Can someone explain the right's logic in attacking Planned Parenthood? Is it just abortion?

[HardWorkingDem]

Other than for the obvious issue of abortion and PP, what is the right's reason for going after funding for PP? Is it just that one aspect of PP? Because if it is not for that single issue, then it makes no ideological sense why the right wants to end the funding of PP.

[DURHAM D]

1. No - the issue is women.

[haikugal]

2. They want to put women in their 'place'...

It's about angry white men exercising their 'manhood' and control over women.

[Iris]

72. No kidding. They don't want those uppity bitch teachers making more than $18K a year.

Every day it just becomes more and more clear.

[RedCloud]

77. except for Coulter geist. She exercises her liberal rights each day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. +1000 more than just correct

these uppity women who want equal rights, really scare them.

[Dappleganger]

3. Right now? I think they're attacking PP because they have no jobs solution.

REally, they got nothing so this is just a diversion.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. It's not a diversion.

They are raging misogynists with a toxic hatred of the poor.

[Dappleganger]

12. Of course they are misogynists.

But I have lived long enough to have seen this morality war waged against us, and this time it's more than just the morality police.

Boner told us their top priority would be JOBS and here we are nearly two full months into the new session and they've got nothing except their moral majority battles which they are waving around again.

I say it's because they never had a plan and this kind of shit razzes up their base the most, hence diverting the nation's attention from the real problem of our shitty economy and no jobs.

[CTyankee]

44. No, they've been trying this for a very long time. I know, I used to work for

Planned Parenthood in CT. It's an old campaign, been going on for years but they've obviously got a foothold with this new Congress.

They really don't like family planning either. They have always hated the Pill and if it weren't for Roe v. Wade, state legislatures would be furiously passing a ban on contraceptives of all kinds, which is what CT had before the landmark Griswold v. CT Supreme Court case. Estelle Griswold was the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of CT and she got together with the head of the OB-GYN dept at Yale New Haven Hospital and law professors at Yale to work on the strategy of testing the CT law and getting the SCOTUS to hear it.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. The patriarchy is the basic building block of authoritarian hierarchy.

Women who can control their reproduction are not as easy to keep in their place.

[david13]

5. A witch hunt. Sexism. A diversionary tactic. Bible thumping gone

insane. Hypocrisy.
They want limited government but then here they want the government to go to absurd personal invasive extents.
Whatever.
dc

[Guilded Lilly]

7. The Republicans cannot hide behind abortion anymore...

as their only reason for wanting to destroy planned parenthood. They simply and blatantly hate women having ANY power. Unless, of course, those woman can be easily controlled.

Today's Republicans are driven by fear and loathing and greed.

Since their November wins, as expected,the "we're here to create JOBS* lying Republican reps in the House are attacking not just Planned Parenthood, but also
NPR and PBS. Heaven forbid that anything be allowed to support women in any way, and help to create intelligent children and educated people. Republicans as usual fear intelligent, informed people and strong, independent women. They are much too hard for them to control.

[brewens]

8. It's part of their system of oppression of the working class. It's

been the same for hundreds if not thousands of years.
It's not just about controlling women. The best way to keep a young couple down is if they are forced to support a family they aren't ready for.

[riderinthestorm]

9. There is a subtext of Rethugs who want to eliminate easy access to contraception.

They hate women and hate that we have choices now. Our ability to now decide when or if we want to have children is maddening to them. It takes away all of their control. Whether it's religiously motivated control of women, or just plain misogyny doesn't matter. They want to take away all equal rights gains that women have managed to create for ourselves in the past 50 years.

[Zebedeo]

10. So far

you have not received in reply to your OP any good faith attempts to explain the right's logic regarding ending federal taxpayer funding of PP. Although I am not on the right, I will do my best to articulate their reasoning on this issue, because I believe I understand it.

They believe that abortion is morally objectionable and they object to their tax dollars funding abortions. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Even if those dollars are sequestered such that they do not pay directly for abortions, they pay for the facilities, the utilities, the salaries, and the operating costs of the PP locations where abortions are performed. Since money is fungible, it makes little difference whether the federal taxpayer dollars are nominally devoted to non-abortion business. The taxpayer funding still finances abortion by subsidizing the business that carries it out.

That is the reasoning of the right on this issue. Their reasoning is not that they wish to wage a "war against women" or any other nonsense. If the left wishes to win this debate, it must address the actual argument, rather than invent strawmen.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. So you deny that outlawing contraception is a core plank of the "Pro Life" movement?

You deny that most of the major "Pro Life" organizations in this country consider oral contraceptives to be abortifacents and morally indistinguishable from surgical abortion?

You deny that the HLA, as advocated by the anti-choice movement for several decades now, is written in such a way that oral contraceptives would be criminalized, and women using IUDs, for instance, might be guilty of "carrying a concealed murder weapon"?

You don't grasp the insanity that logically follows from calling fertilized eggs human beings under the 14th Amendment, which is what the opposition to planned parenthood is really about?

Do tell.

[Zebedeo]

14. Your reply

makes no sense in the context of my post. I simply articulated in an honest manner the argument of those on the right who object to federal taxpayer funding of PP. You are going off in another direction. I said nothing about the 14th Amendment or fertilized eggs or oral contraceptives. The only pro-life group whose principles I know is Democrats for Life of America and I am not aware of any opposition by that group to oral contraceptives. They support the 95-10 Initiative, which seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Why don't you ask them? Does "Democrats for Life of America" support the so-called HLA?

Under Issues/PWSW (95-10) the so-called "pregnant woman support act", they adopt an extremely pissy tone- typical of anti-choicers- about contraception and Title X funding.

Are they anti-contraception? Probably. Certainly telling is the list of groups linked FROM "Democrats for Life of America" (see below) Since you style yourself an expert on what "those on the right" and anti-choicers think, honestly I'm shocked that you claim to never have paid any attention to what these groups have to say on the subjects of contraception and granting rights to single cells.

Here's just one sample-
Pro-Life Action League:

http://prolifeaction.org/faq/stand.php#abc

The Pro-Life Action League opposes artificial birth control (contraception), not only because it destroys the inherent meaning of the sexual act as a sign of permanent, life-giving love, but because of the disastrous consequences it has wrought on our society.

[bettyellen]

21. Wrong! you only know of one pro life group, and they are Dems

limiting contraception and information about contraception has been another aim of RW groups that also after abortion rights.
Amazed that you would attempt to correct people on this thread when your own knowledge is, by your own admission, completely lacking when it comes to the topic at hand. The only straw here is between your ears, silly!

[uppityperson]

19. They would rather many women die, much STD's passed around, than 1 woman get an abortion

They would rather have no contraception available for a hundred thousand woman and men. They would rather have women not be able to get affordable PAP smears. They would rather have numerous women AND men have undiagnosed and untreated STDs, including HIV. They would rather not have women be able to get mammograms or blood work to be tested for thyroid malfunction.

Why? Because a fraction of the money set aside for this wonderful organization would go to not only providing an abortion but also to advising that they were available.

Even in a clinic that has never ever done an abortion, they want it shut down. Because somewhere else, in a clinic several hundred miles away, a woman might get a lifesaving abortion.

How ever could anyone see this as a "war against women"? I mean, I'm SERIES!!!!1111

[Zebedeo]

38. You are doing a nice job

of articulating the pro-choice arguments. However, the OP sought to understand the other side's argument. You are ignoring their argument and merely preaching to the choir all the reasons why you like PP. The two sides continue to talk past each other.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. If anti-choicers were really about reducing abortions, they would support contraception.

even the mealy-mouthed ones who don't come out and say it should be illegal can't bring themselves to say they actually, you know, support it.

[Zebedeo]

41. I support contraception

and I believe abortions should be as rare as possible. But that is not the point. The point of the OP is to ask about what the logic of the rightwingers is when they attack federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. I articulated that logic. You are responding with unrelated reasons why you like PP, or your ideas about other topics such as contraception, but you never have addressed the argument of those who wish to end federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. So the two sides continue to talk past each other.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Then like I said, you don't really understand much about the anti-choice agenda.

Because it's ALWAYS been as much about outlawing contraception, as anything.

[CTyankee]

52. zebedeo, get up to speed on this. Here's where to go for the

most complete information about reproductive issues: http://www.guttmacher.org/

Your statement is true as far as it goes. But it is incomplete. It is also what the anti-choice people want you to believe.

I used to work for Planned Parenthood and did lots of research in my job (raising money). Guttmacher is unmatched as a resource.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. Do YOU wish to end federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood?

[Zebedeo]

59. I have no position on it

and my personal views are not relevant to the subject of the OP.

[bettyellen]

69. but you are parroting the RW spin, by downplaying the RWers position against contraception Dishonest...

You seem to be the least informed person on this thread regarding the RW stand on reproductive rights.

Why do you post here if you only know of the Dem side of it? If you can;t be knowledgeably objective at all- and you're self admitted lack of info on the subject says you are not- you cannot fault others for thinking your thoughts are purely subjective, or off topic.
OP says RW, read up on the full agenda, son, then get back to us.

[Zebedeo]

76. The OP asked for the RW logic on this issue

so I don't see how you can blame me for "parroting the RW spin." I did not say that I hold the same views, only that I understand the argument against giving federal taxpayer dollars to PP.

[bettyellen]

82. RW logic on the issue of Planned Parenthood- you are the only one in this thread making it solely...

about abortion. Just like the Republicans do- because it;s a hot button. But if you knew anything about the entirety of their work against reproductive freedom and privacy rights, if you ever paid attention to the RW groups.....you'd know that they have many more issues with PP than just abortion, they want to destroy it and it;s mission to educate people, and assist them to have baby free and disease free sex. These same RW right to lifers want govt in the bedroom in a multitude of ways, and it;s dishonest to hide their agenda merely because you only "understand"- or are familiar with- their much more publicized agenda of being against abortion.

What you don;t know is what hurts us. And you appear to want to continue on in this ignorant state. Why is that? No response at all from you on some very enlightening links that might help inform your opinions- so you could actually find out what these RW groups have been up to?

If you stopped putting your head in the sand for a moment and quit telling us YOU'RE are okay with contraception, maybe you;d have some time to look into what these groups have done. So next time you might be able to speak fully and objectively on the topic of what PP symbolizes for these RW groups. But right now, you know very little- and the little you do know aligns with the RW spin/ framing. It just matches it perfectly. And that is why you have this entire thread telling you you are being deliberately naive, and are woefully out of your depth in this conversation.

[Zebedeo]

88. I am the only one in this thread

that is doing what the OP asked - articulating the "logic of the right" in opposing federal funding for PP. Everyone else is erecting strawmen like "they hate women." Well, that is ridiculous. Michelle Bachman hates women and is fighting a "war on women"?? She is a woman! I think it is essential to be intellectually honest and honestly state the opposing side's argument. Only by doing that can the argument be countered. If instead, the left merely hurls accusations of misogyny at the opponents of federal funding for PP, the two sides will continue to talk past each other, and no progress can be made in reaching common ground, or in convincing the undecided.

You and others in this thread have accused me of not correctly stating the "reasoning of the right" in opposing federal funding of PP. But I am the only one who has correctly stated their reasoning.

Take a look:

REP. MIKE PENCE, R-IN (1/7/2011): Planned Parenthood and its defenders will claim that the money they've received from the government has not been used to fund abortions. But that is only technically true. There's no question that taxpayer dollars received by Planned Parenthood are used to cover allowed expenses like overhead, operational cost, thus freeing up other money for the clinics that do provide abortion.

TDS

This is what Mike Pence, the architect of the RW opposition to federal funding for PP, said in Congress. It is a matter of public record. This is what I articulated in this thread. NO ONE else in this thread has articulated this. Everyone else has just ignored this reasoning and invented other theoretically possible reasons for the opposition to the funding - reasons that are designed to demonize and ridicule the opposition and ascribe evil motives to them and not to accurately state their reasoning. I do not believe that doing so is a productive exercise, as it leads nowhere. It is far more effective, if more challenging, to faithfully state the opposing side's reasoning as accurately as possible (even if we don't agree with it), and then take it on - show why it is not correct.

[BobbyBoring]

45. Ah, But you must remember

That would make sense. That would be a consistent position. There's no shortage of hypocrisy with these folks

[Withywindle]

27. What do you know about PP's other services?

Basic gynecological medical care for young women who have never ever had an opportunity to see a gynecologist, because her parents have no money or health insurance?

Basic birth control information and condom distribution for young people whose parents thought that any mention of sex was OMG SINFUL?

Emergency medical services for young women with conditions like ectopic pregnancy (which is ALWAYS fatal without ER treatment)?

Basic treatment for routine conditions like yeast infections, chlamydia, etc., that antibiotics will take care of...but again, if you don't have health insurance, there's probably about 1000 involved!

I could go on and on and on. The point is, abortion is not the only reason PP exists. But it's true that part of the reason why PP needs to exist is that many parents are not worthy of their daughters. Sorry but it's true.

[sudopod]

30. Then they've never heard of the Hyde Amendment.

Federal money hasn't gone to abortions since the seventies.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. I eagerly await Zebedeo's reply to this. -nt

[uppityperson]

53. So do I. Zebedeo, tell us what you mean since the Hyde amendment already prohibits

paying for abortions.

[Zebedeo]

58. see your own post #51, uppityperson.

The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions. It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.

So, the Hyde Amendment does not impose a general, permanent ban against federal tax dollars paying for abortions. Instead, it imposes a temporary ban on certain federal funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services being used for abortions.

But you are again missing the point, which I clearly set forth in my first post in this thread. The point is that many people who are morally opposed to abortion object to federal taxpayer dollars going to PP, even if those funds are nominally used only to fund non-abortion activities such as contraception, pap smears, etc. The reason for the objection is that PP is the nation's largest abortion provider, and providing taxpayer funding for the organization helps the organization to stay in business and thereby continue to perform abortions.

Even if you are staunchly pro-abortion and fiercely supportive of PP, it is beneficial for you to UNDERSTAND the other side's argument. Let me give you a "shoe on the other foot" example that will make this more clear: Suppose the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS (Fred Phelps' group) initiated a program of feeding the homeless (in addition to their continued heinous anti-homosexual protests of funerals of soldiers, gays and others), and applied for federal funding of their organization. Suppose that they promise that the taxpayer funding will only be used to finance their homeless feeding operations, and will not be used to support their protests. Of course, the homeless feeding operations will take place in their church facility, so they will use the federal tax dollars that they receive from the government to pay their mortgage, their utility bills, the salaries of certain of their employees, and their public information and outreach ministries concerning the feeding program (including television commercials, billboards and full-page newspaper ads). Would you support federal tax dollars going to the Westboro Baptist Church under these circumstances? After all, no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund their heinous protest activities. They are only being used to provide a useful public service - feeding the homeless.

So, what do you say? Would you support this, or would you oppose any government funding being given to the WBC organization, even if the funds are segregated and used only for homeless feeding operations?

[uppityperson]

63. "Even if you are staunchly pro-abortion and fiercely supportive of PP"? What. The. Fuck?

What does "staunchly pro-abortion" mean? Explain, please.

PP is the nation's largest performer of PAP smears, to screen women for cervical cancer. PP is the nation's largest provider of HIV and STD exams and treatments. PP is the nation's largest contraception educator.

I do not see how you can say I am preaching to the choir yet write "staunchly pro-abortion" and would like you to explain that term.

[Zebedeo]

64. Well?

I am waiting for your answer. Do you support federal funding going to Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church if that church nominally uses the funds for only its homeless-feeding operations?

[uppityperson]

65. What does "Even if you are staunchly pro-abortion" mean?

We are talking about WBC or Phelps. Answer me first. What does that mean?

[Zebedeo]

66. I will not be diverted. You are being intentionally obtuse.

I took time out of my day to explain it to you with an example in which you would object to money going to an organization, even if the money were nominally segregated and going to something of public benefit. You know good and well that you would object to money going to the WBC, but you are afraid to say it, because you know what the implications of that are.

I will not continue the discussion with you until you answer my question, which I posed first BTW.

[uppityperson]

67. You started that example using that term. Explain it please and I will be able to respond.

[Zebedeo]

70. OK I will hold you to your word

There are many different opinions on the issue of abortion. There is a wide spectrum of beliefs within the Democratic Party. Some, such as former Senator Bob Casey, are staunchly anti-abortion (or "pro-life" in the parlance of those who oppose abortion). Most wish to minimize the number of abortions but believe that women should have a right to an abortion under certain, but not all, circumstances. Some are absolutist about the right to an abortion, believing that abortions should be freely available for any reason whatsoever up until the last instant before a baby is born, that parents should not be notified, even if the abortion is being performed on a 12-year old girl and she is taken across state lines to have the procedure performed. Some believe that gestational age is the key factor, and that if a baby is born prematurely and is therefore not of full gestational age (9 months), infanticide on the newborn should be permitted. Those on this extreme are what I would call "staunchly pro-abortion." They believe that they should not and must not give an inch on the issue, and for them, no compromise or reasonable limitations on the right to an abortion may be considered. Of course, in their parlance, they would call themselves "pro-choice." But "pro-choice" is an imprecise term, because it could also accurately be used to describe the middle group, who generally support the right to an abortion, under certain, but not all circumstances. I used the phrase "staunchly pro-abortion" in a sentence to the effect of, even if you are staunchly pro-abortion, it is advantageous to understand the view of those who hold the opposing view. The "you" that I used in the sentence was not intended to refer to you personally, uppityperson. It was the form of "you" meaning "one." Even if one does not agree with the opposing view, it is advantageous for one to understand what their thinking is. Since the OP specifically sought to "understand the logic" of those who oppose federal funding of PP, my explanation was provided in that spirit. The point is that even if someone is extremely supportive of abortion rights, it would benefit them to understand where the other side is coming from in terms of their reasoning.

Now, please answer my question: Would you support or oppose federal funding of the Westboro Baptist Church if they initiated a homeless feeding program?

Edited to correct spelling typos

[uppityperson]

74. Who believes that infanticide is fine? Who? Thank you for showing your true colors.

You say "Some are absolutist about the right to an abortion, believing that abortions should be freely available for any reason whatsoever up until the last instant before a baby is born, that parents should not be notified, even if the abortion is being performed on a 12-year old girl and she is taken across state lines to have the procedure performed. Some believe that gestational age is the key factor, and that if a baby is born prematurely and is therefore not of full gestational age (9 months), infanticide on the newborn should be permitted. "

Bull. Shit. Except for "some" meaning Dahmers and Mansons of the world. Thank you for stating so clearly what you believe. It helps us understand where you are coming from.

"Suppose the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS (Fred Phelps' group) initiated a program of feeding the homeless (in addition to their continued heinous anti-homosexual protests of funerals of soldiers, gays and others), and applied for federal funding of their organization. Suppose that they promise that the taxpayer funding will only be used to finance their homeless feeding operations, and will not be used to support their protests. Of course, the homeless feeding operations will take place in their church facility, so they will use the federal tax dollars that they receive from the government to pay their mortgage, their utility bills, the salaries of certain of their employees, and their public information and outreach ministries concerning the feeding program (including television commercials, billboards and full-page newspaper ads). Would you support federal tax dollars going to the Westboro Baptist Church under these circumstances? After all, no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund their heinous protest activities. They are only being used to provide a useful public service - feeding the homeless."

I do not support any church having federal funds. Yes, you can read that again. I support NO church receiving federal funds. Not UCC, not WBC. None of them. I believe in the separation of church and state and no federal funding of any church.

[Zebedeo]

87. You are avoiding the point of the question

"Suppose the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS (Fred Phelps' group) initiated a program of feeding the homeless (in addition to their continued heinous anti-homosexual protests of funerals of soldiers, gays and others), and applied for federal funding of their organization. Suppose that they promise that the taxpayer funding will only be used to finance their homeless feeding operations, and will not be used to support their protests. Of course, the homeless feeding operations will take place in their church facility, so they will use the federal tax dollars that they receive from the government to pay their mortgage, their utility bills, the salaries of certain of their employees, and their public information and outreach ministries concerning the feeding program (including television commercials, billboards and full-page newspaper ads). Would you support federal tax dollars going to the Westboro Baptist Church under these circumstances? After all, no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund their heinous protest activities. They are only being used to provide a useful public service - feeding the homeless."

I do not support any church having federal funds. Yes, you can read that again. I support NO church receiving federal funds. Not UCC, not WBC. None of them. I believe in the separation of church and state and no federal funding of any church.

OK, so change the hypothetical to another group whose activities you oppose - Blackwater, Halliburton, Operation Rescue. Would you oppose federal taxpayer funding going to these groups if the groups assured you that the money would only be used on their operations related to feeding homeless people? Or would you oppose federal funding going to them, because by supporting them financially, the government would be furthering the activities of these groups which you find morally objectionable?

[bettyellen]

83. infanticide? really- where do you get this bullshit?

[uppityperson]

68. You won't clarify so I can answer, use offensive terms yet wonder why we can't come together.

And you claim you can read my mind. You are something.

[uppityperson]

51. Info on what the Hyde amendment is: barring use of certain fed funds to pay for abortion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.<1> It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.
The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976 by the House of Representatives, by a 207-167 vote. It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. The measure was introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and represented the first major legislative success by the pro-life movement.
(clip)
The Stupak–Pitts Amendment, an amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, was introduced by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. It prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother,<5> and was included in the bill as passed by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009. However, the Senate bill passed by the House on March 21, 2010 did not contain that Hyde Amendment language. As part of an agreement between Rep. Stupak and President Obama to secure Stupak's vote, the President issued an executive order on March 24, 2010 affirming that the Hyde Amendment would extend to the new bill.<6>

[Hello_Kitty]

37. The "actual argument" is bullshit. eom

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. OK, that is "the reasoning of the right". What's yours?

[Zebedeo]

61. I understand

the arguments of both sides on this issue. I have no personal position on it. In general, I favor policies that minimize the number of elective abortions that take place. However, my personal views on the issue of abortion are irrelevant to the subject of the OP and I do not want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate over abortion generally. The topic in the OP is an inquiry as to the "reasoning of the right" in opposing federal funding of PP. When I posted my first post in this thread, I did so because none of the replies to the OP articulated the reasoning of those who oppose such funding. Instead, all of the replies were composed of either snark, or strawmen, or both. I attempted in good faith to provide a genuine response to the OP that articulated the reasoning of those who wish to end taxpayer funding of PP.

[Book Lover]

75. Do you think ...

the argument that PP is often the only safe and affordable place for many women to get healthcare, and that by defunding PP you ipso facto take away health care for many people, is an effective one?

[Zebedeo]

81. Could be

if the premise is true and if people can be convinced that it is true.

[uppityperson]

84. It is very true. Can you be convinced of it?

[Warren DeMontague]

11. No. They want to institute Biblical Law and outlaw non-procreative fucking.

The real goal has always been not just to overturn Roe v. Wade, but also Griswold v. Connecticut.

[tavalon]

36. That's what the fundies want

Punish the woman, punish the child.

But the Republicans are even more craven, if that's possible. They don't give a flying fuck about woman's rights, they just want the fundy vote so they pretend that they give that flying fuck every time it's voting time and then they just forget until the next time they need some fundy assholes vote and off they go again against PP.

[Skittles]

15. it empowers women

you know, to make their own decisions - repukes cannot have that

[kenny blankenship]

16. Hating Women has no logic

According to religious taboo, women are to be kept subject to insemination by men at any moment --by rape, by incest and, if absolutely necessary, by consent. They should never ever think they have control over their own bodies. Historically, Planned Parenthood has been an enemy of the messengers of the All-Inseminating, Everlashing God on the issue of abortion. That will never be forgot. Birth control for women, a blasphemy itself, leads to them stretching forth their hands next to take from the Tree of Reproductive Autonomy, the most forbidden of all rebellions against the Penis Father, Penis Son, and Penis Spirit. If Birth Control is allowed to exist, abortion becomes more likely. Even if Abortion was eradicated they would carry on and extend their war to then eliminate Birth Control. Inflicting as much harm as possible to Planned Parenthood therefore is enjoined upon all believers as a duty of faith. It's payback time for decades of sowing rebellion among women against their godly duties as baby factories, and a prophylaxis against the Planned Parenthood organization ever again acting as a provider of abortions or a disseminator of information on abortion. It's not enough to defeat Planned Parenthood's mission to enable reproductive freedom for women. Their house must be knocked down, their fields must be razed, and the ground plowed with salt.

That may be a mite shocking in tone, but that's all the logic to be found in the Religious Right's war on the uterus.

[BobbyBoring]

46. A Big Amen Brother!

[burrowowl]

17. They don't like women

When birth controls pills came out, women had to have permission from their husbands to obtain them.

[uppityperson]

20. Abortion is murder while denying access to contraception, std/hiv tests, mammograms, other lab test

for adults isn't. It is that simple. If one single dollar goes towards providing an abortion, or even discussing abortion with a pregnant woman, then the organization should be shut down because abortion is murder.

All those women and men who are unable to be tested for HIV and STDs and cancer? Well, they can always go somewhere else, right? And if they can't, they probably have some sort of sin on their souls where something this big (in parentheses to follows) () is innocent and does not deserve to be murdered.

And all those women and men who cannot get contraception that works? Well, you made your bed, you should lie in it.

[EFerrari]

22. When I interviewed him, Frank Schaeffer told me abortion

gets a reaction like no other issue does on that side. Nothing has that kind of heat.

Going after a national brand like Planned Parenthood adds to the media pay off, too, imo.

[HEyHEY]

23. Genitals are evil. That's all there is to it.

[applegrove]

24. They want women to go back to a time when they had no information.

[Withywindle]

26. Agreed with the first poster, the issue is women.

PP does abortions. Whoopty. That's a TINY part of what they do.

They do free or cheap pelvic exams and pap smears. They give out birth control and condoms to women who have no money and are afraid to broach the subject to their patriarchal "owners" (husbands or fathers). They do counseling at no cost to young women and young men in need.

They diagnose cancers of the breast, cervix, ovaries, penis, and testicles way quicker than any for-profit facility would do.

I think a HUGE part of the reason why the right is going after PP is because they provide health care for the uninsured. Period. And if they can hang it on the fact that most of PP's clientele is sexually-active young people? All for the good!

But if you want to throw young women and men under the bus? Hello, nice to meet you, fuck you die. I have had friends who have died because of lack of good sexual health care, and I would SO rather have them here with me than you.

[upi402]

28. red meat to the rabid, distraction and avoidance cuz they have no real plan.

and they don't want one. all is going to plan for them.

[Motown_Johnny]

29. Women, Abortion, Poverty, Abstinence Only .....

you name it, they can hate it



(Edit for clarity, they hate all birth control other than abstinence)

[blogslut]

31. It's easier to tell people what to hate and fear

...than it is to trust them to make their own choices. They want their supporters to act. Fear and hate are stronger motivational tools than telling people to think for themselves.

[lonestarnot]

32. two-fold, they need cannon fodder and they need to exercise dominion.

[BrightKnight]

33. Life begins at ejaculation? I can't understand why they are going after title X!

As I understand it these funds are never, ever used for abortions. Condoms save lives and prevent abortions. Even the Pope accepts them in some circumstances.

[Initech]

79. I like Stephen Colbert's take: "For this guy life begins when you first think about having sex. "

[tavalon]

34. Women are a fantastic wedge issue

Fetuses, even better. Wedge issues are the bread and butter of Republican politics.

[tavalon]

35. The Republicans are sucking up to the fundies

Fundies hate PP.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. It's everything that has been mentioned by other posters above.

Since when has anything the RW done required logic? The RW are masters of inflammatory rhetoric to distract, divide and conquer.
- If the issue were truly murder, then they would logically work for reasonable gun controls.
- If the issue were truly the continuation and well-being of future generations, they would logically work for universal health care, child care, access to functional and comprehensive education systems, together with social and financial equality.
- If the issue were truly religious, they would logically wonder why teachings have been inconsistent over the centuries, even in the Catholic Church, one of the most consistently anti-abortion religions. Even for the Catholic Church, it depends on what century one was born in. And it was always men who decided, most often purportedly celibate men. See, e.g., http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

[HardWorkingDem]

42. To further add to my confusion....

(This is only my perception of how the right sees organizations such as Planned Parenthood) - If the right sees organizations such as Planned Parenthood as organizations that cater to the poor, minority and (to them, now, not me) people that are dependent upon the government, then would it not be in their interests to want to see organizations funded to prevent (again, in their perceptions) people they see as dependent upon American society become even more dependent?

This is why I wondered if it is mainly about abortion and the hard right - but with the other answers, it appears there is thought it is also a deep seated why for the right to keep women dependent upon men.

On top of this, cutting the funding for these types of organizations seems to fly in the face of their perception of the unending "welfare cycle."

But I guess no one ever accused rethugs of being logical or rational.

[slackmaster]

47. Money

Conservatives don't like paying for the consequences of other peoples' life choices.

[uppityperson]

50. Getting cancer is a consequence of a life choice? Hypothryoid also?

PAP smears and mammograms are done by PP. So are lab tests like for thyroid malfunction.

Or do you mean paying for contraception? That people who have sex for whatever reason should pay for the consequences of doing so?

[slackmaster]

56. That's exactly how they've explained it to me.

Or do you mean paying for contraception? That people who have sex for whatever reason should pay for the consequences of doing so?

Precisely this.

I don't agree with it, because it's unreasonable to expect people to abstain from sex. Giving away contraception at public expense makes sense to me because it's cheaper than the predictable alternative.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

54. I see you're in agreement with this Republican initiative, then. -nt

[slackmaster]

57. I think it's rather bizarre that you could come to that conclusion from what I wrote.

Don't shoot the messenger, and please read reply #56.

The fact that I am able to articulate someone else's view does not mean that I agree with it.

[uppityperson]

62. How did you get an agreement from an explanation? I don't see that at all.

"Conservatives don't like paying for the consequences of other peoples' life choices." does not = I agree with this.

[jtown1123]

89. Uhh abortions are 3% of what PP does. It provides health care, STD testing and other

general care services and concraceptives.

[TheKentuckian]

60. They serve women, the poor, and the worst is they serve poor women.

Not to mention the organization is supported by liberals.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. It's more than women. It's scapegoating...

The Rs can't do a damn thing to improve the economy so they are finding easy targets to scapegoat. Women's rights advocates and unions, all of whom are Democrats.

[spanone]

73. not only women but poor woman.....

[Initech]

78. They hate anything that might actually, you know, help someone.

[RagAss]

80. You need this explained?

THEY WANT THE POOR DEAD !!!!!

Any questions?

[demmiblue]

85. It is about a cadre of conservative boys that have their willies in a bunch.

Not much more than that.

:shrug:

[demmiblue]

86. Forgot to add that...

they don't like women (on an equality basis), and that it is the premiere wedge issue. Control, control, control!


Edit: ok, it is much more than bunches of willies. I digress.