When will the lies about Planned Parenthood stop?

[WVex-pat in GA]

I was being facetious by noting that if the 3% figure is accurate. It should be easy for Planned Parenthood to give that up to accept federal money.

In-Clinic Abortion Procedures at a Glance

• Medical procedures that end pregnancy
• Safe and effective
• Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
• Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less

- See more at: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures#sthash.pnMtSs1d.dpuf

No Federal money is used, this procedure is paid for by the client.

 

[atlkvb]

In-Clinic Abortion Procedures at a Glance

• Medical procedures that end pregnancy
• Safe and effective
• Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
• Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less

- See more at: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures#sthash.pnMtSs1d.dpuf

No Federal money is used, this procedure is paid for by the client.

ex-pat which do you suppose is a "cleaner more efficient" way to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

A messy, bloody, potentially dangerous in utero dismemberment of the unwanted little tyke?

Or actually bringing the little one out full term, in tact, then simply suffocating it?

One way avoids the essentially risky surgical procedure that potentially could damage the Woman's reproductive organs, cause her massive internal bleeding, hemorrhaging, collapsing of her Fallopian tubes, and maybe permanent damage to her uterus from accidental puncture by a sharp dismemberment object while the Baby is being torn apart or suctioned away from the Mother's amniotic sack or placenta.

Under full intact delivery, all of the birth mother's internal organs remain untouched, bleeding is controlled and kept to a minimum, and there is no need to "tear apart" or "suction out" the unwanted Baby because it can be safely terminated by simple asphyxiation.

So which do you think is a more efficient method ex-pat?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Here's what Planned Parenthood says it is they do

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-hudson-peconic/patient-resources/prenatal-care

http://www.snopes.com/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care/
The majority of the above-displayed video centered on alleged audio recordings of telephone calls to Planned Parenthood centers asking about prenatal services. These calls were framed by two misleading and out-of-context quotes from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards present in an attempt to make it seem as if her organization was falsely touting the number of prenatal care services they provide.

This video quotes snippets of Richards’ saying: “Prenatal care. These are the kinds of services that folks depend on Planned Parenthood for,” and “a president who will fight for pre-natal care!” We could not find the specific origins of the first snippet, but it’s clear that Richards was listing several services that Planned Parenthood provides (and not claiming they offer only or primarily prenatal care), as she said “these are the kinds of services that folks depend on planned Parenthood for. But Live Action apparently omitted the first portion of her statement.

Not only did Live Action present Planned Parenthood’s comments without proper context, their investigation also presented a misleading picture about the services provided by the organization. We can’t verify if every one of the phone call recordings offered in the above-displayed video was genuine, but we can say that the claim “only 5 [Planned Parenthood] facilities out of 97” provide prenatal care is misleading at best.

First of all, Planned Parenthood operates more than 650 facilities in the United States. In California alone, we found 13Planned Parenthood clinics that advertise prenatal services. Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic (PPHP), which operates health centers in Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland counties, New York, provides prenatal care in 6 of their 10 health centers.

We also found that many of the Planned Parenthood clinics that do not provide prenatal care services do nonetheless state they offer resources to assist those in need of finding such care: “If you choose to continue a pregnancy, we will provide you with a list of resources to help you obtain prenatal care.”

(We also surveyed several Planned Parenthood offices ourselves. For example, we called the Family First Health Center in Fresno, California, who confirmed to us that they do in fact offer prenatal care services. We also contacted the Planned Parenthood office in Tempe, Arizona (one of the first locations mentioned in the video), who told us that they did not provide prenatal care services themselves but directed us to a nearby facility, the Mountain Park Health Center, that does.)

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

ex-pat which do you suppose is a "cleaner more efficient" way to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

A messy, bloody, potentially dangerous in utero dismemberment of the unwanted little tyke?

Or actually bringing the little one out full term, in tact, then simply suffocating it?

One way avoids the essentially risky surgical procedure that potentially could damage the Woman's reproductive organs, cause her massive internal bleeding, hemorrhaging, collapsing of her Fallopian tubes, and maybe permanent damage to her uterus from accidental puncture by a sharp dismemberment object while the Baby is being torn apart or suctioned away from the Mother's amniotic sack or placenta.

Under full intact delivery, all of the birth mother's internal organs remain untouched, bleeding is controlled and kept to a minimum, and there is no need to "tear apart" or "suction out" the unwanted Baby because it can be safely terminated by simple asphyxiation.

So which do you think is a more efficient method ex-pat?

I am only debating the funding issue, which has restrictions on the use of Federal funding, and is not the total funding stream for PP (only 1/3). Many other essential healthcare services are provided, including services for men.

Which of the above do you prefer?

 

[atlkvb]

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-hudson-peconic/patient-resources/prenatal-care

http://www.snopes.com/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care/
The majority of the above-displayed video centered on alleged audio recordings of telephone calls to Planned Parenthood centers asking about prenatal services. These calls were framed by two misleading and out-of-context quotes from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards present in an attempt to make it seem as if her organization was falsely touting the number of prenatal care services they provide.

This video quotes snippets of Richards’ saying: “Prenatal care. These are the kinds of services that folks depend on Planned Parenthood for,” and “a president who will fight for pre-natal care!” We could not find the specific origins of the first snippet, but it’s clear that Richards was listing several services that Planned Parenthood provides (and not claiming they offer only or primarily prenatal care), as she said “these are the kinds of services that folks depend on planned Parenthood for. But Live Action apparently omitted the first portion of her statement.

Not only did Live Action present Planned Parenthood’s comments without proper context, their investigation also presented a misleading picture about the services provided by the organization. We can’t verify if every one of the phone call recordings offered in the above-displayed video was genuine, but we can say that the claim “only 5 [Planned Parenthood] facilities out of 97” provide prenatal care is misleading at best.

First of all, Planned Parenthood operates more than 650 facilities in the United States. In California alone, we found 13Planned Parenthood clinics that advertise prenatal services. Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic (PPHP), which operates health centers in Suffolk, Westchester, and Rockland counties, New York, provides prenatal care in 6 of their 10 health centers.

We also found that many of the Planned Parenthood clinics that do not provide prenatal care services do nonetheless state they offer resources to assist those in need of finding such care: “If you choose to continue a pregnancy, we will provide you with a list of resources to help you obtain prenatal care.”

(We also surveyed several Planned Parenthood offices ourselves. For example, we called the Family First Health Center in Fresno, California, who confirmed to us that they do in fact offer prenatal care services. We also contacted the Planned Parenthood office in Tempe, Arizona (one of the first locations mentioned in the video), who told us that they did not provide prenatal care services themselves but directed us to a nearby facility, the Mountain Park Health Center, that does.)

OK ex-pat...the video was made up. Not going to argue with you over it. Now, could you please answer my question to you in the previous post?

What's the more efficient way to terminate the unwanted pregnancy? (especially if we want to protect the Women's long term health)

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

OK ex-pat...the video was made up. Not going to argue with you over it. Now, could you please answer my question to you in the previous post?

What's the more efficient way to terminate the unwanted pregnancy? (especially if we want to protect the Women's long term health)

Please see answer in previous post.

 

[atlkvb]

I am only debating the funding issue, which has restrictions on the use of Federal funding, and is not the total funding stream for PP (only 1/3). Many other essential healthcare services are provided, including services for men.

Which of the above do you prefer?

I'd prefer to see what your answer to my question is. It's a fact Planned Parenthood is not going to honestly admit to what it is they actually do...I'm not even going to argue that. They do what they do, and they know what it is they really do.

I'm asking you to make a choice between two options to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Which would you choose as the safest most efficient way to end it ex-pat?

 

[atlkvb]

Please see answer in previous post.

OK you won't answer me, or you can't.

Carry on my friend.

 

[WVPATX]

In-Clinic Abortion Procedures at a Glance

• Medical procedures that end pregnancy
• Safe and effective
• Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
• Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less

- See more at: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures#sthash.pnMtSs1d.dpuf

No Federal money is used, this procedure is paid for by the client.

I understand that, but what part about money being fungible do you not understand? What money is used to pay for utilities for example? For rent for example? I assume they can use federal money to pay for every expense they have except for abortions. That gives them an enormous ability to expand abortion services.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I'd prefer to see what your answer to my question is. It's a fact Planned Parenthood is not going to honestly admit to what it is they actually do...I'm not even going to argue that. They do what they do, and they know what it is they really do.

I'm asking you to make a choice between two options to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Which would you choose as the safest most efficient way to end it ex-pat?

I've never been pregnant, so I can't answer. :wink:

Although I'm sure you think you are being clever with the "still beat your wife" type of question that seems to be the favorite on this board. I thought you were above that.

But I will answer your question: I am a proponent of "family pre-planning" in what ever form that leads a woman (and man) to pursue. PP also provides this type of services and more men and women should take advantage.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

OK you won't answer me, or you can't.

Carry on my friend.

Please see response.

 

[atlkvb]

Please see response.

Remind me again what your choice was ex-pat, I can't read that fast. Just post it in your response to this post. You've said a lot in this thread, I can't keep up.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Remind me again what your choice was ex-pat, I can't read that fast. Just post it in your response to this post. You've said a lot in this thread, I can't keep up.

I've never been pregnant, so I can't answer. :wink:

Although I'm sure you think you are being clever with the "still beat your wife" type of question that seems to be the favorite on this board. I thought you were above that.

But I will answer your question: I am a proponent of "family pre-planning" in what ever form that leads a woman (and man) to pursue. PP also provides this type of services and more men and women should take advantage.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

OK you won't answer me, or you can't.

To further clarify, I can't. Because I can't know every person's situation. I can't know every person's morality. I can't know every person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I can't, in good conscience impose my individual will (beliefs) on others without knowing all the circumstances.

So I can't make this call. Fire away!

 

[atlkvb]

Although I'm sure you think you are being clever with the "still beat your wife" type of question that seems to be the favorite on this board. I thought you were above that.

I'm not "being clever" ex-pat (no more than your answer dodging my question was)

However I understand why that's a difficult question for any so called " pro choice' proponent to answer.

On the one hand it is admittedly murder...blatantly so...in the case of the fully intact termination. That's admittedly difficult to argue for. I respect your inability or reluctance at least to go that far off the deep end.

However on the other hand, the other procedure is quite legal yet I'd argue much riskier for the Mother's health and arguably much more barbaric and less humane. If protecting the Mother's health is the primary concern of the Planned Parenthood's services, why subject the patient to such a risky operation simply to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

Does dismembering a fully formed child in the womb make it any less heinous of an act than killing it outside the womb? Is is not equally as insensitive to kill it while it rests peacefully inside it's Mother's womb as it is to suffocate it outside her womb? Why is one murder, and other isn't ex-pat? The Baby is still being killed either way...only one is much "cleaner and a more efficient" murder. Wonder which one that is ex-pat?

This is how far we have debased ourselves over the culture of Death ex-pat. Planned Parenthood denies it's ongoing slaughter of innocent children, they claim to offer alternative "health services" to Women while denying the primary service they provide, and good folks such as yourself come along and defend their sophistry using charts, graphs, and any other way to get around defending what in fact you are supporting.

Infanticide.

I like you ex-pat. You're a well reasoned, well informed poster, much of what you say I agree with. However on this issue, I honestly thought you too Sir were better than this.

 

[atlkvb]

To further clarify, I can't. Because I can't know every person's situation. I can't know every person's morality. I can't know every person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I can't, in good conscience impose my individual will (beliefs) on others without knowing all the circumstances.

So I can't make this call. Fire away!

ex-pat believe it or not my friend, you did make a conscious choice. You did not think killing that child outside of the womb was an acceptable method of terminating her unwanted pregnancy! You said you can't make that call, but you did.

The child is still just as unwanted birthed outside the Mother's womb, yet you are not willing to allow that Mother to have it suffocated are you? It's murder you know it, and you recognize that. Good for you ex-pat!

So explain why it's different for you as long as that same Baby can be killed inside the Mother's womb? What makes her decision to kill it then not murder?

You said you can't "impose" your individual will on her to terminate that pregnancy, so why would you restrict her wishes to kill that Baby outside of her womb?

 

[WVPATX]

I've never been pregnant, so I can't answer. :wink:

Although I'm sure you think you are being clever with the "still beat your wife" type of question that seems to be the favorite on this board. I thought you were above that.

But I will answer your question: I am a proponent of "family pre-planning" in what ever form that leads a woman (and man) to pursue. PP also provides this type of services and more men and women should take advantage.

Seems to me it would be easier to either buy rubbers or birth control pills or even an IUD.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

However on the other hand, the other procedure is quite legal

And that is the rub. Regardless of what you and I may think it is the law of the land. I believe in upholding the law, whether it is this sticky wicket, immigration or gun laws. My personal opinion doesn't matter because the law is the law. You can treat this as black and white or with shades of gray, as many Republicans have with certain exceptions. I haven't walked in those shoes.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Seems to me it would be easier to either buy rubbers or birth control pills or even an IUD.

And that is my point in the other post about family pre-planning. Services which PP also provides.

 

[atlkvb]

Seems to me it would be easier to either buy rubbers or birth control pills or even an IUD.

Now there's an option. So is Adoption, so is abstinence if a Child is unwanted.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Seems to me it would be easier to either buy rubbers or birth control pills or even an IUD.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the main cavity of the uterus. Pregnancy begins with a fertilized egg. Normally, the fertilized egg attaches itself to the lining of the uterus.

An ectopic pregnancy most often occurs in one of the tubes that carry eggs from the ovaries to the uterus (fallopian tubes). This type of ectopic pregnancy is known as a tubal pregnancy. In some cases, however, an ectopic pregnancy occurs in the abdominal cavity, ovary or neck of the uterus (cervix).

An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The fertilized egg can't survive, and the growing tissue might destroy various maternal structures. Left untreated, life-threatening blood loss is possible.

Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy can help preserve the chance for future healthy pregnancies.

 

[atlkvb]

And that is the rub. Regardless of what you and I may think it is the law of the land. I believe in upholding the law, whether it is this sticky wicket, immigration or gun laws. My personal opinion doesn't matter because the law is the law. You can treat this as black and white or with shades of gray, as many Republicans have with certain exceptions. I haven't walked in those shoes.

This is true ex-pat. But at one time it was a "law" that I couldn't drink from the same water fountain as you (I'm assuming you are White) because I'm Black. At one time, I wasn't even allowed to play on the same football team you and I worship.

Right now it's OK for a Mom to kill her unwanted Baby, that doesn't make it right or correct. Laws can be wrong, and often are reversed once a consensus is reached over their fallacy.

 

[atlkvb]

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the main cavity of the uterus. Pregnancy begins with a fertilized egg. Normally, the fertilized egg attaches itself to the lining of the uterus.

An ectopic pregnancy most often occurs in one of the tubes that carry eggs from the ovaries to the uterus (fallopian tubes). This type of ectopic pregnancy is known as a tubal pregnancy. In some cases, however, an ectopic pregnancy occurs in the abdominal cavity, ovary or neck of the uterus (cervix).

An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The fertilized egg can't survive, and the growing tissue might destroy various maternal structures. Left untreated, life-threatening blood loss is possible.

Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy can help preserve the chance for future healties.pregnanc

countryroads89 does a good job here explaining how complicated a pregnancy can become, and this post should be even more reason why we should proceed carefully before allowing sudden pregnancy terminations. In this case, if an Abortion was needed to preserve the Life of the Mother (or even the Child if it was still developing) then an interruption of the pregnancy to preserve Life should be allowed in the Law.

Preserving Life should be the underpinning of all of our Abortion Laws, right now it's simply promoting Death.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Laws can be wrong, and often are reversed once a consensus is reached over their fallacy

And I'm good with that. But then, as I think we have now agreed, the other services provided by PP become even more important in regards to family pre-planning, pre-natal care and other reproductive services in addition to other women's and men's health issues. So why kill the cure to address the symptoms?

 

[atlkvb]

And I'm good with that. But then, as I think we have now agreed, the other services provided by PP become even more important in regards to family pre-planning, pre-natal care and other reproductive services in addition to other women's and men's health issues. So why kill the cure to address the symptoms?

I don't think anyone is against the other services Planned Parenthood says it provides ex-pat. Trump offered to fund all of the rest of that, but not the abortions they primarily do.

They turned him down over the Abortions. Just 3% of what they claim it is they do!

That's insane.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I don't think anyone is against the other services Planned Parenthood says it provides ex-pat. Trump offered to fund all of the rest of that, but not the abortions they primarily do.

They turned him down over the Abortions. Just 3% of what they claim it is they do!

That's insane.

It's not insane.

Let you give you an example. Let's say someone came to you and said "we will let your church keep it's tax exempt status as long as you stop taking Communion", even though you only take Communion about 3% of the time.

Would you accept the deal?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

countryroads89 does a good job here explaining how complicated a pregnancy can become, and this post should be even more reason why we should proceed carefully before allowing sudden pregnancy terminations. In this case, if an Abortion was needed to preserve the Life of the Mother (or even the Child if it was still developing) then an interruption of the pregnancy to preserve Life should be allowed in the Law.

Preserving Life should be the underpinning of all of our Abortion Laws, right now it's simply promoting Death.

cr89 got this quote from the PP Web site. It is part of the pregnancy/pre-natal care page.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

cr89 got this quote from the PP Web site. It is part of the pregnancy/pre-natal care page.

Actually it was the Mayo Clinic and I should have properly cited it.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Actually it was the Mayo Clinic and I should have properly cited it.

Interesting, nearly identical language is on the PP site. Maybe the got it from Mayo?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Interesting, nearly identical language is on the PP site. Maybe the got it from Mayo?

Probably. It is a "standard definition" of an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

assuming you are White) because I'm Black

I am American, same as you.

Not to change the subject, but have you seen Hidden Figures and Fences? Both nominated for best picture this year but couldn't be any more different in their message.

 

[TarHeelEer]

It's not insane.

Let you give you an example. Let's say someone came to you and said "we will let your church keep it's tax exempt status as long as you stop taking Communion", even though you only take Communion about 3% of the time.

Would you accept the deal?

That's not even close to a similar analogy.

Abortion is not a requirement for the health of the individual, in almost all cases. It's a personal choice in not wanting a child. Their name says it all, they are PP. They have to have abortions. Federal government is not required to participate in their mission to complete their mission, women's health. There are other means to an end.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Removal of funding for PP from the new healthcare act:
10 SEC. 103. FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES. 11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 504(a), 12 1902(a)(23), 1903(a), 2002, 2005(a)(4), 2102(a)(7), or 13 2105(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 704(a), 14 1396a(a)(23), 1396b(a), 1397a, 1397d(a)(4), 15 1397bb(a)(7), 1397ee(a)(1)), or the terms of any Med- 16 icaid waiver in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 17 that is approved under section 1115 or 1915 of the Social 18 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315, 1396n), for the 1-year pe- 19 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 20 no Federal funds provided from a program referred to in 21 this subsection that is considered direct spending for any 22 year may be made available to a State for payments to 23 a prohibited entity, whether made directly to the prohib- 24 ited entity or through a managed care organization under 25 contract with the State. VerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:39 Mar 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\JRSHAP~1\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\ECTITL~1.XM March 6, 2017 (4:32 p.m.) G:\P\15\HT\REC1\ECTITLE_16.XML g:\VHLC\030617\030617.310.xml (653419|4) 3 1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 2 (1) PROHIBITED ENTITY.—The term ‘‘prohib- 3 ited entity’’ means an entity, including its affiliates, 4 subsidiaries, successors, and clinics— 5 (A) that, as of the date of enactment of 6 this Act— 7 (i) is an organization described in sec- 8 tion 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 9 Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 10 section 501(a) of such Code; 11 (ii) is an essential community provider 12 described in section 156.235 of title 45, 13 Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect 14 on the date of enactment of this Act), that 15 is primarily engaged in family planning 16 services, reproductive health, and related 17 medical care; and 18 (iii) provides for abortions, other than 19 an abortion— 20 (I) if the pregnancy is the result 21 of an act of rape or incest; or 22 (II) in the case where a woman 23 suffers from a physical disorder, phys- 24 ical injury, or physical illness that 25 would, as certified by a physician, VerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:39 Mar 06, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\JRSHAP~1\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\7.0\GEN\C\ECTITL~1.XM March 6, 2017 (4:32 p.m.) G:\P\15\HT\REC1\ECTITLE_16.XML g:\VHLC\030617\030617.310.xml (653419|4) 4 1 place the woman in danger of death 2 unless an abortion is performed, in- 3 cluding a life-endangering physical 4 condition caused by or arising from 5 the pregnancy itself; and 6 (B) for which the total amount of Federal 7 and State expenditures under the Medicaid pro- 8 gram under title XIX of the Social Security Act 9 in fiscal year 2014 made directly to the entity 10 and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or 11 clinics of the entity, or made to the entity and 12 to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or 13 clinics of the entity as part of a nationwide 14 health care provider network, exceeded 15 $350,000,000.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

That's not even close to a similar analogy.

Abortion is not a requirement for the health of the individual, in almost all cases. It's a personal choice in not wanting a child. Their name says it all, they are PP. They have to have abortions. Federal government is not required to participate in their mission to complete their mission, women's health. There are other means to an end.

It is a good analogy. Communion is something the church believes in, something that is part of their mission, something that is legal and something they are not going to sacrifice over a threat.

 

[TarHeelEer]

It is a good analogy. Communion is something the church believes in, something that is part of their mission, something that is legal and something they are not going to sacrifice over a threat.

No. Churches receive their tax status because they are churches, and communion is part of their mission. PP receives their funding from the government because they provide women's health services. Abortion is not part of that, and the government can't fund that.

Defunding PP from health services, because the government isn't certain PP isn't using those funds for abortion, and the government supplying those services elsewhere, does not equate to pulling tax status from churches because communions aren't allowed. There is no such law on federal books about communion, and never will be.

 

[atlkvb]

It's not insane.

Let you give you an example. Let's say someone came to you and said "we will let your church keep it's tax exempt status as long as you stop taking Communion", even though you only take Communion about 3% of the time.

Would you accept the deal?

I had to leave the thread and can't really respond in full but the short answer is no because communion is a Religious sacrament free from Government control or coercion.

Abortion by the Left's own admission is a health care choice, not protected under the Constitution. Ironically protecting Life is.

If you and I are negotiating price, and I give you 97% of your asking price, do you turn it down?

 

[WVPATX]

Now there's an option. So is Adoption, so is abstinence if a Child is unwanted.

What amazes me is that the Dem platform and Hillary's position was abortion at ANY TIME during pregnancy, even the 9th month. WOW.

 

[atlkvb]

What amazes me is that the Dem platform and Hillary's position was abortion at ANY TIME during pregnancy, even the 9th month. WOW.

Correct PAX, there were virtually no restrictions (even on partial birth abortion) and she wanted taxpayer funding at every level!

Countryroads89's analogy of communion being restricted in exchange for tax exempt status misses the mark for two reasons.

One is communion is a form of Religious Worship, which is protected as right under the Constitution. Abortion is no such protected right. Yes it is legal, but one is not compelled to Abortion as a form of choice as one assumes communion is inherent as a Religious expression which is guaranteed to be free from Government control.

Abortion services do not have to paid for by the Government, but once they are the Government can most certainly restrict their frequency. The analogy also fails on the merits because Abortion is not a requirement for a Woman's health. Communion only happens during Religious Worship.

Abortion is a choice, and either refusing to have one or accepting one is not determinative of a Woman's health. It most certainly can influence either her emotional or physical well-being, but a Woman is quite capable of being healthy Abortion notwithstanding.

One can certainly Worship without taking Communion, but it is impossible to separate Communion from it's Religious foundation while Abortion almost always is a separate issue from the overall health of the Mother who chooses to have one for her own personal reasons.

 

[WVU82_rivals]

I found the link, website and article... from 2012
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...-arizona-offers-free-mammograms-arizona-women

INFO: Appointments recommended; to make an appointment for a mammogram, call 602.277.PLAN (7526). Limited walk-in appointments also will be available. To qualify for a free mammogram, the following requirements must be met:

• • must be 40 years or older;
  • must be uninsured or underinsured;
  • have not had a mammogram in the last year;
  • not currently breastfeeding or pregnant;
  • not eligible for AHCCCS or the AZ Department of Health Services Well-Woman Health Check program.

In the community for 78 years, Planned Parenthood Arizona is the leading sexual health organization in Arizona. The organization provides health care, education and outreach services to more than 90,000 men, women, teens and parents annually. Planned Parenthood Arizona operates health center locations statewide in Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, Prescott Valley and Yuma. For more information, please visit www.ppaz.org.


from the https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-arizona website

Do you know about Title X?
Whether you have insurance or not, you can come to us for the care you need, when you need it. Learn more about how Title X (ten) can help ensure you have your annual exam, birth control or STD testing.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures

I don't see ANYTHING about mammography... and if you do a site search, it only lists the 2012 mobile mam from above

• Endometriosis
• Pap Tests & HPV Tests
• Female Infertility

• Menopause
• Menstruation
• Pelvic Exam

• Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
• Yeast Infection & Vaginitis

 

[atlkvb]

I am American, same as you.

Not to change the subject, but have you seen Hidden Figures and Fences? Both nominated for best picture this year but couldn't be any more different in their message.

Didn't mean to ignore your post here ex-pat. (had to leave the thread yesterday, and couldn't get back except for a brief response to countryroads89 after 2pm)

To answer your question no, I have not seen either movie. I hear "hidden figures" was awesome. Fences I have not heard as much about (I typically don't watch 1st run movies until they're in rental circulation) but I understand it is a powerful rendition of racial strife and struggle for equality.

Fortunately America has reached a rough consensus on the dignity of all humans regardless of color, although I still think racially we are a divided nation due to Leftist stoking of cultural intolerance.

But we as a nation do agree Blacks and Whites are equal as humans, and just as you said, "Americans" deserving of all Constitutionally protected rights.