Reply With Quote
you did not just post an article from the Onion...
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...
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
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 es 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 es 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.
Sorry RG. I'll pass on the multi-beer lunch next time.
hat-trick!
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 Cons ution "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 en ies that perform or promote elective abortions, and from funding affiliates of en ies 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 en ies or affiliates of en ies 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
war on catholics lolWar on women
Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...boost-to-Obama"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."
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.
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.
I don't presume to make people's choices for them.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012...ogram-dispute/(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.”
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
