Texas Just Banned Planned Parenthood From Its Medicaid Program

[Chris]

For being incompetent, unsafe, illegal and unethical

Texas Just Banned Planned Parenthood From Its Medicaid Program (http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/19/texas-just-banned-planned-parenthood-from-its-medicaid-program-2/)


...The letter states that the termination of Planned Parenthood’s enrollment in the Texas Medicaid program is due to multiple health and legal violations committed by the nation’s largest abortion provider, many of which were brought to light by a series of undercover videos from the Center for Medical Progress, or CMP.

The inspector general’s notice to Planned Parenthood states that the organization’s practice of altering the standard of care to procure fetal tissue “violate[s] accepted medical standards, as reflected in federal law” and is therefore a “Medicaid program violation[] that justif[ies] termination.”

The state’s top government health care watchdog also found that Planned Parenthood “failed to prevent conditions that would allow the spread of infectious diseases among employees, as well as patients and the general public.”

...The inspector general also cited Planned Parenthood’s history of fraud as a reason for terminating the group’s participation in the state’s Medicaid program. In the past, the abortion provider has over-billed the government for services, including abortions, when it wasn’t allowed to do so. In 2013, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice found that Planned Parenthood significantly over-billed the Texas Medicaid program, and the abortion provider eventually paid $4.3 million in a settlement.

...

[Crepitus]

Utter bullshit. I'm willing to bet there's nothing unsafe, this is just politics. just politics.

[Chris]

Utter bullshit. I'm willing to bet there's nothing unsafe, this is just politics. just politics.

From OP link: "The videos also show that the clinics do not take reasonable precautions to prevent infectious diseases from spreading. The letter specifically called out the Gulf Coast clinic for allowing investigators posing as organ buyers to “handle bloody fetal tissue while only wearing gloves.”"

[Crepitus]

From OP link: "The videos also show that the clinics do not take reasonable precautions to prevent infectious diseases from spreading. The letter specifically called out the Gulf Coast clinic for allowing investigators posing as organ buyers to “handle bloody fetal tissue while only wearing gloves.”"
The videos that have already been determined to be deliberately misleading?

Solid evidence there.

[Chris]

The videos that have already been determined to be deliberately misleading?

Solid evidence there.

You mean the videos that were edited but the left calls misleading?

How is this misleading: "The letter specifically called out the Gulf Coast clinic for allowing investigators posing as organ buyers to “handle bloody fetal tissue while only wearing gloves.”"

[Peter1469]

Americans have rejected the culture of death. That has been the down fall of many previous people, such as the Aztecs and their human sacrifices.

[IMPress Polly]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

[Mister D]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

Because it's perceived as the taking of human life. You can argue it's not but the fact that it's perceived that way answers your question. You are not at liberty to violate the fundamental rights of another.

[Cigar]

GOP Denial Defiance to the bitter end, and trust me, the End is near for The GOP :laugh:

[HoneyBadger]

I'm willing to bet there's nothing unsafe

Unless you're the unborn child of one of their "customers".

[Mister D]

GOP Denial Defiance to the bitter end, and trust me, the End is near for The GOP :laugh:

You know that your lines are overused when you start using them in contexts where they make absolutely no sense.

[Bob]

Americans have rejected the culture of death. That has been the down fall of many previous people, such as the Aztecs and their human sacrifices.

i hope you are right Peter. I sure hope so.

[HoneyBadger]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"


My ideology defends people's right to life, liberty and property. As long as that life doesn't pose a deadly threat to the mother, it has a right to continue.

[Bob]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

Liberty comes after life. When one aborts, the life is permanently extinguished.

[Tahuyaman]

You know that your lines are overused when you start using them in contexts where they make absolutely no sense.

Can you tell me any time he ever made any sense with his past comments?

[Tahuyaman]

The videos that have already been determined to be deliberately misleading?

Solid evidence there.

misleading? How so? They just recorded actual events.

[Chris]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

What libertarian is opposing individual liberty, polly?

What about the individual liberty of the unborn, polly? You're an egalitarian, where's the equal rights? Where's the protection for this class?

"Liberty for me, but not for thee?" Is that what you argue?

[Chris]

GOP Denial Defiance to the bitter end, and trust me, the End is near for The GOP :laugh:

Denial defiance? Looks to me like that's coming from the left.

Frankly, I give a damn about the GOP. Or the DNC.

[Peter1469]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

The question is taking human life and whether there is justification for it or not. If not, we call it murder. Of course there is self defense.

[Mister D]

Can you tell me any time he ever made any sense with his past comments?

It's happened once or twice. :smiley:

[Redrose]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"


Why would you feel abortion is a personal liberty? It's killing a living being that feels pain.

It's not your body, when you are pregnant, you become the host for the fetus, you become two. In many jurisdictions, murdering a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

Liberty doesn't mean you can kill.

[Tahuyaman]

It's happened once or twice. :smiley:

you'll need to show me those comments before I'll believe it.

[Chris]

Why would you feel abortion is a personal liberty? It's killing a living being that feels pain.

It's not your body, when you are pregnant, you become the host for the fetus, you become two. In many jurisdictions, murdering a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

Liberty doesn't mean you can kill.


Right, even if the argument was the old saw of it's my body so it's my choice, denying PP of Medicaid funds takes nothing away.

Unless it's an entitlement argument along the lines of society owes me free abortions.

[Peter1469]

In Roe v Wade there was no scientific consensus of when life started. So the Court made a standard of the last trimester.

Once there is life and it ends the question becomes justification. That is what the left avoids. They don't want to answer the justification question with the centuries of case law that defines it. So they call it something different. Like tissue.

[Mister D]

In Roe v Wade there was no scientific consensus of when life started. So the Court made a standard of the last trimester.

Once there is life and it ends the question becomes justification. That is what the left avoids. They don't want to answer the justification question with the centuries of case law that defines it. So they call it something different. Like tissue.

Nonsensical accusation of hypocrisy seem to have become a favorite red herring.

[Captain Obvious]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

When is "liberty" defined as taxpayer funded murder?

If that's the case, I want a couple of people popped because they're dickheads and I want you to pay for it.

[southwest88]

You mean the videos that were edited but the left calls misleading?

How is this misleading: "The letter specifically called out the Gulf Coast clinic for allowing investigators posing as organ buyers to “handle bloody fetal tissue while only wearing gloves.”"

Something is wrong here. According to the LA Times - see http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-planned-parenthood-fetal-tissue-20151013-story.html

"Dawn Laguens, Planned Parenthood executive vice president, said in an interview Tuesday that fetal tissue donation only occurs in Washington state and California.

"The group's Washington affiliate already harvested fetal tissue for research without reimbursement, she said, and the California affiliate stopped being reimbursed as of this week."

(My emphasis - More detail @ the URL)

& of course, if fetal tissue donation only occurred in WA state & CA, what does the Gulf Coast PP (in Houston) have to do with that? If we're talking about fetal tissue donation - not sales, as quoted above in para 1 - then there's some connection here between Houston & fetal tissue donation that isn't being explained. So what is the connection?

The CMP imposters clearly weren't actually buying anything - but under what pretenses were they onsite in Houston PP?

[Chris]

Something is wrong here. According to the LA Times - see http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-planned-parenthood-fetal-tissue-20151013-story.html

"Dawn Laguens, Planned Parenthood executive vice president, said in an interview Tuesday that fetal tissue donation only occurs in Washington state and California.

"The group's Washington affiliate already harvested fetal tissue for research without reimbursement, she said, and the California affiliate stopped being reimbursed as of this week."

(My emphasis - More detail @ the URL)

& of course, if fetal tissue donation only occurred in WA state & CA, what does the Gulf Coast PP (in Houston) have to do with that? If we're talking about fetal tissue donation - not sales, as quoted above in para 1 - then there's some connection here between Houston & fetal tissue donation that isn't being explained. So what is the connection?

The CMP imposters clearly weren't actually buying anything - but under what pretenses were they onsite in Houston PP?


Sorry but you're still hung up on the profit argument. Texas' cutting off PP's Medicaid funding is not based on that. Read the OP.

[JDubya]

Early stage fetuses are nothing more than blobs of cells.

Calling early stage abortion "murder" is like calling the removal of a tumor or a cyst or a gall bladder, murder.

And let's be honest here, most of these conservative anti-abortion legislators would pay through the nose for a secret, after hours abortion in a NY minute if it was their unmarried teenage daughter or their mistress who was faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

Buncha rank hypocrites.

[Chris]

Early stage fetuses are nothing more than blobs of cells.

Calling early stage abortion "murder" is like calling the removal of a tumor or a cyst or a gall bladder, murder.

And let's be honest here, most of these conservative anti-abortion legislators would pay through the nose for a secret, after hours abortion in a NY minute if it was their unmarried teenage daughter or their mistress who was faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

Buncha rank hypocrites.


Medical science says life begins at conception. What's conceived is a unique human being. So, yes, let's be honest.

[Captain Obvious]

Early stage fetuses are nothing more than blobs of cells.

Calling early stage abortion "murder" is like calling the removal of a tumor or a cyst or a gall bladder, murder.

And let's be honest here, most of these conservative anti-abortion legislators would pay through the nose for a secret, after hours abortion in a NY minute if it was their unmarried teenage daughter or their mistress who was faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

Buncha rank hypocrites.

Clearly you avoided my quiz, like 100% of the other cowards.

Can't say I blame you though, taking the quiz requires a conscious.

Supporting the slaughter of innocent, unborn children requires a lack of one.

[JDubya]

Sorry but you're still hung up on the profit argument. Texas' cutting off PP's Medicaid funding is not based on that. Read the OP.

Yeah, like they weren't lying in wait looking for anything they could find to make abortions harder and harder to get.

They've already cut the number of clinics in that backwards hell hole of a state to below half of what they used to be by tacking bogus requirements onto their state laws.

[JDubya]

Clearly you avoided my quiz, like 100% of the other cowards.

Can't say I blame you though, taking the quiz requires a conscious.

Supporting the slaughter of innocent, unborn children requires a lack of one.

I have no idea what quiz you're talking about and don't care.

[JDubya]

Medical science says life begins at conception. What's conceived is a unique human being. So, yes, let's be honest.

A brain tumor has "life" too.

Guess we should stop killing them, as well.

[Captain Obvious]

I have no idea what quiz you're talking about and don't care.

I understand, I'm dealing with the remedial crowd, I already established that.

So... when human sperm meets human egg, what is produced virtually 100% of the time?

a) A shoe
b) A frog
c) A human baby
d) Mister D 's collection of 80's power-pop hair metal balads

Only one answer is correct.

[MisterVeritis]

Utter bull$#@!. I'm willing to bet there's nothing unsafe, this is just politics. just politics.
Right. It is only unsafe if you happen to be an unborn child waiting to have your arms and legs crushed and ripped off your body. Or if they don't kill you quickly enough and you are born alive. Then they kill you. It is murder. It is evil.

[Captain Obvious]

A brain tumor has "life" too.

Guess we should stop killing them, as well.

Let me know when a brain tumor becomes a human with a conscious and individuality.

[MisterVeritis]

The videos that have already been determined to be deliberately misleading?

Solid evidence there.
No. You are mistaken. If you choose to do so you may view the entire unedited videos. They were edited for time, not for content.

[MisterVeritis]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"
Do you speak of the liberty of the unborn babies who have their arms and legs crushed before being ripped off the living body? It's just a point of curiosity.

[Captain Obvious]

Do you speak of the liberty of the unborn babies who have their arms and legs crushed before being ripped off the living body? It's just a point of curiosity.

Liberty ends at the margin where one's rights begin.

A concept foreign to progressives.

[Subdermal]

I am pro-life, but with a tiny twist.

I believe and egg and sperm becomes a human life - that is, when it acquires a soul & conscience - when "the blood moves": when the foetus begins to circulate its own blood, and not the blood of the mother. THere are many reasons why I believe this, much of it 'circulating' (pun intended) around the concept of 'life blood', and the biblical references to life being in the blood, etc.

That, and it makes instinctive sense to me. That point in a baby's development is between 16-21 days: more than enough time to avert a pregnancy due to rape, etc.

[Captain Obvious]

I am pro-life, but with a tiny twist.

I believe and egg and sperm becomes a human life - that is, when it acquires a soul & conscience - when "the blood moves": when the foetus begins to circulate its own blood, and not the blood of the mother. THere are many reasons why I believe this, much of it 'circulating' (pun intended) around the concept of 'life blood', and the biblical references to life being in the blood, etc.

That, and it makes instinctive sense to me. That point in a baby's development is between 16-21 days: more than enough time to avert a pregnancy due to rape, etc.

Assuming you believe in God, wonder if that was his plan.

Maybe he left an out in there where it was cool to frappe that little fucker up before it was too late.

[MisterVeritis]

GOP Denial Defiance to the bitter end, and trust me, the End is near for The GOP :laugh:
I hope you are right. We need a new, Conservative party. Who needs both a Marxist-Democrat Party and a Marxist-lite Establishment Republican party? So let the ER party die. Let's replace it with a Constitutional Conservative Party.

[MisterVeritis]

When is "liberty" defined as taxpayer funded murder?

If that's the case, I want a couple of people popped because they're dickheads and I want you to pay for it.
I could go for one myself. he has been wrecking the United States for years.

[Chris]

Yeah, like they weren't lying in wait looking for anything they could find to make abortions harder and harder to get.

They've already cut the number of clinics in that backwards hell hole of a state to below half of what they used to be by tacking bogus requirements onto their state laws.

You didn't read the OP, did you, or follow the link to where it explains TX still provides the same healthcare services for women.

I'll ignore your emotions.

[Chris]

A brain tumor has "life" too.

Guess we should stop killing them, as well.

A brain tumor is not a unique human being. Try again.

[southwest88]

Because it's perceived as the taking of human life. You can argue it's not but the fact that it's perceived that way answers your question. You are not at liberty to violate the fundamental rights of another.

In the US legal system, once the Supreme Court finds that a course of action is legal, the question is settled. The SC may in the course of time change its mind - but it tends to be a fairly tortuous process. In the case @ hand - abortion - I think technology is going to obviate a lot of the problems with a legal right to abortion.

As viability of the fetus has become one of the leading issues, & as the medical technology improves to the point that we can reliably remove a fetus & implant it in a surrogate womb - human, or possibly another great ape, & possibly in an artificial womb @ some point, the whole question of viability will become moot. A pregnant woman will be able to essentially offload the pregnancy to someone (or something) else.

I think it's time we moved ahead on this question anyway. We can argue forever & a day - on the merits & karma & so on. I look forward to the day when abortion only occurs because of rape, incest, or the woman's life is in danger if she carries to term. (& of course, in any of these cases, you could still transfer the fetus - although the case of incest might require more medical attention.)

[MisterVeritis]

In the US legal system, once the Supreme Court finds that a course of action is legal, the question is settled.

Really? In what states do we still find slavery, other than productive people to the federal government?

[southwest88]

When is "liberty" defined as taxpayer funded murder?

If that's the case, I want a couple of people popped because they're dickheads and I want you to pay for it.

By law, that doesn't happen. The only abortions that might be taxpayer funded would be in the case of pregnancy by rape, incest &/or carrying to term would endanger the woman's life. Elective abortions are not funded by the federal government, TMK.

[southwest88]

Sorry but you're still hung up on the profit argument. Texas' cutting off PP's Medicaid funding is not based on that. Read the OP.

The profit argument has gone away.

TX has yet to cut off PP from its Medicaid funding - it's merely filed intent to do so, with a 30-day clock for appeals now ticking. Yah, I read through the URL noted. If part of TX' argument is about fetal tissue donation - which doesn't & hasn't taken place in TX - then TX may not have standing in that part of the filing. If that's so, TX may have to reinstate PP Medicaid funding, & refile - if they still want to pursue the issue.

That's part of my questioning the apparent TX insinuation that fetal tissue donation was taking place in PP in Houston - if it wasn't then that's not a legal basis to rescind PP Medicaid funding. & the TX case against PP unravels that much. We'll just have to wait & see then.

[leekohler2]

You didn't read the OP, did you, or follow the link to where it explains TX still provides the same healthcare services for women.

I'll ignore your emotions.

Emotions aside, he is correct in his claims:


Tuesday would have been the last day of operation for 10 clinics in Texas that provide abortion services. But on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its final actions of this session, said the clinics can remain open (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/14A1288-order-6-29-15.pdf) while clinic lawyers ask the court for a full review of a strict abortion law.Two dozen states have passed regulations similar to the ones being fought over in Texas.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/08/tx-abortion_sq-90f2f6b4f27ca9e084a1e01950542b04529d83b6-s100.jpg (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/08/375725066/texas-abortion-case-may-hinge-on-definition-of-undue-burden)SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/)

Texas Abortion Case May Hinge On Definition Of 'Undue Burden' (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/08/375725066/texas-abortion-case-may-hinge-on-definition-of-undue-burden)




Two years ago, when Texas passed one of the toughest laws in the country regarding abortion services, the number of clinics offering the procedure dropped from 41 to 19.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman's Health (http://wholewomanshealth.com/about-us.html), already had to close two clinics in Texas because of the law and was about to close two more. "Honestly, I just can't stop smiling," Hagstrom Miller says. "It's been so much up and down, so much uncertainty for my team and the women that we serve."
The Texas law says doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. But some hospitals are reluctant to grant them because of religious reasons, or because abortion is so controversial.
The law also requires the clinics to meet the same standards as outpatient surgery centers. Those upgrades can cost $1 million or more.
"It's an example of the rash of laws that have passed throughout the country the past couple of years that have taken a sneaky approach by enacting regulations that pretend to be about health and safety but are actually designed to close down clinics," says Nancy Northrup, chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights (http://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/supreme-court-steps-in-to-protect-abortion-access-in-texas), which is representing clinics in their fight to overturn the Texas law.

There's just one clinic left along the Mexican border and one in far west El Paso. There were among the nine expected to shut down.
If they had closed, the women there faced round trips of 300 miles or more within Texas to get an abortion.
Hagstrom Miller says all these clinic rules and the doctor restrictions are a deliberate strategy waged by anti-abortion groups. "They're going state by state by state by state," she says. "They can't make it illegal so they're basically making it completely inaccessible."

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/30/418776137/u-s-supreme-court-places-a-stay-on-texas-abortion-law

So if 10 of the remaining 19 clinics are closed, that would leave 9. Texas is too large of a state for 9 clinics to serve everyone with a need for such a procedure. That's pretty ridiculous.

[Mac-7]

Since abortion primarily involves liberals murdering future liberals in the womb and thereby limiting the number of future democract voters infanticide has a beneficial unintended consequence.

[leekohler2]

Since abortion primarily involves liberals murdering future liberals in the womb and thereby limiting the number of future democract voters infanticide has a beneficial unintended consequence.

Than may I assume that you are not supportive of this recent Texas law?

BTW, if memory serves, there are not a lot of liberals in Texas. Therefore, according to your logic, they should have a lot of abortion clinics open to kill the remaining few, or future few, as the case may be.

It would seem to me that closing abortion clinics would run counter to your goal.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Than may I assume that you are not supportive of this recent Texas law?

BTW, if memory serves, there are not a lot of liberals in Texas. Therefore, according to your logic, they should have a lot of abortion clinics open to kill the remaining few, or future few, as the case may be.

It would seem to me that closing abortion clinics would run counter to your goal.

You are taking him way too seriously.

[Redrose]

A brain tumor has "life" too.

Guess we should stop killing them, as well.


A brain tumor is not a fetus which is a baby. Your logic is basically saying a fetus is nothing more than a lump of cells.

A brain tumor is a malignancy. A pregnancy is not a malignancy.

[leekohler2]

You are taking him way too seriously.

I take people by there words and deeds. If they don't mean it, they usually won't say it.

[zelmo1234]

Utter bull$#@!. I'm willing to bet there's nothing unsafe, this is just politics. just politics.

I don't know imagine a gun shop where Pregnant women went in with healthy babies and when the came out their babies were dead.

Can you imagine the outrage?

[zelmo1234]

The videos that have already been determined to be deliberately misleading?

Solid evidence there.

Do you have any proof that they were misleading, being they have posted the entire videos on line so I am sure that you can show us where they went wrong?

[zelmo1234]

Why is it the so-called libertarian individualists opposing personal liberty here? Routinely. It's just a point of curiosity. "Liberty for me, but not for thee?"

Actually the promise was Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, So I will worry about the people liberty when they start worrying about the life of the baby.

[leekohler2]

I don't know imagine a gun shop where Pregnant women went in with healthy babies and when the came out their babies were dead.

Can you imagine the outrage?

Since that would most likely involve killing the women as well, yes- I can imagine the outrage.

[zelmo1234]

All I can say is God Bless Texas

[leekohler2]

Actually the promise was Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, So I will worry about the people liberty when they start worrying about the life of the baby.

Most arguments against abortion are largely emotional, rather than logical. Yours is no exception.

Unless of course, you can describe to me your own experiences and thoughts while in the womb.

Also, if a woman's body rejects a fetus, as is the case with miscarriage, is that also "murder"?

[zelmo1234]

Most arguments against abortion are largely emotional, rather than logical. Yours is no exception.

Unless of course, you can describe to me your own experiences and thoughts while in the womb.

Well using that logic we have a lot more time, tell me about something when you were 2? should we kill you then?

Or here is some logic for you? when someone kills a pregnant women they are charge with 2 murders, but when a woman kills her own baby it is different.

Now I know that you liberals can talk yourselves into anything but do you have any evidence that if a women carries her pregnancy to term that anything other than a human baby was born?

[leekohler2]

Well using that logic we have a lot more time, tell me about something when you were 2? should we kill you then?

I have memories from before that actually. I remember my old bedroom in the house my parents rented before they bought one of their own. I have described it to them, and they confirmed I was right. I have never been inside that house since we moved. We moved into the new house before my second birthday.


Or here is some logic for you? when someone kills a pregnant women they are charge with 2 murders, but when a woman kills her own baby it is different.

I agree, that is illogical and I do not agree with charging someone with two murders in such a case.


Now I know that you liberals can talk yourselves into anything but do you have any evidence that if a women carries her pregnancy to term that anything other than a human baby was born?

This makes no sense. What else would it be once it was born?

BTW, plenty of conservatives have abortions. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Unless you think that no conservative woman has ever had an abortion.

[Redrose]

Most arguments against abortion are largely emotional, rather than logical. Yours is no exception.

Unless of course, you can describe to me your own experiences and thoughts while in the womb.

Also, if a woman's body rejects a fetus, as is the case with miscarriage, is that also "murder"?


A miscarriage is the result of a unhealthy pregnancy, her body rejecting it. Sometimes it can be caused by an accident, or stress too. An abortion is the result of man's hand. That is murder. Man is causing the death of that life, not a natural miscarriage.

People can keep trying to justify ending a life, but it doesn't make it right.

I am a woman so I can say this, there are too many women who want to have a sex life like a man, with no fear of becoming pregnant. If their contraception fails, or they were too stupid or carelessly lazy to use any, they can always have an abortion to 'remove the problem'.

These women who want the 'freedom to control' their body, should really be controlling their sex life.

If you are that promiscuous, freeze your eggs, get a tubaligation, and go screw as much as you want. That way innocent life won't have to suffer because you are irresponsible.

[AeonPax]

Most arguments against abortion are largely emotional, rather than logical. Yours is no exception. Unless of course, you can describe to me your own experiences and thoughts while in the womb.Also, if a woman's body rejects a fetus, as is the case with miscarriage, is that also "murder"?
`
IMHO, most arguments against abortion are ultimately triggered by religious belief, specifically Christianity, especially evangelicalism. -- “God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html)

[PolWatch]

When the medical community stops disposing of miscarriages as medical waste, I'll agree they think that life begins at conception. When the Church starts demanding miscarriages receive baptism, I'll agree they think that it has a soul. When those who miscarry at home and flush it away in the toilet are charged with the abuse of a corpse, I'll agree that they think its a viable human. Until then, its all just emotional ranting.....mainly by males who will never have to deal with an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy.

[GrassrootsConservative]

mainly by males who will never have to deal with an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy.

Interesting sexist plea to emotions. Is that all you have?

[Matty]

Most arguments against abortion are largely emotional, rather than logical. Yours is no exception.

Unless of course, you can describe to me your own experiences and thoughts while in the womb.

Also, if a woman's body rejects a fetus, as is the case with miscarriage, is that also "murder"?



No, it is not the same thing. A miscarriage is a natural occurrence. Abortion involves a chemical killing, or manual removal of the fetus, ripping off arms, legs, head whatever.

[AeonPax]

When the medical community stops disposing of miscarriages as medical waste, I'll agree they think that life begins at conception. When the Church starts demanding miscarriages receive baptism, I'll agree they think that it has a soul. When those who miscarry at home and flush it away in the toilet are charged with the abuse of a corpse, I'll agree that they think its a viable human. Until then, its all just emotional ranting.....mainly by males who will never have to deal with an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy.
`
1) I've given birth to all my children, using the archaic and anachronistic phrase, "out of wedlock." My first was when I was a teen. Despite the heavy pressure by my evangelical parents and their Baptist church, to get an abortion, I vehemently refused. The hypocrisy of Christianity aside, the idea of my child having a soul never entered my mind. To my personal belief, it was life inside of me. However, I believe such a decision is up to each individual female to make on her own grounds.

2) To my knowledge, the Catholics believe that a soul is born at the moment of conception. Also, as part of their catechism teach that if aborted, "the status of the aborted infants utterly surpasses the bounds of the sacramental authority of the Church and of divine revelation" (source (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4050)) which is to say, they don't know. Furthermore, Pope Francis wants to demphasize the preoccupation on abortion (and homosexuality) in lieu of giving more attention to the corporeal needs of the poor and downtrodden (source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/is-the-pope-right-that-th_b_3973587.html)).

3) Years ago, I stopped paying attention to self-righteous males think of abortion.

[Peter1469]

`
1) I've given birth to all my children, using the archaic and anachronistic phrase, "out of wedlock." My first was when I was a teen. Despite the heavy pressure by my evangelical parents and their Baptist church, to get an abortion, I vehemently refused. The hypocrisy of Christianity aside, the idea of my child having a soul never entered my mind. To my personal belief, it was life inside of me. However, I believe such a decision is up to each individual female to make on her own grounds.

2) To my knowledge, the Catholics believe that a soul is born at the moment of conception. Also, as part of their catechism teach that if aborted, "the status of the aborted infants utterly surpasses the bounds of the sacramental authority of the Church and of divine revelation" (source (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4050)) which is to say, they don't know. Furthermore, Pope Francis wants to demphasize the preoccupation on abortion (and homosexuality) in lieu of giving more attention to the corporeal needs of the poor and downtrodden (source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/is-the-pope-right-that-th_b_3973587.html)).

3) Years ago, I stopped paying attention to self-righteous males think of abortion.

Common law issues relating to justification for homicide should concern the religious and the atheist.

[donttread]

Utter bullshit. I'm willing to bet there's nothing unsafe, this is just politics. just politics.

Everything in our country is "just politics" because we have allowed it to be so

[Mac-7]

You are taking him way too seriously.

You take yourself way too seriously.

[Mac-7]

Than may I assume that you are not supportive of this recent Texas law?

BTW, if memory serves, there are not a lot of liberals in Texas. Therefore, according to your logic, they should have a lot of abortion clinics open to kill the remaining few, or future few, as the case may be.

It would seem to me that closing abortion clinics would run counter to your goal.

Thete are many liberals in texas, almost as many as conservarives.

Even though abortion does allow Nature to offset the higher birthrate of liberals by killing them in the womb abortion is stll morally wrong.

So I support efforts to limit liberal infanticide even though abortions are politically good for the Republican Party.

[Crepitus]

misleading? How so? They just recorded actual events.
But they did not, at least one person has stepped forward to say that one of the images was harvested from her web page without her permission and does not show what they video claims it to be.

Of course you and the other hacks here will ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[AeonPax]

Common law issues relating to justification for homicide should concern the religious and the atheist.
`
That's a matter of opinion. Those whom are predisposed to have faith in the concept that at the moment of conception, a viable human is formed for whatever reason, belong to one group. Those who believe that life begins at birth, are another group. Scattered between the polar opposites are people whose beliefs are varied which include abortions concerning the health of the mother or fetal anomaly.

What "common law" says is immaterial. Abortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion was legal under common law. Constitutionally, that matter was settled in the early 70's. Personally, I see no utility in arguing about something that has been bantered about for 40 years.

[Chris]

A brain tumor is not a fetus which is a baby. Your logic is basically saying a fetus is nothing more than a lump of cells.

A brain tumor is a malignancy. A pregnancy is not a malignancy.

Of course he is, like most progressive personhood arguments, it eases the conscience.

[Chris]

Most arguments against abortion are largely emotional, rather than logical. Yours is no exception.

Unless of course, you can describe to me your own experiences and thoughts while in the womb.

Also, if a woman's body rejects a fetus, as is the case with miscarriage, is that also "murder"?


OK, no emotion: Medical science says life begins at conception. At conception you have a unique human being. We are all created equal with rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Why are all liberal arguments based not on medical science and natural law but legalese about personhood, such as yours?

[Chris]

I have memories from before that actually. I remember my old bedroom in the house my parents rented before they bought one of their own. I have described it to them, and they confirmed I was right. I have never been inside that house since we moved. We moved into the new house before my second birthday.



I agree, that is illogical and I do not agree with charging someone with two murders in such a case.



This makes no sense. What else would it be once it was born?

BTW, plenty of conservatives have abortions. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue. Unless you think that no conservative woman has ever had an abortion.



What else would it be once it was born?

What else is it from the moment of conception?

See Captain Obvious' test above.

[Chris]

`
IMHO, most arguments against abortion are ultimately triggered by religious belief, specifically Christianity, especially evangelicalism. -- “God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul” (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html)


Medical science says life begins at conception. From that moment a unique human being lives.

Why do liberals argue legalese about personhood, like viability?

[Chris]

When the medical community stops disposing of miscarriages as medical waste, I'll agree they think that life begins at conception. When the Church starts demanding miscarriages receive baptism, I'll agree they think that it has a soul. When those who miscarry at home and flush it away in the toilet are charged with the abuse of a corpse, I'll agree that they think its a viable human. Until then, its all just emotional ranting.....mainly by males who will never have to deal with an unwanted/dangerous pregnancy.


Those actions of some people determine the morality of abortion?

[Chris]

`
That's a matter of opinion. Those whom are predisposed to have faith in the concept that at the moment of conception, a viable human is formed for whatever reason, belong to one group. Those who believe that life begins at birth, are another group. Scattered between the polar opposites are people whose beliefs are varied which include abortions concerning the health of the mother or fetal anomaly.

What "common law" says is immaterial. Abortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion was legal under common law. Constitutionally, that matter was settled in the early 70's. Personally, I see no utility in arguing about something that has been bantered about for 40 years.


Medical science says life begins at conception. So much for your love of opinion.


Yes, abortion has been legal. But then so has slavery been legal. Are we to assume you find both equally morally justifiable?




Constitutionally, that matter was settled in the early 70's.

Constitutionally? Do you mean men in robes? But you say "Years ago, I stopped paying attention to self-righteous males think of abortion."

[leekohler2]

OK, no emotion: Medical science says life begins at conception. At conception you have a unique human being. We are all created equal with rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Why are all liberal arguments based not on medical science and natural law but legalese about personhood, such as yours?

Medical science says no such thing.

[leekohler2]

What else is it from the moment of conception?

See @Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3)' test above.

Nothing but a bunnch of cells.

[Chris]

Nothing but a bunnch of cells.

Yet a unique living human being according to medical science.

Some of you demand unemotional, non-religious arguments, your get one, and ignore it. I think that dismissal is emotional.

[Chris]

Medical science says no such thing.

It certainly does. See for yourself: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html, http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

[leekohler2]

It certainly does. See for yourself: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html, http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/
There is no consensus. See for yourself:

[zelmo1234]

So for those that say that the soul is born when the mother gives birth?

That is not what God says

New American Standard Bible (http://biblehub.com/nasb/jeremiah/1.htm)
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1-5

As for having to Baptize the aborted baby there is no reason to as the child is without sin.

Using the Natural Death of a miscarriage vs the killing of a human would be like prosecuting the family of a person that has a heart attack at work for murder.

Man will justify his sins in which ever way helps him or her sleep at night. But it still is the taking of a human life, they know this in their very soul. but they don't care, and Not that they are supporting the partial birth and harvesting of body parts for profit?

Well we can only hope that there is a special place in hell for them. God Bless TX for ending the support of these murders.

[Adelaide]

What's unfortunate is that the many health initiatives they have that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion are vital services constituting the majority of their budget and operations. Women suffering again because of narrow-minded behaviour on the part of lawmakers.

[Chris]

What's unfortunate is that the many health initiatives they have that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion are vital services constituting the majority of their budget and operations. Women suffering again because of narrow-minded behaviour on the part of lawmakers.

Right, but also from the OP link:


The letter [terminating PP Medicaid funding] also notes that Texas women will not lose access to health care as a result of Planned Parenthood’s termination, because in 2012 the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program, a large network of clinics that distribute contraception and provide other health services to women in need. Since 2012, community health clinics have increased their women’s health care services by an average of 81 percent, a George Washington University study found.

[zelmo1234]

Nothing but a bunnch of cells.

here is that bunch of cells at 6 weeks you can already start to see the head and body forming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq3AJsXQ_fI

Nearly 1/3 of all abortions occur between the 7th and 10th week

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+a+baby+look+like+at+10+weeks+ul trasound&rlz=1T4WQIB_enUS578US579&tbm=isch&imgil=aOG3a5DX8p28wM%253A%253BFLP0h4Gp3h2-gM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25 252Fwatch%25253Fv%2525253D6_BtI8eTjO0&source=iu&pf=m&fir=aOG3a5DX8p28wM%253A%252CFLP0h4Gp3h2-gM%252C_&biw=1138&bih=510&usg=__8oUW8ceT1JsvMlcIKT9fX2ux4Eg%3D&ved=0CC4QyjdqFQoTCMiwgcWX0cgCFcm2HgodjSkP_w&ei=aUUmVojYC8nteo3TvPgP#imgrc=aOG3a5DX8p28wM%3A&usg=__8oUW8ceT1JsvMlcIKT9fX2ux4Eg%3D

And by the 10th week they look like a baby.

Now let be ask you a question, has that lump of cells ever grown into anything other than a Human Baby?

[Chris]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/
There is no consensus. See for yourself:

From your link:


The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton, tells CNN that his organization opposes the Mississippi initiative "because it interferes with the physicians' ability to provide needed care for their patients, whether that's helping someone have a child or keeping them from having children."

ASRM is not a group of physicians. They represent business concerns related to fertility.

From your link:


Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said.

“But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”

Those are physicians, they represent medical science.

[Chris]

here is that bunch of cells at 6 weeks you can already start to see the head and body forming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq3AJsXQ_fI

Nearly 1/3 of all abortions occur between the 7th and 10th week

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+a+baby+look+like+at+10+weeks+ul trasound&rlz=1T4WQIB_enUS578US579&tbm=isch&imgil=aOG3a5DX8p28wM%253A%253BFLP0h4Gp3h2-gM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.youtube.com%25 252Fwatch%25253Fv%2525253D6_BtI8eTjO0&source=iu&pf=m&fir=aOG3a5DX8p28wM%253A%252CFLP0h4Gp3h2-gM%252C_&biw=1138&bih=510&usg=__8oUW8ceT1JsvMlcIKT9fX2ux4Eg%3D&ved=0CC4QyjdqFQoTCMiwgcWX0cgCFcm2HgodjSkP_w&ei=aUUmVojYC8nteo3TvPgP#imgrc=aOG3a5DX8p28wM%3A&usg=__8oUW8ceT1JsvMlcIKT9fX2ux4Eg%3D

And by the 10th week they look like a baby.

Now let be ask you a question, has that lump of cells ever grown into anything other than a Human Baby?


My parents are all excited they're going to be great-grandparents. They got a copy of the sonogram and talk about the baby. My niece describes it as a baby, a girl. When's the baby due, I ask? That how people normally talk about that "bunch of cells."

[Adelaide]

Right, but also from the OP link:

Well, that is reassuring. I probably should have read the article.

Still, I think it's too bad that lawmakers can't just find a way to stop funding the abortion part of Planned Parenthood and retain the rest of it (majority of their services). You'd think there would be some way of achieving that. You can never have enough resources for women and women's health.

[zelmo1234]

What's unfortunate is that the many health initiatives they have that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion are vital services constituting the majority of their budget and operations. Women suffering again because of narrow-minded behaviour on the part of lawmakers.

That may be true in Canada, but in the USA you are required to have health insurance. it is the law you are fined if you do not have it.

If you are low income you become part of our Medicaid system so you still have health insurance.

In the USA that insurance is required to cover the screening that women must have to prevent disease and cancer, and they are required to cover it 100%

Next the biggest thing that it talked about is the Mammogram.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/29/planned-parenthood-boss-reveals-exactly-how-many-of-her-organizations-650-clinics-have-a-mammogram-machine/

And you can't get one at planed parenthood because out of the 600 million that we give them each year, they can't seem to fine the money to purchase even one of this vital piece of equipment.

So no they are not in this for women's health and they from their very founding have not been. they are a slaughter house nothing more.

[Chris]

Well, that is reassuring. I probably should have read the article.

Still, I think it's too bad that lawmakers can't just find a way to stop funding the abortion part of Planned Parenthood and retain the rest of it (majority of their services). You'd think there would be some way of achieving that. You can never have enough resources for women and women's health.

PP has time to respond to the letter. They could offer that as a solution.

[Tahuyaman]

Medical science says life begins at conception. From that moment a unique human being lives.

Why do liberals argue legalese about personhood, like viability?


Medical science says no such thing.

It certainly does.

[Mac-7]

Nothing but a bunnch of cells.

Human cells.

[AeonPax]

Medical science says life begins at conception. From that moment a unique human being lives. Why do liberals argue legalese about personhood, like viability?
`
Three things wrong with your questioning


a) I stated my opinion along with a link which offers another opinion that coincides with mine. You may not like it and be critical about it but that is what I believe.

b) There is no world wide scientific concusses that life begins at the moment of conception. It all depends on what one wants to believe.

c) You realize that many conservatives get abortions. In fact, many anti-abortion public figures secretly support it. Case in point; ‘Pro-Life’ Senator Impregnates Former Sex Worker, Forces Her Into an Abortion. (http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/10/18/pro-life-senator-impregnates-former-sex-worker-forces-her-into-an-abortio/) so you might want to put a lid on this lib/con stuff.

[Mac-7]

`
Two things wrong with your questioning



b) There is no world wide scientific concusses that life begins at the moment of conception. It all depends on what one wants to believe.





Growing human cells in the womb are actually dead?

Liberals have become science deniers.

[nic34]

What libertarian is opposing individual liberty, polly?

What about the individual liberty of the unborn, polly? You're an egalitarian, where's the equal rights? Where's the protection for this class?

"Liberty for me, but not for thee?" Is that what you argue?

Well its clear now that Texas taxpayers will be picking up the tab for low income families' healthcare from now on:

Pregnancy Prevention and Birth Control


Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies per year
Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to a GAO report released in March that looks at data from 2010 through 2012.
Further breakdown:


emergency contraception kits (1.4 million)


vasectomies (4,166)


female sterilization procedures (822)


Pregnancy tests -- 1.1 million tests done in 2013


Prenatal care -- provided to 18,684 people in 2013


Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment


Planned Parenthood say this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates)
4.5 million tests and treatments provided in 2013.


This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided
Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) -- 400,000 per year


Breast exams -- 500,000 per year

Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
327,653 abortions were performed in 2013, according to Planned Parenthood



http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/

[AeonPax]

a - Medical science says life begins at conception. So much for your love of opinion.
b - Yes, abortion has been legal. But then so has slavery been legal. Are we to assume you find both equally morally justifiable?
c - Constitutionally? Do you mean men in robes? But you say "Years ago, I stopped paying attention to self-righteous males think of abortion."
`
a - Since that is your opinion, then so be it. I'm not interested in changing it.

b - If you don't like the law, change it. There is a procedure for that.

c - You ignore SCOTUS when you disagree with it. Typical.

[Mac-7]

Well its clear now that Texas taxpayers will be picking up the tab for low income families from now on:

Pregnancy Prevention and Birth Control


Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies per year
Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to a GAO report released in March that looks at data from 2010 through 2012.
Further breakdown:


emergency contraception kits (1.4 million)


vasectomies (4,166)


female sterilization procedures (822)


Pregnancy tests -- 1.1 million tests done in 2013


Prenatal care -- provided to 18,684 people in 2013


Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment


Planned Parenthood say this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates)
4.5 million tests and treatments provided in 2013.


This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided
Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) -- 400,000 per year


Breast exams -- 500,000 per year

Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
327,653 abortions were performed in 2013, according to Planned Parenthood



http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/

Yes, fewer abortions mean more obama voters in the hood looking for handouts.

Hopeless losers standing in the welfare line for their government handouts.

Yuk.

[Chris]

`
a - Since that is your opinion, then so be it. I'm not interested in changing it.

b - If you don't like the law, change it. There is a procedure for that.

c - You ignore SCOTUS when you disagree with it. Typical.


a Not my opinion but the opinion of medical science (see several links above). Why do you reduce everything to the moral relativism of it's just an opinion?

b What's legal isn't necessarily what's moral.

c You said "Constitutionally". I see you've corrected yourself to SCOTUS, men in robes, to which you opine "Years ago, I stopped paying attention to self-righteous males think of abortion." Are you special pleading?

[leekohler2]

It certainly does.

No, it does not, as I linked to earlier. There is no consensus.

[Tahuyaman]

It appears that PP is being accused of committing Medicaid fraud.

[Chris]

Well its clear now that Texas taxpayers will be picking up the tab for low income families' healthcare from now on:

Pregnancy Prevention and Birth Control


Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies per year
Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to a GAO report released in March that looks at data from 2010 through 2012.
Further breakdown:


emergency contraception kits (1.4 million)


vasectomies (4,166)


female sterilization procedures (822)


Pregnancy tests -- 1.1 million tests done in 2013


Prenatal care -- provided to 18,684 people in 2013


Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment


Planned Parenthood say this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates)
4.5 million tests and treatments provided in 2013.


This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided
Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) -- 400,000 per year


Breast exams -- 500,000 per year

Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
327,653 abortions were performed in 2013, according to Planned Parenthood



http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/



Again, from the OP link:


The letter [terminating PP Medicaid funding] also notes that Texas women will not lose access to health care as a result of Planned Parenthood’s termination, because in 2012 the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program, a large network of clinics that distribute contraception and provide other health services to women in need. Since 2012, community health clinics have increased their women’s health care services by an average of 81 percent, a George Washington University study found.

[Tahuyaman]

No, it does not, as I linked to earlier. There is no consensus.

wrong. There you go with that word "consensus" again.

[Chris]

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/
There is no consensus. See for yourself:

From your link:


The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton, tells CNN that his organization opposes the Mississippi initiative "because it interferes with the physicians' ability to provide needed care for their patients, whether that's helping someone have a child or keeping them from having children."

ASRM is not a group of physicians. They represent business concerns related to fertility.

From your link:


Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said.

“But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”

Those are physicians, they represent medical science.


No, it does not, as I linked to earlier. There is no consensus.

Oh, come on, your link was shown false to your argument.

[leekohler2]

wrong. There you go with that word "consensus" again.

OK, believe what you want. Nothing i can do about that.

[Chris]

`
Three things wrong with your questioning


a) I stated my opinion along with a link which offers another opinion that coincides with mine. You may not like it and be critical about it but that is what I believe.

b) There is no world wide scientific concusses that life begins at the moment of conception. It all depends on what one wants to believe.

c) You realize that many conservatives get abortions. In fact, many anti-abortion public figures secretly support it. Case in point; ‘Pro-Life’ Senator Impregnates Former Sex Worker, Forces Her Into an Abortion. (http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/10/18/pro-life-senator-impregnates-former-sex-worker-forces-her-into-an-abortio/) so you might want to put a lid on this lib/con stuff.



a Wow, opinion supported by opinion.

b Medical science says life begins at conception. That's fact. Against your mere opinion.

c I would imagine as many if not more cons as libs get abortions though I can find no statistics on it. But, uh, so what?

[leekohler2]

Oh, come on, your link was shown false to your argument.

It did no such thing, but do go on.

[Mac-7]

It did no such thing, but do go on.

Unborn children are human.

Thats just common sense.

[Chris]

It did no such thing, but do go on.

It did. I posted a couple links of physuicians saying life begins at conception. You posted what you believed was a counter but you hadn't read it closely and I demonstrated you were wrong:



http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/
There is no consensus. See for yourself:

From your link:


The American Society for Reproductive Medicine represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton, tells CNN that his organization opposes the Mississippi initiative "because it interferes with the physicians' ability to provide needed care for their patients, whether that's helping someone have a child or keeping them from having children."

ASRM is not a group of physicians. They represent business concerns related to fertility.

From your link:


Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said.

“But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”

Those are physicians, they represent medical science.

Your own link is hostile to your opinion.

[nic34]

OK, no emotion: Medical science says life begins at conception. At conception you have a unique human being. We are all created equal with rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Why are all liberal arguments based not on medical science and natural law but legalese about personhood, such as yours?

Unfortunately, to the GOPERS and the right, you are only valuable and vulnerable while in the womb. Upon birth, the possibility arises that you might become a "taker". Therefore, you are no longer vulnerable.

[leekohler2]

Unfortunately, to the GOPERS and the right, you are only valuable and vulnerable while in the womb. Upon birth, the possibility arises that you might become a "taker". Therefore, you are no longer vulnerable.

And that is the truth.

[zelmo1234]

But they did not, at least one person has stepped forward to say that one of the images was harvested from her web page without her permission and does not show what they video claims it to be.

Of course you and the other hacks here will ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

link?

[zelmo1234]

My parents are all excited they're going to be great-grandparents. They got a copy of the sonogram and talk about the baby. My niece describes it as a baby, a girl. When's the baby due, I ask? That how people normally talk about that "bunch of cells."

You have to remember that Liberals by nature have to lie, not only to others but to themselves it is a way of life.

It makes it so they can sleep at night. They can't put to much thought into reality and facts because there world and ideology are not supported by them.

[leekohler2]

It did. I posted a couple links of physuicians saying life begins at conception. You posted what you believed was a counter but you hadn't read it closely and I demonstrated you were wrong:



Your own link is hostile to your opinion.

Sigh- of course you picked and chose, while ignoring the rest of the article:


The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (http://www.asrm.org/) represents fertility specialists in the United States and more than 100 other countries. The group's spokesman, Sean Tipton, tells CNN that his organization opposes the Mississippi initiative "because it interferes with the physicians' ability to provide needed care for their patients, whether that's helping someone have a child or keeping them from having children."
Tipton says while a fertilized egg is necessary to make a person, fertilization alone is not enough to create a new human being. "A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman's uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way."

There are differing opinions in the article, which is my point. There is no clear consensus. To say there is is quite simply dishonest.

[donttread]

a Wow, opinion supported by opinion.

b Medical science says life begins at conception. That's fact. Against your mere opinion.

c I would imagine as many if not more cons as libs get abortions though I can find no statistics on it. But, uh, so what?

At this point a world without abortion would just lead to more unwanted children being raised by parents who lack the ability , at least financially to do so. The one bright spot would be for the families going through so much in order to adopt . That being said it would still represent more people in an over populated world and is not justified. On the other hand planned parenthood has an excellent opportunity to stress the inportantance of methods of birth control which also prevent disease transmission. The good ole condum. Sexually responsibility would eliminate the need for 90% of abortion

[zelmo1234]

Well its clear now that Texas taxpayers will be picking up the tab for low income families' healthcare from now on:

Pregnancy Prevention and Birth Control


Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies per year
Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to a GAO report released in March that looks at data from 2010 through 2012.
Further breakdown:


emergency contraception kits (1.4 million)


vasectomies (4,166)


female sterilization procedures (822)


Pregnancy tests -- 1.1 million tests done in 2013


Prenatal care -- provided to 18,684 people in 2013


Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment


Planned Parenthood say this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates)
4.5 million tests and treatments provided in 2013.


This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided
Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) -- 400,000 per year


Breast exams -- 500,000 per year

Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions.
327,653 abortions were performed in 2013, according to Planned Parenthood



http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/

Why would they be doing that? The ACA requires insurance that covers all of this.

The money given to planed parenthood goes back to the DNC in the form of donations. that is what Democrats are really pissed about

[Chris]

Unfortunately, to the GOPERS and the right, you are only valuable and vulnerable while in the womb. Upon birth, the possibility arises that you might become a "taker". Therefore, you are no longer vulnerable.

Nice strawman, nic. It misrepresents the right as uncaring simply because they don't back liberal solutions -- solution that trap people in poverty.

Anyway, I'm libertarian and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply universally to all. Hell, isn't that the progressive egalitarian argument for equal rights? Why do liberal progressives in this case stumble on equal rights for all?

[leekohler2]

You have to remember that Liberals by nature have to lie, not only to others but to themselves it is a way of life.


If that is the case, it is a skill we learned from you cons. You've turned that skill into a near science.

[Chris]

And that is the truth.

No, it's not, it's liberal progressive truthiness.

[zelmo1234]

a Wow, opinion supported by opinion.

b Medical science says life begins at conception. That's fact. Against your mere opinion.

c I would imagine as many if not more cons as libs get abortions though I can find no statistics on it. But, uh, so what?

If you look at where abortions happen for the most part it is blue states and cities. Where the populations are more liberal. Not to say that Conservatives do not get abortions.

[Chris]

Sigh- of course you picked and chose, while ignoring the rest of the article:



There are differing opinions in the article, which is my point. There is not clear consensus.



I picked and chose? You picked and chose the link, leekohler2, I simply quoted from your link to demonstrate your own evidence was against your opinion.



There are differing opinions in the article, which is my point. There is not clear consensus.

The cognitive dissonance must be deafening for you to ignore the fact the ASRM is not a group of physicians as you pretend them to be.

Interesting that you accuse me of picking and choosing when your own link follows that immediately with:


Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said.

“But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”

That's an association of physicians and Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Why do you ignore your own evidence?

[zelmo1234]

Unfortunately, to the GOPERS and the right, you are only valuable and vulnerable while in the womb. Upon birth, the possibility arises that you might become a "taker". Therefore, you are no longer vulnerable.

What specific policies have the democrats put in place that helps people to do anything other than live in poverty?

The difference is Conservatives want a better life for people Liberals know that if people get off the system they will see that the compassion of the Democrats was a lie designed to keep them under the control of the Government.

[Chris]

If you look at where abortions happen for the most part it is blue states and cities. Where the populations are more liberal. Not to say that Conservatives do not get abortions.

I'd need to see some statistics on that. It may be true, but I see no evidence, and I looked.

[zelmo1234]

If that is the case, it is a skill we learned from you cons. You've turned that skill into a near science.

OK lets just take the one policy of Planned parenthood. What are they providing that the ACA mandated insurance plans are not?

If Insurance is mandated, Then planned parenthood can bill the insurance companies. Why the need for 600 million?

[The Xl]

Abortion should be outlawed when the baby has begun to physically form. Before that, I don't really care, that's where the pro life people get a little crazy. Maybe we should prosecute people for errant cumshots, too.

[leekohler2]

No, it's not, it's liberal progressive truthiness.

And a "truthiness" you can't deny.

[leekohler2]

Abortion should be outlawed when the baby has begun to form. Before that, I don't really care, that's where the pro life people get a little crazy. Maybe we should prosecute people for errant cumshots, too.

And masturbation should be forbidden too. That could have made a baby. :rollseyes:

[The Xl]

And masturbation should be forbidden too. That could have made a baby. :rollseyes:

Yeah. I'm not a fan of abortion, but some people get a little too nutty with this shit. We have no problem butchering reasonably intelligent and aware life forms for food and other materials, but a couple of cells that's barely of a life form that has literally no conscience or awareness at all? Hold the phone, off limits.

That said, I think the practice of abortion should be outlawed when the baby is physically formed.

[zelmo1234]

I'd need to see some statistics on that. It may be true, but I see no evidence, and I looked.

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/number-of-abortions/

http://californiansforlife.org/education/abortion-facts-for-california/

And here is the fun part, look where Planned parenthood locates there clinics. They are designed to carry out their founders wishes

[leekohler2]

I picked and chose? You picked and chose the link, leekohler2, I simply quoted from your link to demonstrate your own evidence was against your opinion.




The cognitive dissonance must be deafening for you to ignore the fact the ASRM is not a group of physicians as you pretend them to be.

Interesting that you accuse me of picking and choosing when your own link follows that immediately with:



That's an association of physicians and Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Why do you ignore your own evidence?


I didn't. You cherry picked and missed my point in the first place. Since you cant debate in an honest manner, I have no desire to discuss this with you any further. When you prepared to have an honest discussion, let me know.

[Crepitus]

link?
http://www.inquisitr.com/2507508/planned-parenthood-fetal-tissue-video-stolen-from-mother-of-stillborn-baby/

Others here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=planned+parenthood+videos+stolen)

[Chris]

And a "truthiness" you can't deny.

I did.

So it's a truthiness you cannot argue rationally. Yes, I know, you will claim you can, you will claim you did, but your argument is no where to be found.

[leekohler2]

Yeah. I'm not a fan of abortion, but some people get a little too nutty with this $#@!. We have no problem butchering reasonably intelligent and aware life forms for food and other materials, but a couple of cells that's barely of a life form that has literally no conscience or awareness at all? Hold the phone, off limits.

Exactly.

[Chris]

I didn't. You cherry picked and missed my point in the first place. Since you cant debate in an honest manner, I have no desire to discuss this with you any further. When you prepared to have an honest discussion, let me know.

And you resort to ad hom, nothing more than raising a white flag.

I did not cherry pick. I cited both the non-physician's opinion and the physician's opinion from your link. You cherry picked only the first and failed to cite the second. Anyone can back track through the thread to see that.

Stop projecting.

[Crepitus]

Nice strawman, nic. It misrepresents the right as uncaring simply because they don't back liberal solutions -- solution that trap people in poverty.

Anyway, I'm libertarian and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply universally to all. Hell, isn't that the progressive egalitarian argument for equal rights? Why do liberal progressives in this case stumble on equal rights for all?
Crap. Just like the cons, you're pro-life until the kid is born then he's on his own.

[Chris]

And masturbation should be forbidden too. That could have made a baby. :rollseyes:

Now your arguments are getting beyond silly.

[Chris]

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/number-of-abortions/

http://californiansforlife.org/education/abortion-facts-for-california/

And here is the fun part, look where Planned parenthood locates there clinics. They are designed to carry out their founders wishes


I don't think you can associate state with liberal v conservative. Topic here is Texas ending Medicaid funding for PP, but the state is pretty evenly divided with conservatives commanding a small lead right now.

[Chris]

Crap. Just like the cons, you're pro-life until the kid is born then he's on his own.

Nice strawman. But it's false.

[nic34]

Again, from the OP link:

the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program,


So I was right.

[Crepitus]

Nice strawman. But it's false.
Prove it to be false. Show me your plan to care for unwanted children.

[leekohler2]

I did.

So it's a truthiness you cannot argue rationally. Yes, I know, you will claim you can, you will claim you did, but your argument is no where to be found.

It's pretty easy to see. It is quite well-known that conservatives do everything they can to protect a sperm and egg that combined to make a blob of cells invisible to the naked eye, but once a child is actually born, that concern ends.

Almost any government program designed to actually help people is opposed by the right. We just had our GOP governor Rauner try to stop funding for autism on National Autism Day. He also cut funding for higher ed. Trust me, after these stunts, he'll be gone next term. All while not being able to get a budget passed. This is typical of the GOP and conservatives in general. Things that actually help people are the first things they target.

Feel free to try to deny it.

[Crepitus]

Now your arguments are getting beyond silly.
No it isn't, according to catholicism masutbation is a sin because sex is only for procreation.

[nic34]

Yeah. I'm not a fan of abortion, but some people get a little too nutty with this $#@!. We have no problem butchering reasonably intelligent and aware life forms for food and other materials, but a couple of cells that's barely of a life form that has literally no conscience or awareness at all? Hold the phone, off limits.

That said, I think the practice of abortion should be outlawed when the baby is physically formed.

It is. 20 weeks most places.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/abortion-bans-after-12-weeks.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

[Chris]

No it isn't, according to catholicism masutbation is a sin because sex is only for procreation.

When did Catholicism become the topic? And why isn't that Catholic claim just as silly as lee's?

[Chris]

It's pretty easy to see. It is quite well-known that conservatives do everything they can to protect a sperm and egg that combined to make a blob of cells invisible to the naked eye, but once a child is actually born, that concern ends.

Almost any government program designed to actually help people is opposed by the right. We just had our GOP governor Rauner try to stop funding for autism on National Autism Day. He also cut funding for higher ed. Trust me, after these stunts, he'll be gone next term. All while not being able to get a budget passed. This is typical of the GOP and conservatives in general. Things that actually help people are the first things they target.

Feel free to try to deny it.



First off, I must be arguing honestly for you to continue to argue when you proclaimed you wouldn't. Please stop the emotional reactions.

Actually it's quote well know that liberal progressives misrepresent conservatives that way.

Name a government program that actually helps the poor rise out of poverty. Pay attention to the fact that prior to the liberal War on Poverty, the poverty rate was dropping, but since its declaration, the poverty rate has remained the same. Not a very good record.

Don't argue intentions, argue results.

There, denied.

[Crepitus]

When did Catholicism become the topic? And why isn't that Catholic claim just as silly as lee's?
Religion has always been a part of the pro life movement. who knows what they might press for if they manage to change abortion law?

[nic34]

Nice strawman, nic. It misrepresents the right as uncaring simply because they don't back liberal solutions -- solution that trap people in poverty.

Anyway, I'm libertarian and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply universally to all. Hell, isn't that the progressive egalitarian argument for equal rights? Why do liberal progressives in this case stumble on equal rights for all?

The subject isn't about anti-poverty programs, and certainly not your lib-tarian political views, I'm addressing the wacky right that control Texas and their effort to deprive low income women of healthcare because they're so much more interested in privatizing everything so the billionaires can continue to make a buck.

[leekohler2]

First off, I must be arguing honestly for you to continue to argue when you proclaimed you wouldn't. Please stop the emotional reactions.

Actually it's quote well know that liberal progressives misrepresent conservatives that way.

Name a government program that actually helps the poor rise out of poverty. Pay attention to the fact that prior to the liberal War on Poverty, the poverty rate was dropping, but since its declaration, the poverty rate has remained the same. Not a very good record.

Don't argue intentions, argue results.

There, denied.

There was nothing emotional about what I presented to you. And I gave you to programs that work already. State funded higher education (state universities, etc) lifts people out of poverty. Do you seriously think it doesn't? The Autism program we have here works very well- link:


The Autism Project says Gov. Bruce Rauner confirmed the decision to cut funding for the remainder of the 2015 fiscal year Thursday - on World Autism Day.

Advocates say for every dollar Illinois spends on its best-in-the-nation autism assistance programs, $7 are either earned or saved. So they say cutting well-honed programs that are doing right by their clients is at best misguided - if not plain cruel.

Timotheus J. Gordon is working on his masters in fine arts from IIT, something he never dreamt was possible without the help he got from the Illinois Autism Project (TAP).

"Where else can I go to get help?" Gordon said.

Parents, advocates and administrators say all the progress Illinois has made in the last quarter century, helping people like 27-year-old Jason Vines (http://abc7.ws/1ypLQXW) reach their potential, will be shattered without state funding.

Fortunately, after a huge public outcry, Rauner backed off.

http://abc7chicago.com/society/state-funding-for-autism-program-cut-on-world-autism-day-advocate-says/612111/

[JDubya]

You didn't read the OP, did you, or follow the link to where it explains TX still provides the same healthcare services for women.

I'll ignore your emotions.

Bullshat @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .

From June, 2015:




Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Monday granted a request from abortion clinics in Texas to put on hold a lower court ruling that would have shuttered all but a handful of abortion clinics, while the clinics appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

In a one-page order the Court said "the application for stay presented by Justice (Antonin) Scalia and referred to him by the Court is granted and the issuance of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in case No. 14-50928 is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari."

It was 5-4 vote, the order noted that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia , Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would deny the application.

The case concerns two provisions of a 2013 law that pro-choice groups say has caused more than a 75% reduction in abortion facilities in a two-year period. At issue is the so called Ambulatory Surgical Center requirement that mandates that abortion facilities must upgrade facilities to hospital-like standards, as well as the admitting privileges requirement that provides that the physician performing the abortion must have privileges at a local hospital.

A lower court largely upheld the provisions.

In Court briefs, the clinics argued that before the law was enacted there were 41 licensed facilities providing abortions in Texas and currently there are 19. That number would drop to nine if the ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is not put on hold.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/29/politics/texas-abortion-clinic-supreme-court/


Right wing conservatism ≠ honesty.

Two incompatible concepts.

[Chris]

Bullshat @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .

From June, 2015:



Right wing conservatism ≠ honesty.

Two incompatible concepts.








Bullshat and the rest are simply not arguments. Merely emotions.

Your citation has nothing to do with TX's recent decision. The dicion is not to close anything, just end funding through Medicaid. Try reading the OP, please.

[Chris]

There was nothing emotional about what I presented to you. And I gave you to programs that work already. State funded higher education (state universities, etc) lifts people out of poverty. Do you seriously think it doesn't? The Autism program we have here works very well- link:



Fortunately, after a huge public outcry, Rauner backed off.

http://abc7chicago.com/society/state-funding-for-autism-program-cut-on-world-autism-day-advocate-says/612111/



Your ad homs about dishonesty were nothing but emotion-based.

Education requires people to lift themselves out of poverty.

So hows that War on Poverty doing again?

BTW, I have no problem helping people who can't help themselves like your autism case. So much for the argument I don't care after people are born.

[Chris]

The subject isn't about anti-poverty programs, and certainly not your lib-tarian political views, I'm addressing the wacky right that control Texas and their effort to deprive low income women of healthcare because they're so much more interested in privatizing everything so the billionaires can continue to make a buck.

Here, for the third, fourth time, from the OP:


The letter also notes that Texas women will not lose access to health care as a result of Planned Parenthood’s termination, because in 2012 the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program, a large network of clinics that distribute contraception and provide other health services to women in need. Since 2012, community health clinics have increased their women’s health care services by an average of 81 percent, a George Washington University study found.

Why do you persist in your false argument?

[Chris]

Religion has always been a part of the pro life movement. who knows what they might press for if they manage to change abortion law?

I'm not religious. I argu medical science says a human life starts at conception. But keep diverting.

[Crepitus]

I'm not religious. I argu medical science says a human life starts at conception. But keep diverting.
Do you deny that the religious right is a large part of the pro life movement?

[leekohler2]

Your ad homs about dishonesty were nothing but emotion-based.

No, it was an observation


Education requires people to lift themselves out of poverty.

Yes, and many people rely on state funded universities to help them do just that. So how is conservatives cutting funding for higher education "helping"?


BTW, I have no problem helping people who can't help themselves like your autism case. So much for the argument I don't care after people are born.

I didn't say "you". I said "you conservatives". And sorry, but apparently plenty of conservatives don't care, like our governor.

[southwest88]

Right, but also from the OP link:

(Quote)

"The letter [terminating PP Medicaid funding] also notes that Texas women will not lose access to health care as a result of Planned Parenthood’s termination, because in 2012 the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program, a large network of clinics that distribute contraception and provide other health services to women in need. Since 2012, community health clinics have increased their women’s health care services by an average of 81 percent, a George Washington University study found."

(My emphasis)

See http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/20/senators-discuss-progress-womens-health-programs/

"As a result of the 2011 cuts to family planning services, 76 family planning clinics — a third of which were operated by Planned Parenthood — closed due to lost state and federal funds, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/), a three-year research initiative at the University of Texas at Austin.

"Dr. Christine Sebastian, an obstetrician-gynecologist from Austin, told a crowd gathered outside the hearing that it would take the state years to rebuild provider infrastructure following the closure of those clinics. “The damage really has already been done,” she said. While lawmakers have added record levels of funding, she questioned how much the state has actually achieved.

"In addition to the family planning and expanded primary care program, Texas lawmakers financed a state-run version of the Texas Women's Health Program for $36 million a year in the 2014-15 budget. That move came after the Republican-led Legislature in 2011 ousted Planned Parenthood clinics from the Women’s Health Program, prompting the federal government to stop providing its $9-to-$1 match for the program in 2013."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Note that the GWU rosy study takes 2012 as the starting line. It would be more to the point to compare women's health care services back to 2011, before PP was thrown out by the legendary TX Lege. I suspect that the picture is not @ all rosy for women in TX, if you run the stats to include when PP operated 25 family planning clinics.

[southwest88]

Well, that is reassuring. I probably should have read the article.

Still, I think it's too bad that lawmakers can't just find a way to stop funding the abortion part of Planned Parenthood and retain the rest of it (majority of their services). You'd think there would be some way of achieving that. You can never have enough resources for women and women's health.

That is essentially the law relating to funding PP in the US. No abortions can be provided except for rape, incest, danger to the woman if she carries to term. It's a different World down here.

[AeonPax]

a Wow, opinion supported by opinion. b Medical science says life begins at conception. That's fact. Against your mere opinion.c I would imagine as many if not more cons as libs get abortions though I can find no statistics on it. But, uh, so what?
`
Prove it. Show that there is an empirical medical and scientific consensus throughout the world that states when life exists. None exists.

[Chris]

`
Prove it. Show that there is an empirical medical and scientific consensus throughout the world that states when life exists. None exists.

Already provided evidence. In fact, lee did as well, unwittingly. Try readicng the thread before blurting out unfounded opinion.

[leekohler2]

`
Prove it. Show that there is an empirical medical and scientific consensus throughout the world that states when life exists. None exists.

Careful, I tried this already. No matter what you present, it will be ignored or twisted.

[Chris]

(Quote)

"The letter [terminating PP Medicaid funding] also notes that Texas women will not lose access to health care as a result of Planned Parenthood’s termination, because in 2012 the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program, a large network of clinics that distribute contraception and provide other health services to women in need. Since 2012, community health clinics have increased their women’s health care services by an average of 81 percent, a George Washington University study found."

(My emphasis)

See http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/20/senators-discuss-progress-womens-health-programs/

"As a result of the 2011 cuts to family planning services, 76 family planning clinics — a third of which were operated by Planned Parenthood — closed due to lost state and federal funds, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/), a three-year research initiative at the University of Texas at Austin.

"Dr. Christine Sebastian, an obstetrician-gynecologist from Austin, told a crowd gathered outside the hearing that it would take the state years to rebuild provider infrastructure following the closure of those clinics. “The damage really has already been done,” she said. While lawmakers have added record levels of funding, she questioned how much the state has actually achieved.

"In addition to the family planning and expanded primary care program, Texas lawmakers financed a state-run version of the Texas Women's Health Program for $36 million a year in the 2014-15 budget. That move came after the Republican-led Legislature in 2011 ousted Planned Parenthood clinics from the Women’s Health Program, prompting the federal government to stop providing its $9-to-$1 match for the program in 2013."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Note that the GWU rosy study takes 2012 as the starting line. It would be more to the point to compare women's health care services back to 2011, before PP was thrown out by the legendary TX Lege. I suspect that the picture is not @ all rosy for women in TX, if you run the stats to include when PP operated 25 family planning clinics.


And from your link:


Although cuts to family planning services in 2011 had a substantial impact on the availability of women’s health services, Nelson — who voted for that budget — said lawmakers have worked since then to increase funding and capacity to provide family planning and women’s health services statewide. She said that Texas set new records for the level of funding for women’s health services in the 2014-15 budget and that the state has greater provider capacity than ever before.

[Chris]

No, it was an observation



Yes, and many people rely on state funded universities to help them do just that. So how is conservatives cutting funding for higher education "helping"?



I didn't say "you". I said "you conservatives". And sorry, but apparently plenty of conservatives don't care, like our governor.


Your observation was emotional ad hom.

Again, I have no problem helping those who need help. So much for that canard already.

And again, just because conservatives do not support liberal programs does not imply they do not care. That just a bogus liberal argument.

[nic34]

(Quote)

"The letter [terminating PP Medicaid funding] also notes that Texas women will not lose access to health care as a result of Planned Parenthood’s termination, because in 2012 the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program, a large network of clinics that distribute contraception and provide other health services to women in need. Since 2012, community health clinics have increased their women’s health care services by an average of 81 percent, a George Washington University study found."

(My emphasis)

See http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/20/senators-discuss-progress-womens-health-programs/

"As a result of the 2011 cuts to family planning services, 76 family planning clinics — a third of which were operated by Planned Parenthood — closed due to lost state and federal funds, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/), a three-year research initiative at the University of Texas at Austin.

"Dr. Christine Sebastian, an obstetrician-gynecologist from Austin, told a crowd gathered outside the hearing that it would take the state years to rebuild provider infrastructure following the closure of those clinics. “The damage really has already been done,” she said. While lawmakers have added record levels of funding, she questioned how much the state has actually achieved.

"In addition to the family planning and expanded primary care program, Texas lawmakers financed a state-run version of the Texas Women's Health Program for $36 million a year in the 2014-15 budget. That move came after the Republican-led Legislature in 2011 ousted Planned Parenthood clinics from the Women’s Health Program, prompting the federal government to stop providing its $9-to-$1 match for the program in 2013."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Note that the GWU rosy study takes 2012 as the starting line. It would be more to the point to compare women's health care services back to 2011, before PP was thrown out by the legendary TX Lege. I suspect that the picture is not @ all rosy for women in TX, if you run the stats to include when PP operated 25 family planning clinics.


Well there are the dirty details..... TX low income folks are worse off with the taxpayer TX version of PP....

[Chris]

Careful, I tried this already. No matter what you present, it will be ignored or twisted.

You presented a link and that link gave the opinion of a fertility business group and immediately followed it with the opinion of an association of medical doctors etc who said life begins at conception. Please don't misrepresent your link when it's been demonstrated not to say what you thought it did.

[Chris]

Well there are the dirty details..... TX low income folks are worse off with the taxpayer TX version of PP....

From same link:


Although cuts to family planning services in 2011 had a substantial impact on the availability of women’s health services, Nelson — who voted for that budget — said lawmakers have worked since then to increase funding and capacity to provide family planning and women’s health services statewide. She said that Texas set new records for the level of funding for women’s health services in the 2014-15 budget and that the state has greater provider capacity than ever before.

Someone earlier was concerned with picking and choosing.

[Chris]

Do you deny that the religious right is a large part of the pro life movement?

I deny I am and deny that I'm making a religious argument. My argument is based on medical science. Care to argue that?

[southwest88]

My parents are all excited they're going to be great-grandparents. They got a copy of the sonogram and talk about the baby. My niece describes it as a baby, a girl. When's the baby due, I ask? That how people normally talk about that "bunch of cells."

Yah, & people still talk about sunrise & sunset, as if the terms controlled the reality. The reality is what it is, an intricate dance in space & time of stellar & planetary bodies. Our understanding of the events has long outpaced our shorthand description of everyday reality - but that shorthand in no way defines the physical reality.

Just as we talk about God as Our Lord, a nod to the KJV of the Bible - when that language was common & described polities. Now, it's more nostalgia or a kind of ritualized language - which the modern adaptations of the Bible usually render as something else - some other phrase more in use in the here & now.

[Matty]

Careful, I tried this already. No matter what you present, it will be ignored or twisted.



I have two question.


is life possible without conception?


how deep do you think the taxpayers pockets are? Is there any limit on the things you will not tax for?

[leekohler2]

Your observation was emotional ad hom.

No, it was an observation.


Again, I have no problem helping those who need help. So much for that canard already.

Again, I never said "you" specifically. Not one time.


And again, just because conservatives do not support liberal programs does not imply they do not care. That just a bogus liberal argument.

I was not aware that either of the things I mentioned to you were "liberal" programs. And yes, cutting higher education and completely cutting off services for the autistic, indeed means they don't care.

[zelmo1234]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2507508/planned-parenthood-fetal-tissue-video-stolen-from-mother-of-stillborn-baby/

Others here (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=planned+parenthood+videos+stolen)


OK so the first on has a big red block in the corner that says OPINION? So that is not fact,

But for the sake of argument, lets just say that this video is false. What about all of the others and the under cover videos, and the testimony of the head of Planed Parenthood?

So really we are back to ground zero.

[zelmo1234]

Crap. Just like the cons, you're pro-life until the kid is born then he's on his own.

This is one of the most Beautiful lies that Liberals tell.

So please tell me what program that is supported by the left and not the right is making lives better for the poor?

[texan]

Planned Parenthood doesn't need government funding!

So Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These recent video's and the past sting operations are deplorable. I am tired of this group of people lying to use about what they do......................

I say this and I am not anti abortion, but I know the truth.

[zelmo1234]

I don't think you can associate state with liberal v conservative. Topic here is Texas ending Medicaid funding for PP, but the state is pretty evenly divided with conservatives commanding a small lead right now.

Actually NO the lead in TX is not small with the acceptation of a few areas TX is about as bright red as you can get.

[leekohler2]

You presented a link and that link gave the opinion of a fertility business group and immediately followed it with the opinion of an association of medical doctors etc who said life begins at conception. Please don't misrepresent your link when it's been demonstrated not to say what you thought it did.

Chris, opinions in the medical community differ, that is all I pointed out to you. End of story.

[zelmo1234]

the state stopped funding Planned Parenthood and established the Women’s Health Program,

So I was right.

OK you just admitted that they established the Women's Health Program to take care of Women's health issues.

We also know that Planed Parenthood is ban from using federal dollars to fund abortions. So the 600 million is for Non abortion women's health issues, when the Women's health Program covers.

We know that at the very least Planed Parenthood has some splanin' to do on the selling body parts controversy.

So other than the 100's of million of dollars in campaign finances that Planed parenthood launders through their Organization for the DNC? What is the problem

[leekohler2]

This is one of the most Beautiful lies that Liberals tell.

So please tell me what program that is supported by the left and not the right is making lives better for the poor?

I pointed out two earlier.

[TrueBlue]

That would not be unusual for Texas, the red Republican state, to do as they like to target anyone who doesn't represent their total ideals as established by the far-right. The one thing I do agree with is that no money should go for funding abortions. That should not happen any longer although it is said that that is only a small part of the over-all work they do. I realize many indigent women need their services for Pap Smears, Check-Ups, Cancer Screenings, Exams for STDs, etc. and those services should certainly not be defunded as it would greatly impair a woman's health.

Here's more on the services they offer:

Planned Parenthood at a Glance

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-at-a-glance

[Chris]

That would not be unusual for Texas, the red Republican state, to do as they like to target anyone who doesn't represent their total ideals as established by the far-right. The one thing I do agree with is that no money should go for funding abortions. That should not happen any longer although it is said that that is only a small part of the over-all work they do. I realize many indigent women need their services for Pap Smears, Check-Ups, Cancer Screenings, Exams for STDs, etc. and those services should certainly not be defunded as it would greatly impair a woman's health.

Here's more on the services they offer:

Planned Parenthood at a Glance

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/planned-parenthood-at-a-glance




TX is like all states purple, not red. One falsity shot down.

Here's what TX provides as alternative:


Although cuts to family planning services in 2011 had a substantial impact on the availability of women’s health services, Nelson — who voted for that budget — said lawmakers have worked since then to increase funding and capacity to provide family planning and women’s health services statewide. She said that Texas set new records for the level of funding for women’s health services in the 2014-15 budget and that the state has greater provider capacity than ever before.

Southwest provided link earlier to this:


Although cuts to family planning services in 2011 had a substantial impact on the availability of women’s health services, Nelson — who voted for that budget — said lawmakers have worked since then to increase funding and capacity to provide family planning and women’s health services statewide. She said that Texas set new records for the level of funding for women’s health services in the 2014-15 budget and that the state has greater provider capacity than ever before.

[zelmo1234]

Prove it to be false. Show me your plan to care for unwanted children.

Ok so there is NO GOP plan to stop the funding for Welfare, Food Stamps or any of the social safety nets. So here are some plans that would help the poor especially in our inner cities devastated by poverty.

#1 School Voucher Program allowing the parents to use the tax dollars invested in their child to send there child to the best possible school to allow them to overcome poverty. There was a program like this in DC that was working really with tremendous results but Obama to protect the teachers union ended this program.

#2 With the best social safety net that we have, the person receiving the benefits still if forced to live in poverty, But we know that a person with a job is far less likely to be addicted to drugs and alcohol, live in poverty. drop out of school, all things that we want to see happen. But the Democrats have blocked legislation to create Enterprise zones in the 50 cities hardest struck by unemployment? These Tax free opportunities are proven to bring manufacturing and low skilled jobs back to areas that desperately need them? The question is why do Democrats hate them?

#3 ENDING the extension of unemployment benefits. According to Obama we are at 5.3% unemployment and the economy is growing, Yet we know that workers in these devastated cities are not likely to find a job until 2 weeks after their last benefit check? Why are we forcing people to stay on the system which makes id harder to find a job in the long run And while this seems like a cruel program in the long run families have more to live on.

There are my top 3 programs to help the poor. What are the Democrats offering.

[Chris]

Yah, & people still talk about sunrise & sunset, as if the terms controlled the reality. The reality is what it is, an intricate dance in space & time of stellar & planetary bodies. Our understanding of the events has long outpaced our shorthand description of everyday reality - but that shorthand in no way defines the physical reality.

Just as we talk about God as Our Lord, a nod to the KJV of the Bible - when that language was common & described polities. Now, it's more nostalgia or a kind of ritualized language - which the modern adaptations of the Bible usually render as something else - some other phrase more in use in the here & now.

And you deny the sense people have of a living human baby in the womb?

Why do liberal progressives resort to legaleze and biology in an effort to deny that?

[silvereyes]

Ok, this is where i do this: lee, hold my lib card for a minute, please.


Yes, it IS ending the life of a fetus....which quickly becomes a baby.

However, I am against anyone deciding for ANYONE else what to do or not to do with their own body.
*snatches card back from lee*

[Chris]

No, it was an observation.



Again, I never said "you" specifically. Not one time.



I was not aware that either of the things I mentioned to you were "liberal" programs. And yes, cutting higher education and completely cutting off services for the autistic, indeed means they don't care.


An observation based on emotion and fallacy, ad hom.

Then you argue strawmen.


And yes, cutting higher education and completely cutting off services for the autistic, indeed means they don't care.

Provide some logic to connect those dots.

[southwest88]

Originally Posted by leekohler2 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1296713#post1296713) "And masturbation should be forbidden too. That could have made a baby. :rollseyes:"


Now your arguments are getting beyond silly.

leekohler2 is on perfectly sound theological ground. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Bible

"Bible[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_on_masturbation&action=edit&section=2)]

"What the Bible itself states according to mainstream Bible scholarship[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_on_masturbation&action=edit&section=3)]

"The biblical story of Onan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation and condemnation thereof,[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-vines-7) but the sexual act described by this story is coitus interruptus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus), not masturbation.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-8)[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-9)[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-12) There is no explicit claim in the Bible that masturbation would be sinful,[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-13)[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-14) however a ritual defilement is described in Leviticus (see #Other texts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Other_texts) below.)

"Ilona N. Rashkow states: "it is questionable whether masturbation is considered a category of 'negative' sexual activity in the Hebrew Bible" and that Lev 15:16 "refer to the emission rather than its circumstances."[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-15) Jones and Jones state James R. Johnson's biblical view on masturbation: "treating a solitary sexual experience, whether wet dream or masturbation, as a purely ceremonial cleanliness issue and not as a matter of morality."[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-jonesandjones-16) T.J. Wray explains what the Bible actually states (and does not state) about masturbation: "Returning to the Levitical list of sexual taboos, curiously missing from the list is any mention of masturbation."[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-tjwray-17) Then she goes on discussing Gen 38 and Lev 15 and concludes "None of this, however, represent a clear condemnation of masturbation."[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-tjwray-17)
"Traditional Jewish interpretation of the Tanakh[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_on_masturbation&action=edit&section=4)]

"Maimonides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides) stated that the Tanakh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh) does not explicitly prohibit masturbation.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-myjewishlearning-18) On the matter of masturbation, the biblical story of Onan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) is traditionally interpreted by Jews to be about the emitting sperm outside of vagina and condemnation thereof,[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-jewfaq-19) applying this story to masturbation,[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-jewfaq-19) although the Tanakh does not explicitly state that Onan was masturbating.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-jewfaq-19) By virtue of Onan, traditional Judaism condemns male masturbation.[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-myjewishlearning-18)
"Traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_on_masturbation&action=edit&section=5)]

"On the matter of masturbation, the biblical story of Onan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan) was traditionally interpreted by Christians to be about the sin of masturbation and condemnation thereof,[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-vines-7) since it was a constant of the prescientific mind to consider that the child is contained in the sperm the same way a plant is contained in its seed.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#cite_note-20)"

(My emphasis - more detail @ the URL)

[Chris]

Planned Parenthood doesn't need government funding!

So Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These recent video's and the past sting operations are deplorable. I am tired of this group of people lying to use about what they do......................

I say this and I am not anti abortion, but I know the truth.


You got to love how the one pointing out a problem becomes the problem.

Uh, what lying?

[zelmo1234]

The subject isn't about anti-poverty programs, and certainly not your lib-tarian political views, I'm addressing the wacky right that control Texas and their effort to deprive low income women of healthcare because they're so much more interested in privatizing everything so the billionaires can continue to make a buck.

Planed Parenthood is a Private organization and they created a way to pay for these issues why would you need the 600 million? to cover things that are already covered.

[zelmo1234]

Do you deny that the religious right is a large part of the pro life movement?

No do you deny that the Socialist Far left is a big part of the pro Abortion movement.

[Chris]

Chris, opinions in the medical community differ, that is all I pointed out to you. End of story.

You provided a link and that link provided two sets of opinions, one from a group representing the fertility business--not physicians, not the medical community--and one from an association of physicians. The phsycians agreed with those other physicians and textbooks I linked to. That's the true end of the story. Are you going to misrepresent the first group again?

[JDubya]

Bullshat and the rest are simply not arguments. Merely emotions.

Your citation has nothing to do with TX's recent decision. The dicion is not to close anything, just end funding through Medicaid. Try reading the OP, please.

How about YOU go back and read what I posted.

I was not equating their latest Medicaid gimmick with the initial defunding I referenced via the CNN article I posted.

What I said was that Texas had ALREADY used OTHER tactics (like the change in the law, which I PROVED) which resulted in the closing over half of Texas' abortion clinics.

You responded by saying Texas still offers the exacts same level of women's health care, which they DO NOT.

There is nothing emotional going on here, other than YOUR OWN emotional hissy fit responses.

[leekohler2]

You provided a link and that link provided two sets of opinions, one from a group representing the fertility business--not physicians, not the medical community--and one from an association of physicians. The phsycians agreed with those other physicians and textbooks I linked to. That's the true end of the story. Are you going to misrepresent the first group again?


Fertility specialists are scientists, Chris. End of story.

Here's a link to their site for you, so you know who they are. I can't believe I actually have to do this:



ASRM Board of Directors 2014-2015

President: Rebecca Sokol, M.D., M.P.H.
President Elect: Owen K. Davis, M.D.
Vice President: Richard Paulson, M.D.
Past President: Linda Giudice, M.D., Ph.D.
Executive Director: Richard H. Reindollar, M.D.
Secretary: Catherine Racowsky, Ph.D.
Treasurer: George Hill, M.D.
Directors at Large
Richard Legro, M.D.
Hugh Taylor, M.D.
Robert Oates, M.D.
Julia Johnson, M.D.
Mark Sigman, M.D.
Maria Bustillo, M.D.
Directors (Affiliated Society Representatives)
James Segars, M.D. (SREI)
Steven Palter, M.D. (SRS)
James Toner, M.D. (SART)
Marc Portmann, M.H.A., M.T. (SRBT)

Ajay Nangia, M.D. (SMRU)

http://www.asrm.org/board/

Those appear to be physicians to me. Now please stop with the dishonesty already. It's getting very, very old.

[zelmo1234]

`
Prove it. Show that there is an empirical medical and scientific consensus throughout the world that states when life exists. None exists.

It would be the same consensus that the left tells us there is on Global Warming.

[leekohler2]

How about YOU go back and read what I posted.

I was not equating their latest Medicaid gimmick with the initial defunding I referenced via the CNN article I posted.

What I said was that Texas had ALREADY used OTHER tactics (like the change in the law, which I PROVED) which resulted in the closing over half of Texas' abortion clinics.

You responded by saying Texas still offers the exacts same level of women's health care, which they DO NOT.

There is nothing emotional going on here, other than YOUR OWN emotional hissy fit responses.

Pretty much.

[zelmo1234]

Well there are the dirty details..... TX low income folks are worse off with the taxpayer TX version of PP....

How, they are covered under the ACA, It is not like they can go to planed parenthood and get a Mammogram or anything like that?

[TrueBlue]

TX is like all states purple, not red. One falsity shot down.

Here's what TX provides as alternative:



Southwest provided link earlier to this:
What Nelson, a Republican lawmaker from Texas, says remains to be seen as does just how effective their plan will be in the place of Medicaid services women received. Besides, that's the Republican point of view. They need others to judge independently the effectiveness of their new funding mechanisms.

And Texas is still very much a Red State. All statewide offices are held by Republicans. Their Supreme Court is held by Republicans. Their governor and Lt. Governor are Republicans. So, where is the blue or "purple" part coming from? Their legislators have some Democrats in the State Senate and House but they are in the minority with Republicans calling the shots. Whoever gave you that information was incorrect.

[zelmo1234]

I pointed out two earlier.

Can you point me to the post number I would be happy to read them, but I could not find it? Thanks

[Chris]

What Nelson, a Republican lawmaker from Texas, says remains to be seen as does just how effective their plan will be in the place of Medicaid services women received. Besides, that's the Republican point of view. They need others to judge independently the effectiveness of their new funding mechanisms.


You'll have to argue with Southwest about that, he provided the link.

BTW, the Medicaid funds are being redirected from PP to these other clinics.

[leekohler2]

Can you point me to the post number I would be happy to read them, but I could not find it? Thanks

Post #153.

[southwest88]

And you deny the sense people have of a living human baby in the womb?

Why do liberal progressives resort to legaleze and biology in an effort to deny that?

Not @ all, I was commenting on your attachment (& most peoples', to be sure) to archaic language in everyday speech. It's OK, lots of people do so. But that common practice shouldn't be the sole criterion for deciding policy.

I do like the phrase liberal progressives - I don't know that I've seen references to any other kind. I'd assumed that liberal & progressive were essentially the same thing, in modern political discourse in the US. Thanks for the heads up!

Sure, I resort to law & biology & logic & all kinds of stuff. That's what happens when you put your opinions out on a discussion forum, where we are now, TMK.

[Chris]

How about YOU go back and read what I posted.

I was not equating their latest Medicaid gimmick with the initial defunding I referenced via the CNN article I posted.

What I said was that Texas had ALREADY used OTHER tactics (like the change in the law, which I PROVED) which resulted in the closing over half of Texas' abortion clinics.

You responded by saying Texas still offers the exacts same level of women's health care, which they DO NOT.

There is nothing emotional going on here, other than YOUR OWN emotional hissy fit responses.


Again, your emotional responses and emotion-laden word selection are ignored. Proved, lol.

What I said was defind PP has nothing to do with what your arguing. The defunding has nothing to do with closing PP.

The funds are going to other clinics for women's health.

[Chris]

Pretty much.

OK, join him in his emotional ad hom. Not sure why anyone things logical fallacies have any bearing on any rational discussion.

[leekohler2]

OK, join him in his emotional ad hom. Not sure why anyone things logical fallacies have any bearing on any rational discussion.

Why not admit that you lied on the last page?

I'm getting tired of busting you Chris. See post #194.

[TrueBlue]

You'll have to argue with Southwest about that, he provided the link.

BTW, the Medicaid funds are being redirected from PP to these other clinics.
I amended my post to include other things you commented about. Do you have a comment on that part?

[Chris]

Fertility specialists are scientists, Chris. End of story.

Here's a link to their site for you, so you know who they are. I can't believe I actually have to do this:



http://www.asrm.org/board/

Those appear to be physicians to me. Now please stop with the dishonesty already. It's getting very, very old.


Again you misrepresent ASRM. I looked at their site. Their concern is the fertility BUSINESS. They are a business group and not physicians. It matters not one iota that physicians are on their board, they didn't offer an opinion. ASRM as a business did.

[Chris]

I amended my post to include other things you commented about. Do you have a comment on that part?

No, didn't see it.

[leekohler2]

Again you misrepresent ASRM. I looked at their site. Their concern is the fertility BUSINESS. They are a business group and not physicians. It matters not one iota that physicians are on their board, they didn't offer an opinion. ASRM as a business did.

Wow- you just can't stop yourself. The entire board is medical doctors. The whole organization is not a business, it's a society of medical professionals. Do you not understand what that is? No opinions can come from a rep of theirs without board approval either.

But you know what? That's it. Welcome to ignore.

Wait- guess I can't do that. Too bad.

[Chris]

Wow- you just can't stop yourself. The entire board is medical doctors. The whole organization is not a business, it's a society of medical professionals. Do you not understand what that is? No opinions can come from a rep of theirs without board approval either.

But you know what? That's it. Welcome to ignore.

Wait- guess I can't do that. Too bad.


Again, ad hom.

I recognize the board is medical doctors, but ASRM is NOT. It is an association for business purposes.

[leekohler2]

Again, ad hom.

I recognize the board is medical doctors, but ASRM is NOT. It is an association for business purposes.

No Chris, it's not:


ASRM is a multidisciplinary organization dedicated to the advancement of the science and practice of reproductive medicine. The Society accomplishes its mission through the pursuit of excellence in education and research and through advocacy on behalf of patients, physicians, and affiliated health care providers. The Society is committed to facilitating and sponsoring educational activities for the lay public and continuing medical education activities for professionals who are engaged in the practice of and research in reproductive medicine.
Approved by the ASRM Board of Directors, April 10, 2014

http://www.asrm.org/mission/

It's aim is education.

[Chris]

No Chris, it's not:



http://www.asrm.org/mission/

It's aim is education.


Look up reproductive medicine. "prevention, diagnosis and management of reproductive problems" (wikipedia). Basically their in the business of fertility and its problems. You offered opinion outside their area of expertise.

[Mac-7]

No Chris, it's not:



http://www.asrm.org/mission/

It's aim is education.

Abortion is non-reproductive.

[Crepitus]

I deny I am and deny that I'm making a religious argument. My argument is based on medical science. Care to argue that?
An interesting discussion on that:


Argument: No, we don’t even know when life ends, much less when it begins.
Debator:Suzanne Holland, Ph.D., bioethicist; chair,Religion Department, University of Puget Sound (http://www.pugetsound.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/undergraduate/religion/), Tacoma, Wash.

What makes us so sure we know when human life begins? Despite our best efforts, we do not even really know when human life ends, as the Terry Schiavo case (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/schiavo/) reminded us. If it is so achingly difficult to know whether someone is dead or alive when she is in front of people who love her, how much harder it is to be certain when life begins, especially when we cannot see it with our own eyes.
Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate.
The genetic view (the position held by the Roman Catholic Church and many religious conservatives) holds that life begins with the acquisition of a novel genome; it is a kind of genetic determinism.
http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TSD-Books-Ad-small.jpg (http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/survival-books/)Those who hold the embryologic view think life begins when the embryo undergoes gastrulation, and twinning is no longer possible; this occurs about 14 days into development. (Some mainline Protestant religions espouse a similar view.)
Proponents of the neurological view adhere to brainwave criteria; life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected, about 24 to 27 weeks. (Some Protestant churches affirm this.) Interestingly, life is also thought to end when the EEG pattern is no longer present.
Finally, one can say that life begins at or near birth, measured by fetal viability outside the mother’s body. (Judaism affirms something close to this position.) After all, somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of all embryos conceived miscarry.
So, when does life begin? I do not think we can know this with any more certainty than we know when life ends. People of faith, and people of good conscience, are going to have to agree to disagree—with a good dose of humility—on matters of life and death.

full text (http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/07/when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/)

As far as science, there are doctors who say life begins at conception, and other doctors who say something else.

[Crepitus]

OK so the first on has a big red block in the corner that says OPINION? So that is not fact,

But for the sake of argument, lets just say that this video is false. What about all of the others and the under cover videos, and the testimony of the head of Planed Parenthood?

So really we are back to ground zero.
There is proof that at least one image is not what it purports to be, why would they stop with just one?

[Crepitus]

This is one of the most Beautiful lies that Liberals tell.

So please tell me what program that is supported by the left and not the right is making lives better for the poor?
Uh, pretty much all of them from SNAP on up.

[southwest88]

You'll have to argue with Southwest about that, he provided the link.

BTW, the Medicaid funds are being redirected from PP to these other clinics.

No, see http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303863404577283972576906862

"Texas Medicaid Funds Cut Over Planned Parenthood


"By Louise Radnofsky

March 15, 2012

"The Obama administration said Thursday it would stop funding a Texas women's health-care program after the state excluded Planned Parenthood from participating, the latest skirmish in a national battle over reproductive-health coverage.

"Texas has received federal funds since 2007 to pay for birth control, health screening and family exams for a subset of low-income women in the federal-state Medicaid program. The state got $34 million last year and provided another $7 million from state coffers for the program, which doesn't apply to all women on Medicaid. More than 100,000 women in the state currently receive the services, at one of hundreds of participating clinics.

"State legislators have long sought to bar funds for services provided at clinics that also carried out abortions under separate programs. State officials finally moved ahead with new rules this year barring Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions in addition to basic women's health services.

"Officials at the federal agency charged with overseeing the Medicaid program said the state could not restrict patients' access to particular providers and still receive federal money, and wrote to state officials Thursday to tell them that the agency would stop funding that part of the Medicaid program within months.

"Medicaid law is clear—patients, not state government officials, are able to choose the health-care providers that are best for them and their families," said Cindy Mann, a top official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in a conference call with reporters after the letter was released."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

TMK, the Federal part of TX Medicaid for this program was rescinded.

[leekohler2]

Look up reproductive medicine. "prevention, diagnosis and management of reproductive problems" (wikipedia). Basically their in the business of fertility and its problems. You offered opinion outside their area of expertise.

I offered no opinion other than what their representative stated. You also claimed they were not physicians. That turned out to be false as well. And every medical doctor is in the business of their profession.

And you're saying that fertility doctors have no informed opinion on when life begins? That's kind of what they do...

[Crepitus]

No do you deny that the Socialist Far left is a big part of the pro Abortion movement.
political movement ≠ religious movement.

[Chris]

No, see http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303863404577283972576906862

"Texas Medicaid Funds Cut Over Planned Parenthood


"By Louise Radnofsky

March 15, 2012

"The Obama administration said Thursday it would stop funding a Texas women's health-care program after the state excluded Planned Parenthood from participating, the latest skirmish in a national battle over reproductive-health coverage.

"Texas has received federal funds since 2007 to pay for birth control, health screening and family exams for a subset of low-income women in the federal-state Medicaid program. The state got $34 million last year and provided another $7 million from state coffers for the program, which doesn't apply to all women on Medicaid. More than 100,000 women in the state currently receive the services, at one of hundreds of participating clinics.

"State legislators have long sought to bar funds for services provided at clinics that also carried out abortions under separate programs. State officials finally moved ahead with new rules this year barring Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions in addition to basic women's health services.

"Officials at the federal agency charged with overseeing the Medicaid program said the state could not restrict patients' access to particular providers and still receive federal money, and wrote to state officials Thursday to tell them that the agency would stop funding that part of the Medicaid program within months.

"Medicaid law is clear—patients, not state government officials, are able to choose the health-care providers that are best for them and their families," said Cindy Mann, a top official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in a conference call with reporters after the letter was released."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

TMK, the Federal part of TX Medicaid for this program was rescinded.



Are you offering that because you, nic and others abhor government preventing women's access to healthcare services? I mean, how dare the Obama administration do that!

BTW, the OP topic is not about restricting patients' access to particular providers, or as judubya keeps arguing closing abortion clinics. It's about TX not funding PP with Medicaid.

[Chris]

I offered no opinion other than what their representative stated. You also claimed they were not physicians. That turned out to be false as well. And every medical doctor is in the business of their profession.

And you're saying that fertility doctors have no informed opinion on when life begins? That's kind of what they do...


Oh, so you've argued now for 10 pages about something you have no opinion on.

Their board is physicians, the group is not, it's about the fertility clinic business.

[Chris]

An interesting discussion on that:



full text (http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/07/when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/)

As far as science, there are doctors who say life begins at conception, and other doctors who say something else.[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]


Bioethicist offers opinion--about personhood. How do we weigh that against a fertility clinic association? Or how about Biden: Life Begins At Conception (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/22/biden-life-begins-at-conception-video/)


https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html, http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/, http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

[JDubya]

OK, time to deconstruct your mountain of BS.

You responded to southwest in post #28 as follows:

"Sorry but you're still hung up on the profit argument. Texas' cutting off PP's Medicaid funding is not based on that. Read the OP."

To which I responded to you, in post #32:

"Yeah, like they weren't lying in wait looking for anything they could find to make abortions harder and harder to get.

They've already cut the number of clinics in that backwards hell hole of a state to below half of what they used to be by tacking bogus requirements onto their state laws."

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296367&viewfull=1#post1296367

Note the context of my comment. I said that they were looking for any excuse they could find to make abortions harder to obtain BEFORE this current PP issue.

You then responded to my above comment in post #45 with the following:

"You didn't read the OP, did you, or follow the link to where it explains TX still provides the same healthcare services for women.

I'll ignore your emotions."

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296385&viewfull=1#post1296385

This is of course, completely untrue as I proved by posting the CNN article about the SCOTUS agreeing to hear the challenge to the Texas law that made it impossible for over half of the abortion clinics in the state to remain open and which had nothing to do with funding issues, Medicaid or otherwise, as shown in post #154:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296780&viewfull=1#post1296780

You then followed up with more deflection and non-truth in post #155:

"Bullshat and the rest are simply not arguments. Merely emotions.

Your citation has nothing to do with TX's recent decision. The dicion is not to close anything, just end funding through Medicaid. Try reading the OP, please."

Again... I had made the point earlier that even before this most recent underhanded Medicaid gimmick, they had ALREADY made abortions close to impossible to get in Texas by putting over half of them outside the legal operational requirements.

That was my point.... that your earlier BS about them maintaining the same level of health care was a lie, because they have closed down 22 out of 41 clinics in the state PRIOR to this latest move.

This brings us to post # 193, in which I tried in vain to clarify to you what my original point was:

"How about YOU go back and read what I posted.

I was not equating their latest Medicaid gimmick with the initial defunding I referenced via the CNN article I posted.

What I said was that Texas had ALREADY used OTHER tactics (like the change in the law, which I PROVED) which resulted in the closing over half of Texas' abortion clinics.

You responded by saying Texas still offers the exacts same level of women's health care, which they DO NOT.

There is nothing emotional going on here, other than YOUR OWN emotional hissy fit responses."

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296879&viewfull=1#post1296879

Your response? More deflection in post # 203:

"Again, your emotional responses and emotion-laden word selection are ignored. Proved, lol.

What I said was defind PP has nothing to do with what your arguing. The defunding has nothing to do with closing PP.

The funds are going to other clinics for women's health."

So I will try to explain this again... the PP/Medicaid funding issue is irrelevant to my original point, which was concerned with Texas cutting the number of clinics to less than half their former number, not by means of defunding PP or transferring funds elsewhere, but by the use of a law they passed which purposely and intentionally put 22 out of 41 clinics (so far) outside of the new, altered operational guidelines, specifically for the purpose of forcing them to shut down because they no longer complied with these new, trumped up state requirements.

I understand full well about the PP funding issue and the funds going to other non abortion providing women's health programs. If you cannot understand that I am talking about the larger issue of what they are doing in their ongoing efforts to make abortions in Texas impossible to get via other means, like manipulating the laws, then I cannot help you @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) , because you obviously are not interested in the truth.

[silvereyes]

Abortion is non-reproductive.

Omg..what insight! What genius!

[silvereyes]

Again you misrepresent ASRM. I looked at their site. Their concern is the fertility BUSINESS. They are a business group and not physicians. It matters not one iota that physicians are on their board, they didn't offer an opinion. ASRM as a business did.

Ok, Chris, enough. Play nice, please.

[Peter1469]

`
That's a matter of opinion. Those whom are predisposed to have faith in the concept that at the moment of conception, a viable human is formed for whatever reason, belong to one group. Those who believe that life begins at birth, are another group. Scattered between the polar opposites are people whose beliefs are varied which include abortions concerning the health of the mother or fetal anomaly.

What "common law" says is immaterial. Abortion was not always a crime. During the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, abortion was legal under common law. Constitutionally, that matter was settled in the early 70's. Personally, I see no utility in arguing about something that has been bantered about for 40 years.

I described the Roe v Wade decision in another thread on abortion and how the concept of justification for homicide was treated. Basically, the trimester test dodged the issue. But the Court did recognize one a death is acknowledged the death is either natural or a homicide. If a homicide, then you have to ask if it was justified.

[leekohler2]

Oh, so you've argued now for 10 pages about something you have no opinion on.

Chris, this is just sad. What in the world are you talking about? Are you so stubborn that you have to make things up? Where did you even come up with this?


Their board is physicians, the group is not, it's about the fertility clinic business.

Chris, it in an association of medical professionals, not a business. It's just like the AMA. Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?


Today, ASRM members reside in all 50 of the United States and in more than 100 other countries. The Society is multidisciplinary, with members including obstetrician/gynecologists, urologists, reproductive endocrinologists, embryologists, mental health professionals, internists, nurses, practice administrators, laboratory technicians, pediatricians, research scientists, and veterinarians.

Since 1950, the ASRM has published Fertility and Sterility, a leading peer-reviewed medical journal in obstetrics and gynecology. Additionally, the Society produces two newsletters, ASRM News, and Menopausal Medicine. Ethical concerns are published regularly by the Society's Ethics Committee. To provide assistance about diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas, the ASRM Practice Committee also produces timely reports in the form of guidelines, minimum standards, committee opinions, and technical and educational bulletins. Also published are the ASRM Patient Education Committee's Patient Information Series booklets and Patient Fact Sheets, which are designed to help the patient understand the complexities of reproductive disorders and their treatment.

http://www.asrm.org/about/

[silvereyes]

Planed Parenthood is a Private organization and they created a way to pay for these issues why would you need the 600 million? to cover things that are already covered.

You make zero sense.

[silvereyes]

How, they are covered under the ACA, It is not like they can go to planed parenthood and get a Mammogram or anything like that?
Maybe not, but PP does connect them with places designed for low-income people to get one.

[silvereyes]

Fertility specialists are scientists, Chris. End of story.

Here's a link to their site for you, so you know who they are. I can't believe I actually have to do this:



http://www.asrm.org/board/

Those appear to be physicians to me. Now please stop with the dishonesty already. It's getting very, very old.

Chris, those are doctors.

[silvereyes]

Today, ASRM members reside in all 50 of the United States and in*more than*100 other countries.* The Society is multidisciplinary, with members including obstetrician/gynecologists, urologists, reproductive endocrinologists, embryologists, mental health professionals, internists, nurses, practice administrators, laboratory technicians, pediatricians, research scientists, and veterinarians.* The ASRM has an administrative office in Birmingham, Alabama, and a public affairs office in Washington, D.C.* Policy is set by an elected Board of Directors and implemented by an Executive Director*and an accomplished staff.

[silvereyes]

https://www.asrm.org/about/

[Chris]

OK, time to deconstruct your mountain of BS.

You responded to southwest in post #28 as follows:

"Sorry but you're still hung up on the profit argument. Texas' cutting off PP's Medicaid funding is not based on that. Read the OP."

To which I responded to you, in post #32:

"Yeah, like they weren't lying in wait looking for anything they could find to make abortions harder and harder to get.

They've already cut the number of clinics in that backwards hell hole of a state to below half of what they used to be by tacking bogus requirements onto their state laws."

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296367&viewfull=1#post1296367

Note the context of my comment. I said that they were looking for any excuse they could find to make abortions harder to obtain BEFORE this current PP issue.

You then responded to my above comment in post #45 with the following:

"You didn't read the OP, did you, or follow the link to where it explains TX still provides the same healthcare services for women.

I'll ignore your emotions."

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296385&viewfull=1#post1296385

This is of course, completely untrue as I proved by posting the CNN article about the SCOTUS agreeing to hear the challenge to the Texas law that made it impossible for over half of the abortion clinics in the state to remain open and which had nothing to do with funding issues, Medicaid or otherwise, as shown in post #154:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296780&viewfull=1#post1296780

You then followed up with more deflection and non-truth in post #155:

"Bullshat and the rest are simply not arguments. Merely emotions.

Your citation has nothing to do with TX's recent decision. The dicion is not to close anything, just end funding through Medicaid. Try reading the OP, please."

Again... I had made the point earlier that even before this most recent underhanded Medicaid gimmick, they had ALREADY made abortions close to impossible to get in Texas by putting over half of them outside the legal operational requirements.

That was my point.... that your earlier BS about them maintaining the same level of health care was a lie, because they have closed down 22 out of 41 clinics in the state PRIOR to this latest move.

This brings us to post # 193, in which I tried in vain to clarify to you what my original point was:

"How about YOU go back and read what I posted.

I was not equating their latest Medicaid gimmick with the initial defunding I referenced via the CNN article I posted.

What I said was that Texas had ALREADY used OTHER tactics (like the change in the law, which I PROVED) which resulted in the closing over half of Texas' abortion clinics.

You responded by saying Texas still offers the exacts same level of women's health care, which they DO NOT.

There is nothing emotional going on here, other than YOUR OWN emotional hissy fit responses."

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52280-Texas-Just-Banned-Planned-Parenthood-From-Its-Medicaid-Program?p=1296879&viewfull=1#post1296879

Your response? More deflection in post # 203:

"Again, your emotional responses and emotion-laden word selection are ignored. Proved, lol.

What I said was defind PP has nothing to do with what your arguing. The defunding has nothing to do with closing PP.

The funds are going to other clinics for women's health."

So I will try to explain this again... the PP/Medicaid funding issue is irrelevant to my original point, which was concerned with Texas cutting the number of clinics to less than half their former number, not by means of defunding PP or transferring funds elsewhere, but by the use of a law they passed which purposely and intentionally put 22 out of 41 clinics (so far) outside of the new, altered operational guidelines, specifically for the purpose of forcing them to shut down because they no longer complied with these new, trumped up state requirements.

I understand full well about the PP funding issue and the funds going to other non abortion providing women's health programs. If you cannot understand that I am talking about the larger issue of what they are doing in their ongoing efforts to make abortions in Texas impossible to get via other means, like manipulating the laws, then I cannot help you @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) , because you obviously are not interested in the truth.




the PP/Medicaid funding issue is irrelevant to my original point

That's what I said, your point has nothing to do with the topic.

I don't need your help, jdubya, especially with truth.

[southwest88]

(Quote from #220)

"Medicaid law is clear—patients, not state government officials, are able to choose the health-care providers that are best for them and their families," said Cindy Mann, a top official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in a conference call with reporters after the letter was released."


Are you offering that because you, nic and others abhor government preventing women's access to healthcare services? I mean, how dare the Obama administration do that!

BTW, the OP topic is not about restricting patients' access to particular providers, or as judubya keeps arguing closing abortion clinics. It's about TX not funding PP with Medicaid.

If the TX Lege wants to pretend that they can direct Federal monies wherever they please, they are wrong. By the sound of the 1st quote para above, Medicaid law requires that the patients choose the health-care provider.

As for conversations - yes, they are squishy things - one thing leads to another. Once the subject gets to PP & the TX Lege & Medicaid & patient choice - then it's only a matter of time before we get here, where we are.

I think it's clear that the GOP has embraced the religious fundamentalists, in a bid to stop their hemorrhage of voters. US demographics are simply running against the GOP, & they seem concerned not to spend another couple of decades in the political wilderness (like during the Pres. FDR/Truman years). Pres. Nixon seized upon the Southern Strategy, & it's worked up to a point. The old Democratic Party in the South was disaffected by Pres. LBJ, the Civil Rights Act, school integration/desegregation & so on.

But even so, the rising segments of the US population, in terms of births per thousand, economically, politically, etc. are now not only the mainstream populations of the 1800s. It's a very mixed bag, to include Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, & lots of other people who are new to the US & are willing to ask political questions. That's one factor that keeps US politics & population perking along - we're willing to ask questions, & set off in search of answers.

That's one reason that we're not a staid old society like Europe or Japan or even Russia - where demographic trends need to be reversed, if those polities are to remain recognizable into the future.

[Chris]

Today, ASRM members reside in all 50 of the United States and in*more than*100 other countries.* The Society is multidisciplinary, with members including obstetrician/gynecologists, urologists, reproductive endocrinologists, embryologists, mental health professionals, internists, nurses, practice administrators, laboratory technicians, pediatricians, research scientists, and veterinarians.* The ASRM has an administrative office in Birmingham, Alabama, and a public affairs office in Washington, D.C.* Policy is set by an elected Board of Directors and implemented by an Executive Director*and an accomplished staff.

Read that earlier and was looking for it.

"veterinarians"

I rest my case.

They're basically an advocacy group for the fertility business, or more precisely, the infertility business.


But let's admit the opinion of the head of ASRM as having some value. It's a single opinion in a sea of opposing opinions that represent the general view of medical science, from physicians to textbooks, that say a human life begins at fertilization. No one expect all to agree, no one expect a consensus (like we laughingly have in climate change!), that's the nature of science.

My rejection of his opinion is grounded not only in the fact they're an advocacy group (lobbying group) for the infertility business, but also in that he argues the old progressive personhood saw, again, from lee's link:


Tipton says while a fertilized egg is necessary to make a person, fertilization alone is not enough to create a new human being. "A fertilized egg has to continue to grow, attach itself to a woman's uterine wall and gestate for nine months before it is born, and there are many potential missteps (that can happen) along the way."

He's confusing "person," a legal concept, with living human being, a biological concept.

And, again from Lee's link (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/) which is ignored in Lee's picking and choosing only the above, immediately following:


Dr. Joseph DeCook, executive director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, said an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization.

“There’s no question at all when human life begins,” said DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist. “When the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed.”

Pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, he said.

“But we’re not talking about pregnancy,” he said. “The question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosome. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”


You want to argue the personhood argument? Really? Then be aware that it originates in the early 1900s progressive euthanasia argument to do away with what they considered misfits of society. And be aware that those arguments were borrowed by the Nazis to justify exterminating Jews as misfits. So, yes, by all means, go ahead, argue it. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

[Chris]

(Quote from #220)

"Medicaid law is clear—patients, not state government officials, are able to choose the health-care providers that are best for them and their families," said Cindy Mann, a top official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in a conference call with reporters after the letter was released."



If the TX Lege wants to pretend that they can direct Federal monies wherever they please, they are wrong. By the sound of the 1st quote para above, Medicaid law requires that the patients choose the health-care provider.

As for conversations - yes, they are squishy things - one thing leads to another. Once the subject gets to PP & the TX Lege & Medicaid & patient choice - then it's only a matter of time before we get here, where we are.

I think it's clear that the GOP has embraced the religious fundamentalists, in a bid to stop their hemorrhage of voters. US demographics are simply running against the GOP, & they seem concerned not to spend another couple of decades in the political wilderness (like during the Pres. FDR/Truman years). Pres. Nixon seized upon the Southern Strategy, & it's worked up to a point. The old Democratic Party in the South was disaffected by Pres. LBJ, the Civil Rights Act, school integration/desegregation & so on.

But even so, the rising segments of the US population, in terms of births per thousand, economically, politically, etc. are now not only the mainstream populations of the 1800s. It's a very mixed bag, to include Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, & lots of other people who are new to the US & are willing to ask political questions. That's one factor that keeps US politics & population perking along - we're willing to ask questions, & set off in search of answers.

That's one reason that we're not a staid old society like Europe or Japan or even Russia - where demographic trends need to be reversed, if those polities are to remain recognizable into the future.


What the state of TX is doing in refusing Medicaid funding to PP does not dictate what anyone in TX must do in the way of choosing a woman's healthcare service. Women are and will continue to be free to choose PP.




I think it's clear that the GOP has embraced the religious fundamentalists, in a bid to stop their hemorrhage of voters. US demographics are simply running against the GOP, & they seem concerned not to spend another couple of decades in the political wilderness (like during the Pres. FDR/Truman years). Pres. Nixon seized upon the Southern Strategy, & it's worked up to a point. The old Democratic Party in the South was disaffected by Pres. LBJ, the Civil Rights Act, school integration/desegregation & so on.

That sure seems to be the party line, along with hook and sinker.

[AeonPax]

Already provided evidence. In fact, lee did as well, unwittingly. Try readicng the thread before blurting out unfounded opinion.
`
No proof, no evidence. Case closed.

[leekohler2]

`
No proof, no evidence. Case closed.

Exactly. It's been closed for a while.

[AeonPax]

Careful, I tried this already. No matter what you present, it will be ignored or twisted.
`
I'm familiar with his tactics....predictable. He's an exercise in futility.

[silvereyes]

Read that earlier and was looking for it.

"veterinarians"

I rest my case.

They're basically an advocacy group for the fertility business, or more precisely, the infertility business.


But let's admit the opinion of the head of ASRM as having some value. It's a single opinion in a sea of opposing opinions that represent the general view of medical science, from physicians to textbooks, that say a human life begins at fertilization. No one expect all to agree, no one expect a consensus (like we laughingly have in climate change!), that's the nature of science.

My rejection of his opinion is grounded not only in the fact they're an advocacy group (lobbying group) for the infertility business, but also in that he argues the old progressive personhood saw, again, from lee's link:



He's confusing "person," a legal concept, with living human being, a biological concept.

And, again from Lee's link (http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/medical-views-when-does-human-life-begin/) which is ignored in Lee's picking and choosing only the above, immediately following:




You want to argue the personhood argument? Really? Then be aware that it originates in the early 1900s progressive euthanasia argument to do away with what they considered misfits of society. And be aware that those arguments were borrowed by the Nazis to justify exterminating Jews as misfits. So, yes, by all means, go ahead, argue it. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

No, no, no. You dont get to go, hmmmm...doctor, doctor, doctor, etc....oh...vet!!! I knew it!!

Pffffffft. ;)

[leekohler2]

`
I'm familiar with his tactics....predictable. He's an exercise in futility.

An exercise in dishonesty. I have never seen anyone so unwilling to admit a mistake.

[Chris]

No, no, no. You dont get to go, hmmmm...doctor, doctor, doctor, etc....oh...vet!!! I knew it!!

Pffffffft. ;)

Sure I do. Did you notice that it's the Society that gave opinion, not it's members, including vets...probably from WWI, too!

[Chris]

`
I'm familiar with his tactics....predictable. He's an exercise in futility.

I'm familiar with your tactics. Generally, one, all opinions are equal, and, two, ad hom, as you just did there.

[Chris]

An exercise in dishonesty. I have never seen anyone so unwilling to admit a mistake.

And there you go again with your logical fallacies. Oh, but you're not engaging in ad hom, you're just making an observation, lol.

[silvereyes]

Sure I do. Did you notice that it's the Society that gave opinion, not it's members, including vets...probably from WWI, too!
Aye yi yi. Wheres that facepalm smilie when i need it? ;)

[Chris]

`
No proof, no evidence. Case closed.

Try opening your eyes. Even Lee provided evidence for what I said. In addition to many other statements from medical science.

[silvereyes]

And there you go again with your logical fallacies. Oh, but you're not engaging in ad hom, you're just making an observation, lol.
Do you realllllly want me to come to SA and smack you?

[Chris]

Aye yi yi. Wheres that facepalm smilie when i need it? ;)

:f_doh:

[Chris]

Do you realllllly want me to come to SA and smack you?

Hmmmm.

[leekohler2]

Read that earlier and was looking for it.

"veterinarians"

I rest my case.

They're basically an advocacy group for the fertility business, or more precisely, the infertility business.

Chris, you are truly a piece of work. You do realize how foolish your looking at this point, right? I mean, every one of your claims regarding this group has been shot down.

First, you said there were no physicians in the ASRM.
Then you said, oh there's only physicians on the board. NO one else in the group is a doctor or physician.
Once I showed that it is entirely a group of doctors and physicians worldwide, you're trying to move the goal post again.

In my book- three strikes, you're out.

An honest and honorable debater admits if he's made a mistake. And you my friend, have made a lot. The ASRM is made up of a lot of doctors, and their collective opinion is expressed by their representative. That's all. Not all experts agree when life starts, period. Deal with it.

If you don't like their opinion, take your concerns to them. I merely gave you information.