Right. Because only people who live in Nassau or Suffolk counties in New York State use Planned Parenthood.
/sarcasm
Really, dude? Did you miss the part which said it’s only available to people who live in the two aforementioned counties in the aforementioned state? Keep grasping at those straws there, buddy.
Anyway, to Sampiro, let me find the appropriate link again. I’m fairly positive it was 50% at one point.
All Planned Parenthood chapters have sliding scale fees, based on income. Grasp that, mallethead.
Well, I checked. It was 2008 and 1/3rd of recipients, though I could have sworn it was 50%.
shrugs
Okay, look. Number one, please learn to link or link me to something specific. Number two, the numbers I provided you were the average cost of specific contraceptives from Planned Parenthood, which is what we’re talking about. If you want to get into a debate about absolute costs based on specific individuals well, you can have fun with that. Number three, was mallethead the best you could come up with? Really? I mean, really? What is this? Fourth grade?
(Off-topic: What’s the reason for the “no editing after 5 minutes” thing?)
Oh, I’m still poor. The ob-gyn was when I had insurance and could afford stuff like…well, visiting an ob-gyn for things like birth control. Now I’m a PP gal all the way.
Maybe if I were more conservative I’d have more money? Or would I just have to give all my hard-earned money to the underserving poor? 
No, we are talking about what poor people pay, which is frequently nothing. Do try to keep up.
I think a more appropriate response to finding out that one has presented false data in an argument is to say “my apologies, I was incorrect,” rather than just shrugging it off as if it were no big deal.
But that’s just me.
No, Three Stooges, actually. Seemed appropriate, given that you argue like the Larry Fine of the Republican Party.
It allows the mods/admins to permit good-faith edits to correct factual errors, enhance a well-turned phrase, or clean up syntax/spelling/coding errors, while still preventing abuses of the “I-never-said-that-and-here’s-the-edited-original-post-to-prove-it” sort.
What the “Preview Post” button does, but without the time limit.
Ha! I bet you planned that. Good-faith indeed.
I live in Indiana, and after the initial defunding PP ran on donations and patient fees for that whole week or two until they got that federal funding back. Women didn’t have to look for other care because it was such a short amount of time.
If you really think there are lots of healthcare options in poor areas you aren’t living in the real world. We wouldn’t be fighting so hard for PP if it was one of many options. It’s a very big deal because it’s the only option in many areas. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say “lalalala, I can’t hear you,” but what we’re saying about PP is the truth. I’d have no reason to lie about it.
Anyone else find it amusing OMGABC is here in this thread championing a regulatory panel overstepping the legislature? I thought conservatives where against regulation?
Yeah, it’s ironic that they say they’re for “smaller government,” yet they want to restrict personal freedom and take away important choices. They really need to back off and let people live their lives without interference.
Oh, they ARE for smaller government. By using averages.
If they can have NO government for themselves (i.e., pay no taxes, no corporate regulations, no EPA requirements to keep companies from polluting, etc.), and have a LOT of government for “those people” (you know, poor people, people who have sex, teh gays), then it averages out to smaller government.
False. Planned Parenthood ran out money from donations (stupid tightwads!) and women were referred elsewhere. Did you not click on the link provided?
You know, saying how Planned Parenthood is the only option in many areas for low-cost health care isn’t going to suddenly make it true, nor does that constitute proof of your claim. Number one, there’s a video on YT from Live Action (evil, I know!) with recorded messages from Planned Parenthood employees telling patients where to go to find providers who offer the same services that they do, sans abortion, often times fairly close to the individual asking. Number two, since you’re fixated on Indiana, I point out to you that Planned Parenthood of Indiana served, approximately, 1% of all Medicaid patients in Indiana. Where, exactly, did the other 99% of Medicaid patients go for their health care? What happened to the other 800 or so Medicaid providers women could go to? Were none located near a Planned Parenthood? Inquiring minds wish to know.
In the same vein, I find it funny that liberals are all for regulation-- even overregulation-- except when it comes to abortion.
At least my comment has a semblance of truth to it.
A hundred and sixty years later and Democrats are still trying to use the “personal freedom” card to justify doing whatever one wants.
Anyway, on a serious note, a smaller government does not mean a minimalist government. Let’s throw out abortion for a moment. The above quoted is like arguing that you can’t be for a smaller government if you’re for creating a division of the government which would seek to prevent and punish those who, say, seek to kill others. After all, the existence of such a department would cause the government to be larger than it would if said department did not exist and it would necessarily involve not letting people live their lives without interference, thus restricting their liberty. But who would really argue that? No one, I would hope/think. A smaller government doesn’t mean a government which lets people do whatever the hell they want.
Sometimes I wonder just how much some of you think the stuff you type out through.
That would be 1851. I haven’t the foggiest notion what you are on about, here.
Yeah liberals want abortions to be legal, safe, and accessible. We’ve had regulations in place to allow that to happen. The conservatives have decided to buck up for even bigger government, more regulation in order to block a legal activity.
The defunding went into effect May 10th, and from then until July 1 when they got their funding back, donations helped cover the fees until all but the last week or so of that. I’m sure some patients did have to go elsewhere for care, but I doubt it was very many since they knew PP would get funding back.
lived in Indiana my entire life, I grew up in Greenfield, went to college in Muncie, and I’ve lived in Indianapolis since 1998. The reason I’m giving specifics is because in all three places most of the women I’ve known have relied on PP. Their sliding scale is the only way a lot of high school and college-aged women can afford birth control and other services. For what they can get at PP for $25 can easily cost upward of $100 from other health providers. PP is also conveniently located to campuses and low income areas, and accessible by public transportation.
You insisting that we have plenty of alternatives to PP is not accurate. Despite what Mitch Daniels says, there aren’t a bunch of places waiting to take the 9300 (from your article) medicaid patients who currently go to PP. Luckily, it doesn’t look like we’re going to have to worry about it.
House Republicans Call for Investigation of Planned Parenthood
That’s why they call me Mr Sunshine…
This seems to be an issue with all politicians, no matter what party they belong to.
Which could have meant exactly nothing - most providers take as few Medicaid patients as they can get away with due to the extremely low payments they get. By the middle of the year, every one of them could be turning away Medicaid patients.
We already have that.
Of course not, it’s obvious that even if you have a small government, there are still going to be rules you’ll have to live by. Duh.
I could say the same about you. Apparently you only answer the posts that you have a canned comment for, even if it only sort of applies.