quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I'm split on this one.

Ordering doctors to perform medical tests that the patient does not need and/or wants is a gross violation of medical privacy.

I do not however see any reason why Planned Parenthood - or any non govermental agency - should be entitled to tax payer money.

quote:

So, you oppose funding the Regional Trauma Center in the hospital in your area?

quote:

You're against "LifeFlight", and think that we shouldn't be subsidizing the helicopters to bring critically wounded trauma patients to the hospital when an ambulance can't reach them in time?

quote:

You oppose having the roads those ambulances drive on paved? You oppose having the lines strung for traffic lights, and those lights bought, installed, serviced and operated?

quote:

You oppose putting in and running streetlights at night?

quote:

Because that's where your tax dollars go. Government doesn't "Do" infrastructure anymore. They contract it out, and our tax dollars go.... To a non-governmental organization... A "Company" or "Corporation", specifically, as opposed to the other usage of NGO ( implying a non-profit, I suppose? )

quote:

Is your opposition that our tax dollars are going to a Non-profit, rather than a for-profit corporation? I guess you hate the local symphony orchestra, too...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I'm split on this one.

Ordering doctors to perform medical tests that the patient does not need and/or wants is a gross violation of medical privacy.

I do not however see any reason why Planned Parenthood - or any non govermental agency - should be entitled to tax payer money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

when their funding is cut , threatened to be cut for outright lies.
you are damn straight they have every RIGHT to be pissed and fight it.
I believe what they do is vitally more important than being allowed to be cut because it offends some religious views.
Why are my views any less important or right than yours??? oops guess what, they arent...

quote:

said that they should not be entitled to tax payer money. Any money they get should be considered a gift and they should be damn grateful for it instead of acting like they are somehow being ripped off because they are getting less of other peoples money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

when their funding is cut , threatened to be cut for outright lies.
you are damn straight they have every RIGHT to be pissed and fight it.
I believe what they do is vitally more important than being allowed to be cut because it offends some religious views.
Why are my views any less important or right than yours??? oops guess what, they arent...

They're already banned from using federal money to pay for abortions. The issue is the same as state lotteries. When money arrives, it frees up money that would have been used for other things, to provide the very services prohibited by federal money. So it's like paying for it anyway, just in a round about way.

I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing. I can understand that.

As far as the services themselves, I'll admit I'm on a fence when it comes to them. A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. So there are probably pending battles to come in that regard too.  Either way, I can see those who don't support abortion, which isn't necessarily a religious right perspective, having a problem with the money being used as it is. Sure they drive it a lot, but fact of the matter is, the general population supports the right to an extent, and the support dwindles past that extent. Meaning, first term abortions generally get the nod as acceptable, but beyond that and with repeaters, the nod tends to disappear.

In both cases noted, the rulings will probably be appealed. Sooner or later I think RvW will be taken down. I say that because the absolute insistence from abortion supporters goes beyond common sense at times and beyond what most would like in their own households - like consent laws for minors. If they lose RvW, it will be the refusal to compromise that drives it. And sadly, we will then end up with a patchwork of laws that might make one a murderer by crossing state lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

when their funding is cut , threatened to be cut for outright lies.
you are damn straight they have every RIGHT to be pissed and fight it.
I believe what they do is vitally more important than being allowed to be cut because it offends some religious views.
Why are my views any less important or right than yours??? oops guess what, they arent...

They're already banned from using federal money to pay for abortions. The issue is the same as state lotteries. When money arrives, it frees up money that would have been used for other things, to provide the very services prohibited by federal money. So it's like paying for it anyway, just in a round about way.

I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing. I can understand that.

As far as the services themselves, I'll admit I'm on a fence when it comes to them. A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. So there are probably pending battles to come in that regard too.  Either way, I can see those who don't support abortion, which isn't necessarily a religious right perspective, having a problem with the money being used as it is. Sure they drive it a lot, but fact of the matter is, the general population supports the right to an extent, and the support dwindles past that extent. Meaning, first term abortions generally get the nod as acceptable, but beyond that and with repeaters, the nod tends to disappear.

In both cases noted, the rulings will probably be appealed. Sooner or later I think RvW will be taken down. I say that because the absolute insistence from abortion supporters goes beyond common sense at times and beyond what most would like in their own households - like consent laws for minors. If they lose RvW, it will be the refusal to compromise that drives it. And sadly, we will then end up with a patchwork of laws that might make one a murderer by crossing state lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

when their funding is cut , threatened to be cut for outright lies.
you are damn straight they have every RIGHT to be pissed and fight it.
I believe what they do is vitally more important than being allowed to be cut because it offends some religious views.
Why are my views any less important or right than yours??? oops guess what, they arent...

They're already banned from using federal money to pay for abortions. The issue is the same as state lotteries. When money arrives, it frees up money that would have been used for other things, to provide the very services prohibited by federal money. So it's like paying for it anyway, just in a round about way.

I don't see a need for sonograms, just as the left doesn't see a need to observe the child they're killing. I can understand that.

As far as the services themselves, I'll admit I'm on a fence when it comes to them. A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception. So there are probably pending battles to come in that regard too.  Either way, I can see those who don't support abortion, which isn't necessarily a religious right perspective, having a problem with the money being used as it is. Sure they drive it a lot, but fact of the matter is, the general population supports the right to an extent, and the support dwindles past that extent. Meaning, first term abortions generally get the nod as acceptable, but beyond that and with repeaters, the nod tends to disappear.

In both cases noted, the rulings will probably be appealed. Sooner or later I think RvW will be taken down. I say that because the absolute insistence from abortion supporters goes beyond common sense at times and beyond what most would like in their own households - like consent laws for minors. If they lose RvW, it will be the refusal to compromise that drives it. And sadly, we will then end up with a patchwork of laws that might make one a murderer by crossing state lines.

You don't own that minor anymore than you own the woman who wants an abortion. If you're old enough to get pregnant, then you're old enough for a PRIVATE relationship with your caregivers... Sorry, but that's what we call FREEDOM and LIBERTY, and any attempts to infringe upon that will always be met with the utmost opposition. Simply because WOMEN ARE NOT YOUR SLAVES. And they don't need to be punished for taking care of themselves...

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
A couple of states have already changed, and had their change to law upheld, to define life as beginning at conception.