Virginia Legislature Votes to Cut Off Planned Parenthood Funding
Author: Sam29 Feb
The Virginia Senate voted Wednesday to cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood of Virginia because it offers abortions, an action that could endanger hundreds of thousands of dollars in state aid for women’s health-care programs.
The decision, a major setback for the Senate’s new Democratic majority, marks the first time in more than a decade that the Senate has decided against giving state aid to the organization because of its abortion-related activities.
The interesting thing about this is that the Republicans had tried in the past to cut funding to Planned Parenthood when they were in the Senate majority, but the pro baby murdering Republicans stood in the way of it. Now that they are in the minority every Senate Republican voted for the bill and one Democrat crossed over to tie the vote leaving the tie breaking vote to the Republican Lieutenant Governor.
No tax dollars should go to fund abortions. That is simply immoral and that decision now lies in Tim Kaine’s hands. I don’t think it will be an easy decision for him because while he is a Democrat and was certainly elected with the votes of the pro-murder crowd, Virginia is still a socially conservative state. What’s a governor to do?
Recent Comments
- Press 7 for Celtic: I like Kasich too, but
- Chris: My first pick would be
- Ryan: Yuck, but it might help
- Ryan: Amen.
- Michael C: 71% was huge. The Chambliss
- Alan: Wow. I can't think
- Ryan: The Dalai Bama can go
- Press 7 for Celtic: Rid the world of nukes,
- Press 7 for Celtic: Also of note yesterday was
- Langley: I think Barrow will keep
Categories
- Activism
- Authors
- Campaign 2006
- Campaign 2007
- Campaign 2008
- Campaign 2010
- Campaign Science
- Civil War
- College Republicans
- Conservative Movement
- CPAC 06
- CPAC 2007
- CPAC 2008
- Culture
- Daily Kos Stupidity
- General
- Herman Cain
- Issues
- Local Politics
- Religion
- RINO Watch
- Sports
- Supreme Court
- Tech
- The Site
- UK Politics
- Unions
- White House 2008
Blogroll
- AK's Rapid Fire
- Alarming News
- Alexander Brunk
- Bates Line
- Brain Terminal
- Captain's Quarters
- Carolina Politics Online
- Club for Growth
- ConfirmThem
- GOP3: The Triumvirate
- GrassrootsPA
- Instapundit
- Kansas Progress
- Langley Perry
- Martin Andrade
- Matty N's Blog
- Michelle Malkin
- National Journal's Blogometer
- National Review
- New England Republican
- NoMAR for HIM
- Outside the Beltway
- PA Water Cooler
- Peach Pundit
- Power Line
- Red Jersey
- RedState
- Republican Senate
- Republican Study Committee
- Right Wing News
- Rob Bluey
- See Jane Mom
- Senate Conservatives Fund
- Stromata Blog
- Talk Show American
- The American Mind
- The Columbia Conservative
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
18 Responses for "Virginia Legislature Votes to Cut Off Planned Parenthood Funding"
You know, as much as you people criticize liberals for using inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. calling Cheney a terrorist or that the Patriot Acts creates a police state), you should know better. How does it contribute to dialogue to call someone “pro baby murdering” or “pro murder” because his position on abortion is different than yours? And how does this help stop abortion? It alienates people who might otherwise be drawn to support your position.
You know, it’s your own actions that earn conservatives the stereotypes that you lament so much. Shame on you.
“How does it contribute to dialogue to call someone “pro baby murdering” or “pro murder” because his position on abortion is different than yours?”
Because that’s exactly what it is. It’s not rhetoric.
And a terrorist is “a person who terrorizes or frightens others.” Since Dick Cheney spends his days warning us about the imminent doom of brown people blowing us up, I guess he fits this definition too if you think that this is frightening. However, I would not use such language, because it isn’t helpful and it debases the dialogue.
Most people think that a collection of a few thousand cells is not a “baby” and therefore the term “baby murdering” is not correct. Calling abortion “baby murder” is incorrect depending on definitions, and also unhelpful. Calling Dick Cheney a terrorist is also unhelpful, but at least correct according to the definition!
Now, I’m against abortion too, but I repeat my point that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric is ultimately injurious to the pro-life cause.
This is ridiculous.
You do realize that a very small percentage of PP’s services are abortion related? That they do *far more* in *reducing* abortions by making contraception accessible, and by helping low-income women access said contraception?
If you really cared about reducing abortions, as we pro-choicers do, then you’d be in favor of making contraception readily accessible. It seems to work a whole lot better at reducing unwanted pregnancies that yelling “don’t have sex!!” over and over again.
Newsflash Becky….Planned Parenthood is the number one abortion provider in the country…
Gceres, what you just said and what Becky just said are not mutually exclusive.
I myself am against abortion, but I refuse to align myself with the “pro-life” crowd for exactly the reason that Becky stated: it’s not actually about reducing the number of abortions. It’s about casting moral judgements. For example, rape exceptions — if the reason to be against abortion is that a fetus is human life, then the circumstances of conception are irrelevant. However, if it’s about men punishing women for engaging in behavior that they regard as immoral, then it makes sense to allow the rape-victim baby to be “murdered” but not the teenage girl who made a mistake. It’s not about the baby — it’s about punishing women.
Second, it’s about oppressing poor people. The spoiled rich kids who run this website know that they’ll always be able to procure safe abortions when they get their girlfriends pregnant at an inauspicious time. Statistically, I’d bet that one of them already has. But, they don’t think that poor people deserve the same access. Then again, it’s different for them — poor folks like us shouldn’t be expected to understand their situation. Imagine the embarrassment at the country club!
Publius said, “Most people think that a collection of a few thousand cells is not a “baby” and therefore the term “baby murdering” is not correct.”
Maybe “most” people you hang out with, but you have your facts wrong. Show me some stats on this one.
It always cracks me up me up when people call a baby just a bunch of cells. Do you ever go up to a pregnant women and ask her “Hey how are your bunch of cells?”
Michael, do YOU have stats to say that “most people” believe a recently-conceived fetus to be a human life?
Personal attacks again. Just couldn’t help yourself could you Publius?
Michael, I’m assuming from your response that
A) You are saying that Publius, not me, is the one engaging in personal attacks. I hope that you don’t think expecting the same standards from you that you expect from others is a personal attack.
B) You are choosing to not provide statistics to say that most people believe a recently-conceived fetus to be a human life. Again, as you said to Becky, “maybe this is true of most of the people you hang out with”- I don’t doubt that.
Also, even if one side is favored by “more” people, it is important to realize that both sides have significant numbers. The “more people agree with me” argument is silly, both sides have tens of millions of supporters.
I agree with the notion that using terminology of “baby murder” etc. is damaging and does nothing to help the pro-life movement. It is emotionally loaded rhetoric that is usually used by liberals and I have no use for it.
As a liberal critical of conservatives, I really can’t think of another example of conservatives using such emotionally loaded and damaging terminology.
Yeah, we usually leave the emotionally charged language to you guys on the left. Think of it as us reaching out to you.
As for stats, Publius made the argument he needs to defend it.
If you really think a baby is just a fetus, or just a bunch of cells, I challenge you to visit http://www.silentscream.org/. Watch the video and then come back here and tell me you feel the same way.
I can think of another example! Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity routinely say that people who criticize the conduct of the war in Iraq are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Now, that hurts right here ::pointing to broken heart::
Michael:
I can appreciate the worry about causing suffering. But most abortions are performed very early on in a pregnancy (I’m sure I’ve quoted statistics before on this: but Planned Parenthood & the Guttmacher track such numbers if you’re interested). And this seems like another case of overblown emotional appeals. Not to be flippant (I didn’t watch the video), but I would imagine that watching a woman give birth is just as excruciatingly painful to see. Or for that matter, any surgery. I guess what I’m trying to ask in a really convoluted way, is why we should respond to *this* show of suffering, but not a woman suffering from an unwanted pregnancy. Because for every gruesome picture of an aborted fetus that the anti-choicers come up with, the pro-choicers have the equivalent in pictures of women dying from back alley abortions.
What a great marketing plan Planned Parenthood has! They get paid through government funds and for billable services for providing “safe sex education” and contraceptives to our youth through Title X funds and medicaid, and when those do not work, they provide the abortions at an average of $400 each because their “preventative” measures didn’t work. What a great business! How can an organization that has increased the number of abortions each year (255,000 in 2007) and end more babies lives than any other abortion provider say they are for “reducing abortions.” We as tax payers provided $305 million last year to Planned Parenthood and they made a profit of $55 Million during that same time frame. PP is trying to reduce the number of abortions? NOT A CHANCE! They make too much money doing them.
Leave a reply