California Rep. Jackie Speier defends PP, lays down smack

Context: House Republicans have voted to deny all federal funding to Planned Parenthood. That would mean everything goes - the family planning, the contraceptives, the education and outreach programs, everything. Speier (D-CA) spoke out against another representative referring to abortion as child abuse.

Speier: You know I had really planned to speak about something else. But the gentleman from New Jersey just put my stomach in knots. Because I am one of those woman he spoke about just now. I had a procedure at 17 weeks, pregnant with a child that had moved from the vagina into the cervix. And that procedure that you just talked about is a procedure I endured. I lost a baby. But for you to stand on this floor and suggest as you have that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous. To think that we are here tonight debating this issue, while the American people, if they are listening, are scratching their heads and wondering “what does this have to do with me getting a job? What does this have to do with reducing the deficit?” The answer is nothing at all.

Sentimental goop. The issue is whether Planned Parenthood receives tax dollars, not whether abortion is good, bad, or neutral.

PP and all Title X programs receive a bare fraction of a percent of all federal funding, something like less than a tenth of a percent. In the same session legislators voted to continue its NASCAR sponsorship. Now: that NASCAR sponsorship costs a lot less then than the fed funding bill for PP, BUT, that NASCAR sponsorship doesn't provide nearly as much help to the poor and uneducated across the country as PP does.

The attacks on Planned Parenthood's funding were never fiscally minded.

Why the hell does NASCAR get sponsorship?

A good 10-20% of the federal budget is made up of programs that use a microscopic portion of the budget. The other 80% is things no one will cut. Those microscopic portions add up. Besides which, PP is a controversial organization that a significant part of the country loathes. It should be an easy cut, but alas, this is America...

edited 19th Feb '11 8:31:07 AM by comodapoltrona

Why the hell does NASCAR get sponsorship?

Then cut something that doesn't save us 4 bucks on health care for every dollar we invest in it. I would recommend you to the "Streamline the U.S. military budget" thread for directions on how to save real money.

edited 19th Feb '11 8:40:36 AM by RadicalTaoist

Said controversy is manufactured. The religious right has done a good job of embedding the "Planned Parenthood = abortion" meme in the American consciousness, but by distributing contraception at low or no cost, PP prevents far more abortions than it performs. PP also enables people to have children when they eventually want them, by providing screening and treatment for STIs.

What type of fucking moron would cut Planned Parenthood? Their primary service is educating people about non-abortion methods of birth control, and they teach that abortion is the last resort.

They prevent abortions with their teaching of contraceptive use and sexual awareness, that's a good organization that should not be cut.

That's not "sponsorship", that's purchasing ad space.

^

It's sponsorship of the teams, we have an an Army and Air National Guard car that both race. I think active duty has them too.

For the record it's worth mentioning that "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" (aka those organisations designed to try and counsel women out of getting abortion centres) also get government funding.

That was awesome. It's very rare that you get a politician being real.

...wow, you guys REALLY need to get your religious right under control.

Hey, if i had a big enough mob I'd get out the pitchforks, but apparently I'm in the minority.

"PP and all Title X programs receive a bare fraction of a percent of all federal funding, something like less than a tenth of a percent." - Radical Taoist

Fine, but comodapoltrona's point remains; there's a difference between supporting legal abortion and supporting federal funding for an organization that provides abortions.

I say go ahead anyway; abortion is in some cases medically necessary to save people's lives, let alone other cases where's it's still probably preferable to the alternative of expecting someone who doesn't want a baby to nuture a fetus in the womb for 9 months.

Still though, there's a difference between saying "X should be allowed" and "X should recieve public funding." The lady in the video talks about how Planned Parenthood has a right to operate and to provide its services, but note that she doesn't address whether or not that means it has a right to recieve public funding.

Then we'll just have to be a two-person mob, Barkey...

Well, assuming that public health is in the general interest, it should receive funding.

Typical republicans. First it was ACORN now its PP.

Cenk did a great study on the republican sting tactic. Creating doctored videos then media hyping enough to let bills to cut help programs for the poor.

Frankly, the republican party is a blight.

I seriously think that Planned Parenthood should get federal funding. Abortions only make a small percent of what they actually do.

They're a safe place for all sorts of stuff. They provide birth control and condoms, they provide STD testing without questions, they talk to parents about birth options, and provide counseling for people who are stuck in bad situations. I vastly preferred going through PP for my yearly gyno exam, because the gyno that was covered by my insurance was nosy and always had a billion questions about my sex life, then ribbed me about it.

Planned Parenthood asked the needed questions, without making judgements, then did what needed to be done.

^^ All parties are a blight upon politics, and politics itself is a blight upon the civilised society.

Politics is a necessary evil. The republican party is imo a literal blight upon politics itself.

We won't ever have an ounce of civil discourse in political discussion until the GOP dies and something that has shed its blatant corruption and fear mongering takes its place.

I resent the myth that both political parties are equally bad.

It doesn't need to be civilized to be pestered by politics.

I resent the myth that both political parties are equally bad.

All politicians are equally bad and the only thing worse than a politician is a journalist.

Politics is a necessary evil. The republican party is imo a literal blight upon politics itself.

Well, that is a judgement you are making based on your personal biases, but I'm sure there are individuals who believe the opposite.

edited 19th Feb '11 1:40:45 PM by TheGloomer

only thing worse then a politician? Charlie Sheen