Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, January 18, 2019

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt issued a permanent ruling on Tuesday stating that Indiana could not bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal Medicaid funds.

Indiana was the first state to try to deny funds to the non-profit family planning organization because it offers abortions, even though the federal Hyde Amendment bars federal money from being used to perform the procedure.

Planned Parenthood has won legal decisions over the states of Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina and Tennessee since 2011.

And now the GOP’s battle against Planned Parenthood is over in Indiana — however, it continues on a federal level and in Texas, where the refusal to accept federal dollars in order to defund the organization is costing the state millions.

A new study from the Guttmacher Institute, “Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010,” finds that in 2010, publicly funded contraception helped prevent 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, resulting in taxpayers saving $5.68 for every $1 spent.



The Republican strategy of closing clinics by implementing onerous regulations in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Ohio, among other states, is designed to limit abortion access but has the side effect of reducing access to basic family planning.

If Republicans were truly interested in preventing abortions and reducing spending, they’d do everything they could to make family planning readily available by funding Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services. Expanding Medicaid and going along with Obamacare’s birth control mandate would make sense, too.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit6
  • Print this page
  • 335

15 responses to “If Republicans Want To Prevent Abortions, They’ll End Their War On Planned Parenthood”

  1. TZToronto says:

    Good idea, but too analytical for the GOP. Also, they need to demonize Planned Parenthood to keep their shrinking base firm. Those old white men need something to get crotchety about.

  2. m8lsem says:

    Oh, and have they ever thought of figuring out ‘why’ abortions occur? Ooops, fixing that might cost money, and morals always yield to greed among the Tealiban …

  3. Lynda Groom says:

    At one time I believed that all reasonable people would understand that prevention was the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I believed that even republicans would understand that effective prevention could help lower the numbers of abortions and unwanted children. Boy was I wrong. The attacks upon women’s reproductive health are more about power and control than reproduction. If the ‘right’ really wants to reduce abortion why are they also against birth control? I seems they just don’t want women deciding such issues. What is the republican alternative you might ask. Apparently barefoot, pregnant and subservient little Stepford Wives.

    • 4sanity4all says:

      I know. The lack of logic in their thinking is so appalling. It would be fine if they followed the dictates of their conscience, but they are determined that the rest of the country shall follow their narrow minded views to the letter. And their views are so illogical and backward, and would certainly lead to thousands more on welfare, sucking up even more tax money, right? But they imagine a make-believe world where rich white people adopt every baby available. And all of those babies are born healthy, lack of medical care given to their indigent mothers notwithstanding.

  4. Dominick Vila says:

    The GOP=TP has no choice but to oppose, attack, and defund organizations like Planned Parenthood because not doing that would be the end of the career of any Republican politician running for re-election in red states. It doesn’t matter if most of the services offered by Planned Parenthood have nothing to do with abortion, and it doesn’t matter if banning such organizations will do nothing to stop abortions, would endanger the lives of women, and will result in thousands of women going abroad to have an abortion in a safe medical environment. The only choice for those who cannot afford to go elsewhere is a coat hanger, with predictable results.
    Interestingly some of those who oppose abortion also oppose birth control and sex education, which does not make sense to me.
    Abortion remains a litmus test for Republican candidates, those that don’t oppose don’t need to apply.

    • 4sanity4all says:

      But it all makes sense when you realize that they not only want to deny women abortions, but also access to family planning. They do not want women to have access to non-judgmental doctors who will offer a full range of medical services without judging them. They think women are too dumb to make decisions about their own bodies; they want women to seek guidance from their husbands and pastors, even in the most intimate decisions about medical care. It is so insultingly paternalistic, I would have thought that that type of thinking went out of style a century ago. And yet, women who should know better, like Phyllis Shlafly, praise this type of lunacy and spend time and money inflicting their wrong headed views on the rest of us. When even misguided women support men in this lame brained thinking, you know that our education system has failed to teach every American child about logic.

  5. montanabill says:

    Kind of like saying, “If we want to win the war on terrorism, we have to stop attacking radical muslims.” Here is a clue: if liberals want the GOP to end their ‘war’ on Planned Parenthood, then simply help them stop giving our tax dollars to PP. PP will do just fine without taking money from people who disagree with PP’s abortions. And don’t give me that cr..p about the tax money not going to PP for abortions.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      So you’ll get taxed instead to support the unwanted babies people are forced to have. And that will be a HELL of a lot more than is given to PP.
      The point of the article, however is not relevant to people like you, who care only about the money. It’s that those who hate abortion should love birth control, but don’t.

      • montanabill says:

        You are presuming that all ‘unwanted’ babies are somehow forced to stay with an indigent mother. Many will have mothers that actually can be responsible and others will be adopted. You always seem to leave personal responsibility out of the equation. Plain and simple, no tax money should be going to support Planned Parenthood for any reason. It is not a valid function of government.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          I’m talking about what will happen, not what happens in your alternate world. And in fact, the babies are forced; they have no choice in the matter.
          And, since people won’t take personal responsibility for much of anything – and I’m not talking about just unwed mothers, etc. – and never will, government should take action to protect the welfare of the nation as a whole. Controlling population – especially growth of population among those who can’t or won’t raise children properly, thus perpetuating and expanding the problem – helps to reduce crime (one economist has suggested Roe vs Wade may be a large contributing factor to the decline in violent crime in the US) and contributes to conserving resources, however inadequately. Improving the health of those who are alive is also a wise thing, given the cost of ER care for those who cannot afford doctors or health insurance, and PP provides other health services besides family planning.
          I’m sure you consider it a stretch, but this is part of what “promote the general welfare” means in modern times. I’m sure we’ll never agree, as you seem to me to be enraged at paying a single cent towards “the General Welfare,” but surely you can at least understand the point being made.

          • montanabill says:

            Why, yes. We need more government control over our hapless lives since, obviously, no one has any self control, wants to take any personal responsibility, needs big mama to tell them what to do, how to do it and when to do it and kiss our hurt when we stumble.

            Promote the general welfare does not mean, ‘provide for the general welfare’. The people who wrote that, at that time, believed people were responsible for their own lives and that government should be severely limited.
            Your writing indicates you are one of those who thinks the world owes them.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            I doubt you’ve read my writing well enough to judge, but I’d rather be someone who thinks the world (i.e., the human societies we live in) owes all of us common decency and compassion and that we’re all in this together than to be someone like you who maintains the illusion that you owe nothing to anyone and begrudges every precious dime paid to anyone for anything that does not benefit you directly. I seem to remember reading a post from you that led me to believe you’ve done pretty well and could afford to be a bit more relaxed about this, but you write like a nasty, grasping old skinflint who would watch someone starve to death, laugh, and say he/she had it coming. I’m not saying you are that selfish and heartless, but your writings would lead one to believe you are.

          • montanabill says:

            There is a natural order to nature and we are doing our best to ignore it. That is one of the reasons why the human species will be short lived on earth. You can believe it or not. It won’t make any difference.

            As usual, you, as a liberal, misinterpret the world. I have said and indicated, I did not want government as ‘big mama’. There are too many examples and quotes about the consequences of ‘letting government do it’. The reality is, that people who are well off donate heavily to the charities of their choices. They determine which charities are actually providing service and which are simply, like government, pocketing way too much. I will admit to being heartless about having government use tax money to, essentially, buy votes. I will also admit to using a good portion of my wealth to helping people who really need it in order to help themselves. Those simply on the dole, not so much.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            Yes, there is a natural order of nature, about which you obviously haven’t a clue. Because you and others like you refuse to acknowledge your debt to the natural world and to the society you live in and exploit for your advantage, you are a bigger “taker” than those on the dole, most of whom aren’t there by choice. But of course you prefer to tell yourself that all who disagree with you do so because they are freeloaders trying take what is “yours.” If our species goes extinct, it will be the result of those who destroy natural systems and the beings that inhabit them for profit in the name of “property rights” asserted against land stolen from murdered indigenous people and the other living things that thrived on it for thousands or millions of years.

            The reality is that charities can’t even begin to cover the needs, and never will. And as our society grows ever more predatory, there will be greater and greater numbers who need help and fewer and fewer willing to assist them, or anyone, unless it benefits them personally.

            And your inability to even interpret what I write – your assumptions that I think you want more government of the type we have and that I want the government to control everyone is a great example – puts the lie to your arrogant assumptions and assertions about what kind of person I am and what I feel entitled to, and indicates there is no point in attempting to continue this.

          • Sand_Cat says:

            And while we’re on the subject, I never said we need “big mama” or anyone else to control us the way you likely would if you could, but one of the reasons for human dominance despite the weakness of our bodies is the willingness of most of us to “kiss the hurt” of those around us when they stumble and come to their defense when they need it. A species that thought and acted the way you write would probably never evolve, or if it did, would be headed for swift extinction, as it appears we may be as those characteristics decline to be replaced by greed and predation on our own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.