PS, PP puts millions of dollars in the coffers of Democrat politicians. If they have money for political donations, they don't need government funding.
How's this going to work?
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
so much stupid all on one site.......
If the fed is paying for abortions by funding PP for other services, then you idiots are funding abortion when you go to your local hospital or medical group. You are funding that hospital and that hospital undoubtedly provides abortions.
talk about stupid 'logic'.
as has been said earlier, this wont even get to scotus, it will be struck down and will never get cert.
If the fed is paying for abortions by funding PP for other services, then you idiots are funding abortion when you go to your local hospital or medical group. You are funding that hospital and that hospital undoubtedly provides abortions.
talk about stupid 'logic'.
as has been said earlier, this wont even get to scotus, it will be struck down and will never get cert.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Targeted drone strikes aren't collateral war damage, IMO.
If it's bad to let tax money pay for abortions (of which a fraction of PP's money goes to) because innocent children die, why is it okay if innocent kids die at the hands of a drone operator in a war Congress never authorized?
black dog
Free America
You keep pushing that strawmen, and that were factual the money train would have been cut off long ago.
black dog
Free America
I'll say it to you too, just because you think so, doesn't make it true.
Post proof....
Are you seriously unaware that PP receives government funding? And are you aware that they are the #1 abortion provider in the country?
You can google that, you know.
TCROW
Well-Known Member
This_person
Well-Known Member
They authorized it, just not with the name "war" attached.
Those kids are sadly collateral damage, not the intended target.
Not comparable
This_person
Well-Known Member
This_person
Well-Known Member
Having trouble with the site I guess.Riposte so profound you had to post it twice!
You get the point though, right? There's no such thing as "settled law", even if SCOTUS has offered their opinion. You know that, right? You were just calling something unconstitutional because you know no better way to word it, even though you know it is NOT unconstitutional, right? You're just picking on me having trouble with posting because you have no actual argument, right?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Who argues that we're not?
Most hospitals, though, don't make elective abortion their main business model.
yeah ok .... play MONEY games
https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/07/planned-parenthood-money-isnt-fungible-just-truth/
Actually, let’s be honest: Money is fungible, so yes, they do.
Laguens was repeating the Planned Parenthood mantra that the 1976 Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from directly subsidizing abortions. Technically true but irrelevant, the point has been swallowed and regurgitated by major media including the Times. But budgets don’t work that way, as Laguens and anyone else who manages a large organization surely knows.
Fungibility means restricted funds do not limit an organization’s ability to fund the restricted item as long as unrestricted money exists – which it nearly always does.
Say the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society splits its $300 million budget evenly between the two diseases, and a billionaire leukemia survivor donates an extra $100 million dedicated only to leukemia research. That doesn’t mean the charity’s lymphoma budget must stay at $150 million. Fifty million dollars can be moved out of the previous leukemia budget to the lymphoma budget, which means the new “restricted” gift is in effect helping research for both diseases equally. In fact, no law or accounting rule would prevent $100 million or even all $150 million of the previous unrestricted leukemia budget shifting to the lymphoma budget, which means that in the year of the leukemia gift the leukemia budget could stay the same or even shrink.
So assertions that funds can only be spent on leukemia – or non-abortion services – are virtually meaningless.
Last edited:
TCROW
Well-Known Member
Your are indeed correct that there is no such thing as “settled law”.
You are absolutely wrong to say this isn’t unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional until such time as it is adjudicated otherwise. Precedent gets overturned when SCOTUS thinks a decision was incorrectly decided.
You’re therefore saying Roe/Casey (really Casey since that is more relevant) was incorrectly decided.
Tell me, what is the legal argument for an incorrect decision here?
It’s perfectly OK to say that by your personal opinion that previous precedent was wrongly decided. As long as you understand that’s not a legal argument.
black dog
Free America
Agai
Again Federal money is not used to pay for an abortion just because a woman wants one.
Againare you unaware that Federal money prohibits the use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, and was included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009.
Again Federal money is not used to pay for an abortion just because a woman wants one.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You're right, it's only used to buy the equipment, obtain the space, provide the utilities and supplies, pay the management overhead, and for the doctor's training and insurance.
black dog
Free America
Post your proof, otherwise its just more of your strawmen.
black dog
Free America
Uh huh, and I'm sure they keep that money separated.
Abortions are 3.4% of there income, do you honestly believe that they would risk breaking Federal law and risk loosing all of there Medicate income?
And I'm quite sure that forensics have been done on there accounting many times by now.