I would like a reasonable explanation for this. As I understand it, the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood in the next budget because, as Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) says, taxpayer money should not go to groups that provide or promote abortion. Hyde Amendment aside, I’d like to point out a few things. 98% of Planned Parenthood services are non-abortion related. In fact, Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of sexual and reproductive health care (read: birth control and annual exams, which screens for pregnancy, cancer and STDs) and the vast majority of their clients are deemed low-income.

Assuming this passes the Senate and is signed by Obama, what does this realistically mean? More pregnancies for families who cannot afford to have children. Because let’s face it – rich people will always have access to birth control. It also means more people who do not know they have an STD and more people who do not know they have testicular, breast or ovarian cancer. Brilliant.

Not to mention, Republicans don’t want to fund health care nor TANF (Temporary Assistance for Need Families). So. Let’s have people who can’t afford babies have more babies, but we won’t help them care for those babies and if they all get sick and die, well, we won’t pay for health care either. Does this make any fucking sense to anyone? PREVENTATIVE CARE, PEOPLE! It’s cheaper in the long run.

If our brethren over at Peach Pundit want to defend this, have at it. I promise not to call you names, but I can’t vouch for the rest of the commenters.


10 Responses to Explanation, please.

  1. JMPrince says:

    Updates on the larger battle:
    “New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion”



  2. Matt says:

    I also see ten “Democrats” voted for this monstrosity. With Democrats like them, who needs Republicans?

  3. JMPrince says:

    Perfect symmetry here, as usual. You deny contraception to the young & old alike. Claim that all modern contraception is automatically described as Ebbil ‘abortifacients’ and need to be re-criminalized a la old Anthony Comstock days. (‘The Wonder Years’ of yore!) Similarly Outlaw all scientifically based and/or effective information about same & any real mention of ‘sex ed’ in all your schools, but for the very ineffective Medieval methods approved by your Church.

    Ergo, the states you control, those Deep Red ones, unsurprisingly have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the land. You wind up with more single mothers on welfare, as teen moms. Bingo! You can now campaign against the ‘poor fallen darlings’ forever telling the larger society of clucking blue haired oldsters what evils you’re preventing by cutting off their welfare so they ‘won’t make any more welfare babies!’ But never recognizing the roots of the problem or how you got there. That’s Irrelevant.

    They’re not trying to ‘solve the problem. Or help anyone. It’s all about creating & maintaining a grim but politically effective punitive mindset that says constantly: young women & even all women are undeserving of our support. They’re all harlots at heart anyways! Why waste money, our Precious tax payer dollars for such miserable failures? Suffer the children indeed. This trick, that they’re ONLY concerned with life In the womb, (when they can dictate to & for women), and never afterward? It’s been going on since, well forever. Some folks make their careers at this misery too. Never lifting one finger to actually help anyone either, but somehow getting credit politically for ‘saving’ humanity. It’s a type of modern day despotism. With a smile too. Bless their pointy lil dark shriveled hearts too. JMP

    Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture [Oxford Univ. Press]

    Naomi Cahn (Author), June Carbone (Author)

  4. Chris says:

    Are women people? To listen to the men(mostly) behind this law, the answer would be ‘NO.” The only life they see is the life of the fetus, whether that fetus has six cells or is at 4 months. A woman’s life, her dreams ,her hopes for the future, her rights to decide her own destiny, become invisible. Does she want to finish school? Tough. Does she have other children who she can barely support? Too bad. Does she not want to bear the child of a casual sexual encounter? Sorry, only men get to walk away from a one night stand.
    Do we require people to give blood? That saves lives. Do we require people to donate organs? That saves lives. I am quite sure the sponsors of this bill would resoundingly answer that such requirements are an infringement of freedom.
    Exactly. Requiring people to save the lives of others is not freedom. It is putting government inside a woman’s uterus.

    • BEZERKO says:

      “Does she not want to bear the child of a casual sexual encounter?”

      It’s worse than that. Does she have to bear the child of her rapist? Groups like the National Right to Life say she should.

      MIke Pence is the lowest of the low, he’s been a real scum bag on this issue. He cited one of those fake Brietbart (Okeefe?) video “stings.”

  5. J says:

    Watch Glenn Beck at 11pm est tonight and I guarantee you will understand.