Imagine that! Paying military personnel is 'non-essential' but keeping Planned Parenthood running is.

Pretty much says it all dont you think?

LEAVE PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND ABORTION OUT OF THE BUDGET BILLS AND DEFENSE SPENDING GETS CUT...FIRST

Reid and Obama probably agree with you. So why do you think they haven't proposed it?

YOUR guys first. THEY made all the promises last November. Rememeber the 'November to remember"?

SOTB: Imagine that! Paying military personnel is 'non-essential' but keeping Planned Parenthood running is.

Obama fell into that trap pretty easily, almost naturally. And the optics for Obama, they just don't look good on this one.

Uhhh...just asking.

If the government shuts down over this issue...

Why aren't both parties to blame for allowing that to happen?

Either (or, both) could choose to avoid it.

You're still here, JoAnna...?

ME TOO!

YOUR guys first.

See H.R. 1 - for the 112th Congress.

I know, JoAnna...

But I thought they liked me.

I really, really thought they liked me.

41% of NYC pregnancies end in abortion. Pregnancy is not a health issue - (it is actually a sign that every thing is working fine) - it is an inconvenience.

If someone wants an abortion, fine go get all the ones you want. If they don't have the money - libs are free to support all they want.

But why should we borrow money to pay for others' inconveniences when we are broke? Insane.

Planned Parenthood is the world's abortion service. And this the sticking point!

Talk about throwing the baby in the dumpster with the bath water.......

What is wrong with liberals.

MB: I really, really thought they liked me.

They do. They just have "presentation" issues. Therapy is helping them.

This short-term budget fight really is NOT about fiscal issues, but about policy issues. And, it's part of a grander scheme dear to the ultra-right's heart. The battle now isn't just about Planned parenthood, either - there are major issues involving the EPA and health care reform. The latter two fit in with a broader term of policy-driven proposals in Paul Ryan's proposed 2011-2012 budget. The following is long - but a lot shorter than my complete magazine-length article on this subject:

Paul Ryan's "budget" uses the populist veneer of "debt and deficit reduction" to cover over a much more significant policy objective:

Ryan’s budget is the mechanism for obdurate anti-government factions to eliminate a major portion of American public institutions long despised by the ultra-right, targeted by the old John Birch Society - now reincarnated as the Tea Party - and set in place an entirely new foundation of philosophy of government.

The Tea Party objective is to entirely revise the existing American “social contract” with one based on Jacksonian democracy, giving virtual “laissez faire” scope of individual or collective business behavior unhindered by law or regulation, guided by self-interest alone – and its accompanying caution, “caveat emptor,” or, let the buyer beware, and vesting power in the hands of those who have the will or resources to take and use it.

This new “social contract” has little need or use for government at any level, and absolutely no justification for social programs of any kind provided by public finance or activity.

This battle does not go back to the 2010, 2008, or 2006 elections. It has been ongoing since 1933 - and perhaps, a bit before. Some would say it began with Pope Leo XIII and his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which demanded workers be paid “a living wage,” given benefits, and described other rights of workers as well as obligations of employers.

The American “Social Contract” Since 1933

Each major evolution of national government since the nation’s founding has operated on a basic assumption about the powers of government, rights of the people, and an overall concept of why the nation exists as well as what the nation wishes to accomplish – this is what “social contract” means.

The “social contract” still largely in place now, but under attack, developed as the country battled through the Great Depression, World War II and into the Reagan Administration – when the first significant changes in at least policy actions undermined the way the “social contract” was addressed.

Many features of this general understanding of national purpose and interest had been coming into being during the reformist periods under Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. A few contributions took place during the 1920’s, but the trends only coalesced into a coherent basis for government and public expectations during the Roosevelt Administration.

Re-shaped Government Emerges Under Roosevelt
and Successive Administrations

Over his pre-war terms in office, President Roosevelt essentially re-created the Federal establishment and put in place many of the departments as institutions of a new American system of government. That system of government’s philosophy embraced the entire population, and included:

• aid for the helpless,
• food for the starving,
• reward to the elderly for their years of work building the nation and its economy,
• encouragement to the jobless,
• protection for investors small and large from the schemes and frauds of the wily,
• recognition of the arts as a vital and uplifting aspect of national culture,
• assurance that farmers might survive drought, flood, other natural disasters, and despite world fluctuations in demand during a Depression, a minimum fair price for their products,
• fairness for workers engaged in negotiations with employers,
• defense against workplace exploitation of children and a minimum wage across the land,
• support for small business growth and stability,
• work, when none else was to be had, building and maintaining infrastructure of cities, counties, states, and the nation,
• reform of the nation’s currency and financing structure, including an end to a “hard money” gold standard.

As historians relate, from the very beginning, the New Deal achievements were under vicious attack from the Republican right, as well as a Populist segment of the Democratic Party. Some attacks ultimately were successful in the immediate post-war years, but not many.

The most virulent opposition was to Social Security, claimed to be the leading edge of “socialism” and an unearned, undeserved prop for reckless, improvident people. That was (and remains) a claim that ignored the actual character of Social Security, which was not socialism but a public monopoly, a national pension insurance pool funded entirely by workers’ and employers’ contributions and kept completely separate from the national Treasury.

Over succeeding Administrations, other Presidents (from Truman through Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter) expanded the services and operations of the new public institutions, and added a few more – the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Education. New related programs included Head Start for lower-income children of pre-kindergarten age, and Medicare, established after a hard-fought political battle that ended in 1965. Later, health care for the poor was offered in the Medicaid program, and the extremely effective State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Operating Assumptions of the Post-1933 “Social Contract”

All of these institutions and programs proceeded from the broad philosophy of government that emerged during the Roosevelt Administration.

Overall, the “social contract” embraced the nation as a whole, under a Federalist principle rather than decentralized dispersion of all authority through the states, gave equal importance to all social classes of people, all racial and ethnic groups, and ultimately all persons regardless of gender, age, ability, origin, education, employment or many other distinguishing features.

The overall import of this was that government existed to serve, protect, and enable as broadly as possible the diverse needs and interests of the entire population and the private institutions of that population.

From that philosophy, several working principles had arisen:

• “the economy” did not exist apart from the nation and national interests, but rather was an integrated element of private and public life and thus an appropriate area for government interaction, including support for growth as well as regulation of practices,
• all participants in “the economy” had a stake in it and deserved to partake of its fruits - not merely bankers, investors, entrepreneurs, and stockholders, but also workers at every level, retirees and pensioners, small landholders or bank account depositors, insurance policy purchasers, and their many different dependents,
• everyone in America had a fundamental right to live safely in the society, free from hunger, sheltered, able to access medical care, offered opportunity for education and self-advancement, secure in safe and responsible workplaces, not in the sense of a socialist state, but rather with compassion and minimum support for the helpless and needy, as well as unobstructed pathways for the diligent, ambitious, thrifty, provident, gifted, and fortunate,
• diversity in all its aspects benefits the nation, but more importantly requires special public attention, because established attitudes about race, ethnic origins, native language and other features fly in the very face of “equality,” prevent access to the multiple opportunities and benefits of the greater society, limit the contributions of women, the disabled, and native-born minorities as well as of refugees and immigrants in the country and the community, and potentially create a burden on the greater society if people are targets of discrimination that represses their economic advancement,
• national stewardship vested in all levels of government included not merely protection of natural resources – air, land, water, plants and animals – but restoration as needed and possible of despoiled resources, and restraint on public and private interests where their actions continued or threatened future degradation,
• national investment ultimately repays itself in long-term, cost-effective results, whether by public or private entities, in education, workplace safety and in environmental systems, health and welfare of the disabled, disadvantaged and older people as well as mothers and children, promotion of arts and culture, natural resources restoration and protection, necessary public infrastructure and its maintenance, general public health, advanced science and technology, effective and adequate public safety organs (police, fire, courts and legal services), and as necessary in the public employment of workers, technicians, specialists, and highly-trained professionals to carry out the functions required to implement the investments.

Breakdown: Repudiation of the Post-1933 “Social Contract”

Beginning with election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, three successive Republican Administrations persistently eliminated important mechanisms in government that had implemented the implicit post-1933 “social contract” and several of its operating principles. Some of these measures had catastrophic consequences, both functionally and in terms of American confidence in its government and social system.

Central among these were measures that ultimately excluded most Americans from a full participation in “the economy,” denied or diminished their participation in the fruits of economic activity, protected stakeholders from predatory abuse, and attacked the basic premise of equality regardless of class, race, ethnic origins, or social status.

Primary among the measures were “de-regulation” of key sectors of the national economy – banking, insurance, capital investment, transportation, energy production and delivery, and telecommunications.

In each instance, on the premise of a so-called “free market” governed purely by economic forces that were presumed more efficient than any industry affected by government intervention, “de-regulation” led to massive scandals, failures, frauds, criminal activities, and ultimately to concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of a few who are motivated by pure self-interest.

Consequences: Failure of Republican Administrations to observe the “social contract”

Participation in “the economy” by millions of employees and one-time stakeholders of all sorts in those industries, as well as other sectors of economic activity, either diminished or vanished. Average incomes and standards of living dropped. Frustration, fear, anger and resentment festered, accentuating social divisions and leaving the society unsure of most people’s place in it – and doubly furious if any persons, especially those served by the so-called social “safety net,” seemed to be benefiting at the expense of others.

When the unwise policies of the George W. Bush Administration ultimately led to a worldwide economic collapse in 2008, the calamity put even more pressure on the terms of the post-1933 “social contract.” Remarkably, then President-elect Barack Obama accepted the practical reins of power ahead of his inauguration and proceeded to restore government commitment to the implied compact as well as its operating principles.

And in keeping faith with the American’s public’s concept of the relationships between people and government, President Obama has managed to lead the nation out of a looming abyss. But the damage wrought by the economic collapse shook most Americans profoundly, while the embittered and fearful citizens who had incessantly opposed all developments since 1933, along with some still resentful of the advances of African-Americans and others, raised their voices in a shrill and uncompromising chorus of opposition.

Ye know not what ye do: The Tea Party victories of 2010

Although a victorious President, supported by a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, restored the commitments of the “social contract” in the midst of desperate economic conditions, the most committed ideological opponents of that “social contract” bellowed a rallying cry of “we want our country back!” Spurred in part by a small segment of racists deeply offended by a half-Black President, carrying the decades of resentment toward social changes regardless of race or ethnicity, and disappointed in the ultimate failure of Republican policies of 30 years’ effort, the opposition to the post-1933 “social contract” crafted an ad-hoc coalition cleverly named the “Tea Party.”

Sporting a crust of patriotism and alleged devotion to national Constitutional fundamentals – most of which were misunderstood or even completely mistaken – the Tea Party followers succumbed to a populist, oversimplified definition of national issues. Most participants did not know that the central core of their loose organization was dedicated to overthrow of the implicit “social contract” and its accompanying operating principles – but they did “know” that economic dislocation, community problems caused by fiscal distress, and simple terror at forces too great to be understood were clearly the fault of a massive government that lay as helpless, apparently, as the individual before the force of events.

Thus the election results of 2010, when frustrated voters sought new representatives to tackle the dogged economic issues, elected a wave of fresh officeholders intended to bring a more temperate and conciliatory approach to the long-divided partisan coteries in Washington, D.C., and different ideas about how to promote more rapid growth of employment. The Tea Party’s extreme ideological posture in opposition to the existing “social contract” only drew 22 per cent of voter endorsement in 2010, while 56 per cent of voters said the Tea Party was irrelevant.

However, Paul Ryan and his Tea Party colleagues in a new House Republican majority interpreted the results to their own interest. And they dug in their heels – no compromise on their principles, no change in their government targets – win the war in the trenches, essentially, or die “fighting the good fight.”

Nothing less than a revolutionary change in the American “social contract,” accompanied by radical changes in government and governance, would be acceptable.

So now the battle for the basic idea of the “American way” is in progress.

The Paul Ryan budget proposal describes a new relationship between the governed and the government. It is one in which pure self-reliance and self-interest are exalted, while communal obligations to neighbors and fellow-citizens are eliminated. It is one in which the state and national organs of government devoted to balancing individual interests in contrast with those of wealth and private power are eliminated. It is one in which the concept of a public stewardship is refuted.

It is one in which the role of the state to provide minimal basic protection and support for the needy, the helpless, and the infirm is eliminated, while the public obligation to referee the behavior of business is minimized. It is one in which the role of culture is stricken from a public engagement, where public health and safety are diminished, and in which the government’s provision of many basic services from safe roads and bridges to public education are challenged.

The Paul Ryan 2011-2012 budget proposal is nothing less than a revolutionary change in the basic philosophy of American government. It is not driven by supposed economic necessity or the stresses of fiscal difficulties, but rather by a raw desire to at last fulfill the long-festering resentments of ultra-right ideologues. It is not a proposal that most Americans would support when seen as a whole piece of public policy and fundamental revision of accepted national ideals.

I wonder what corporation lurks behind this anti- abortion group? The antidisestablishmentarianist kills me. Righties always talking about freedom, yet they want to stop other peoples.

Susan B Anthony was a suffragist. I'll bet she is turning over in her grave.

I thought I had seen everything. I cannot imagine the political calculation that goes into taking a position such as this. How can reasonable people who support a woman's right to choose, automatically be added to a group that wants the populace to pay for it unilaterally with borrowed money and call it an assault on woman's rights. I call Bull$hit on that right now.

Call it for what it is. Cuts in optional programs. Likely many more to come. No program should be spared scrutiny. All forms of spending should have to stand on their own merit. Every entitlement, defense weapons system, foreign aid and yes, new health care subsidy. Cut them all until the books are balanced and the debt is no longer on the accumulation, but rather pay down.

Bev,

Righties always talking about freedom, yet they want to stop other peoples.

Do you not understand ........ freedom to have an abortion does not mean that all the abortions you want are free - that other people have to borrow money to pay for them.

Please don't tell us you don't understand this distinction.

John A.-400474

Paul Ryan's "budget" uses the populist veneer of "debt and deficit reduction" to cover over a much more significant policy objective:

Ryan's budget is the mechanism for obdurate anti-government factions to eliminate a major portion of American public institutions long despised by the ultra-right, targeted by the old John Birch Society - now reincarnated as the Tea Party - and set in place an entirely new foundation of philosophy of government

Wow, thanks John

I often thought T-baggers were John Birch Society remnants. Now I know why Paul Ryan's budget is " Cruel and Unusual Punishment"

bob-

"41% of NYC pregnancies end in abortion."

That can't be true, bob.

It can't.

What would it say about our society if it were?

bob-1805084

Bev,

Righties always talking about freedom, yet they want to stop other peoples.

Do you not understand ........ freedom to have an abortion does not mean that all the abortions you want are free - that other people have to borrow money to pay for them.

Please don't tell us you don't understand this distinction.

Is money all you think about? No matter how the procedure is paid for it's still an infrigement on the person's right.

You righties got a lot of nerve telling some one what to do with their body. You even want to tell gays what to do with their bodies.

You shameless hypocrites

"...the procedure..."

The "procedure", Bev?

Just collapse me now, Bev.

OK?

Bev - actually, there is some REALLY useful information about the origins of the JBS, and how those old connections set up inside the TP. A wild conspiracy book about recovered Nazi and Japanese war loot gives some deep detail. The name of the book is Gold Warriors, a deliberate pun since the authors say a lot of that loot was used in Cold War black ops.

Bringing the book up actually also calls to mind the extremism of many 1940's-50's U.S. officeholders and officials - they were wont to call just about everything "socialism." The same kind of ignorant, foolish, uninformed perspective lingers even now, sadly - and is one of the epithets right wing fanatics toss around. It only highloights their stupidity, of course, but hey, it's gang-speak for the like-minded, makes them feel kinship with the other baboons in the cage.

Lots of trolls with all kinds of "facts" about abortions but no sources. Why am I not surprised!

Military personnel who die during a shut down? Their families won't get the $100,000 death benefit to assist with the funeral and everything else like moving. Senators Donate your paychecks to these families first during the shut down. It is the right thing to do!

By the way who reduced the death benefit? I remember it being $200,000.

I got a better "benefit" for our troops...BRING THEM HOME, send them to college and dismantle our over stuffed DoD. Then, ALL our budget issues will be solved. Win-Win

I wish people would get the facts first

1) Abortion is not funded now by any federal monies

2) Planned parenthood, as an organization, is funded for all activities except abortion.

Why are we funding one organization? The vote is whether to move that authority down to the states to decide what they want to fund (so locally we have more power). There are many organizations that serve the same purpose as planned parenthood and are not funded....

this is no different then when the republicans held hostage unemplyment benefits until the super wealthy got tax breaks. every thing on the republican side is about payback

None of this matters.

What matters is that Planned Parenthood is $300 million, and the projected cuts are $60 billion. Planned Parenthood could at most make 0.5% of the budget cut goal. That's a rounding error and is like making the price of a bag of chips $1.01. It's anal-retentive to approach this from a fiscal standpoint.

Nobody is in this for the money because there is no money. Both sides are in it for the content of the plan.

TO: RealAmericansFirst who wrote:

Here are the riders the GOP put on the continuing resolution bill:

Prohibits funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program.

Prohibits funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program.

Prohibits funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

Prohibits funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program or the State Energy Program.

Prohibits funding for various environmental projects in California.

Prohibits funding for a climate change czar in the White House.

Prohibits funding for EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Prohibits funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water.

Prohibits funds for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Prohibits funds for the EPA to implement regulations to designate coal ash residue as hazardous waste.

Prohibits funding for the IRS to implement health care reform.

Prohibits funds for a White House Director of Health Care reform.

Prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions beyond the very limited circumstances in which federal funds are currently available (in circumstances of rape or incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman).

Prohibits funding for needle-exchange programs.

Prohibits funding for sections of the Public Health Service Act.

Prohibits funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates.

Prohibits funds to pay any employee, officer or contractor to implement the provisions of the health care reform law.

Strips funding for any provision of the health care reform law.

Prohibits funding for the US Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation, UN Population Fund, or for foreign NGOs that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That does it! Shut it down until the Tea Bagging Republicans take that crap out of our budget!!!!!

If Speaker Boehner was really "damn serious", would he be adding contentious political issues onto this federal budget bill?

GOP/TP are creating a crisis in order to quickly push through unpopular legislation which has no chance of passing under normal circumstances.

This tactic is being used across the country at the State level, so don't be hypnotized.

Recognize what is going on.

The Dims pretend to stand on principle by saying they stand for "women's health". Laughable.

Planned Parenthood gets a couple of hundred million.

Perspective. The amount of the cut desired is 12 billion dollars. Planned parenthood is miniscule.

Perspective........The amount of interest (that money which is not productive) to service our debt last year was 4 HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

Cut PP, Cut farm subsidies, cut the DOE and a few other wasteful institutions. Cut as much as it takes to put the govt on a track to remove our debt.

It's pure stupidity that our govt will fund the killing of babies but balk at paying our men and women who protect our nation.

This whole episode is posturing by the loony left which, unfortunately, control the Democratic Party.

@ doug it's funny how none of the faith based initiatives got included in the cut list, as a matter of fact the only things the repubs are going after are things the far right despises. I will give you pp if you agree to remove the tax excempt status of all churches.

You have to admit, it's a good question-

No, it isn't, except to the weak-minded

He wouldn't be defending it if it hadn't been "attacked."

If the game is "who started this?" then the answer is pretty easy to see.

All republicans have to do to end it is to agree to put the Planned Parenthood question aside for another day.

But they don't want to, do they?

Is that because most Americans oppose de-funding Planned Parenthood, and they know this is the only chance they've got to forward this part of their ideolotic agenda?

there you go again with your name calling.

ME???? Out of all the nasty and vicious posts on this site today, you've picked MINE? Too funny.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

This is negotiations, SickOf, and you play the cards you've got.

You're on fire today, Anna Molly!

I disagree with virtually everything you've said (as usual), but your passion is undeniable.

The way things are going at First Read, you're lucky to have a conservative to beat up.

They don't like dissent much here, do they?

They don't like dissent much here, do they?

Define "they." But if you mean liberals, it doesn't seem like the tactic is working. I notice that this thread, in particular, focused on a "wedge" issue, drew plenty of conservatives.

I disagree with virtually everything you've said (as usual),

Good to hear it. Otherwise, I'd be worried.

your passion is undeniable.

D@mn straight. ;-)

How many abortions will not occur if the government stops funding Planned Parenthood?

Uhhh...let's see...

Hmmm...carry the 4...

0?

Don't worry, AM-

If the recent past is prologue...

Our comments will disappear shortly.

MB: Hmmm...carry the 4...

Didn't think there'd be math, did'ya?

MB: 0?

So why exactly are Obama and his abortion supporters going to the mat and shutting the government down over this one?

JoAnnaSmith1

How many abortions will not occur if the government stops funding Planned Parenthood?

How many Abortions will be pervented if the government does fund planned parenthood. Its not striange that teen and unwanted pregnecys have declined because of planned parenthood. Planned parent hood is Not a abortion factors, it is a educational tool men and women need to pervent pregnecys. once again your falling for that old trick that the republicans play.

Planned parenthood pervents pregnecys, which pervents Abortions.

the way i see it planned parenthood saves the right wing untra consertaves tax dollars with having to pay more in tax for unwanted babies. you want to deny Abortions right, but at the same time you cry that we are spending too much taking care of weflare babies. so you all should jump on that.

The FY 2012 Obama Administration budget proposal taught me to love math...and hate it, as well.

Almost all abortions are "perverted", Jeff...

Or...did you mean "prevented"?

So why exactly are Obama and his abortion supporters going to the mat and shutting the government down over this one?

It's called push-back, baby, and it's about time.

I've noticed recently that conservatives don't like that very much.

Sucks not to get your way, doesn't it? ;-)

Almost all abortions are perverted, Jeff...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Grasping for an argument, are you? He didn't say "perverted" and he didn't say it TWICE.

Relax, AM-

As I said, if recent events are any indication, you won't have to view the offending remarks for too long.

And...he didn't say "prevented" TWICE either, did he?

AM: It's called push-back, baby, and it's about time.

Obama will fold. He always does.

Sorry Anna .. I usually find your comments reasonable. These are not. You cannot have it both ways. The Democracts could have passed a budget with anything they so valued. They could also pass an amended version in the Senate right now of the most recent budget passed by the house and add the funding back in that they want to protect. But they do not. And instead choose to give speeches.

You would be better served to direct your anger at Mr. Reid. Why don't you ask him to actually pass something. Anything. Then go to conference committee to reconcile the differences.

I am 100% in support of pro-choice. But this is an indefensable position to make it the wedge issue for not passing the current bill or at least amending it it the real issue is as Mr. Reid claims. All Reid has to do is amend the bill and add the funding back in. Ask yourself why he does not.

Obama will fold. He always does.

Maybe, but we can dream.

You would be better served to direct your anger at Mr. Reid. Why don't you ask him to actually pass something. Anything.

I'm not angry. What gave you that idea? Just giving dear JoAnna a little something back for all she has given me. And in kind.

I'm sorry if you're disappointed with my comments, but I actually agree with yours pretty much 100 percent. Although President Obama has to take his own share of the blame. And it is about time democrats stood up. Maybe THAT'S why Reid doesn't go back and pass something.

You ARE wrong about one very big thing, however. Democrats didn't make it the wedge issue -- republicans did that. And they thought they would get away with it. Because they always do.

Well, surprise, surprise. For once the Democrats haven't blinked, and I really don't care which issue it was -- I notice that someone blinked on the EPA part -- just as long as they finally make a stand on SOMETHING.

If you're really 100 percent pro-choice, then you know that Planned Parenthood is important. Don't fall into the trap that Republicans are trying to set. That's exactly what they want you to do.

As for having it both ways, isn't that what being "independent" is for?

Well, this is the way I see it. Just like when the repubs/Tps held unemployment payments hostage for tax cuts. This time they are holding the military hostage to get their way on abortion, WHICH IS COMPLETELY LEGAL and NOT funded by planned parenthood federal money. They are the ones causing the problem on something that should not even be on a stop gap bill!

Anna Molly - The emphasis on Planned Parenthood diverts the public's attention away from a far more insidious list of funding prohibitions in the "riders" - here's a list, plucked from a post elsewhere on the 'vine, written by RealAmericansFirst:

That list resonates all too closely to the analysis I posted above about the long-term goal of the Tea Party - to fundamentally change the American political foundation. it is destructive, short-sighted, and would really accelerate the dissolution of the national society, but they don't care. They are fanatical zealots.

As both you and Bev have noted, also, the GOP/TP advocate in some cases a return to the Republican policies of the past - policies that have demonstrably failed and led the world into catastrophe. It's a clear example of the definition of insanity - repeating what you know hurts you!

You can be sure I am pro-choice. And I am also coherent enough to know that Planned Parenthood provides many useful services with the majority not being abortions. I disagree on who gets the credit or blame for the wedge issue. Reid owns this now. He can and should amend or pass a funding bill. I think it is a bit naive to give him a pass. Reid is the one setting the trap. He knows that abortion rights are a wedge issue. And that abortion rights are not the topic, funding for Planned Parenthood makes his political spin work out that way. Reid could easily amend the bill, pass it and fight it out in public in a conference committee. He knows in the long run the funding, or lack thereof is the defining issue. Not a woman's ability to obtain an abortion because that is her legal right. Thus he is shifting the debate to the wedge issue, not the funding issue.

You are right about being independent though. I do have it both ways and I often dissagree with many a post on this vine from both the right and the left. In the case of the budget, I side with the right on this one. It is the Dems that have screwed the pooch by not passing a budget when they could and playing the wedge issue right now. It is purely a political calculation on their part. It may work as most of the voters will not know the whole story and will vote their emotion. As evidenced by many of the post verbiage found on this vine.

There goes JoAnna again making stupid comments because she doesn't understand so well. The question, JoAnna is how many more abortions will occur because poor and low income women will not have access to contraception and contraception information. So JoAnna contrary to your opinion, abortions will probably increase due to lack of contraception available through Planned Parenthood.

The Independent - What are you talking about? If the President and Democrats agree to totally defund Planned Parenthood, Harry Reid can't take it out on the floor of the Senate because the government would shut down again due to the House not being willing to pass legislation without that rider in it

@ John A ~ Thank you so much for that list. I'm sure most people don't know about all of those. I certainly didn't except for the EPA stuff.

@ Independent ~ Maybe you should take a close look at John's list and see if it changes your thinking about who's playing what game here. After all, an Independent is always free to change his/her mlind. Someone else here said that the riders are nothing more than ideological earmarks, and it certainly looks that way, doesn't it?

But where on earth did I give Harry Reid a pass? I have NEVER given Harry Reid a pass.

Because I think independently, too.

Joanna, let's put it another way.

How many children will be born with no way to support them if Planned Parenhood is de-funded? If there is no counseling. Or birth control discussion. Who will care for these children?

fielden

Joanna, let's put it another way.

How many children will be born with no way to support them if Planned Parenhood is de-funded? If there is no counseling. Or birth control discussion. Who will care for these children?

this post is why I'm glad not to be a republican, at lease democrats care about the little guy, children and women, republicans thinks we are back in the 50s when on the surface every thing was rosie, but they were not.

I'm a liberal and against Abortion but i know that a woman has the right to choose and have access to brithcontrol, and yes abortion in case of rape, incest or the womens life.

consertives don't want acess to brithcontrol, or a womens right to choose, they want women to let it flow, and hope for the best which is sick in many ways. to them if a child is raped then its her fault, If a womens husdand beats her and she chooses not to bring her abusers child in to the world they will say, she should not have married him. again sick.

Now now Laurie. Surely you understand that the Senate can amend and pass any version of any of the bills that have arrived before them from the house. The resultant bill would go back to a conference committee where the public debate would be legitimate, rather than the speeches we get right now. If they were smart, and they believed they had a winning issue, they could take the most recent extension bill, add funding for planned parenthood back in and handle the reconciliation in conference committee.

Civics 101 and a risky political calculation to rely on the wedge issue, rather than fix the lack of a budget for the current fiscal year.

It's not a good question because it totally ignores the point that the Republicans put it there (among quite a few others) in the first place knowing full well the controversy that it would cause. The Republicans deliberately proposed something they knew would not pass in an attempt to paint any fallout on Obama and the Democrats. The percent of the budget that this issue is of the total is miniscule so bringing this up as a budget issue clearly has ulterior motives. A question for The Independent-2245816- Wouldn't any bill amended in the senate have to be sent back to the house for approval? I don't think that the senate can just willy nilly modify any house bill and send it on. Any bill reported out of a joint committee has to be voted upon again by both houses. So no. the president is not grandstanding--if the Republicans are willing to hold the budget hostage to thier social agenda the first time then they would the second time also. He is right to draw the line now.

Mike . that is precisely what the conference committee is for. To reconcile the differences between the legislation and send it back for another up or down vote. If the Senate had some brains, and they feel the GOP is out of line with public opinion on funding for PP they could amend the bill, add funding back in and pass it. Then we would have two bills, one with PP funding and one without. And public opinion would then be be tested. And those that are out of touch with their constituents position would suffer the consequences in the next election cycle.

Democracy at it's finest. I honestly cannot say how that one would turn out, but the simplicity and transparency would be priceless. And rare as we all know politicians like to hide their true beliefs if they think they are not popular.

Other than aborting children.....where is the proof that PP prevents unwanted pregnancy?

@Doug Ponders: Planned Parenthood provides low-cost birth control, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and screens for other health problems. I should know, because I have been there, and not for an abortion.

Again... pretty much says it all dont you think?

Three things you don't touch with conservatives:

Personal greed. Ideolological bias. Personal greed.

You forgot the 4th, AM- "MY God is better than YOUR God".

Too true, drive-by ... only too true.

DB:

We can do without your blasphemy.

#5 - Stuff that blows other stuff up!

(We can do without your blasphemy.)

G-o-o-a-a-l-l!!!

OK. (But- which God did I 'blasphme")? wouldn't want to do it again....

JoAnnaSmith1

Three things you don't touch with the Liberals: 1) Unions, 2) the Environment, and 3) Abortions.

what the hell is wrong with making sure our drinking water is safe, making sure employees have a fair working rules, and women don't have to go to a back alley clinic to obtain a abortion because her drunk uncle raped her. but lets face it Joanna you don't care.

@ Anna Molly 4.2

I wish I could vote for you comment TWICE LOL.

They can't see that their comment: Obama gives up Gov for Abortion.... can be used the same towards them: Repugs gives up Gov for abortion... Go figure.

Those Repugs are a strange bunch...

What are you guys talking about? It works both ways. Obama hasn't suggested PP is MORE important than troops . Why won't Repubs remove it as a rider......????? IS IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN TROOPS TO THEM???????? JoAnna you have proven again to be the most narrow-minded

gpotts-1106111

What are you guys talking about? It works both ways. Obama hasn't suggested PP is MORE important than troops . Why won't Repubs remove it as a rider......????? IS IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN TROOPS TO THEM???????? JoAnna you have proven again to be the most narrow-minded

What Joanna is missing and falling for is that if Bohnor was SOO concerned about the troops, why he and his fellow republicans vote no on the VA bill signed 2 years ago, but i forgot this was when all the republicans could do was say no.

He said back then that the bill was too expensive.

this is why i don't trust them, during the lame duck secsssion he held unemployment up for tax cuts, now he is holding the government up for Planned parenthood.

see trust.

DB:

Do you know that personally or just accepting it as so because some Liberal told you so?

You don't have access to their records so there is no way you prove the funding is private vs federal.

Think Progress:

KYL: Everybody goes to clinics, to doctors, to hospitals, so on. Some people go to Planned parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. You go to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.

In fact, the opposite is true. According to Planned Parenthood officials, more than 90 percent of the health care services provided by the organization is preventive in nature. Each year, it provides more than one million cervical cancer screenings, 830,000 breast exams, and nearly four million exams, treatments, and tests involving sexually transmitted diseases. The federal funding received by the organization goes strictly toward these basic needs and others, such as birth control and annual exams.

If no deal is reached, Kyl and his Republican colleagues will be left defending their absurd decision to shutdown the government over a community health organization.

_____________________________

So what's it going to be Republicans? You are going to shut down the government over PP? Sure sounds like it.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, allowing yourselves and this nation to be hijacked by a bunch of busy bodies who have nothing better to do with their lives than cause such ridiculous grandstanding.

Stay out of people lives. Stay out. What right have they got to tell us where to get our medical exams? They have zero right.

Go after the corporations in this country who pay no taxes. This is absurd. How dumb and petty can these people get, holding our country hostage over this?

Simple minded dishonest hacks. Go ahead and blame the President. It isn't going to work.

Kyl knows what is best for women? You have got to be kidding. He looks like a Newt Gingrich/Tom Delay wannabe. Which by the way, is exactly what he is. No more. No less.

Stand your ground Senator Reid. Stand your ground. These people are screwballs.

_____________________________

Senator Reid just said:

The House leadership, with the Speaker, have a very clear choice to make. And they don’t have much time to make that choice. They can keep their word and signficantly cut the federal deficit, or they can shut down America’s government over women’s access to health care. If that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is ridiculous.

@in the middle: Don't you think if the republicans found planned parenthood using federal funding to perform abortions in violation of the federal funding requirements and against the law that they would have the means to cut their funding without adding ridders into the budget to do so? This is all about politics not money...

IntheMiddle, TX

DB:

Do you know that personally or just accepting it as so because some Liberal told you so?

You don't have access to their records so there is no way you prove the funding is private vs federal.

But it seems YOU have their records that DO support YOUR positon on this? Share 'em, will ya?

It is public information....Abortion accounts for 2% of PP expenditures, most of which are covered by the patient. This is just typical right wing "boogieman" politics! Much like "headless bodies in the desert" and "death panels"

ITM:

You don't have access to their records so there is no way you prove the funding is private vs federal.

Not true. Planned Parenthood is routinely audited by the Government Accounting Office to make sure they are spending federal funds appropriately. The GAO reports on this. If there were signficant and verifiable issues, I'm sure Republicans would be screaming about them.

As I understand it, Planned Parenthood has to do the accounting on its abortion services separately just for this reason. As one might reasonably expect.

Its was a Democrat controlled House of Representatives controlled by Nancy Pelosi

It was a Democrat controlled Senate controlled by Harry Ried

And a Democrat President Barrack Obama

That gave us the Obama Tax cut Extentions......

and Remember Obama was Agasint it before he was For it.... Just like He was Against Raising the Debt Limit before he was for it.. Just like he was For Trying Terrorist in America Before he was against it.. Just like he was For Closing down Gitmo before he was Against it..

We understand that you will never Admit that it was the Democrats that controlled everything that gave us the Obama Tax cut Extentions.. .. you still wish to blame it on Republicans.

George Bush is no longer in office.

Steve- Your last line gives us all cause to smile, even if for only a minute or two, on this fine Friday.

Hey DBO.

Dont worry when Planned ParentHood is Defunded we will be expecting Obama to take Credit for it Since there are so many other things that he has been FOR or Against. but has changed his mind on..

Planned Parent Hood will never be defunded. President Obama knows that such a move would cost him the 2012 election.

Steve-O

Who gave us the 'unfunded wars'? You left that part out!

.....and yes, Thank God, Bush is no longer in office..

Well Chilled ...

I guess the third unfunded war in Libya does not count, right?

Stop them all in as quick and reasonable manner as possible. Save the dollars and move on.

Well, some things just have to be answered. Usually, I ignore Steve and his lying propaganda but this time - well, there are answers he doesn't want to read. Of course, he'll have some slick spin to come back with, and I don't think dealing with turd-greased material is worth the effort. So here you go, Steve-er-rino, your only time to get off the stool, wipe yourself, and find out what the facts are:

Let's start with a recap - not for advantage, but for focus:

Steve-505729

Its was a Democrat controlled House of Representatives controlled by Nancy Pelosi

It was a Democrat controlled Senate controlled by Harry Ried

And a Democrat President Barrack Obama

That gave us the Obama Tax cut Extentions......

Oops, Stevie-boy, a little problem there. During the VERY brief lame-duck session, the President worked his way through a BUNCH of legislative goals. And gee ... he had to COMPROMISE with the Repblicturds. He held his nose and took the deal - remember, jerkwater? So here is a President who made deals - lots that I don't endorse - to get across his broader agenda, which I did endorse. Say, isn't that just the precise opposite of what the Tea Party maniacs are doing NOW?

You lose. Again. You lie. Again.

and Remember Obama was Agasint it before he was For it.... Just like He was Against Raising the Debt Limit before he was for it.. Just like he was For Trying Terrorist in America Before he was against it.. Just like he was For Closing down Gitmo before he was Against it..

Ah, yes, another example of how compromise, forced by Republithug behavior in Congress, ultimately frustrated not the will of Obama, but the will of the nation. Remember that little detail of how Republithugs decided Manhattan was the WRONG place to try the leader of the 9/11 conspiracy? How Republithug operatives stirred up fear across the nation for moving Gitmo prisoners to continental U.S. lockups? The President was RIGHT in his original intent, and his purpose was to uphold American integrity and honor - which George W. Bush besmirched and YOU don't give a SH!T about.

We understand that you will never Admit that it was the Democrats that controlled everything that gave us the Obama Tax cut Extentions.. .. you still wish to blame it on Republicans.

Nahh, the demographics as well as the balance of power in the lame duck sessions demanded compromises. The Democrats, as far as I am concerned, gave away too much - but you and your vile kind were never satisfied. Even now, you insist on the whole vial of poison, regardless of how sick you are making the nation. Well, you piggy-piggy-piggy, guess what? You ain't gonna be able to swallow the apple whole. Just lie back down on the banquet table and let your cooked pork rind tempt dear old Newtie to snatch a piece.

George Bush is no longer in office.

Thank God for small favors. The idiot is still probably trying to remember the chord sequence on his guitar that was interrupted when someone told him New Orleans was drowning. Unfortunately, he left the septic tank full, and now it continues to overflow onto the national front yard.

I'd like to see Blackwater and its ilk of mercenaries payments stopped and that business declared illegal. I'd like to see all forms of corporate welfare eliminated. And I'd like to see all government regulations which promote the transfer of technology and jobs out of the country ended. This of course includes NAFTA

But you won't see this happen, because somewhere around 1994 The Republican Party decided the United States of America would serve their grubby greedy needs better if it were a third world country.

YES. YES. YES.

And TRUE, except that 1994 is merely the date on which they first managed to grab control of the means to carry out their long-standing plan. They thought about it for a long time before that.

no the "plan" was put into action, when reagan was elected. see.."starve the beast", "trickle down economics" then see.."who's really behind repubican legislation","american legislation exchange commision", heritage foundation, and it goes on and on. it's no longer a government for the people.

As a taxpayer, I don't want my tax dollars used to subsidize oil companies, pay Blackwater or Halliburton, or fund loans for businesses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Besides, no tax dollars fund abortion currently. You really need to keep up.

Your absolute lack of critical thought makes you such an easy target for those who want to destroy your life! Abortion is being used by the right because people like you latch on to it without questioning or researching what reality is. If you are genuinely interested in stopping abortions, you should volunteer at at teen shelter, of distribute condoms in high povert areas--(oh yeah, religious folks don't believe in that either). Defunding pp will not stop abortions--they will continue on the black market. You need to think and read before posting your kneed jerk illogical nonsense

i, as a tax payer, do not want my tax dollars used to pay for michelle bachmans farm welfare !!!!!!!!!!!!

Like cutting your nose off to spite your face. If there was any actual logic being used by the tea party people, then they would see how planned parenthood helps their goals of no abortions.

As a taxpayer, I don't want my tax dollars used to subsidize oil companies, pay Blackwater or Halliburton, or fund loans for businesses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Besides, no tax dollars fund abortion currently. You really need to keep up.

I, as a tax payer refuse to have my tax dollars used to start a war over non-existant WMD's.

This may be just a way for the American Taliban (teabaggers) to get their moral idiocy passed. But it also may be a good time for all Americans to take to the streets and take our WALL STREET GOVERNMENT back to a MAIN STREET GOVERNMENT..

We spend more than the combined expenditures of all nations on DEFENSE. There are your cuts and tax the corporations, the wealthy and foreign made goods.

Look at the way our government ran in the 1950's, before we were taken over by Wall Street.

FAIR TRADE NOT FREE TRADE.

Lets take our government back during the shutdown. That would reallly screw those teabaggers!

Yes, again and again and again.

David Church, you should also look a GEO transport.

No reasonable person is in favor of these subsidies. You should take a look at the reasons why they were passed and the fact that they had broad support from both parties at the time. The problem resides with the law making process and that things never get repealed once they have run their course.

I am with you on cutting the subsidies in addition to all the other proposed cuts. Prepare new legislation for programs that deserve a debate on funding only after there is some sanity in the budget. And keep in mind that this problem only exists because the previous congress failed to pass a budget for the current year in the first place.

The Independent - Title X that funds Planned Parenhood was signed into law by .......Richard Nixon and the prime sponsor of the legislation was....George HW Bush done back in the 1970's. Helping poor and low income women with health care and women's reproductive services was never a Democratic/Republican issue until the extremists took over the Republican party. PP services provided are 90% health care and 10% abortion services. Funding for abortions has been illegal since the early 1990's with the Hyde Amendment and these two services are keep separate from each other. What's your beef with health care services for poor and low income women?

Laurie ..

You must have mistaken me for a right wing activist.

My beef is with the budget, not Planned Parenthood. Surely you recognize that the debate over Planned Parenthood is an ideological pawn for the looming debt ceiling battle. And I expected better from the Democrat's given they controlled the House, Senate and the Executive when this should have been handled. Why are you surprised that the programs the Democrat's hold most important are the ones up first for consideration during a budget crisis of their own making.

In case you are wondering my position as an independent, the cuts need to be across all programs and moderate in nature. One cannot damage the nascent economic recovery with massive Federal job cuts. But, the cuts need to be significant over several years and at a pace to signal to the world that holds our debt, and to the businesses and entrepreneurs that produce lots of jobs, that the government is capable of curbing the runaway spending. Then and only then can you also begin making reasonable and moderate tax increases to help on the revenue side. Our politicians are not worthy of making new spending decisions until they prove they can eliminate some obsolete programs and make reasonable cuts to those that need to contribute to a more reasonable spending level.

Much of what "independent" says is reasonable and I agree with it. However, the assertion that the previous congress should have provided a rational budget is not reasonable. It ignores the expected "NO" in the Senate where most of the Democratic legislation died through filibusters and secret holds.

In other words, passing a budget in the House would have been a waste of time and, if you recall, the House was pretty busy with other stuff which stood a chance of passage.

with rape being the exception, the majority of posters here have not mentioned personal responsibility when it comes to the issue of getting pregnant in the first place...

mitchj - It's people who think like you that are destroying this country.

mitchj is right my neighbors house caught on fire and the fire department put it out. why are my wife and i paying for the fire department our house wasn't on fire..

that radical right wing has been in the shadows for 30 years, only now are they being exposed. the agenda has been to create a crisis,military, financial, religious etc. then use the crises to advance their conservative movement.