It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Isurrender73
It appears that federal funds are not used to fund abortions. It's against the law. State tax money can be used, but each state has it's own laws.
they should be able to employ a Capitalist Model when dealing with the fetal tissue.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t
If you read the actual bill, here, I believe the language leaves open the possibility that federal funds can go to entities other than PP that do offer abortions as well.
This does nothing to stop abortions in any way, it's just shifting money around because PP is now viewed as "evil". That's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I am pro life with the exception of rape and medically determined high risk pregnancy.
I personally don't think abortion should be seen as birth control. I think today's young women are making a serious mistake substituting safe sexual practices, with abortion.
It seems to me that PP fetal tissue program is for profit, or at least can be. Therefore, I see no reason why the abortion part of PP even needs to be funded by taxpayers.
If they are running a Capitalist Model, let supply and demand dictate the cost of fetal tissue and there wil be no reason for the public to fund abortions.
There is no reason to stop funding the rest of the highly needed services that PP provides.
originally posted by: IanFleming
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: IanFleming
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: IanFleming
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IanFleming
Ah. So, actual facts mean nothing to you, you merely want to state your beliefs.
Got it! Carry on.
Negative. That is the fact.
What you are saying is the same as saying that the Lockheed Martin's lobbyist really isn't part of Lockheed Martin because they call themselves a PAC and have a slightly different funding tree. That's disingenuous.
Wait ... didn't you just say that discussing Lockeed-Martin in this context was off-topic?
Physician, heal thyself.
BTW, are you saying that you're against corporations being able to organize as they choose in this country?
So ... you want more government control of business???
*confused*
Not at all. What I stated was the simple and salient fact that PP is a taxpayer funded organization that lobbies for more taxpayer funding. That, sir, is a fact.
If they object to governmental control and the whims of congress, they could simply take ZERO public funds. However, when you take the public's coin, the public through their elected representatives have every right to say how it is used.
Right, and your statement is in error as I pointed out.
The "Planned Parenthoods" that receive taxpayer funds, quote/unquote are NOT the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
That's a simple fact. You can, of course interpret it as you choose and believe what you will.
Facts, however, are facts.
But that is disingenuous. No, Phillip Morris doesn't lobby, they have the Phillip Morris Tobacco Growers lobby PAC. Certainly they have created a separate legal entity to stay in the legal guidelines just like every other special interest group with their hand held out for public funds or political influence, but to say they are not the same or connected is dishonest.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Isurrender73
they should be able to employ a Capitalist Model when dealing with the fetal tissue.
That's against the law.
It could be common sense that they just want to stop an organizTion from doing monstrous things like selling baby parts!
Talk about knee jerk political reactions
originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krazysh0t
If you read the actual bill, here, I believe the language leaves open the possibility that federal funds can go to entities other than PP that do offer abortions as well.
This does nothing to stop abortions in any way, it's just shifting money around because PP is now viewed as "evil". That's pretty disingenuous if you ask me.
Or it could be not because they are religious psychopaths that just want to stop abortion
It could be common sense that they just want to stop an organizTion from doing monstrous things like selling baby parts!
Duh! Simple answer there, that's why the funds can be moved to other organizations
Talk about knee jerk political reactions
Progressives ban something as stupid as a flag because it "invites hate and racism"
originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It's not invalid it's true
Progressives ban something as stupid as a flag because it "invites hate and racism"
Yet keep open a place that's soul foundation was to eradicate black people and stop the breeding population - the ultimate act of racism
I find that extremely hypocritical.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: IanFleming
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: IanFleming
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: IanFleming
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IanFleming
Ah. So, actual facts mean nothing to you, you merely want to state your beliefs.
Got it! Carry on.
Negative. That is the fact.
What you are saying is the same as saying that the Lockheed Martin's lobbyist really isn't part of Lockheed Martin because they call themselves a PAC and have a slightly different funding tree. That's disingenuous.
Wait ... didn't you just say that discussing Lockeed-Martin in this context was off-topic?
Physician, heal thyself.
BTW, are you saying that you're against corporations being able to organize as they choose in this country?
So ... you want more government control of business???
*confused*
Not at all. What I stated was the simple and salient fact that PP is a taxpayer funded organization that lobbies for more taxpayer funding. That, sir, is a fact.
If they object to governmental control and the whims of congress, they could simply take ZERO public funds. However, when you take the public's coin, the public through their elected representatives have every right to say how it is used.
Right, and your statement is in error as I pointed out.
The "Planned Parenthoods" that receive taxpayer funds, quote/unquote are NOT the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
That's a simple fact. You can, of course interpret it as you choose and believe what you will.
Facts, however, are facts.
But that is disingenuous. No, Phillip Morris doesn't lobby, they have the Phillip Morris Tobacco Growers lobby PAC. Certainly they have created a separate legal entity to stay in the legal guidelines just like every other special interest group with their hand held out for public funds or political influence, but to say they are not the same or connected is dishonest.
So, it's only others that you want to be restricted from bringing in the realities of companies other than Planned Parenthood?
That, sir or madam, is the essence of being disingenuous.
The fact that corporations are allowed to structure their businesses how they wish including setting up affliated corporations directed at certain tasks ... is actually intended to PREVENT your accusation of "tax payer dollars being used to lobby" from happening.
You see it differently, obviously. But your perception is not fact. Period.
originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: introvert
Other organizations haven't been caught doing it yet. I suppose if they are they will get the same treatment. Simple really
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: OptimisticCynic
a reply to: introvert
Other organizations haven't been caught doing it yet. I suppose if they are they will get the same treatment. Simple really
Other organisations already do it. Why aren't we going after them as well as PP?