[quote]Oleena wrote:
I posted the link above so hopefully a few more people would sign it and I understand that a lot of people in this section and on this website are 1. Too conservative to consider it 2. Not concerned about women 3. Have never tried to get medical coverage for this kind of service without insurance.
The above link DOES NOT threaten to cut off funding for the SBK foundation, it is just a statement of political supposrt for Planned Parenthood. If Susan B Komen’s decision WAS purely monetary, signing the above link will not do anything to change it. On the other hand, if it was very much political, signing the petition will assure SBK that Planned Parenthood will not ruin their public imagine. https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
Most young people don’t qualify for medicaid- if you’re working full time you don’t qualify, even if you can’t afford insurance. I encourage you to look into the options for someone who is making a little over poverty amounts who still can’t afford insurance. On that note, they are a little better of late, thanks to Obama’s Health Care Initiative.
I hope a few people sign the petition. Thanks for reading.[/quote]
For a charity functioning on donations, public image and funds are the same thing. What exactly does “too conservative” to sign the petition mean?[/quote]
Why play her game? PP does lots and lots of abortions. That’s what’s important to her. Not mammograms or PAP smears. Folks, don’t LET people string you along.
[/quote]
Let it stand that I would sign away abortion rights for all women in America without a second thought if it meant that all of them would receive equal healthcare access to basic services.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I posted the link above so hopefully a few more people would sign it and I understand that a lot of people in this section and on this website are 1. Too conservative to consider it 2. Not concerned about women 3. Have never tried to get medical coverage for this kind of service without insurance.
The above link DOES NOT threaten to cut off funding for the SBK foundation, it is just a statement of political supposrt for Planned Parenthood. If Susan B Komen’s decision WAS purely monetary, signing the above link will not do anything to change it. On the other hand, if it was very much political, signing the petition will assure SBK that Planned Parenthood will not ruin their public imagine. https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
Most young people don’t qualify for medicaid- if you’re working full time you don’t qualify, even if you can’t afford insurance. I encourage you to look into the options for someone who is making a little over poverty amounts who still can’t afford insurance. On that note, they are a little better of late, thanks to Obama’s Health Care Initiative.
I hope a few people sign the petition. Thanks for reading.[/quote]
For a charity functioning on donations, public image and funds are the same thing. What exactly does “too conservative” to sign the petition mean?[/quote]
Why play her game? PP does lots and lots of abortions. That’s what’s important to her. Not mammograms or PAP smears. Folks, don’t LET people string you along.
[/quote]
Let it stand that I would sign away abortion rights for all women in America without a second thought if it meant that all of them would receive equal healthcare access to basic services. [/quote]
So regardless of how hard you work, how much you plan, how thorough and sure you are with you own coverage, you get the same crappy coverage as everyone else? The easiest way to do what you just asked for is to end all basic coverage. That way everything would be “equal”.
Ironically, they have now officially caved to political pressure and pro-abortion people. Congratulations, fewer women will now receive basic care like mammograms.
“…Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political…”
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political…”
Ummmmm…
Sounds like the whole thing was a total mess…
Mufasa[/quote]
Sounds to me like they caved to the politics and then thought up a reason to change their minds.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The most recent statement from the Foundation:
So why did Planned Parenthood lose funding? Brinker says it has to do with the fact that they do not provide mammograms to women, but only provide mammogram referrals. �¢??It was nothing they were doing wrong,�¢?? she explained. �¢??We have decided not to fund, whereever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.�¢??
How about that? Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms, and the money will be diverted to clinics that do. So much for the narrative that “women are being denied services and there is nowhere else to turn!”.
What a shameful episode.[/quote]
After lecturing people on women’s rights…Oleena conveniently skipped over addressing this post.
It’s not like any of the debate going on in this thread matters anymore. As with the original decision politics played a part in the reversal of that decision.
I haven’t been able to read to much into why, too busy clearing part of the damn foot of snow we already have here in Denver before we get the second foot today into tomorrow.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s regrettable that Women’s Health will always be intertwined with the very divisive issue of abortion…
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s been purposely framed that way so that anyone who opposes abortion is automatically wrong because then they oppose “Women’s Health”, don’t care about women, etc.
The REAL crux of the issue is when is a fetus a person. All the other arguments are irrelevant. From my perspective, I like to look at the consequences if each side is wrong. If the pro-life crowd is wrong and fetuses are just a blob of cells, then some unwanted babies are born. If the pro-choice crowd is wrong and fetuses are a human being, then you are sanctioning the murder of innocent babies. Since I’m not God, and I don’t know the answer for sure, I’d rather err on the side of caution. Show me a pro-choice activist who can tell you with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar.
Ironically, they have now officially caved to political pressure and pro-abortion people. Congratulations, fewer women will now receive basic care like mammograms.[/quote]
Pussies.[/quote]
Ditto. Planned Genocide hurts far more women than they have ever help. Fuck them both, they will not see a dime of my money.
Wait, wait, whoa…Are you telling me that someone came on here to organize political/public pressure against a breast cancer group who thought better of giving money to a group that doesn’t actually do mammograms themselves? Rage!
Ironically, they have now officially caved to political pressure and pro-abortion people. Congratulations, fewer women will now receive basic care like mammograms.[/quote]
Pussies.[/quote]
Ditto. Planned Genocide hurts far more women than they have ever help. Fuck them both, they will not see a dime of my money.[/quote]
Double Ditto…
From this point on anything bearing the “pink ribbon” will be excluded from my purchasing decisions.
Well, since this is really about the public/political power of Big-Abortion (you know, like Big-Oil, or Big-Pharma), I thought I might shoe-horn in this fantastic Rubio speech.
Planned Parenthood is a great organization. I know several people who got birth control proscriptions there when they were younger, and I have one friend who was (and is still being) treated for cervical cancer there (in her 20’s). If she were to become pregnant, it would only be because of her treatment there (although unlikely, but sitll possible, at this point considering her condition).
[quote]Christine wrote:
Planned Parenthood is a great organization. I know several people who got birth control proscriptions there when they were younger, and I have one friend who was (and is still being) treated for cervical cancer there (in her 20’s). If she were to become pregnant, it would only be because of her treatment there (although unlikely, but sitll possible, at this point considering her condition).
[/quote]
The Nazis were a great organization too. They made the trains run on time.
[/quote]
LOL! Yup, I hear they plan on offering taxidermy services for the aborted fetuses they pile up next year…Might as well get some use out them…“My what a lovely table ornament, what is it?! Oh, that’s little Johnny, we couldn’t afford to raise him, so we just had him stuffed.”
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s regrettable that Women’s Health will always be intertwined with the very divisive issue of abortion…
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s been purposely framed that way so that anyone who opposes abortion is automatically wrong because then they oppose “Women’s Health”, don’t care about women, etc.
The REAL crux of the issue is when is a fetus a person. All the other arguments are irrelevant. From my perspective, I like to look at the consequences if each side is wrong. If the pro-life crowd is wrong and fetuses are just a blob of cells, then some unwanted babies are born. If the pro-choice crowd is wrong and fetuses are a human being, then you are sanctioning the murder of innocent babies. Since I’m not God, and I don’t know the answer for sure, I’d rather err on the side of caution. Show me a pro-choice activist who can tell you with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar.[/quote]
Show me ANYONE who says with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar. The truth is, no one can say when. Pro-lifers have their “truth”, pro-choicers have their “truth” and pro-abortionists have their “truth” and NEVER will the three ever agree. It’s medical science vs. religious views and NEVER will those two ever agree either.
