HR3
taking away a women's reproductive health rights
House Republicans voted on Friday to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, cutting money for contraceptives, HIV tests, cancer screenings and reproductive health services as part of an attempt to weaken the abortion provider. Planned Parenthood does not currently spend federal money on abortion services.
how can you help stop HR3?
go here
Planned Parenthood of America here
.
Damn right, little augury, damn right.
ReplyDeleteProud of you for posting this.
-- Miss W x
What a Grand Old Party it is, indeed. I am sure that Lincoln and (Teddy) Roosevelt would be ashamed of what has become of the GOP today. I am.
ReplyDeletearrgh
ReplyDeleteThough by predisposition of the liberal persuasion, the Republican party once had honor and common sense. It is sad and shocking to see it become the party of the unthinking, selfish, and above all mean. It no longer has to do with a few philosophical differences. Spew venom first, think last, if at all. And proud of it. Just shocking what they are trying to do. Indeed Abe & Teddy are spinning and their graves.
ReplyDeleteGood for you for posting this.
myself of the liberal persuasion, I meant. The Republican party, obviously not
ReplyDeleteApparently you think people are too irresponsible to take care of their own reproductive rights. A condescending attitude that far surpasses racism.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised that one of your ilk would post such a disgusting, vile photo in a lame attempt to make your point. Perhaps you can articulate why the taxpayer should provide irresponsible people with health services when the average taxpayer can barely make ends meet? I'll wait.
I agree with the outcome of the vote. Quite simply the federal government never had any business intervening in what, constitutionally, is a state's rights issue.
ReplyDeleteI found some interesting information: In 2007 Planned Parenthood, a non profit organization claimed $1.014 BILLION in assets, an excess of revenue over expenses was 85 million dollars! That's right. Eighty-five million dollars in profit! Further, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, extracts a salary of $400,000! Now, that doesn't sound like a business that even NEEDS federal funding!
I agree with the majority of the services that Planned Parenthood provides and like any good American, I am free to donate MY OWN money, rather than force fellow taxpayers, who have legitimate moral objections to funding this entity.
You, too, are welcome to donate funds from your own pockets. At any rate, Planned Parenthood will continue to operate without taxpayer funding. I wouldn't worry too much, folks.
Divine- I do donate- like YOU, as you say- and thank you for giving me your blessing in making such donations. fortunately for women the Senate will not agree to this- I wouldn't worry too much.
ReplyDeleteAnon- my ilk suggests that you have no concept of what Art is or the power it has to provoke certain responses- as it obviously did with You. Don't hold your breath waiting for my ilk to try to convince You. Not every women is blessed with your apparent type of goodwill and riches- nor the sense to fund Art that is not picture perfect.This blog can not interest you in the least-
ReplyDeleteLittle Augury, put simply: would you willingly allow your hard earned taxes to pay for an entity that FORCED pregnant women to bring their pregnancy to term? Or would you use your First Amendment rights to decry such behavior?
ReplyDeleteNeither option is constitutional in any regard.
there is a hyde amendment - http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
ReplyDeletethis is about women's health care not just abortion.
What you neglect to address is the constitutionality of this funding. Again, it is a state's rights issue.
ReplyDeleteWomen are not losing rights, they are merely potentially losing taxpayer funding.
As a Libertarian, I strongly believe in the concept of individual rights. I am not arguing against them. I do, however, disagree with the precept that taxpayers foot the bill for women to exercise their aforementioned rights.
Thanks for taaking the time to "listen".
Perhaps this is not the venue to argue my position. I shall leave on that note, as I do not wish to raise your ire, but merely present an alternate viewpoint.
~Andie
Divine- I respect your thoughts- though it may or may not raise my ire. Don't many things taxpayers fund potentially rub certain people the wrong way-both left, right. And basically in the same link I shared it states:
ReplyDeleteMost states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only seventeen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Four of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,1 and WA); in thirteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV).2 Thirty-two of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.3 (A handful of these states pay as well in cases of fetal impairment or when the pregnancy threatens "severe" health problems, but none provides reimbursement for all medically necessary abortions for low-income women.) Finally, one state (SD) fails even to comply with the Hyde Amendment, instead providing coverage only for lifesaving abortions.
I would also say- as any good progressive might- the constitution of over 225 years old & must be viewed as a framework- if it did not provide for amendments where would we be- but in black and white.
america's economy is in the worst shape in 80 years, unemployment is at an all time high, and the radical right is going after women? priorities are very, very skewed.
ReplyDeletebut let's be clear: a woman is in charge of her own body. period. no one else can make a decision for her to carry a pregnancy to term or not, and no one should limit anyone's access to health care based on their political beliefs.
Thank you Little Augry, Maison 21, Down East Dilittante and Reggie Darling for so beautifully presenting my position on the abortion issue. Shame on the Republican party, shame on the ultra-right, shame on the religious right, shame on all who pretend to judge another when he/she/they have not walked in that individual's shoes; shame that the United States is the only "developed?" country that does not have a universal health care system; shame that we spend billions?millions? a day on a war that cannot be won by outsiders; shame that our food supplies are contaminated and made poisonous by pestcides, antibiotics and hormones; shame that the FDA appears to be aligned with the huge medical/drug industry and not the citizen; shame on the Congress for limiting funding to the EPA where we most need oversight. These are the pressing issues of today; these are the issues that need to be the focus of our attention. Not a woman's right to choose her health and well being strategies. Personally, I do not believe that I would choose abortion--but it is still my right to make that choice and I value that choice. I choose to stand behind every woman and/or man who must make difficult choices in the search for wholeness.
ReplyDeletePlease continue provoking me to think deeper and consider different sides of issues, design, the arts. Thanks for the provoking forum.