Should you be forced to underwrite
Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars?
• Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion chain in America and has killed more than 3 million innocent children at its facilities
And for Bush’s $2.2 billion gift to Planned Parenthood
Should you be forced to underwrite
President Bush didn’t ‘give’ anything to planned parenthood. It’s a part of the federal budget, which is passed by Congress for the President to sign.
Title X is a federal law that provides funding to family planning. It was signed into law in 1970, before Roe v Wade. It mandates that that money is not used to fund abortions.
Not all of the Title X money goes soley to planned parenthood.
Now, if you want to argue that the federal government shouldn’t be funding family planning institutions, or be spent on artificial birth control, have at it. As a catholic I won’t disagree. If you want to argue that the law might not be upheld to the point that federal funding isn’t used for abortions, bring your facts and proof. But your premise is disingenuous and wrong. President Bush didn’t give anything to anyone. It’s a federal law that was put into place 38 years ago and the Congress does the funding of that law as part of the federal budget.
Furthermore, in response to your biased link I will offer this article which talks about a certain candidates voting record against funding of planned parenthood.
And although it is from the pp website, this link talks about Title X funding
Did he have to sign, or could he have vetoed the amount?
Not mentioned is the fact that this isn’t directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it’s totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don’t have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who frequently attacks pro-life members of Congress and pro-life groups that support them.
If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He’s done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy of pro-life groups like Focus on the Family and National Right to Life that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding (lifenews.com/nat3405.html).
So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy.
The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abrotion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan-years limits in addition) because it is involved in China’s forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
By the way, McCain takes the same position against abortion funding, while Obama does not.
There is a thread entitled “Bush’s parting blow” that the
moderator directed to this thread. But I’m puzzled because
it is not at all about the NYTimes opinion that was discussed
in today’s article.
How do I ask the moderator about this?
The president does not have a line item veto. Spending originates in the House.
Its out of his hands. He does not have line-item veto, thanks to the dems.
And by ‘dems’, I assume you mean the United States Constitution.
A budget is a bill. You can either sign it or veto it. You can’t pick and choose what to change. He can send it back based on various items. But as already stated, there isn’t enough votes to change funding for PP in the congress. Especially with a dem controlled congress.
As I said before, a certain candidate has voted to end the funding in the past.
Most important out of all this, is that Title X was signed into law by Nixon way before Roe v Wade, and part of the law is that the fed $$ isn’t to be used for abortions.
There is, of course, no way of fencing off the money that Planned Parenthood uses for abortions and what it uses for other puposes. If they get money for “family planning” then that is money they can spend on abortions. It’s like a public school getting money to buy and maintain computers so they use their own funds to build a football stadium.
Sure there is. It’s in the law that the federal funds can’t be used to perform abortions. If you read this link, which describes the provisions of the law:
It talks about how the funds are administered and what the law spells out. The government isn’t just handing them a check for those funds, there are supposed checks and balances to what the money is used. And the funds are administered through the state health department, and not all funds go to pp. A lot of the $$ comes through medicaid and meidcare, which requires forms and billing procedures like any other insurance. And, according to the link, “By law, no Title X funds have ever been spent on abortion (Sollom et al., 1996).”
Now, I’m not niave and don’t necessarily believe that. But if you’r going to post accusations, you have to come with proof and facts to back that up. Otherwise what you’re doing is speculating without reading the facts behind the law and what the law prescribes. Unless you have proof, you can’t go around accusing people of funneling fed $$ for abortions, which is against the law under title x.
And btw, I am not defending pp.
Ever heard of matching funds? There are ways as the previous
poster mentioned for the funds from the gov. not to be used for
abortion. But it does “free” up other funds (that wouldn’t be
there if they hadn’t gotten the gov money) to use for said