Abbott One Ups Walker in GOP WOW

[Satchel]

I don't understand why Republicans continue to engage in these misguided theocratic crusades that don't appear to be winning them many converts:

5/2/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

A Texas law that strips Planned Parenthood of state funds is going forward. A previous decision by US District Judge Lee Yeakel to fund Planned Parenthood with money from the Texas Women's Health Program was overruled by Federal Appeals Judge Jerry E. Smith. This means state funds flowing to Planned Parenthood will stop.

AUSTIN, TX (Catholic Online) - Judge Yeakel's earlier decision to continue funding was immediately appealed by the State. Appellate Court Judge Smith reinstated the imposition of law that Yeakel had enjoined only hours before.

During the appeal, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott raised eyebrows when he apparently equated Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. He later clarified the statement to say that he was making an analogy rather than labeling the group outright.

Abbott told the court, "Planned Parenthood does not provide any assurance that the tax subsidies it receives from the Women's Health Program have not been used directly or indirectly to subsidize its advocacy of elective abortion. Nor is it possible for Planned Parenthood to provide this assurance."

He continued, "Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies, even if 'earmarked' for non-abortion activities, free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions."

The Link

 

[ProdigalHorn]

And I don't understand why Dems want to pretend that Planned Parenthood is the only option women have for reproductive health care.

 

[Satchel]

Can you link us to some Democrats who believe that or are you just making up stuff again?

 

[Leftwith]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[theiioftx]

Remind me again of why I have to fund someone else's reproductive choices, healthcare or anything else PP provides?

 

[Satchel]

Actually, I prefer patties.

Anybody else?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Satchel]

Plagiarize some proof of your baseless accusation or admit you pulled it our of your butt, much like you do everything else.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Crockett]

I'm guessining that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide a lot of reproductive services in the Republican areas where I live. Here families have income, insurance and the good sense to understand how to not experience unplanned pregnancies. Wish that were the whole world ...

 

[Satchel]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ProdigalHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

Planned Parenthood does not only fund abortion services. Or even services to offer birth control. To attack them them overall when you really disagree with just part of their mission is chickenshit. I think many are lying to themselves on why they dislike this organization.

The GOP continues to allienate hispanics, women, gays, non-Christians. How is this a winning strategy?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Crockett]

I'm sure unplanned pregnancies occur in Denton County, but in my neighorhood, circle of friends, it's not a big issue. I'd be really surprised if the women around here don't know a lot more about this than I do, but none seem to be posting on this thread.
My impression is that among middle income and affluent folks among whom I live, reproductive services mostly come from OBGYNs in private practice. I don't think all unplanned pregnancies are a result of ignorance or lack of access to birth control, but it is a factor. No doubt here as everywhere in America, there is a lot of unplanned or poorly planned sex.

I think having birth control be available, inexpensive and convenient is a good idea and that is mostly what Planned Parenthood does. There must be some business since Planned Parenthood has clinics in Denton and Lewisville.
. And of course, just because a person is single or low income doesn't mean a pregnancy is unplanned. But in my local circle of friends, college rather than getting pregnant while young.is seen as the route of choice to begin a young adult lifestyle.

 

[theiioftx]

"Planned Parenthood does not only fund abortion services. Or even services to offer birth control. To attack them them overall when you really disagree with just part of their mission is chickenshit. I think many are lying to themselves on why they dislike this organization. "

Why then are they called Planned Parenthood? If this is such a valuable service, why does it not pay for itself or survive off of personal charitable donations?

PD, you are better than this- throwing it under the War on women, blacks,etc. You are one on the left typically that gives honest, straightforward comment.

 

[pasotex]

Money is fungible? Why do I think the people making this statement have no clue about how government funds are spent at Planned Parenthood? Republicans have declared war on the millions of women for whom Planned Parenthood is the only inexpensive choice for primary healthcare. This is both shameful and unconstitutional, but since when was this a deterrent to a good crusade?

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ProdigalHorn]

See satchel, why would I need to link it when eventually they come on this thread and post it themselves?

 

[Satchel]

Here's what you wrote:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[theiioftx]

Honestly, I know very little about Planned Parenthood. However, I do not understand why taxpayers need to support an organization dedicated to reproductive rights.

 

[Satchel]

The Texas GOP appears to hastening the state's transition from red to blue. We're run by a pack of morons that make us look like Alabama:

For Texas, a matter of taking off the blinders

By O. Ricardo Pimentel, Express-News columnist
Updated 10:41 p.m., Saturday, May 5, 2012

Compare and contrast.

Ousted from the Women's Health Program — temporarily — Planned Parenthood clinics, on their own dimes, continued the services that keep low-income women healthy and prevent unintended pregnancies.

Texas, confronted with that federal lawsuit in which the clinics challenged their ouster, said it would close the program altogether if the lawsuit prevails.

We need no clearer example for which side is genuinely concerned for low-income women.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court reinstated Planned Parenthood into the program, removing a stay of a preliminary injunction imposed earlier.

U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel still has to rule on whether he will make that preliminary injunction permanent.

Meanwhile, the state's stance of picking up its marbles and leaving should the Planned Parenthood clinics win in court apparently remains. Texas says it has no choice because the Legislature passed a law barring Planned Parenthood.

Bunk.

Here's what that three-judge panel said when removing the stay: “Regarding the balance of the merits, we cannot conclude, on the present state of the record, that the state has shown a great likelihood, approaching a near certainty, that the district court abused its discretion in entering the injunction.”

Moreover, the judges said Texas had not demonstrated the need for an “emergency” stay and had evaded arguing a pertinent case on point here. On that panel was the federal appeals judge, Jerry Smith, who granted the emergency stay in the first place.

The judge granting the preliminary injunction now still in force was quite clear that Planned Parenthood had demonstrated strong likelihood that it would prove constitutional and other violations.

It's plain: The state is under no obligation to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.

The Women's Health Program provides nearly 130,000 low-income women with basic health services and with birth control. The state's law, allowed to stand, will result in unintended pregnancies, births paid for by Medicaid — or more abortions. Planned Parenthood clinics have been providing some 40 percent of WHP services.

Yes, the governor has said the program will continue with state funding should Texas prevail in court. But in the process it will oust the clinics doing what clients think are doing the best jobs of serving them, demonstrated by the clients choosing them in the first place. Texas will also be eschewing the 90 percent of the federal funding that made the program possible.

A report by the Geiger Gibson/RCHN Community Health Foundation Research Collaborative makes it even clearer why this is a funny way for Texas to exhibit concern. The state's affiliation rule barring Planned Parenthood clinics jeopardizes care for nearly 52,000 low-income Texas women, limiting access to 16 of 26 of the state's largest WHP providers. And it's unlikely other providers can ramp up to fill the gap.

The state should take a hint from whence this latest ruling came. We're talking here about the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — viewed as perhaps the most conservative court in the nation.

The facts haven't changed. These clinics in question perform no abortions. They are legally and financially separate from entities that do. So of course Texas is violating their constitutional rights because of their “affiliations.”

If the state really wants to show concern for these low-income women, it need only take off the blinders.

[email protected]

Read more:The Link