AmericanPapist Comments
These are the kinds of activities that get snowballs rolling downhill, metaphorically-speaking. Methinks we are about 12 months away from the first prime time documentary about PP. Somebody with sense behind the mike, like John Stossel. As in With All These Budget Cuts Why Is The Nation's Biggest Abortion Organzation Still On The Public Trough. After the charges, and countercharges, trouble. Almost scientific.
God help us if they ever ask for a financial government "bailout". Just remember one thing - the people that work for PP will have to answer to God on the last day. Someone get the popcorn ready!! (I guess that was wrong of me to post)
To be sure, the gift certificates were not offered for abortions. They could be used for abortions, but that wasn't their original purpose.
Let's try to remain factual, here.
It seems to me that this video could be submitted to law enforcement officials in Indiana, and that the girl could be identified as well as the nurse, and then the nurse and boyfriend could face criminal charges. Right?
I don't think the girl was actually pregnant. Nor was she 13, I'd bet. She's most likely a very young-looking 18 year old, claiming she was pregnant at 13 by the 31 year old to find out what the PP staff would do.
Very observant Mike.
I guess the entrapment argument excuses PP?
**************************************************
**************************************************
**************
[not suitable for comment]
"Not to upset your lunch, but this sort of thing should upset us."
I don't think you have to worry about that. Those who would get upset are mostly all banned.
I notice where someone did get upset. Guess what? His post wasn't suitable. What? Did he post in all caps or something?
"To be sure, the gift certificates were not offered for abortions. They could be used for abortions, but that wasn't their original purpose.
Let's try to remain factual, here."
Sure, it's like giving an alcoholic a gift certificate to Joe's Liquors because they also sell peanuts!
It is sad that this PP worker was sincere in wanting to help this girl--to the point of ruining the girl's life, covering up for a child molester and seeing to the death of the child's child.
We see a lot of this tolerant "compassion" and conviction that justice is unjust in zealous abortion escorts and abortion clinic workers.
As long as the government and the public see abortion as a social service this problem will exist. To a social worker, this situation is the equivalent of a poor person being unable to receive food due to bureaucratic red tape.
Fixing the false opposition of pro-life and social justice in our parishes will go a long way toward right resolution. What is most shocking about this video is that the worker believes she is doing good.
Just keep repeating: Pedophiles HATE parental notification laws.
Concerning Jill on the 40 days:
A strong case could be made that the greatest contribution that some national pro-life groups could make to the cause would be closing their doors.
Why, with each year, does Planned Parenthood receive more and more government money?
Let's see. Who would be the person who could answer that question, at least for the last 8 years?
Obama is the best friend PP ever had.
Oy, vey, Katherine. You're back again? And still linking to "Catholics" for Obama?
Does your vision go all blurry, whenever you see Obama either promising abortions for all, appointing pro-aborts to his cabinet, etc.? It's there, I promise you. If only you'll look!
"Who would be the person who could answer that question, at least for the last 8 years?"
Kathrine,
Okay, I'm curious. Can you show evidence which shows how Bush has increased funding? Folks in Washington unfortunately don't cut funding, they just slow the rate of inflation.
"the rate of the lnflation of funds", to be clearer.
David,
You need to go back to the original poster if you are disputing the assertion that PP got more and more money from the government each of the last eight years.
i live in bloomington where this happened
the "13 year old girl" was actually a 20 year old girl that was posing undercover. the nurse in the video has been suspended and an investigation is being launched
http://www.idsnews.com/news/stor...64962&
comview=1
"if you are disputing the assertion that PP got more and more money from the government each of the last eight years."
I'm not. I'm wondering why you hold George Bush responsible for it. Seems to me congressional pro-aborts (Obama?) should be considered, at the very least.
Exactly, David.
Why no presidential veto?
Why Congress? All of the federal money given to PP was done by the Executive Branch. Not a dime of tax money went to PP from a direct congressional appropriation. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? We are talking 2001 - 2008.
(and yes, even if Congress had appropriated an earmark or line item to PP, Bush could have vetoed it).
"We are talking 2001 - 2008."
And I would like to see evidence that Bush is responsible for the increase of government funds. That would have been a pretty big MSM headline, I think.
Either way, Obama will no doubt actively increase PP funding, as he has made it clear where his sympathies are in the "so '90s" culture wars over abortion.
And I would like to see evidence that Bush is responsible for the increase of government funds
Maybe you and I are both mistaken in that we took the statement of a third person at face value that there was more and more money going to PP every year.
I have reviewed the Appropriations bills Congress sent to the president and it does not contain a single line item or earmark for PP (www.thomas.loc.gov). So it looks like Mr. Bush is the problem.
An increase of money to PP does not automatically equal an executive action is responsible, especially when the Executive has professed opposition to abortion. It may be that the rate of inflation led to an automatic increase.
I am still baffled as to why you attack Bush for the increase, when BO will most likely bring about the greatest increase of funding for PP ever. If you believe abortion is wrong, why do you run a site for a man who takes an extremely permissive stance on it?
So if an executive action was not responsible, why didn't Bush refuse to sign and consequently veto any such increase or appropriation? It seems like Mr. Bush's professed opposition to abortion didn't have much traction.
Fausto seems to have it right.
David, I think you need to come up with something better than you are befuddled as to how PP got more money but are sure Bush didn't do it.
Maybe its time to admit the original assertion was baseless.
"why didn't Bush refuse to sign and consequently veto any such increase or appropriation?"
I don't know that the increase could have been vetoed. As I said, funding for all programs usually has a rate of inflation- if there was an increase in funding, inflation may have been the cause. I don't know. All I know is that, if there was a bill which increased funding of PP, and Bush had signed it, the MSM would have been all over it.
So you are suggesting this bill, if it was a legislative bill and not somekind of executive initiative, was a carry over from a previous Democratic majority congress? And all the Republilcan Congresses since, and there have been quite a few, did nothing to reverse the bill? Sounds like the Republican Party talks through both sides of its mouth.
And what is this *MSM* to which you keep referring?
I am saying that, once a percentage of taxes are allocated toward a particular project, then that percentage may increase with inflation.
I am not a republican shill, so you won't find me defending any inaction (thought some in the GOP have at least TRIED to stem the tide, whereas the dems kick out pro-life democrats).
I was merely asking Kathrine to show me the evidence which she believed showed GWB was blame. I would still be open to seeing that.
MSM = Main Stream Media = NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.
"Though", not "thought."
Obama has supported quite a few Democratic anti-abortion rights candidates. As far as I am aware, he has never refused to endorse or even campaign for any who have won their primaries.
It was Bill Clinton who gave the cold shoulder to Bob Casey at his nominating convention.
And most appropriations have to be renewed every year or few years. I really doubt that a congressional appropriation would have gone on being adjusted for inflation for more than a couple years without having to be renewed by legislative action.
I would like to see this whole issue re. $$$ for PP cleared up though. There is still a lack of clarity as to what actually was going on.
I am saying that, once a percentage of taxes are allocated toward a particular project, then that percentage may increase with inflation.
Please explain that. I don't even begin to understand it. Federal government projects are not given a particular percentage of taxes.
It is becoming even more clear the orignal assertion was baseless.
We, the taxpayers, fund the government's budget. Any government funding for PP comes, ultimately, from taxpayers. I didn't want to get this semantic.
"It is becoming even more clear the orignal assertion was baseless."
My original point was that I would have liked you to provide evidence for your holding Bush responsible for PP's funding.
"Obama has supported quite a few Democratic anti-abortion rights candidates. "
I was talking parties.
"I really doubt that a congressional appropriation would have gone on being adjusted for inflation for more than a couple years without having to be renewed by legislative action."
As I said, I don't know. I've heard from at least one pro-life lobbyist that it is extremely hard to get the pols in D.C. to cut anything in their budget that concerns Life issues. One can hope to one day the will be more pro-life congressmen with the guts to cut abortion funding. Until then, Obama will get his way, starting next month.
Meant "One can hope that one day there will be..."
This thread should aptly be designated as David B.'s.
You Go, guy!
Thanks, E. :-)
Bush did indeed sign annually for PP funding. He could have vetoed. Both Bush and Congress were responsible for PP funding:
See:
http://www.covenantnews.com/
lefe...emine041031.htm
The two main sources for Planned Parenthood funding
The two main sources for Planned Parenthood funding that will be examined in this report are the $50 Million plus Planned Parenthood gets annually through the Title X program, and the est. $50 Million plus Planned Parenthood gets annually through the Medicaid program.
This adds up to a total of over $100 million of federal taxpayer dollars given annually, during George W. Bush's presidency, through just these two programs, made possible by President Bush's own signature of approval on repeated HHS Appropriations bills, to Planned Parenthood, the largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers in America, murdering over 200,000 unborn human beings by surgical abortion alone per year.
And please note that there were mostly Republican majority congresses during the Bush presidency.
Fausto,
Hmm. Well, I'd like to know why Bush signed HHS appropriations which had PP funding in them. I know that he vetoed (in spite of loud opposition) an ESCR bill set to him by the recent Democratic-majority congress, so I'd like to find out why he signed these bills and seemingly contradicted himself.
Thanks for the info, Fausto.
Recognizing the importance of Title X, Congress increased funding for the program by $16.8 million in fiscal year 2008 — the largest increase in a decade. However, Title X funding has not kept pace with inflation or the growing ranks of the uninsured.
Were the Republicans in the majority in 2008?
Why am I not surprised to see misleading and the names of certain bloggers in the same sentence. If anyone is interested in Title X funding and this whole issue of Bush funding Planned Parenthood it would be best to do a little research on exactly what it is and what it can or cannot do. You will also find that in some of the various appropriations that money was spent for abstinence education.
What types of services does Title X fund?
Title X funds may be used to pay for gynecological examinations
and basic lab tests; and screening services for STDs,
HIV, breast cancer, cervical cancer, high blood pressure, and
anemia. Title X funds may also be used for contraceptive
information and services, pregnancy testing, and community
outreach. Since the inception of Title X, a statutory prohibition
against the use of Title X funds for abortion has existed
in Section 1008 of the law. It states that no Title X funds
can be used “in programs where abortion is a method of
family planning.”1
How are Title X funds distributed?
Title X is administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). Federal funds are given to approximately
80 regional grantees that distribute the funds
locally to Title X projects and continue to monitor the projects.
To receive funds Title X projects, their directors, and employees must agree to abide by federal guidelines and rules that outline and limit the approved uses of the funds.
Clinics that receive Title X funds can, and do, use funds from other sources as well. These include a variety of other federal programs that may fund family planning, as well as state and local sources. In fact clinics receiving Title X funding obtain, on average, one-quarter of their revenues from the program.2
Has the Bush administration reinstated the “gag rule”?
The “gag rule” has not been reinstated. Currently, a policy
known as the “global gag rule” is in effect. This restriction is tied to international family planning funds distributed by the United States. The “global gag rule” is similar to the previous Title X restrictions in that it prohibits recipients from advocating for abortion rights or providing abortion services. However, the “global gag rule” goes a step further by denying funds to organizations which use private funds to fund or advocate for abortion. So far, legal challenges have been unsuccessful.
And your point IS joannes?
"So it looks like Mr. Bush is the problem."
And your deepest desire for it to be Mr. Obummer for the next 8 years?
ioannes has it correct. Congress appropriates funds for Title X. However, Congress does not direct these funds to any particular organization. That is decided by the Administration.
Commenting by HaloScan
