on the lawsuit Thursday.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has previously filed several lawsuits on behalf of religious organizations also seeking to strike down the law.

Houses of worship -- such as churches, synagogues and mosques -- are exempt from the law's requirement of providing contraceptives to female employees, but religious leaders have expressed outrage that other religious organizations -- such as schools and hospitals -- are not barred from the law's reach.

Like the Texas attorney general, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said earlier its month it still opposed the federal government's mandate after Obama's compromise.

The religious freedom issue has become a major political topic, with each major Republican presidential candidate saying they oppose Obama's requirement.

And on Wednesday, a federal judge blocked a Washington state regulation that forced pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives over their religious objections.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

---

Our tax dollars at work. Butthurtness and feigned outrage lead us to frivilous lawsuits that are paid for by our tax dollars. Great job guys!:toast

Estimates are that the 80K TX abortions/year will jump to 100K as result of TX Repugs shutting down health clinics for the poor (women) and denying them contraception.

Once the fabricated "war on freedom of religion" allows a retailer to deny a sale because of his moral principles, the door will be open for all kinds of "fuck you" denial of sales.

As Moyers points out, freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion.

My question is why aren't abortion clinics simply abortion clinics? Why must they be lumped with other women's health services? I'd think this would/should be a neccesary step to alleviate the whole "we hate women" "debate". The whole "but this money isn't used for abortions" excuse, for lack of a better word, is flimsy too.

"lumped with other women's health services"

The Repugs' long war on womens' vaginas doesn't stop at abortion. It includes contraception.

Next will be clitorectomy to be required for welfare, child/housing support, food stamps, unemployment checks. Small, non-intrusive govt at its very best.

Are Conservatives Winning the War on Women? How the Religious Lobbying Industry Truly Threatens Our Rights

The opponents of birth control insurance coverage don’t use an election as a metric. Sure, they’d love to win, but even a loss inspires them to redouble their efforts, not to pack up and go home after learning they are on the minority side of public opinion.

They are evangelists. If public opinion isn’t on their side, they’ll strive to change public opinion. They are dogged, well-financed and unrelenting. Their claims about the proper role of religion in governing and policymaking — which Democrats fail to contest forcefully enough — are eroding the separation of church and state, and taking down gains made in access to reproductive healthcare along with it.


As Scott Lemieux writes at Lawyers, Guns and Money, “a constitutional challenge to the contraception provision wouldn’t even rise to the level of being frivolous” under existing constitutional jurisprudence. Contrary to conservative claims, the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Free Exercise Clause as requiring such expansive religious exemptions. But in our current political climate, which causes Democrats to crouch in fear of being labeled anti-religion, such exemptions are nonetheless tucked away in legislation at the behest of the burgeoning religious lobbying industry, becoming law even if not required to protect free exercise rights.


http://www.alternet.org/sex/154278/a...paign=alternet

http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/help/WHP/index.shtml

Quote:

---

http://d2o6nd3dubbyr6.cloudfront.net...x1000_q100.jpg


When Gov. Rick Perry goes under the knife on Friday morning to repair his right clavicle, he'll be in the hands of the president of the Texas Medical Association — a prominent Austin surgeon who has been a critic of some of the causes the governor has championed.



Dr. Bruce Malone's personal opinions on the state’s new abortion sonogram law and massive reductions to state family planning funding run counter to the governor's. He told The Texas Tribune last month that slashing family planning dollars and eliminating the Medicaid Women's Health Program to force Planned Parenthood out of Texas would be "a very stupid political thing," adding that there is not "another safety net for these women for medical care."

---

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-pe...vicle-surgery/

Quote:

---

Perry's office said any disagreement on those issues plays absolutely no role in the governor's surgery, which is the result of a 2009 bicycle injury that did not heal properly. Malone, an orthopedic surgeon who has headed the TMA since May, will perform the 90-minute outpatient procedure.



During a phone interview with the Tribune, Malone clarified — but did not back down from — his criticism over Texas' threats to refuse federal women's health funding if the state can't exclude Planned Parenthood clinics. Perry has repeatedly laid the blame for the likely demise of the Women's Health Program at the Obama administration's feet.


“I didn’t say it was a political decision. I think I used the word 'stupid,'” Malone said. “We don’t have a policy at the Texas Medical Association on the ethics of abortion. What I’m worried about is the well woman exams, the pap smears, all the services that poor women need. I think we need to worry more about the health of the women who don’t have the resources to get the care anywhere else.”

---

same

That;s what they get for bitching about planned parenthood.

Is the GOP just trying to punt in 2012? you really gotta wonder

http://i547.photobucket.com/albums/h...nwomenvote.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Is the GOP just trying to punt in 2012? you really gotta wonder

http://i547.photobucket.com/albums/h...nwomenvote.jpg

---

This is really very very sad.

sorry, double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

This is really very very sad.

---

I'll punt for shits and giggles...


Is it?

Where's the equality?

What about mens rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

My question is why aren't abortion clinics simply abortion clinics? Why must they be lumped with other women's health services? I'd think this would/should be a neccesary step to alleviate the whole "we hate women" "debate". The whole "but this money isn't used for abortions" excuse, for lack of a better word, is flimsy too.

---

In some areas of Texas, Planned Parenthood is the only one around providing preventive health care services to low-income women. It is the same reason for the whole issue with Susan G. Komen. In some areas, the only entity providing breast cancer screening for poor women is Planned Parenthood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

In some areas of Texas, Planned Parenthood is the only one around providing preventive health care services to low-income women. It is the same reason for the whole issue with Susan G. Komen. In some areas, the only entity providing breast cancer screening for poor women is Planned Parenthood.

---

Yes, but Planned parenthood is best known for their work aborting babies. I will not deny that they do actual good work, but how does someone know their funding will be for a cause they believe in, and not used for stuff appalling to them.

Ron Paul said it best in the last debate. Planned Parenthood should get nothing. He's right. That pathetic baby killing organization should be privately funded. Uncle Sam should not give a fuckin penny to Planned Parenthood. If people love baby killing so much, pay for women to kill their unborn babies. Get abortion supporters and liberal celebs to foot the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, but Planned parenthood is best known for their work aborting babies. I will not deny that they do actual good work, but how does someone know their funding will be for a cause they believe in, and not used for stuff appalling to them.

---

Actually, I never knew that they performed any abortions at all until hearing about this in the last couple of months.

I think most people assume they (PP) provide prenatal care and contraceptives. That IS what they do most of.

Yeah. I don't see how it's planning for parenthood if you abort the baby.............

Having an unwanted/accidental baby is not Planned Parenthood

Having a wanted baby when you want is Planned Parenthood.

100Ms of women since oral contraception was introduced, including Ms who will for Repug politicians' War on Contraception, have used condoms and contraception to plan their parenthood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, but Planned parenthood is best known for their work aborting babies.

---

Yes, they're best known for that because people like you don't know anything about them except what you hear from AM radio and the emails forwarded to you. Maybe you should make more of an effort to have a modicum of intelligence about the subjects you're discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Yes, they're best known for that because people like you don't know anything about them except what you hear from AM radio and the emails forwarded to you. Maybe you should make more of an effort to have a modicum of intelligence about the subjects you're discussing.

---

Are you saying they are not a large abortion provider? Maybe the largest?

How does 331,796 abortions in 2009 and 329,445 in 2010 sound to you?

2009 to 2010 Planned Parenthood Annual report

80K abortions/year in deep red TX. Think they are all Dem women?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

80K abortions/year in deep red TX. Think they are all Dem women?

---

Don't know, but the new abortion supercenter is in the middle of four minority neighborhoods.

Abortion supercenter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Don't know, but the new abortion supercenter is in the middle of four minority neighborhoods.

Abortion supercenter

---

you did not just post an article from the Onion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

you did not just post an article from the Onion...

---

It's multiple places. I picked one I knew you would approve of.

Is this any better:

Groups to protest new abortion clinic in Houston

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

My question is why aren't abortion clinics simply abortion clinics? Why must they be lumped with other women's health services? I'd think this would/should be a neccesary step to alleviate the whole "we hate women" "debate". The whole "but this money isn't used for abortions" excuse, for lack of a better word, is flimsy too.

---

What difference would that make (besides the fact that they do provide more than abortion services)?. According to the OP, it's getting shut down because the state can't pick and choose which clinics they distribute funding to. So abortion-only or not wouldn't really matter in this case.

Astonishing.

As if the number of unplanned teen pregnancies wasn't big enough.

I have always thought the rather marked drop in crime rates 18 years after Roe v. Wade was not a coincidence.

I think that states that make it harder for abortions to take place or cut back on such funding are just asking for tax increases in the future, when the inevitably bad parenting of unwed teenage girls produces the obvious results.

It is the height of irony that the same crowd who bitches the loudest about tax increases is the same crowd actively pushing policies that will require them.

"It is the height of irony that the same crowd who bitches the loudest about tax increases is the same crowd actively pushing policies that will require them."

It's the ubiquity of vapidity that produces panaceas like that.

That's almost alliterative if not a bit too unkind.:lol

Sorry RG. I'll pass on the multi-beer lunch next time.

hat-trick!

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs..._complaint.pdf

via The Texas Tribune

This is just a pissing match between Obama and Texas/Perry. Planned Parenthood is only 2% of the enrolled Women's Health Program facilities. It's not like they can't get contraception and other issues dealt with at other locations. This is just the poster child for the agenda medias premise of the Republicans "war on women".

Texas Squares off With USA on Abortion
By DAVID LEE
ShareThis
WACO, Texas (CN) - Texas sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Federal Court, challenging its defunding of the Texas Women's Health Program because of a state law that bans financing of clinics affiliated with abortion providers.
Attorney General Greg Abbott claims Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' decision to terminate federal funding violated the Administrative Procedure Act, being "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and 'not in accordance with law.'"
Texas claims Uncle Sam violated the Constitution "by seeking to commandeer and coerce the States' lawmaking processes into awarding taxpayer subsidies to elective abortion providers."
Texas made national news by rejecting federal health-care money, in what Gov. Rick Perry acknowledged was a way to starve Planned Parenthood of funding.
The Texas Women's Health Program, created in 2005, provides family planning and related health-care services for women 18 to 44 with income at or below 185 percent of the poverty level, who do not qualify for health-care coverage under Medicaid.
Texas says in its complain that the eligibility levels are aimed at increasing access to preventive health-care services, to reduce long-term costs and reduce abortions.
Federal funding pays for 90 percent of the cost of family planning services, while the state pays for the rest; the state and federal governments share program administrative costs equally.
"By all accounts, the Women's Health Program has been a success. By the end of 2010, 292,680 Texas women were enrolled in the Women's Health Program," the complaint states.
"[State officials] estimated that between 2007 and 2009, Medicaid savings totaled $121 million. Of that, federal taxpayer savings totaled an estimated $63 million. By expanding family-planning services to low-income women who do not qualify for Medicaid, the Women's Health Program has saved state and federal taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually in avoided Medicaid expenditures."
Texas claims that since the program began in 2005, the Legislature has prohibited taxpayer money from going to entities that perform or promote elective abortions, and from funding affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.
"This restriction was necessary to secure legislators' approval of the program, as many state legislators were adamantly opposed to establishing any new program that would provide taxpayer money to organizations - such as Planned Parenthood - that promote or provide elective abortions," the complaint states. "Without this statutory restriction on abortion subsidies, the Women's Health Program would not exist because the Texas Legislature would not have authorized its creation."
Texas claims the restrictions on abortion funding does not involve the Social Security Act, that the Department of Health and Human Services erroneously believes that it "requires every State to give taxpayer subsidies to elective-abortion providers - so long as those providers offer any form of health care covered by the State's Medicaid plan."
Texas claims the Social Security Act does not say that, "and it most assuredly does not impose this requirement with the unmistakably clear language that the Supreme Court requires for statutory conditions on the receipt of federal funds."
Texas claims the Act does not allow Medicaid recipients to obtain services from "any" health-care provider, only from a "qualified" provider.
"Because the State of Texas has a public policy preventing taxpayer funds from directly or indirectly subsidizing elective abortions, elective-abortion providers are not 'qualified' to provide the services offered in the Women's Health Program at taxpayer expense," the complaint states. "Because money is fungible, taxpayer money is used to support elective abortions whenever the State awards grants to entities or affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions, even when the taxpayer funds are designated exclusively for nonabortion-related purposes."
Texas seeks declaratory judgment that its abortion restrictions do not involve the Social Security Act. It also seeks vacatur of the DHHS's denial of its request for a renewal of a Medicaid waiver, which resulted in the loss of federal funding for the program.

War on women :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

War on women :lol

---

war on catholics lol

Quote:

---

"There is a cavernous gender gap in the horse-race poll…. Obama leads Romney by 20 points among female voters. And leads Santorum by 26 points among female voters."

---

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...boost-to-Obama

http://i891.photobucket.com/albums/a...healthcare.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

How does 331,796 abortions in 2009 and 329,445 in 2010 sound to you?

2009 to 2010 Planned Parenthood Annual report

---

Not as many as tobacco related cancer, so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

Not as many as tobacco related cancer, so what?

---

Really?

Just kill the innocent, but care about people who do harm to themselves?

Seems like your priorities are backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Really?

Just kill the innocent, but care about people who do harm to themselves?

Seems like your priorities are backwards.

---

People should be able to choose to smoke, and they should be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Especially if their options for birth control have been severely limited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

People should be able to choose to smoke, and they should be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Especially if their options for birth control have been severely limited.

---

I see...

You are fine with snuffing out live that cannot defend itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see...

You are fine with snuffing out live that cannot defend itself.

---

I don't presume to make people's choices for them.

Quote:

---

(Kay Bailey Hutchinson) said Thursday she thinks Governor Rick Perry needs to resolve the current clash with the Obama administration over the health care program because the federal funds are too important.



Perry has praised Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who recently filed suit against the feds. The federal government decided to curtail state funding of the Texas program because the state violated federal rules by banning Planned Parenthood from providing women’s health services under the program.


Hutchison argued the state legislation should not turn away federal funds for healthcare and look to replace it with money from the Texas budget, which is already being cut in key places, like education.
“The governor needs to sit down with the federal government and work it out so that we can have our share,” she said in an interview with Chuck Todd of MSNBC.


Hutchison also had words of praise for Planned Parenthood — a rare utterance from a prominent Republican — saying that Planned Parenthood does a lot of preventative health care, like mammograms, and the state needs to continue to provide those services.


“We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low-income women to have health care services,” she said. “We cannot.”

---

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012...ogram-dispute/

Of course, the other 98% of program participants can provide mammograms too. It's not like women are being denied them.

the other 98% of providers provide a little over half of WHP services; if they can't pick up the slack, access to service could suffer.

I hear the Susan Komen foundation is losing donors and race participants over their Planned Parenthood debacle.

also, talent and experience. a few officers have resigned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I hear the Susan Komen foundation is losing donors and race participants over their Planned Parenthood debacle.

---

Why doesn't that surprise me?

If Texas planned to replace the services foreseeably lost due to the decision to deny funds to qualified participants, it'd be basically fine by me.

Spending money on preventive medicine for poor folks is a no brainer or should be. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I hear the Susan Komen foundation is losing donors and race participants over their Planned Parenthood debacle.

---

Some of the supporters they are losing are people who before did not know that some of their money was going to Planned Parenthood, and now they know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

Some of the supporters they are losing are people who before did not know that some of their money was going to Planned Parenthood, and now they know.

---

Exactly.

This was some shocking news to some.

Quote:

---

Last Monday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that Planned Parenthood's claim — that the state of Texas is violating its constitutional rights — was likely to succeed. Yeakel issued an injunction stopping Texas' defunding until he can schedule a trial and hear arguments.


The state has appealed, and the matter is now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments will be heard the first week of June.

---

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/07/152186...od-fights-back

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state...m-in-texas.ece

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/ed...ealth-care.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/ed...ealth-care.ece

---

If you can't afford children maybe you should stop having sex..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

If you can't afford children maybe you should stop having sex..

---

Time to forcibly tie those tubes...

Why does Texas do shit like this but it's okay to ban casinos and make people get a sticker for toll roads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

If you can't afford children maybe you should stop having sex..

---

this kerfuffle is only nominally about abortion. the real idiocy of it is the decertification of clinics that perform no abortions, but much preventive health care, and yes, that hand out birth control. Planned Parenthood clinics saved Texas a lot of money in unpaid ER visits and unwanted pregnancies to single mothers well short of abortion. what Texas plans to replace them with remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

this kerfuffle is only nominally about abortion. the real idiocy of it is the decertification of clinics that perform no abortions, but much preventive health care, and yes, that hand out birth control. Planned Parenthood clinics saved Texas a lot of money in unpaid ER visits and unwanted pregnancies to single mothers well short of abortion. what Texas plans to replace them with remains to be seen.

---

The irony of this issue with PP is that they have decreased the number of abortions with their services. It also seems to be extremely shortsighted and smells more about politics than fiscal policy. WIth that being said, Gov Good Hair will not have to deal with pesky issues such as unwanted pregnancies and poor women not being able to secure preventative measures concerning their health. This may sound like an 'emotional' argument but in reality poor women are going to suffer because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Why does Texas do shit like this but it's okay to ban casinos and make people get a sticker for toll roads?

---

TX is full of "Christian" assholes, white, poor and wealthy who want to regulate women's vaginas (morals). Repugs have successfully lied, suckered "Christians" into "believing" that Repugs are the party of Christ and the Bible. :lol

Quote:

---

This may sound like an 'emotional' argument but in reality poor women are going to suffer because of this.

---

at substantial public expense. that part's not.

Texians killing PP because it made abortion recommendations is estimated to increase TX abortions/year from 80K to 100K. :lol

did PP make abortion recommendations? the WHP and abortion services provided by PP were administratively and physically separated, I thought . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

this kerfuffle is only nominally about abortion. the real idiocy of it is the decertification of clinics that perform no abortions, but much preventive health care, and yes, that hand out birth control. Planned Parenthood clinics saved Texas a lot of money in unpaid ER visits and unwanted pregnancies to single mothers well short of abortion. what Texas plans to replace them with remains to be seen.

---

Hopefully Ricky P. will pray about it.

we should all pray, tbh

New Study Shows Anti-Choice Policies Leading to Widespread Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women

On Tuesday, January 15th, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law will publish our study, “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973-2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health.” This study makes clear that post-Roe anti-choice and “pro-life” measures are being used to do more than limit access to abortion; they are providing the basis for arresting women, locking them up, and forcing them to submit to medical interventions, including surgery.

The cases documented in our study through 2005, as well as more recent cases, make clear that 40 years after Roe v. Wade was decided, far more is at stake than abortion or women’s reproductive rights. Pregnant women face attacks on virtually every right associated with constitutional personhood, including the very basic right to physical liberty.

Our study identified 413 criminal and civil cases involving the arrests, detentions, and equivalent deprivations of pregnant women’s physical liberty that occurred between 1973 (when Roe v. Wade was decided) and 2005. Because many cases are not reported publicly, we know that this is a substantial under count. Furthermore, new data collection indicates that at least 250 such interventions have taken place since 2005.


In almost all of the cases we identified, the arrests and other actions would not have happened but for the fact that the woman was pregnant at the time of the alleged violation of law. And, in almost every case we identified, the person who initiated the action had no direct legal authority for doing so. No state legislature has passed a law that holds women legally liable for the outcome of their pregnancies. No state legislature has passed a law making it a crime for a pregnant woman to continue her pregnancy to term in spite of a drug or alcohol problem. No state has passed a law exempting pregnant women from the protections of the state and federal constitution. And, under Roe v. Wade, abortion remains legal.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13952...pregnant-women

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

did PP make abortion recommendations? the WHP and abortion services provided by PP were administratively and physically separated, I thought . . .

---

I read that very few PP clinics actually did abortions (in TX) but they caught got clobbered by Texian Taleban anyway. They did tell ladies where they could get an abortion. And those abortion providers haven't been murdered or outlawed, yet.

Quote:

---

They did tell ladies where they could get an abortion. And those abortion providers haven't been murdered or outlawed, yet.

---

where, please?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/hea...rvice=abortion

of course PP isn't giving it up yet, and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

of course PP isn't giving it up yet, and Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

---

Planned Parenthood Out, But Docs Can Still Discuss Abortion in New Texas Women's Health Program

But unlike the rules initially proposed earlier this year, the final rules will allow providers to have "private" discussions about abortion, what Janek called "non-directive counseling." A provider could answer factual questions, or provide the name of a doctor who provides abortion, but could not go any further. The rules will not effect what, or in what way, TWHP providers discuss abortion with their non-TWHP clients, Janek said. The final rules also allow physicians who work in hospitals or are members of a physician group to participate in the program, even if another doctor they're associated with provides abortion services. The changes were meant to address the concern raised by the Texas Medical Association (on behalf of their members and those of theAmerican Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Texas Academy of Family Physicians andTexas Pediatric Society) that constraining their relationships with patients in order to participate in the TWHP would violate medical ethics.http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs...ealth-program/

http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs...ealth-program/

So docs and others can still recommend and perform abortions, 80K to 100K/year, and get paid. Texian Repugs wouldn't dare touch "free enterprise". eg:

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/texas.html

so the Texian Repugs have done nothing by legislating their morality except cause poor women who can't pay for birth control or can't pay for "private" docs to have more pregnancies and more abortions.

Quote:

---

The federal government has awarded family planning dollars that used to go into state coffers to a coalition of Texas women's health providers instead.


The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' competitively bid Title X money — $6.5 million worth, for starters — will now be granted to the Austin-based Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas, a consortium of statewide reproductive health providers including Planned Parenthood.


It's a blow to the Texas Department of State Health Services — which had also applied for the funding, and relied on it for years. Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the agency, said DSHS learned on Monday that its federal award would end in a few days.

---

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/...ey-state-vied/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

If you can't afford children maybe you should stop having sex..

---

AMEN or put a sock on it.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...s-unwise.html/

I suppose none of Perry/Cornyn/Cruz's families are too poor to pay for health care or peri-natal care.

There are plenty of white rural bubba familis who are in the same boat as poor browns and blacks.

I just don't understand how people can listen to Perry, and then keep voting him in.

Duckspeak. Guys like Cruz and Perry see their bullshit printed in the newspaper before it becomes part of the perceived reality fans and critics alike admire from afar.

collateral damage, cancer screening for rural Texans:

Quote:

---

Under the chamber's proposed plan, public entities like state, county and community health clinics would get first crack at the cash. “Non-public entities” that provide screenings as part of “comprehensive” primary and preventive care would come in second place.


And private specialty clinics like the Livingston facility would only get cancer-screening funding if there's money left over. That includes Planned Parenthood — whose family planning and cancer-screening clinics are a target of GOP lawmakers even though they are prohibited from performing abortions if they receive tax dollars.


The Senate’s chief budget writer, state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, has said the proposed tiered funding is intended to ensure that facilities unaffiliated with abortion providers are funded first.



But under the proposed funding revisions, at least 34 providers not affiliated with Planned Parenthood — nearly one-fifth of those currently using program dollars — would be moved into the second or third tier for funding.



“There’s not going to be anything left by the time it gets to us,” said Carol Belver, executive director of Community Action Inc. of Central Texas, whose three clinics screened a combined 625 women in the San Marcos area last year. Though her clinics provide primary care, the cancer screenings are offered as a separate service — leaving Community Action in the bottom tier for funding.


“We’re the collateral damage,” she added.



The screening program, which is primarily funded with federal dollars, served 33,599 Texas women in fiscal year 2014 — 57 percent of whom were Hispanic.


In some rural parts of the state, the funding change could leave the sole program provider in the area with little to no funding for cancer screenings. In Amarillo, for example, four Haven Health clinics are the only program providers, but they would all likely fall into the third tier for funding.



Patricia Jones, director of community-based care for Memorial Health System of East Texas, which treated Riley, said Memorial is the only program contractor with clinics in Livingston, Lufkin and San Augustine.
“We’ve had this funding almost 20 years, and if we were to lose that funding, you have 350 ladies who lose this access to a complex system,” Jones said. “You’d have 20 cancers that wouldn’t have been diagnosed as early as they were.”

---

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/...-collateral-d/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

collateral damage, cancer screening for rural Texans:

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/...-collateral-d/

---

Repugs' war on poor women's health, tits, vaginas, this is includes poor white, rural women who vote Repug.

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled as unconstitutional on Friday a state law requiring any doctor performing an abortion to have privileges to admit patients to a nearby hospital.

U.S. District Judge William Conley temporarily blocked the law in August 2013, which requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles (50 km) of his or her practice, shortly after Republican Governor Scott Walker signed it into law.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services, the state's two abortion providers, challenged the measure in court, saying it could force abortion clinics in Appleton and Milwaukee to close.

On Friday, Conley ordered a permanent injunction against the law, saying in his 91-page order and opinion that the law violated women's 14th amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

"The marginal benefit to women's health of requiring hospital admitting privileges, if any, is substantially outweighed by the burden this requirement will have on women's health outcomes due to restricted access to abortions in Wisconsin," Conley wrote.

"While the court agrees with the State that sometimes it is necessary to reduce access to insure safety, this is decidedly not one of those instances,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MH05H20150321