Ivanka Trump Was Wrong to Meet With Planned Parenthood Exec

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't know many (any?) people on any side of the political specturm that "likes abortions". 

 

What "the left" likes is making sure women have safe, reliable and easy ACCESS to them when they have made the decision to undergo one. They believe it is the woman's right to choose to undergo one, and I'm sure every single woman who does do it doesn't "like" to do it either. In my time in adolescent clinics I never encountered a woman, or another doctor, who was excited that they were being referred/were referring to a clinic to have an abortion done. We don't celebrate with a pizza party or something.

 

 "The left" doesn't want to go back to the early 20th century when women were resorting to wire hangers or underground clinics where they didn't have access to reliable medication attention.

 

As for the topic of PBS/NPR -

 

Similar to Planned Parenthood, when there are issues with how a government funded organization conducts their business there should be change. The solution shouldn't just be "throwing it out". That is a very basic, uneducated and childish response to a problem. When a toddler can't fit a triangle shaped toy into a circular hole they can get frustrated and throw the triangle to the floor. The proper response would be to try to fit the triangle elsewhere, or try to find a circle.

Access to abortions has been lessening in certain areas of the US directly for the reason that organizations like PP want taxpayer funds and want to use abortions for those funds. 

 

Clearly that doesn't sit well with plenty of people. If PP cared more about "access" they should have separated abortions from the other services they provide. However, it's clear that this was not, nor will it ever be, their intention. PP is directly hurting women more by their policies than helping in that case.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

Access to abortions has been lessening in certain areas of the US directly for the reason that organizations like PP want taxpayer funds and want to use abortions for those funds. 

 

Clearly that doesn't sit well with plenty of people. If PP cared more about "access" they should have separated abortions from the other services they provide. However, it's clear that this was not, nor will it ever be, their intention. PP is directly hurting women more by their policies than helping in that case.

 

 

Elaborate please? 

 

PP does not use taxpayer money to fund abortions, as far as their overall rules are concerned. If there are individual cases or places where that is not the case, that goes against the overall mission/structure of PP. Those individual cases need to be reprimanded and fixed.

 

Even if those cases, how does that reduce access to abortions? Access to abortions, like access to any kind of care, would be defined by:

 

1. The number of physical locations and physicians that are capable of providing the service

2. The distance those locations are from patients, and how well they are spread out to minimize that distance

3. The cost of the procedure that the patient has to incur, the higher the cost out of pocket, the more difficult access

4. Insurance coverage (for reason #3)

5. Other limitations imposed on the procedure - for example a mandatory "waiting period" between counseling and the procedure itself

 

How have those been specifically "directly" effected by PP "wanting taxpayer funds to pay for abortions"? 

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

Elaborate please? 

 

PP does not use taxpayer money to fund abortions, as far as their overall rules are concerned. If there are individual cases or places where that is not the case, that goes against the overall mission/structure of PP. Those individual cases need to be reprimanded and fixed.

 

Even if those cases, how does that reduce access to abortions? Access to abortions, like access to any kind of care, would be defined by:

 

1. The number of physical locations and physicians that are capable of providing the service

2. The distance those locations are from patients, and how well they are spread out to minimize that distance

3. The cost of the procedure that the patient has to incur, the higher the cost out of pocket, the more difficult access

4. Insurance coverage (for reason #3)

5. Other limitations imposed on the procedure - for example a mandatory "waiting period" between counseling and the procedure itself

 

How have those been specifically "directly" effected by PP "wanting taxpayer funds to pay for abortions"? 

Abortion restrictions are already in place in a number of states, reducing the amount of doctors that can perform them.

 

Planned Parenthood wouldn't find themselves in trouble in these states if they followed protocol.. separating abortions from the rest of the services they offer, which I doubt virtually anyone nowadays has an issue with.

 

Their actions have led to more restrictions being placed upon abortions, and reducing the availability of abortions. 

 

If this is still confusing for you, that's unfortunate, but if what you want is a dissertation, not gonna get it.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

Abortion restrictions are already in place in a number of states, reducing the amount of doctors that can perform them.

 

Planned Parenthood wouldn't find themselves in trouble in these states if they followed protocol.. separating abortions from the rest of the services they offer, which I doubt virtually anyone nowadays has an issue with.

 

Their actions have led to more restrictions being placed upon abortions, and reducing the availability of abortions. 

 

If this is still confusing for you, that's unfortunate, but if what you want is a dissertation, not gonna get it.

So you are saying that it is Planned Parenthood's fault that states passed restrictions? You are blaming the laws that legislators passed on PP? 

 

The states passed those restrictions. You can't blame PP for that. I completely agree that states are passing restrictions that reduce the number of doctors that can perform them, as well as passing restrictions that are closing centers that perform them for mundane/pointless reasons (width of hallways etc...).

 

None of that is on PP, it's on the state legislators.

[smilesammich 10,727]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

So you are saying that it is Planned Parenthood's fault that states passed restrictions? You are blaming the laws that legislators passed on PP? 

 

The states passed those restrictions. You can't blame PP for that. I completely agree that states are passing restrictions that reduce the number of doctors that can perform them, as well as passing restrictions that are closing centers that perform them for mundane/pointless reasons (width of hallways etc...).

 

None of that is on PP, it's on the state legislators.

gop has been rabid to defund pp for years, it has nothing to do with anything other than keeping a promise to evangelicals (who support their own christian version of sharia to be imposed upon american women) who had to overlook trump's uh, lack of christian 'values', to vote him into office. 

[IAMX 3,055]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

So you are saying that it is Planned Parenthood's fault that states passed restrictions? You are blaming the laws that legislators passed on PP? 

 

The states passed those restrictions. You can't blame PP for that. I completely agree that states are passing restrictions that reduce the number of doctors that can perform them, as well as passing restrictions that are closing centers that perform them for mundane/pointless reasons (width of hallways etc...).

 

None of that is on PP, it's on the state legislators.

States responded to PP's policies. I mean, it should have federally been defunded long ago, and if it was, then the states wouldn't have needed to intervene, would it? Cause and effect.

Edited April 12, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, IAMX said:

States responded to PP's policies. I mean, it should have federally been defunded long ago, and if it was, then the states wouldn't have needed to intervene, would it? Cause and effect.

Haha sorry but an organization responds to the State's policies. States shouldn't enact legislature just to "punish" one single organization. That is awfully childish.

 

Again, blaming PP for what the State legislatures passed is just wrong. If that makes you feel better about it fine, but it is entirely on the state legislatures. They are the ones that limited access to care with their silly pointless laws restricting clinics from being near schools, closing clinics whose hallways weren't big enough etc...

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Haha sorry but an organization responds to the State's policies. States shouldn't enact legislature just to "punish" one single organization. That is awfully childish.

 

Again, blaming PP for what the State legislatures passed is just wrong. If that makes you feel better about it fine, but it is entirely on the state legislatures. They are the ones that limited access to care with their silly pointless laws restricting clinics from being near schools, closing clinics whose hallways weren't big enough etc...

- Don't believe taxpayers of that state should be funding abortions

- Reduces ability of doctors to perform them, including one organizations

 

- childish

 

I mean, you can insert your own narrative all you like and create a soap opera of it, doesn't change the purpose of why it was done. If what you want is a better solution, as two of us pro-choice people believe women should have as much access as possible, maybe you can convince them to stop including taxpayers. That's clearly the line to be drawn. However, I already know that's futility. You, on the other hand, are still trying to convince yourself of the stuff quoted above.

Edited April 12, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

- Don't believe taxpayers of that state should be funding abortions

- Reduces ability of doctors to perform them, including one organizations

 

- childish

 

I mean, you can insert your own narrative all you like and create a soap opera of it, doesn't change the purpose of why it was done.

Not believing a taxpayer should fund abortions --> Therefore you shut down clinics that are close to schools, or whose hallways are too large? 

 

Ya that is the logical step to take. Not bitter or childish at all.

 

I'm sowey, did the big bawd Pwanned Pawenthood scare the poor wittle legislators and make them afwaid? They had to punish women just because of that big scawy organization that helps provide important medical services? Poor things.

 

You can't blame PP for how the legislators decided to "respond" to they. If the problem was just tax payer funded abortions, they could have targeted that specifically. Destroying access to the service for all women in a state is a childish way to respond to one organization. No way around that.

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Not believing a taxpayer should fund abortions --> Therefore you shut down clinics that are close to schools, or whose hallways are too large? 

 

Ya that is the logical step to take. Not bitter or childish at all.

 

I'm sowey, did the big bawd Pwanned Pawenthood scare the poor wittle legislators and make them afwaid? They had to punish women just because of that big scawy organization that helps provide important medical services? Poor things.

 

You can't blame PP for how the legislators decided to "respond" to they. If the problem was just tax payer funded abortions, they could have targeted that specifically. Destroying access to the service for all women in a state is a childish way to respond to one organization. No way around that.

There you go again inserting your own narrative to argue with. 

 

The laws made are not "shutting down clinics", they are restricting abortion and penalizing doctors.

 

- Conservatives believe life begins at conception (to a degree I believe this too but I find it irrelevant regarding whether or not a woman can end her pregnancy) so they do not believe abortion should be legal at all

- Liberals believe abortion should be allowed anywhere, anytime, and clearly with the unconditional support of Planned Parenthood (I have yet to see a liberal here argue otherwise, besides me), that taxpayers should be funding it too, never mind private companies should be required to fund abortions, contraceptives, etc.

 

Clearly a compromise that takes into account the 14th, Roe v. Wade, the 10th amendment, and the views of both sides, is to allow abortions freely, compromising more on specifics regarding viability (at this time ~ 23'ish weeks and beyond, increasing significantly going higher in the 20s) to give birth to a viable fetus rather than aborting, and moreover, no taxpayer funding. 

 

If the left do not want to compromise, then the right won't either. This is what you get. Be happy with the results. Clearly PP knows exactly what they got themselves into. I hope they understand and appreciate the consequences of no compromise.

Edited April 12, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

There you go again inserting your own narrative to argue with. 

 

The laws made are not "shutting down clinics", they are restricting abortion and penalizing doctors.

 

- Conservatives believe life begins at conception (to a degree I believe this too but I find it irrelevant regarding whether or not a woman can end her pregnancy) so they do not believe abortion should be legal at all

- Liberals believe abortion should be allowed anywhere, anytime, and clearly with the unconditional support of Planned Parenthood (I have yet to see a liberal here argue otherwise, besides me), that taxpayers should be funding it too, never mind private companies should be required to fund abortions, contraceptives, etc.

 

Clearly a compromise that takes into account the 14th, Roe v. Wade, the 10th amendment, and the views of both sides, is to allow abortions freely, compromising more on specifics regarding viability (at this time ~ 23'ish weeks and beyond, increasing significantly going higher in the 20s) to give birth to a viable fetus rather than aborting, and moreover, no taxpayer funding. 

 

If the left do not want to compromise, then the right won't either. This is what you get. Be happy with the results.

None of this explains why you think it is Planned Parenthood's fault specifically for the conservatives passing legislation to restrict abortions and penalize doctors who provide them.

 

You explain it yourself. They are doing that because they fundamentally don't agree with abortions. It isn't specifically about planned parenthood, it isn't "their fault". Conservatives dont' want it happening, and they will do whatever it takes.

 

This whole thing started when you said that it was Planned Parenthood's fault that access to abortions were restricted. That ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY not true, as you yourself have seen to have proven. It is because conservatives want to limit abortions. The existence of Planned Parenthood provides ACCESS to the procedure, it has not limited access. That is an unequivocal fact and there is no arguing it. If planned parenthood didn't exist, conservatives wouldn't suddenly say "Oh great now lets open up all those clinics that we shut down before. We're good now". 

 

It is the conservatives who are restricting access. You can't blame that on Planned Parenthood. That was my only point. I'm fully aware of the reasons why conservatives want to do that, and I'm fully aware that they don't like Planned Parenthood providing the service. Again though, Planned Parenthood didn't "force" them to do anything.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

None of this explains why you think it is Planned Parenthood's fault specifically for the conservatives passing legislation to restrict abortions and penalize doctors who provide them.

 

You explain it yourself. They are doing that because they fundamentally don't agree with abortions. It isn't specifically about planned parenthood, it isn't "their fault". Conservatives dont' want it happening, and they will do whatever it takes.

 

This whole thing started when you said that it was Planned Parenthood's fault that access to abortions were restricted. That ABSOLUTELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY not true, as you yourself have seen to have proven. It is because conservatives want to limit abortions. The existence of Planned Parenthood provides ACCESS to the procedure, it has not limited access. That is an unequivocal fact and there is no arguing it. If planned parenthood didn't exist, conservatives wouldn't suddenly say "Oh great now lets open up all those clinics that we shut down before. We're good now". 

 

It is the conservatives who are restricting access. You can't blame that on Planned Parenthood. That was my only point. I'm fully aware of the reasons why conservatives want to do that, and I'm fully aware that they don't like Planned Parenthood providing the service. Again though, Planned Parenthood didn't "force" them to do anything.

Planned parenthood refusing to separate the 90%+ of other services they have, with regarding o use of public funds, with abortion, is most definitely a choice they made, and this was most definitely the ramifications of it. The left organizations like this that have any clout do not want to compromise. That may go over well in states like California, but in many other states that's going to result in legislation or voter initiatives/state amendments being put forth (and in many cases passed) that further restrict abortion. No compromise begets no compromise. Clearly you fail to see the other side's actions in this, and only feel like blaming one side. While I haven't been overly critical of the states, they are acting in their capacity as representatives of everyone, Planned Parenthood, as a public organization that received significant public funding, is not. If one wants to act in this fashion, expect repercussions. That's how the world works.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Planned parenthood refusing to separate the 90%+ of other services they have, with regarding o use of public funds, with abortion, is most definitely a choice they made, and this was most definitely the ramifications of it. The left organizations like this that have any clout do not want to compromise. That may go over well in states like California, but in many other states that's going to result in legislation or voter initiatives/state amendments being put forth (and in many cases passed) that further restrict abortion. No compromise begets no compromise. Clearly you fail to see the other side's actions in this, and only feel like blaming one side. While I haven't been overly critical of the states, they are acting in their capacity as representatives of everyone, Planned Parenthood, as a public organization that received significant public funding, is not. If one wants to act in this fashion, expect repercussions. That's how the world works.

It was a choice PP made.

 

Then the conservatives in state government made their own choice.

 

You can say that the conservatives made their choice IN RESPONSE to PP, but that still doesn't mean it was PP's fault.

 

Once again their response was to pass legislation that didn't specifically target PP, but instead targeted clinics and physicians who provide the service non-specifically. PP didn't "make them" do that. They chose to respond the way they did.

 

I blame the left for what the left does and I blame the right for what the right does. I don't say that the right's decisions are "all the left's fault because they disagree". No one but the conservatives made the choice to restrict physicians and clinics. I don't care what influenced their choice, they still made it. Planned Parenthood's federal funding is just that, federal funding. It is a federal issue. The states made the choice to respond to that by restricting what they had the power to restrict. That isn't Planned Parenthood's fault, that is entirely the decision of the legislators that passed the legislation. They made that choice, to respond to the situation like they did.

 

You right this is how the world works. You can't blame someone else for the decisions you make. It may make you feel better to do so, but that doesn't make it true. Restricting access to abortion through state legislation falls squarely on the shoulders of those who passed the legislation. They, and their supporters, and yourself, can say whatever else you like but that doesn't change the facts unfortunately. You can't pass the buck.

 

At this point this discussion has reached its end I think. We are going to just end up repeating ourselves ad nauseam (we already are) so I'll leave it at that. Take care.

Edited April 12, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

It was a choice PP made.

 

Then the conservatives if government made their own choice.

 

You can say that the conservatives made their choice IN RESPONSE to PP, but that still doesn't mean it was PP's fault.

 

Once again their response was to pass legislation that didn't specifically target PP, but instead targeted clinics and physicians who provide the service non-specifically. PP didn't "make them" do that. They chose to respond the way they did.

 

I blame the left for what the left does and I blame the right for what the right does. I don't say that the right's decisions are "all the left's fault because they disagree". No one but the conservatives made the choice to restrict physicians and clinics. I don't care what influenced their choice, they still made it. Planned Parenthood's federal funding is just that, federal funding. It is a federal issue. The states made the choice to respond to that by restricting what they had the power to restrict. That isn't Planned Parenthood's fault, that is entirely the legislators that passed the legislation. 

 

You right this is how the world works. You can't blame someone else for the decisions you make. It may make you feel better to do so, but that doesn't make it true. Restricting access to abortion through state legislation falls squarely on the shoulders of those who passed the legislation. They, and their supporters, and yourself, can say whatever else you like but that doesn't change the facts unfortunately. You can't pass the buck.

 

At this point this discussion has reached its end I think. We are going to just end up repeating ourselves ad nauseam (we already are) so I'll leave it at that. Take care.

"Doesnt change the facts"

 

Not A's fault for B passing laws further restricting services A and many others provide because A wants to use public money to perform them. 

 

 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, IAMX said:

"Doesnt change the facts"

 

Not A's fault for B passing laws further restricting services A and many others provide because A wants to use public money to perform them. 

 

 

 

 

Assuming PP actually does use federal funding to provide their abortion services (that is an entirely different discussion/argument),

 

It is FEDERAL funding. Not state funding. I don't care what the states think, it is the federal governments business.

 

So the better "letter-based" explanation is:

 

B provides a service

A doesn't like B providing that service, but can't actually limit the funding that B gets

 

therefore

 

A passes restrictions to the SERVICE, not to B directly

 

You are blaming B in that scenario. Which is just wrong. There is no logical framework that makes it right, I'm sorry. This is why I stated the discussion is essentially over. We have different frameworks for how we think the world functions and who we blame. I blame the person who does it, I don't look to pass the buck on to someone else. I believe in people owning up to the decisions they make. 

 

The state legislators should be "proud" of what they have done, since the chose to do it. They shouldn't blame some organization that they don't like. I've said it before and I continue to believe it - That is childish. I also don't actually think the state legislators even think it is PP's fault. I just think you do.

 

I actually need to do some work before bed so now I promise I will leave it at that. You can respond however you like. Doesn't change the fact that when all is said and done we are all responsible for the decisions we make and the choices we make. Blaming someone else is cowardly and childish. You can continue to work with that framework if you'd like.