Or take a look at this chart and explanation.
It seems to me that cutting their budget would be a pretty stupid move - they are providing pretty damn good value.
Nothing would happen to abortions if Planned Parenthood was cut, because federal money isn’t allowed to be used for abortion.
- You cut the funding for Planned Parenthood and abortions are likely to GO UP (take a look at how much contraception advice they dispense, and the estimates for how many unwanted pregnancies they present)
- Exactly - it won’t prevent abortions, meanwhile they DO prevent a whole heap of other bad things - so why would you want to cut their funding?
Because they are a private corporation. Corporate welfare is not what we should be borrowing money to fund.
Amd what does his running mate Paul Personhood Ryan say about this?
Psstt…
Are you “doing a Romney” and creating your own facts?
In the world I inhabit, where the sky is blue and the grass is green, a “not for profit” is not considered a corporation.
Unless “Planned Parenthood Federation of America” is a human’s name, I think it would have to be a corporation.
It could also be another type of organization, but I’m pretty sure Planned Parenthood is incorporated.
I’ve always taken “corporation” to imply “for profit”
Particularly the way that Adahar used it, in that money shouldn’t be given to a corporation.
I don’t see a distinction between for profit and non profit when it comes to subsidies.
Well your position is rather clear and if that’s what you believe no further debate is needed.
E !
3
But the entire reason some Republicans want to cut funding for women’s health services at Planned Parenthood is because of the abortion issue. Don’t be obtuse, this is of course an issue about abortion.
I guess we’d better shut down Tricare, Medicare and Medicaid then. Where do you think that money is going?
He didn’t say that either, but you’re getting closer. Unfortunately in between you tried this explanation:
And pretty much immediately acknowledged that’s false or technically true but misleading. Perhaps instead of re-interpreting Romney’s statements, we should just take them at face value: he is pro-life and would reinstate the ‘gag rule’ and defund Planned Parenthood, but isn’t aware of any current anti-abortion legislation that would become part of his agenda in office.
Bingo!?
I doubt that idea is new to them either.
Oddly enough I think all this “move to the center” from Romney lately is actually the real Romney. I think part of why he was so far behind early was that he was trying to make folks believe something he himself didn’t even believe.
Now that he is out there talking about things he truly believes, people are responding and he seems more genuine and engaged.
Of course it also makes him a HUGE liar to his base and I would be pissed if I was one of those in the base.
Man, was I ever wrong! Totally. Romney is taking politics to a whole 'nother level with a bold, innovative, and creative approach! He’s not “thinking outside the box”, there is no box! Where Obama is stuck with “positions” that he must defend and promote, Romney is completely free of any such restrictions!
There are policies that Obama supports that I oppose, and Romney agrees with me, at least so far as he does not support those positions. There are policies that Obama opposes that I support, and Romney agrees with me, or at least he does not oppose them!
Obama disagrees with me, but Romney does not. Obama agrees with me, and Romney does not disagree with me. So if my positions mean anything to me at all, I’ve gotta vote for Romney!
Where did he come up with this totally brilliant plan? I’m thinking he must have gone to a Mormon Tabernacle Choir performance of Carmina Burana ripped to the tits on windowpane acid. I would have done the same thing!
Wait a second! Wavy Gravy’s real name is Romney! Wavy Gravy - Wikipedia
Its all coming into focus now! No, wait, no it isn’t…
Actually, think the latter is covered by the Constitution. By “shouldn’t fund oil companies”, do you mean the federal government shouldn’t be subsidising them or providing their security? Or just that we shouldn’t nationalise the oil industry?
So Adaher, are you going to acknowledge being completely wrong, and then clearly corrected, in post #60, or just keep making baseless assertions?