Texas cannot exclude Planned Parenthood from health program: judge

**Holly3278** · #1 Apr 30, '12, 1:45 pm

Quote:

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a new Texas rule that would have excluded Planned Parenthood clinics from offering women's health services for the poor in the state because the organization provides abortions.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel in favor of Planned Parenthood means thousands of women enrolled in the Texas Women's Health Program who go to its clinics will not be required to find new healthcare providers, at least for now.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-cannot-e...183039755.html

This just totally sickens me. I hope that this federal judge's ruling is overturned and that Texas can continue to exclude Planned Parenthood (which should be called Planned Herodhood since they both slaughter many unborn babies!) from offering health services to the poor. There are many other places that can offer health services to the poor that don't also provide abortions. Why can't we just exclude Planned Parenthood from providing health services to the poor and let the other places that don't provide abortion provide the health services that are needed.

TheRealJuliane · #2 Apr 30, '12, 7:15 pm

This will be appealed, and Texas will win! Do not worry!

MJE · #3 Apr 30, '12, 8:08 pm

Do not be discouraged. The truth of Plannned Parenthood has been revealed & is becoming common knowledge. It was just a few years ago that only the pro-life zealots knew the truth of this dark billion dollar foundation. PP & their supporters are on the defense.

TheRealJuliane · #4 May 1, '12, 2:28 pm

Here we go, told you it wouldn't take very long!

Funding Ban Upheld

Our Attorney General is AWESOME!

Greg Abbott FTW!

**pnewton** · #5 May 2, '12, 4:01 pm

I guess I was a little disappointed. What a great precedent it would set. The federal government is always passing mandates like the one Texas passed, withholding funds for reasons unrelated to the funding.

I note that the judge that first ruled to restore funding to Planned Parenthood was a Bush appointee, providing evidence to the myth that Republicans appoint pro-life and pro-constitutional judges.

poker10 · #6 May 4, '12, 2:45 pm

Judge: Texas Can't Cut Funds to Planned Parenthood

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpps/new...04-to_19691893

Well, Texas didn't win this round. Of course, they way things are going, that could change in a week or two.

Suudy · #7 May 4, '12, 5:06 pm

And from our friends at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1479175.html

Nice picture. "Rush is a Nazi *#$#!" Really? Rush may be a *#$#!, but a Nazi?

Further, how crazy is the claim that Atty General Abbot compared Planned Parenthood to a "terrorist organization"?! Because Mr Abbot pointed out the fungible nature of money given to PP, he thinks "that giving Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, pap smears, STD testing and birth control is akin to giving a terrorist organization money for humanitarian activities."

Unfortunately, his quote is so heavily trimmed, it is impossible to tell the context (and so far, my efforts to find the full quote have failed):

"Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies -- even if 'earmarked' for nonabortion activities -- free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions ... (because '[m]oney is fungible,' First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations)."

Rather, I think the statement was about the nature of funding, not about the nature of PP. But leave it up to the HuffPo to report things in an unbiased, objective manner.

Not Sure · #8 May 5, '12, 6:33 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by poker10

Judge: Texas Can't Cut Funds to Planned Parenthood

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpps/new...04-to_19691893

Well, Texas didn't win this round. Of course, they way things are going, that could change in a week or two.

Just hold to the spirit of Andrew Jackson: "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Texas should refuse to follow the ruling.

poker10 · #9 May 5, '12, 2:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Just hold to the spirit of Andrew Jackson: "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Texas should refuse to follow the ruling.

So you are advocating the breakdown of our system of government?

How would you feel if Obama said that about a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare?

**estesbob** · #10 May 5, '12, 3:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by poker10

So you are advocating the breakdown of our system of government?

How would you feel if Obama said that about a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare?

Texas law will not allow them to follow the ruling. What will happen, if they lose the case, is they will shut down the program

**pnewton** · #11 May 5, '12, 3:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by poker10

So you are advocating the breakdown of our system of government?

If he doesn't, I will. I have no problem refusing to follow an immoral ruling. Our system is already broken down rather badly.

ishii · #12 May 5, '12, 3:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

I guess I was a little disappointed. What a great precedent it would set. The federal government is always passing mandates like the one Texas passed, withholding funds for reasons unrelated to the funding.

I note that the judge that first ruled to restore funding to Planned Parenthood was a Bush appointee, providing evidence to the myth that Republicans appoint pro-life and pro-constitutional judges.

pnewton, you set up a false "myth" that the GOP only appoints pro-life and pro-constitutional justices then proceed to tear down the straw man. As if one bad justice discounts all the good justices Bush appointed? I guess Ron Paul if by some fluke got elected he would have 100% control over all the justices he appointed? They would be like puppets and only decide before consulting with him? You're playing your usual game and its getting old. The Republican appointed justices are overwhelmingly more pro-life and pro-constitution than the Democrat appointed justices. I won't mention the track record of Libertarian party appointed justices because there aren't any.

Ishii

**pnewton** · #13 May 5, '12, 8:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ishii

pnewton, you set up a false "myth" that the GOP only appoints pro-life and pro-constitutional justices then proceed to tear down the straw man.

No I didn't. Check my quote versus your quote. You insert the word "only".

Quote:

I won't mention the track record of Libertarian party appointed justices because there aren't any.

Then don't mention it. Too late. You already did.

The federal judiciary is a mess created by Democrats and Republicans, as this sort of judicial activism shows.

ishii · #14 May 5, '12, 9:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

No I didn't. Check my quote versus your quote. You insert the word "only".

You implied that it was a myth that Republicans appoint pro-life and pro-constitutional justices so you're saying that the Republicans don't appoint those kinds of judges, when clearly they do. You have to know that you're wrong in stating that none of the Republican appointed judges (let alone the majority) are pro-life and pro-constitutional. You're just unfairly beating up the GOP which seems to be your favorite pastime here. One bad justice appointed does not mean that the GOP does not appoint good judges. But I suspect you know that. [/quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

Then don't mention it. Too late. You already did.

I mentioned it for the benefit of those who still think that voting for the Libertarian candidate (in this case Gary Johnson) will somehow make a difference. It won't, other than to help re-elect Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnewton

The federal judiciary is a mess created by Democrats and Republicans, as this sort of judicial activism shows.

No, you're wrong. There is a big difference overall between the judges appointed by Republicans and judges appointed by Democrats. Of course since judges aren't robots there will be disappointments. Some Republican appointed judges will disappoint. Most reasonable people would not use that to unfairly beat up on the GOP. Unfortunately, some seem to love to beat up on the GOP rather than be part of the solution.

Ishii

RACJ · #15 May 5, '12, 11:14 pm

Rulings such as this prove that good Christians are foolish to trust Democrats with their votes. Very few Democrat leaders believe in the separation of powers laid out in the U.S. Constitution, or numerous other parts of our great founding document, for that matter.

Rob