ginandbacon: "The appeals court requested a response from Planned Parenthood by 5 p.m. today, said Goodman."

WTF?

gilgigamesh: Lemme guess: those whacky judicial activists on the federal 5th circuit strike again.

And it's the same justice that ordered the administration to explain why the President got uppity with the Supremes over HCR.

You choose the word Uppity to describe a black guy?

unlikely: And every taxpayer dime spent on veterinary care is a dime that can't be cut out of a rich person's taxes.

Since when do government expenditures have anything to do with cutting rich peoples' taxes? Tax cuts don't need to be offset because they for themselves 10-fold by trickling down, or something. It's complicated. I'd explain it to you, but you probably wouldn't understand it.

ElLoco: To be fair... the headline is wrong. Planned Parenthood isn't being blocked from funding. Abortion providers are, though.

I don't care one way or the other about the issue, but the subby didn't read the article for shiat.

And neither did you. FTA:"The group is suing over Texas' decision to bar clinics associated with abortion providers from the program, even though the clinics themselves do not provide abortions."

JDAT: Rapmaster2000: JDAT: SecretAgentWoman: I am still dumbfounded.

WTF decade are we in again? Seriously? I hate fundies so much.

Yeah, trying to get in the way of our baby killing. Who do they think they are to tell us it's wrong to practice a little infanticide here and there. After all, it's our children not theirs.

If Prince Harry aborted his first son would it be regicide or infanticide?

Infanticide. His son would not be Coronated until after birth.

He also wouldn't be an "infant" until after birth, so...

xalres: Ugh. This kind of shiat drives me nuts. The people screaming about their tax dollars going to poor people having kids they can't afford to take care of are the same people fighting to make it impossible for those same poor people to have access to any kind of family planning services or comprehensive sex education. It would seem like they shouldn't be able to hold both positions at the same time without their heads exploding until you realize that they just get off on being enormous assholes, then it all makes sense.

Maybe it's like, "no matter what you do, you're wrong until you ask My God for forgiveness. Then we just talk smack behind your back at the rummage sale."

Charles Martel: By "serving" you mean "aborting more children."

Instead of using euphemisms, just say what you really mean.

[hoatv.homestead.com image 425x319]

0.25/10.0 Weak, but will get nibbles. Children aren't aborted: Fetuses are.

/Although you're putting up a strong argument for post-natal abortion for yourself.

You'd think that they would want black and Hispanic women to get abortions. I mean, it's the same kind of logic that drives certain people to say "WE SHOULD TRY TO OUTBREED THEM!" every time the statistics come out about the growing minority population.

//Only black and Hispanic women are poor, right?

macadamnut: [2.images.theweek.com image 625x470]

only a liberal would think that giving the individual responsibility for her birth control is a way for America to control a womans body.

ElLoco: Jake Havechek: It's God's will that the poor get no pre-natal care.

they do a lot more at Planned Parenthood than just abortions, morons

To be fair... the headline is not really wrong. Planned Parenthood isn't being blocked from funding. Abortion providers and anyone who is associated with an abortion provider in anyway are, though.

I don't care one way or the other about the issue, but the subby didn't read the article for shiat.

FTFY

/Am the subby. Not only did I read the article, I live in Texas, I'm a lawyer and I am well aware of what this law does and does not do.
//thanks for playing

Fundie morons should not be in positions of power. Stop voting for them.

Charles Martel
By "serving" you mean "aborting more children."

You should be studied by scientists to determine how people can get so farking stupid while still able to operate a computer.

Devo: ginandbacon: "The appeals court requested a response from Planned Parenthood by 5 p.m. today, said Goodman."

WTF?

gilgigamesh: Lemme guess: those whacky judicial activists on the federal 5th circuit strike again.

And it's the same justice that ordered the administration to explain why the President got uppity with the Supremes over HCR.

You choose the word Uppity to describe a black guy?

Should I have said articulate? Duder, give your sarcasm meter a good whack.

xalres: Ugh. This kind of shiat drives me nuts. The people screaming about their tax dollars going to poor people having kids they can't afford to take care of are the same people fighting to make it impossible for those same poor people to have access to any kind of family planning services or comprehensive sex education. It would seem like they shouldn't be able to hold both positions at the same time without their heads exploding until you realize that they just get off on being enormous assholes, then it all makes sense.

That's kinda the point. A good part of the issue is where the procedures are being performed and with what frequency. But hey, I'm conservative, so let's just take care of the poor black bastards now.....

TWX: "carouse in debauchery"

a fine band name good sir.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Charles Martel: By "serving" you mean "aborting more children."

Instead of using euphemisms, just say what you really mean.

[hoatv.homestead.com image 425x319]

0.25/10.0 Weak, but will get nibbles. Children aren't aborted: Fetuses are.

/Although you're putting up a strong argument for post-natal abortion for yourself.

It's worse than that, in that the issue from the article has absolutely zero to do with performing abortions... The "serving" in question is providing health care to poor women... And, they're being excluded not even because they also perform abortions, but rather because they are "associated with" other clinics that do perform abortions...

dnicoloff
only a liberal would think that giving the individual responsibility for her birth control is a way for America to control a womans body.

Preventing Planned Parenthood from providing services to poor people is "giving the individual responsibility for her birth control"? No, just no. In what way has any of the shiat the GOP has been pushing this past year or two been designed to give a woman "individual responsibility for her birth control"?

You can't possibly be this stupid. Go away, troll.

Texas already pays in the billions every year for medical care of low income and non-citizen woman....you would think they would welcome the help.

Cutting abortion funding will not fix this issue. The majority of women who get abortions get them because the pregnancy is unplanned. Even the people who have the children, regardless of their ability to afford them, are typically having unplanned children. So, by cutting abortion funding you are doing nothing to address the issue. You are simply treating the symptoms, and blindly at that.

I agree: we do need to pull money and resources out of Planned Parenthood. We need to take that money and focus on sterilization measures. When a girl turns ten, she should be medically and temporarily sterilized. To encourage parents to comply, we'll offer $500 cash up front, and ten year minimum sentences of both parents if they are still non-compliant after one year. Then, when the young lady grows up and decides that yes, she does want a child, she can got to a state run facility, give back the $500, and have the sterilization reversed. This would be after a one year waiting period so she can be sure of her choice.

If we just help people actually plan for parenthood, we'll be a lot better off as a society. And there would be almost no need for abortions, so everyone wins.

Smith was in the spotlight a few weeks ago when he reacted to President Obama's remarks about the U.S. Supreme Court

Obviously corrupt, in need of a lasting remedy.

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: TWX: "carouse in debauchery"

a fine band name good sir.

Thanks! It sounds better to explain the RHPS after-party as carousing in debauchery than it does to say, "everybody got drunk and farked each other"

MadMonk: So, when do they start attacking women's right to vote? I mean that is pretty much the end game of what they are planning isn't it? Or is it something more spectacular like whole sale slaughter of women in the streets?

Tbh women probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. They will naturally vote in the best interests of the head of their household, tha is, their husbands. That's giving married men twice as much say in government as single men. Thats discriminatory.

DubyaHater: Now, I'm not one of those "lawyering types", but if abortion prostitution is legal in this country, how can the state prevent an organization that provides abortions prostitutes from providing other basic medical services? My mind is full of fark

Here, I fixed it for you. This is basically the same thing.

King Something: Rapmaster2000: Free association. The law will be struck down.

Alito/Scalia. The law will be upheld.

Sotomayor and Kagan so it balances out. Scalia has Thomas in his pocket, but Ginsburg will vote against. That's 2/3 of the SCOUTUS right there. Kennedy seems blessed with more common sense than the other Justices, so he'll probably go against. That just leaves Breyer and Chief Justice Roberts... It would take both of them to side with Alito/Scalia to uphold the law. Breyer usually hangs out on the left side of the house, so advantage: us.

/just visited the SCOTUS yesterday. Really wanted to see the basketball court...

Yet this is all happening under an Obama Nation.

Hmmmm.

Where are all the Texans that always show up in these threads to defend their pitiful state?

spentmiles: I agree: we do need to pull money and resources out of Planned Parenthood. We need to take that money and focus on sterilization measures. When a girl turns ten, she should be medically and temporarily sterilized. To encourage parents to comply, we'll offer $500 cash up front, and ten year minimum sentences of both parents if they are still non-compliant after one year. Then, when the young lady grows up and decides that yes, she does want a child, she can got to a state run facility, give back the $500, and have the sterilization reversed. This would be after a one year waiting period so she can be sure of her choice.

If we just help people actually plan for parenthood, we'll be a lot better off as a society. And there would be almost no need for abortions, so everyone wins.

In all seriousness, there are Contraceptive Implants, Intrauterine Devices, and even shots of Depo-Provera that would all be effective in suppressing female reproduction, but given the climate we live in where non-parent rightwingers are fighting against the Human Papilloma Virus Vacccine, I don't see how what you propose would have any possibility of being implemented at all.

I object to what you propose on the grounds that it would be applied unevenly, with racial or economic bias, and would thus become a eugenics program. Since eugenics has been a platform widely held by facists, I can see no way for such a program to ever be workable, and even if it were introduced in a workable fashion, I certainly can't see it remaining sacrosanct enough to be left unblemished by the political ideas of the day.

That Texas Secession thing looks more and more inviting every day.

<Airplane! quote> I say let 'em crash! </Airplane! quote>

spentmiles: Cutting abortion funding will not fix this issue. The majority of women who get abortions get them because the pregnancy is unplanned. Even the people who have the children, regardless of their ability to afford them, are typically having unplanned children. So, by cutting abortion funding you are doing nothing to address the issue. You are simply treating the symptoms, and blindly at that.

I agree: we do need to pull money and resources out of Planned Parenthood. We need to take that money and focus on sterilization measures. When a girl turns ten, she should be medically and temporarily sterilized. To encourage parents to comply, we'll offer $500 cash up front, and ten year minimum sentences of both parents if they are still non-compliant after one year. Then, when the young lady grows up and decides that yes, she does want a child, she can got to a state run facility, give back the $500, and have the sterilization reversed. This would be after a one year waiting period so she can be sure of her choice.

If we just help people actually plan for parenthood, we'll be a lot better off as a society. And there would be almost no need for abortions, so everyone wins.

Suggesting to sterilize the poor is a pretty slippery slope.

Mavent: Jake Havechek: It's God's will that the poor get no pre-natal care.

they do a lot more at Planned Parenthood than just abortions, morons

But... but... Republicans have assured me that abortions are WELL over 99% of what Planned Parenthood does!

If by 99% they mean 3%, then yes, Absolutely.

Vermicious Knids: Oh, FFS. As a Vagina-American, I'm so glad I don't live in Texas.

I will henceforth be using this term a lot.

Everyones whipping boy: spentmiles: Cutting abortion funding will not fix this issue. The majority of women who get abortions get them because the pregnancy is unplanned. Even the people who have the children, regardless of their ability to afford them, are typically having unplanned children. So, by cutting abortion funding you are doing nothing to address the issue. You are simply treating the symptoms, and blindly at that.

I agree: we do need to pull money and resources out of Planned Parenthood. We need to take that money and focus on sterilization measures. When a girl turns ten, she should be medically and temporarily sterilized. To encourage parents to comply, we'll offer $500 cash up front, and ten year minimum sentences of both parents if they are still non-compliant after one year. Then, when the young lady grows up and decides that yes, she does want a child, she can got to a state run facility, give back the $500, and have the sterilization reversed. This would be after a one year waiting period so she can be sure of her choice.

If we just help people actually plan for parenthood, we'll be a lot better off as a society. And there would be almost no need for abortions, so everyone wins.

Suggesting to sterilize the poor is a pretty slippery slope.

Funny, considering we don't have a problem murdering children.

As a woman, and a life-long Texan, I've been following this closely. I used PP during college when I didn't have a whole lot of disposable income. I never went there for an abortion, but I did get my annual "well woman's exam" and birth control pills. Had that service not been available, the state would likely be spending way more than that paltry $100/year to support my babies. Not because I was a slut who slept around, but because I was in a commited relationship with someone I loved and we wanted to express our love to each other.

Unfortunately, issues like this are what keep me a 1-issue voter. I'd like to deny that I am, but the fact remains, as long as there is a political ability to rule my uterus, I must continue to vote against Republicans. And, to this day, I remain completely dumbfounded that a woman would block access to PP because of a political agenda such as this. Come on sister, we didnt suffer all those years just to turn on one another.

/Texas, we're not ALL crazy. Well, maybe. Must be the big hair.

TWX: In all seriousness, there are Contraceptive Implants, Intrauterine Devices, and even shots of Depo-Provera that would all be effective in suppressing female reproduction, but given the climate we live in where non-parent rightwingers are fighting against the Human Papilloma Virus Vacccine, I don't see how what you propose would have any possibility of being implemented at all.

I object to what you propose on the grounds that it would be applied unevenly, with racial or economic bias, and would thus become a eugenics program. Since eugenics has been a platform widely held by facists, I can see no way for such a program to ever be workable, and even if it were introduced in a workable fashion, I certainly can't see it remaining sacrosanct enough to be left unblemished by the political ideas of the day.

Also it would allow women to have sex whenever they want with whomever they want, as well. We just CAN'T have that.

/slutty McSlut, sluts!

Guidette Frankentits: Um, don't you have to lose the case to have an appeal and be seen before an Appellate court???

Someone smarter than I want to explain this?

Sure, it's "smarter than me". You're welcome.

How do Texans keep women from voting?

Kill you babies, I can't tell you what to do. (You are obvoiusely to busy farking to use birth control, or just don't care at all about killing your babies).Just don't expect me to pay for it WITH MY TAX DOLLARS.
THAT"S THE POINT, IDIOTS.
As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.
Don't be a hypocrite. Admit you want TOTAL control, with no consequenses.
Unless, of course, you have found a way to have children without sperm.....

You are making me laugh and sad at the same time...

dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

Ned Stark: MadMonk: So, when do they start attacking women's right to vote? I mean that is pretty much the end game of what they are planning isn't it? Or is it something more spectacular like whole sale slaughter of women in the streets?

Tbh women probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. They will naturally vote in the best interests of the head of their household, tha is, their husbands. That's giving married men twice as much say in government as single men. Thats discriminatory.

I really hope you're being facetious and don't really believe that to be an accurate statement (not the part about women being allowed to vote).

dpzum1: Kill you babies, I can't tell you what to do. (You are obvoiusely to busy farking to use birth control, or just don't care at all about killing your babies).Just don't expect me to pay for it WITH MY TAX DOLLARS.
THAT"S THE POINT, IDIOTS.
As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.
Don't be a hypocrite. Admit you want TOTAL control, with no consequenses.
Unless, of course, you have found a way to have children without sperm.....

You are making me laugh and sad at the same time...

Nobody does asshole. Hyde Amendment you farking fascist. PP is THE MOST AUDITED ORGANIZATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY YOU FARKING TOOL (and a dull one at that!)

Nobody uses your tax dollars to abort a single child. but of course, facts have no place in what has become a totally emotions based argument being furthered by the republican party because...WITHOUT YOU JESUS FREAKS PUSHING YOUR VERSION OF GOD ON THE REST OF US..they'd never win another general election.

But hey....go murder another farking doctor you pathetic weakling,

dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

That's a great point. I hope that one day you actually get in a relationship with a woman and she decides that it's best to sterilize you.

And let's not forget the COST to the State of Texas for its position on this law:
Texas Loses Entire Women's Health Program over Planned Parenthood Law.

Yes, Gov Perry (pants on head R-etarded) allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to cut off all $36 million in Medicaid funding for family planning to the State of Texas by insisting on passing this law (and they told him this would happen in advance). Texas budgeted $3.3 million for these services and the Feds were going to make up the rest.

But don't worry because Perry (R-eally clueless) says the state is going to make up the difference. . . I guess out of Texas' $15 billion in 2012-13 budget cuts

spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

How can any woman ever vote republican? You're just shooting yourself in the foot.

/just like when poor people vote republican
//boggles the mind

Ned Stark: spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

If that's truly the fact, then we should do away with child support payments. And men should have absolutely no say in the abortion debate. Only women should be allowed to vote on a national referendum and then embrace the consequences of their choice.

Farking Canuck: How can any woman ever vote republican? You're just shooting yourself in the foot vagina.

/just like when poor people vote republican
//boggles the mind

Fixed for accuracy.

spentmiles: Ned Stark: spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

If that's truly the fact, then we should do away with child support payments. And men should have absolutely no say in the abortion debate. Only women should be allowed to vote on a national referendum and then embrace the consequences of their choice.

Nice try junior

spentmiles: Ned Stark: spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

If that's truly the fact, then we should do away with child support payments.

Yeah, fark children! I'm with you, buddy. Those little snotnosed brats can starve, for all I care. It's not as if they have rights or anything.

/this is what conservatives actually think

Theaetetus: spentmiles: Ned Stark: spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

If that's truly the fact, then we should do away with child support payments.

Yeah, fark children! I'm with you, buddy. Those little snotnosed brats can starve, for all I care. It's not as if they have rights or anything.

/this is what conservatives actually think

How does your head not explode with contradiction?

Farking Canuck: How can any woman ever vote republican? You're just shooting yourself in the foot.

/just like when poor people vote republican
//boggles the mind

How can you think "you're voting against your own best interest!!" is a good talking point?

no one wants to vote for their own interests. In fact, it polls so poorly you should probably accuse your opponents of doing it, not use it as your own damned pitch.

X-boxershorts: Fixed for accuracy.

I toyed with posting it that way to start but it brought up bad images.Theaetetus: spentmiles: Ned Stark: spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

If that's truly the fact, then we should do away with child support payments.

Yeah, fark children! I'm with you, buddy. Those little snotnosed brats can starve, for all I care. It's not as if they have rights or anything.

/this is what conservatives actually think

As far as conservatives are concerned only fetuses have rights ... as soon as they are born you slap a pair of boots on them and let them pull themselves up by the straps.