Supreme Court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds

You must have a legitimate reason to deny funding to any Medicaid provider

 

I would not send homosexuals to prison

Nor would I arrest them for private sexual behavour

But for the physical and moral health of our society whet they do in public should be against the law

Liberals think if we outlaw sex between men we have to arrest heterosexuals too

But I disagree with that

Would that be a violation of the equal protection clause?

I dont think so but 6 unelected judges used that illogic to decree homosexuality a legal form os sexual perversion

So until be find smarter judges thats where we stand

God help us

 

The justice system has been politicized by liberals and PP has a lot of clout

 

They gave the angry feminists what they wanted by twisting the meaning of the Constitution

 

PP has no "legal claim" to any federal funding.

But federal funding programs are required to provide some types of care to the low income and children in some areas. PAP smears, health checks, prenatal care and baby care, VD, dozens of other care, and in some areas, abortions, but NO federal funds go to abortions.

Aside from the largest workof PP work of these needs of mostly women (but men too), the states, counties, cities will contract PP to care of the poor who can qualify for government reimbursement.
All states contract to care for these people, generally on bid basis. Many areas have no one willing to care these contracts, or can't do it or want too much money.

In many areas of the country, PP wins these contracts. There is NO requirements for PP to administer contracts, but PP does the best at the lowest prices. WAY lower prices, PP's enormous dedication, large decades of donations, extensive infrastructure.

PP is amazing! Despite administrating $500 million of government services, PP does MORE a larger privately funded of work than the government services. They receive lousy pay, long hours, constant harassment and attacks and murders.

PPs has a solid history, year after year, of doing the best work to take of women and children by getting the very best services at lowest prices for the taxpayers, while they care of many larger pool of needy women and children at NO COST to taxpayers!

Planned Parenthood does so much to our country, for our children, women and men. It is an incredible organization! NOT ONE PENNY goes to profits or large payments from secret pockets!

Don't like it? Just get the contracts with better service and lower prices to stop getting Medicare contracts! PP still has too much to do!

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO, they did NOT, they upheld women's right to their own body....that is not a "new" nor a law...

OH? Then fine !!!...have the fetus taken out of the woman, put it on a shelf and have it grow on it's own !!!

WHY NOT according to YOU!!




OMG! I think you should get a book on biology.....


This is especially hilarious, """often having a different gender"""..


NO! REALLY!!!

Get thee a book on Real Life, biology..

 

A great post but pointing out that an entity helps the poor , especially poor women and children, makes righties hate it all the more.....

 

Awww, did they do that when women got to vote? "Twisting the meaning of the Constitution"??? Any time women get their rights it's "Twisting the meaning of the Constitution" to you?

How about when slaves were freed? "Twisting the meaning of the Constitution"" to you???

 

Sodomy Laws don't outlaw “sex between men”. They outlaw Sodomy, which is all sex outside of penis in vagina intercourse. So if you outlaw sodomy, then yes, in order for equal protection under the law to exist, you have to prosecute heterosexuals as well because most heterosexuals engage in oral sex and lots of them engage in anal sex.

 

your opinion on what is good is irrelevant to anyone other than you. You don't get to decide what is good for anyone else.

a purely subjective opinion. Your only recourse/freedom here, is to NOT engage in homosexuality. You can't tell anyone else that they can't.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)

No they didn't. There is no mechanism for them to do so.

 

congress

 

Anytime?

I never said that

But roe v wade was a decision based on politics not the Constitution

 

When I looked it up sodomy is also defined as humans having sex with animals

So you have opened the door to legalizing beastiality also

The sodomy law was written to outlaw homosexuality and could have been reworded to please the 14th instead of being thrown out entirely

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Awww, did they do that when women got to vote? "Twisting the meaning of the Constitution"???
Any time women get their rights it's "Twisting the meaning of the Constitution" to you?

How about when slaves were freed? "Twisting the meaning of the Constitution"" to you???

I NEVER said you said "anytime".

I ASKED QUESTIONS.....questions you couldn't answer.

Only in your imagination

 

Newsflash hospitals exist and they have far greater care then the butchers at PP.

 

This isn't about a woman's alleged right to kill her unborn baby it's taxpayer funding going to a business that does it. It's not about abortion when the mothers life is threatened which is a rare circumstance that any hospital would facilitate.

Therapeutic abortion: the medical argument.
Murphy JF, O'Driscoll K.
Abstract
PIP:
This document analyzes all cases of maternal death between 1970-79 at the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, and speculates as to the number of lives which might have been saved by therapeutic abortion. 74,317 births were considered; there were 21 deaths, or a mortality rate of 0.28/1000. 7 women died for reasons that had nothing to do with pregnancy: 3 cases of malignant disease, 2 of cerebrovascular accident, 1 of road accident, and 1 of Weil's disease. Therapeutic abortion would not have altered the outcome of pregnancy in these cases. 11 women died of pregnancy complications, 4 of infection, 3 of embolism, 2 of hemorrhage, 1 of eclampsia, and 1 of liver rupture. These deaths, however, could not have been prevented by therapeutic abortion, since these complications could not have been foreseen. 3 women died of diseases which could be said to have made pregnancy more dangerous. However, in the 1st case no disease was suspected until necropsy demonstrated the lesion; in the 2nd case the fatal outcome was interpreted as the terminal state of a chronic process which would have occurred whether or not the woman had been pregnant. Only in the 3rd instance a reasonable case could have been made in favor of therapeutic abortion. However, the woman in question had purposely sought pregnancy for the 2nd time in 2 years, fully aware of the risk involved; she would not have accepted a therapeutic abortion. Thus, the conclusion seems to be that, in the series presented, therapeutic abortion would not have saved a single life. The most recent publication on therapeutic abortion, bearing on 57,228 deliveries at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York between 1953-64, indicates that in over 69 cases of therapeutic abortion the degree of risk to the mother's life was debatable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7129852
[

 

When you look up the LEGAL definition of sodomy, you’ll find it includes all non-penis in vagina intercourse sex.

You cannot reword any sodomy law to have it only target homosexuals without blatantly violating equal protection under the law. Doing so is in fact willfully attempting to violate equal protection.

Why can’t you just admit you hate gays so much that you are willing to throw out the Constitution just so you can have the government persecute hem?

 

If you really oppose sodomy, why not advocate sodomy laws be applied equally and then call for heterosexuals that engage in oral sex to be prosecuted?

But you don’t really oppose sodomy. Based on statistics alone, I’m going to say you quite enjoy engaging in sodomy. But you just want to punish gays because you are bigoted against them.

 

From what I read that was the basis of their argument.

Oh spare me. In my state, one of the poorist in the country there are only two PP clinics both in the middle of major cities surrounded by plenty of doctors, clinics and hospitals that provide even more care than PP.

 

The statutes could be changed to specifically ban same sex only

And now you have taken the next step toward legalizing sex with animals

 

So you are the legislature can deny funding?

 

Animals cannot legally give consent, so no I haven’t.

Banning same sex only would blatantly violate equal protection under the law. It would be like redefining murder so that it only counts if a white male kills someone but it doesn’t count if a black woman does. Would you say a law like that is in keeping with the equal protection clause?

 

Why target straight sex which society and Nature intended when its homosexuals who make the skin crawl?

If I am bigoted toward homosexuals I am equally bigoted against adults having sex with animals and children

 

well this thread has nothing to do with racism, but your projection of a black man and raping a white woman has no consequences clearly defines your position.