Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood facilities nationwide are in jeopardy.
I'll tell you why.

TRANSCRIPT
Last week, despite Governor Bev Perdue's awesome move to veto the state budget, North Carolina went the way of Indiana and Kansas and rounded out the trio of states to defund Planned Parenthood.
But hold your horses cowboys and girls, this trio is about to become a quartet, and not the kind with strings.

Thanks to Republican Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin is perched to sign a bill that would slash a million dollars from PP yearly funding, which could lead to the closing of nine clinics throughout the state.

This is not surprising, considering the fact that Walker was endorsed by a group called Pro-Life Wisconsin....who thinks birth control is a form of abortion and that teenagers shouldn't know anything about S-E-X.
Or they at least shouldn't be taught formally.....you know, with accurate information.
Better to let them learn from one another, swapping bits of half-truths and myths about 'doing it'.
They'll figure it out.

So Wisconsin has jumped on the bandwagon:

This is NOT a good thing.
This is a bad, BAD thing.

What does this mean?
It means that thousands and thousands of low-income and uninsured women, men, and children will lose (or have to wait a ridiculously long time for) access to the health care services that PP provides.


Do you KNOW how much it costs to go to the doctor?!?
I thank my lucky HMO stars that I have health insurance every time I get an "explanation of benefits" paper in the mail.
It costs like a bajillion dollars just to get a check-up.
Okay, not a bajillion, but SOME quantity of dollars that I couldn't afford otherwise, nor could the average PP patient.


These provisions to pull the funds from PP came from anti-abortion lawmakers:
folks who don't want to give money to an organization that provides abortions.
Fine. I understand this, but let's be clear.
NONE of that money is used to fund abortion services.
You know how I know that?
Because for the past 35 years, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited federal funds from being used to provide abortions!! !

Which, by the way, do you realize that abortions only constitute a teeny, tiny percentage of the services that PP provides?
Less than 3% to be exact.

That means that NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of these services are NOT abortions.

They're things like: Birth Control and emergency contraception, STD testing and treatment, Cancer screenings, Pregnancy tests, Prenatal care and all manner of other important things that people need to maintain their health, reproductive and otherwise.

This is what I don't get. Join me, if you would be so kind, on an exercise in logic.

You don't want people to have abortions.
So you withhold money from an organization that provides abortions, EVEN THOUGH this organization provides WAY MORE birth control than abortions.
So you're effectively limiting access to birth control, which in theory would lead to more unwanted pregnancies.
Which, also in theory, would increase the number of abortions!!!!

Way to think outside the box, guys.

In the case of Wisconsin, cuts to Planned Parenthood funding are being portrayed, in part, as a cost saving measure. But again....and I don't mean to go buckwild with the logical thinking here.....but Planned Parenthood prevented over 11,000 pregnancies in 2008, which saved the state over 139 MILLION DOLLARS that WOULD HAVE been spent on medical coverage for these would-be moms babies.


Planned Parenthood is a valuable resource. Full disclosure, I've gone to Planned Parenthood when I needed some Plan B and I'm sure glad they were there to provide it.
Because otherwise, I would have had a Plan B alright.
Plan B as in BABY!

Sadly, folks in any of these four states might not be so lucky.




Personal Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/NineteenPercent

Category:

Education

Tags:

• femininisting.com
• feministing
• nineteenpercent
• planned
• parenthood
• anti-choice
• pro-life
• north
• carolina
• indiana
• wisconsin
• kansas

[monolithicblackhole4]

@guyv00 is that what I said? I'm pretty sure I didn't say that once...but good job sticking to the point.

[guyv00]

@monolithicblackhole4 I hope your joking, so what your going to ban menstrual periods?

[ram0166]

You're a brainwashed moron.

[TMac473]

@Torgo1969 Exactly. This is Feminism's idea of "equality" in which it is a la carte. "We want parity in upper management and CEO positions" (but let's not talk about parity in criminal sentencing or homelessness or divorce & family law decisions or workplace deaths etc.etc. Equality has a totally different meaning when your lens is seen through millions of years of supposed victimhood and vulnerability.

[Torgo1969]

@TMac473 Your logic is spot on, TMac. I'm amazed to see the control freaks just come right out and say, "If you're not ready for the responsibility of sex (or a failure of birth control), then just don't have sex."

"Keep it in your pants" must apply to both sexes if fairness and equality is desired.

As you say, this is about autonomy and the proper link between choice and consequences, but our opponents would have us crawling on our knees like a beast or a slave to another person's will.

[TMac473]

... right of choice but what about men? Equality? If a puppy shows up at a door and the woman wants it but the man says he doesn't is the man legally forced to pay for the sheltering, food and care for the dog? You can evade this again but with society waking up to feminists' idea of "equality" (see special rights) this is bound to be an issue sooner or later. Why aren't women strong enough to own their decisions to keep a baby and support it themselves?

[TMac473]

Clearly I underestimated your ability to evade a simple question. It's clear that you still haven't bothered watching Girlwriteswhat's video on LPS. I do not propose that a man can force a woman to have an abortion. That would be ridiculous. But if the woman CHOOSES to keep a child that the father decides he is not ready for WHY can't the woman own her choice to keep the baby and finance it herself? Men have no autonomy in this situation like women do. Feminists like yourself defend women's..

[cherubicnerd]

@TMac473 no,he has three. by "walk away",you mean have an abortion or put the child up for adoption,right? that isn't "walking away". neither choice is easy and it usually ends up being put on the woman to either take care of her child by herself,put the child in the system or abort it. the man can either take care of the child himself,put the child up for adoption or WALK AWAY. you do know that men have walked away from their children and haven't suffered the consequences,right?

[TMac473]

@cherubicnerd Despite your efforts to derail I'll make my point again. AFTER the fact, the man has only 2 choices. Stop trying to turn this into an evil man argument. If women want equality and the choice to walk away from a pregnancy then why can't men? Currently women CAN walk away from taking care of the children they create. Pls don't put words in my mouth; I never said abortion would be an easy choice.

[cherubicnerd]

@TMac473 actually,3:father. and,if a man doesn't want to take responsibility for a child then he should wear a condom or don't have hetero sex. pregnancy is never accidental. both people go in knowing that the condom or birth control pill is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. men shouldn't be able to walk away from taking care of the children they helped create. abortion isn't an easy choice,btw.