First off, that's a big exception. Planned Parenthood is a very important care provider for expectant mothers. From wikipedia: To answer your question (rush job, sorry), and sticking to recent bills, here's an op-ed that criticizes the 2011 House GOP budget: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html From the National Women's Law Center, on the same bill: http://www.nwlc.org/resource/house-...s-hr-1-devastating-women-families-and-economy From Indiana, last month: http://www.abc57.com/home/top-stori...tal-care-for-women-on-Medicaid-205042651.html I would be remiss not to point out that there are some conservatives who support expanding prenatal care (the governor's veto was ultimately overcome). From Nebraska, last year: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-nebraska-prenatalcare-idUSBRE83C1JR20120413 Actually, I want to dwell on this last article for a bit. As I've pointed out, conservative politicians are generally content to get votes based on abortion and then neglect what should be pro-life causes in prenatal care, health insurance for children, and healthcare in general. But this looks like an example where that hypocrisy was pointed out and highlighted in stark terms (by both Democrats and a few principled conservatives), and enough Republicans were convinced to switch sides that the bill passed. I'm hopeful that more pro-lifers can be convinced to take a broader view of their cause if we have this kind of dialogue whenever we discuss abortion. From a pro-life standpoint, healthcare for mothers and children ought to be low-hanging fruit.
Various states run by liberal legislatures have sought reduced penalties for child molesters. I think this is probably a myth that your mind is perpetuating for you. Men who have no respect for women are not limited to any party and it would be a mistake to assume that a man who thinks abortion is killing an innocent life somehow thinks less of a woman's place in society. Alec Baldwin is pro choice but would hardly be held up as an example of someone who respects women. Roman Polanski is pro choice, and again, is hardly someone who thinks of women as his equal. The reforms that made maternity care covered under a copay were here in Texas, a conservative state, long before the ACA. You'd have to research the administrative codes yourself if you want to try to see it. You can look through healthcare admin codes dating back to the 90s to see all the changes made to the maternity mandate in Texas (group plans). Blue Cross is the only company that even offered employers the option NOT to provide maternity care as part of their plans prior to ACA (small group only). Maternity mandates in the state had minimum stay rules, coverage for the infant after birth for 30 days without payment, coverage for maternity visits under single copay instead of each time, etc. etc. Edit: None of that is to say it was perfect here or anywhere else or that it is now under ACA. It can always improve as long as someone is willing to pay for it.
I would encourage to you to consider the fact that the reason this occurs is that politicians are hypocrites and push issues and agendas they think will get them elected. The reason prenatal care isn't something that matters to them is because voters don't really know much about it, funding for it, etc. It has nothing to do with paternalism, rather that abortion is a much sexier topic and easy to talk about in sound bytes. Most voters aren't going to listen to a debate about prenatal care, minimum stay laws, etc. Politicians cater to their electorates and unfortunately the American electorate doesn't care about most things that they can't form an opinion on in less than 30 seconds.
Thanks for the sincere and on topic reply. I will have a read of the links you posted. Planned Parenthood has to be an exception since they are an abortion facilitator. It would be hard for conservatives to support government funding for their organziation becuase the funds could be used directly or indirectly towards abortions.
While they are an important care provider, they are also the largest abortion provider in the country. If you have an issue with hypocrites you would seemingly have an issued with a pro-life person who supported funding for an abortion clinic correct?
I'll take your word for it, but I would be surprised if there weren't some justification (like a correction to unreasonable sentences for minor offenders). I have a hard time seeing protecting child molesters as a liberal cause. Fair enough. Like I said, I could be wrong about what the real motives for the pro-life movement are, although I don't think the stated reasons hold up consistently. If I'm wrong, then I don't have any better guesses than what I already wrote. And of course there are misogynists throughout our society; I wasn't writing about individuals, but sectors of US society (like religions and geographical regions) which are both pro-life and strongly paternalistic. For instance, conservative Christianity and the deep south. Again, I could be way off base here. Fair enough. Although, depending how far back you're talking about, I would argue that the right (especially in Texas) has undergone a fundamental shift in priorities since 2001 and more so since 2008. All good points!
I don't think it's a liberal cause either, nor do I think being anti-prenatal care is a conservative cause.
No argument there. That's why I provided the other links. Just thought it was worth pointing out that PP does a lot of work in this area. Cutting it would be a big deal, and I don't recall ever hearing Republicans pledge to make up for that with spending elsewhere.
I agree with your point. Democrats aren't exactly interested in a proposal to start funding new clinic models that exclude abortions though either. Unfortunately the abortion issue is hard to even talk compromise on. Power players on either side would cut your campaign finances so quick your head would spin.
But being pro-prenatal care largely hasn't been either. That's what I'm saying; it's just been neglected as a priority. Babies and mothers are dying for lack of this care. I hope with the right discussion, that will become a larger issue for pro-life voters.
Sorry, didn't see this one when I posted my last post. Democrats aren't obligated to come up with a replacement for PP because they're not trying to cut PP. That onus is on those who want to cut PP. That's why you can get a better political discussion on Clutchfans than in Congress.
My point is that if I as a Republican Congressman put forth a bill that offered to take all the current PP funding and move it to a new clinic model that excluded abortions it would go nowhere. The Pro Choice people would go nuts and most Democrats would be unable to support it because of their base. They'd label me a misogynist that wants to control women.
You just tried to disprove my comment with a study that showed it hasn't changed in 12 years? 12 years?!?!?? That is such a short period of time that it's simply laughable. Where will science and medicine be in 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?
Right, because Democrats generally support abortion rights. Democrats want PP to continue to be funded and to continue to be able to provide abortions. Such a bill would go nowhere regardless of whether it contained measures to replace the cuts to PP with funding for women's health elsewhere. But I've seen no evidence that Republicans plan to increase funding for other women's health programs if they do succeed in cutting PP.
Whatever changes there will be, the measures set forth in Roe v. Wade will take them into account. I am glad you agree with the justices and their chief holding, as well as their construction of a viable compromise between the rights of the mother and the rights of the neonate.
What magical alternative organization would that be? They're doing that in Texas right now and its been a disaster. The Texas Women's Health Program is going nowhere because there aren't enough providers to replace Planned Parenthood. There aren't alternatives to Planned Parenthood that provide the level of access or efficiency in terms of distributing basic women's health care services. The fact is there isn't an alternative. Planned Parenthood does really good and important work in providing basic levels of health care. So unless you're comfortable just sacrificing access to health care for millions in underserved areas, then have at it. It's amazing that within the course of two decades, funding Planned Parenthood has gone from a clear bipartisan issue to some crazy partisan battle. George W. Bush was a huge PP advocate that boosted funding consistently as president. According to today's GOP, he is complicit in thousands of murders...
Do you believe all debates and discussions should be the sole providence of the people directly related? Perhaps only doctors should be allowed to discuss healthcare? Maybe only insurance agents should discuss auto insurance? Only terrorists should decide whether terrorism should be legal? Maybe we should limit discussion of abducting children and the legality of it to those who have committed the act?
It's pretty stupid to be debating the use of the reproductive organs of females. It's one thing to gawk at them but another to impose regulation on them.
