• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NH Republican votes to restore Planned Parenthood funding

/sigh

You do realize that PP does a whole lot more than abortions, don't you? Why are you in favor of cervical cancer in poor women? Since PP does a lot more detecting and treating cervical cancer in poor women than it does providing abortion services.

1: No tax money goes towards abortion so no ones money is being spent on abortion.
So we are told.

2: There are tons of things that many many people don't agree with that tax money goes to. Wars, gun regulation that doesn't do squat, spending money over seas when there's so much that we should be taking care of first are just a few of the things that I wish our tax money wasn't spent on. And yet....it still is.
Because there are 'tons' of such things means we shouldn't start reducing that number? PP is as good a place to start as any.
 
Are you saying the story is not true?

No, the story checks out. The guy changed his vote. What isn't true is the typical BS DailyKos spewed about the reason.

BS from DailyKos:

Sununu claimed that he voted against Planned Parenthood in 2015 because of the discredited videos that right-wing critics circulated to try to claim PP was involved in the illegal sale of fetal tissue. Sununu now admits that those allegations turned out to be utterly bogus (well, not exactly in those words), and so, he says, Planned Parenthood "should be treated like any other organization that comes before the council."​


This is his formal statement:


"Last Year, I voted against this contract after hearing concerns from my constituents regarding the legality of practices Planned Parenthood had allegedly engaged in. I stand by my principle that this state should not conduct business with groups under any investigation or that are embroiled in serious controversy. As has been widely reported, charges against Planned Parenthood for these alleged practices were dismissed by court order. As this group is no longer under investigation, they should be treated like any other organization that comes before the Council"​


As you can see, the childish rant from the hate factory at DailyKos isn't even close to the truth. Of course, they count on their readers to not be interested is such a principle.


Regardless, my comment focused on the irony of making a statement about media hyped lies while using one of the most aggressive propagators of media hyped partisan lies on the internet.
 
So we are told.

Considering how much PP is watched by anti-abotionists (both outside and inside the federal and local governments), and the fact that they need to account to the government for where the money they receive goes to...yeah, there's no reason to think otherwise.

Because there are 'tons' of such things means we shouldn't start reducing that number? PP is as good a place to start as any.

Except that there are lots of things that are needed whether you agree with them or not. PP is an organization that helps millions of women across the country with far more things than abortion (particularly since we know that abortion only makes up 3% of their total help). If we're going to stop the government from using money in ways we don't agree....PP should be among the last places that we should look to.
 
Private organizations should not get public funding. Of all the organizations to decide to give funding an organization that has 3% of their business centered around killing the unborn is perhaps one of the worst to pick.
 
1: No tax money goes towards abortion so no ones money is being spent on abortion.

Actually abortions because of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is physically endangered are paid for by tax payers on the federal level.

As for states, they can and do pay for a wider range of abortions.
 
Last edited:
Tax dollars do not pay for any abortions. It's illegal and P.P. is closely audited.

Utter load of bovine manure. Money is fungible.
 
The tax dollars are not used for abortions or any abortion-related activities. So your concerns are unwarranted.

Money is fungible.
 
Actually abortions done to save the life of the mother are paid for by tax payers.

Does PP do those? We are talking about PP. I thought that only applied in hospitals. But yes, you are correct, tax money can go towards abortions in extreme cases such as saving the life of the mother.
 
Does PP do those? We are talking about PP. I thought that only applied in hospitals. But yes, you are correct, tax money can go towards abortions in extreme cases such as saving the life of the mother.

Rape is not really an extreme case. Just sayin'.
 
/sigh

You do realize that PP does a whole lot more than abortions, don't you? Why are you in favor of cervical cancer in poor women? Since PP does a lot more detecting and treating cervical cancer in poor women than it does providing abortion services.

They do about 300,000 abortions a year, which alone makes them one of the leading causes of death in the country.
 
Money is fungible.

Ah yes, the ole' if tax money is spent to keep the lights on then tax money is being used by PP to do abortions. :roll: Money is only fungible up to the point that it is spent. If I give money to my local charity and they use it to buy a pair of shoes for some homeless person then that money is spent on shoes, not lights. Once they buy those shoes then that money was spent on shoes and where that charity gets it money to spend on a pair of pants has no relation to the money that I gave them that they spent on shoes. No matter how you try and twist it, that money was still spent on shoes and not pants.
 
Killing cells happens all the time. :shrug:

:roll: These cells we are speaking towards are the body of a living human organism.
 
Maybe not to you. :shrug: I'm sure that 12 year old that was raped by her father would disagree with you though.

Tell me, what about that situation makes abortion necessary?
 
I see no reason why money should be taken by force from you and given to Lockheed Martin. Do you?

So you're just against taxes!
 
Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

1: No tax money goes towards abortion so no ones money is being spent on abortion.

Correct.

So we are told.

Fletch, information on exactly how P.P. obtains tax dollars and how it is managed to avoid taxpayer funding of abortions is easily available, but something tells me that although you want to oppose P.P. and you want to gripe about "abortions", you haven't looked into it to get informed on it. Am I right? How are tax dollars allocated for P.P.? How do we know those dollars don't pay for abortions?
 
LOL.

It's interesting one of the most vile propagators of partisan hype and lies (DailyKos) is used to complain about perceived right wing media hyped lies. Oops.

According to the Republican himself, he changed his vote because PP is no longer under investigation in his state, so he has opted to treat it like any other organization. The fact he is running for governor and needs votes could also play into it, but the investigation quote is the only fact to go on.

You can bet your ass that this is the only reason for his vote.
 
No, the story checks out. The guy changed his vote. What isn't true is the typical BS DailyKos spewed about the reason.

BS from DailyKos:

Sununu claimed that he voted against Planned Parenthood in 2015 because of the discredited videos that right-wing critics circulated to try to claim PP was involved in the illegal sale of fetal tissue. Sununu now admits that those allegations turned out to be utterly bogus (well, not exactly in those words), and so, he says, Planned Parenthood "should be treated like any other organization that comes before the council."​


This is his formal statement:


"Last Year, I voted against this contract after hearing concerns from my constituents regarding the legality of practices Planned Parenthood had allegedly engaged in. I stand by my principle that this state should not conduct business with groups under any investigation or that are embroiled in serious controversy. As has been widely reported, charges against Planned Parenthood for these alleged practices were dismissed by court order. As this group is no longer under investigation, they should be treated like any other organization that comes before the Council"​


As you can see, the childish rant from the hate factory at DailyKos isn't even close to the truth. Of course, they count on their readers to not be interested is such a principle.


Regardless, my comment focused on the irony of making a statement about media hyped lies while using one of the most aggressive propagators of media hyped partisan lies on the internet.
The P.P. "controversy" was not deep and broad. It was a concocted witch hunt aimed at a narrow right wing audience which is a portion of his constituents. Right from the start it was debunked by many informed people. It was similar to what happened to ACORN and Shirley Sherrod. It was hype. And Sununu voted without bothering to learn the truth. As a representative of his constituents he should have looked into it, got himself informed, and then corrected the lies.

And you don't like Daily Kos? Try this...

"Sununu is pro-abortion rights and has approved Planned Parenthood contracts in the past, but he cast the deciding vote to deny the organization $639,000 in state money last year. Sununu had previously said his vote was driven by the secret videos of national Planned Parenthood officials allegedly discussing the sale of fetal tissue." - Concord Monitor - Planned Parenthood contract to come before Executive Council a second time

And...

“This contract does not have anything to do with pro-choice or pro-life. That is not at the heart of the issue. It is who are we going to do business with. It goes to the integrity and character of the state of New Hampshire. Even Hillary Clinton called those videos disturbing,” he said.
“We are choosing to say no to using state funds to go to this kind of organization with these kinds of dubious business practices.”
Drew Cline: Why Chris Sununu voted against contracting with Planned Parenthood | New Hampshire
Chris Sununu for Governor: Union Leader: Why Chris Sununu voted against contracting with Planned Parenthood


And "constituents"??? Yup. FIVE of them:
"Republican councilmember Chris Sununu, who is expected to run for governor in 2016, said he voted to defund Planned Parenthood after hearing from five women who said they felt uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood’s reputation."
https://rewire.news/article/2015/08/07/new-hampshire-republicans-vote-defund-planned-parenthood/
 
Yes. We had a lot of discussions here and nobody could really argue convincingly that the present financing is Constitutional. So why not restructure it and make it undeniably legal?

Well gosh, I missed that. What is unconstitutional about it? IT IS "undeniably legal". The doubts and upset was all due to willful spin. It was a crafted video edited to create a false impression and discredit a legal activity for the benefit of corrupt right-to-lifers.
 
Back
Top Bottom