Texas.

Chagen · 2011-06-20 20:43:11

Got the newspaper today. Saw this on the front Family Planning targeted by state What some have called an "ideological clash" in Austin over Planned Parenthood has left the the state's family planning coffers considerably emptier, with Conservative lawmakers stripping $62 Million from such funding in an acknowledged effort to starve the organization. What The Hell, HeroTexas.....

glennmagusharvey · 2011-06-20 20:45:53

They somehow have the notion that the organization offers willy-nilly abortions to everyone and does nothing else.

Of course, abortions are evil, so this means that the organization is evil and must die.

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-06-20 20:46:09

Also, deep-fried butter. Yes.

GuyInWhite · 2011-06-20 20:47:14

Yes, killing something which doesn't even have a mind yet is clearly evil.

Forzare · 2011-06-20 20:47:22

Miles11 · 2011-06-20 20:48:17

@GMH Even though they spend a lot of time trying to help kids PLAN for PARENTHOOD and use abortion typically as a last resort (in most cases, I can't really speak for all of them)

I find it sad that I literally have no information on the organization and can figure out their mission better than Texas officials can.

Of course...I may be wrong...in which case...Sorry.

Forzare · 2011-06-20 20:48:54

@GuyInWhite Can we... not turn this into an abortion thread?

Chagen · 2011-06-20 20:49:58

Forzare: It's why they're trying to starve the foundation of money.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-06-20 20:50:34

Well, one big problem is that a lot of these self-appointed moral defenders don't seem to realize that there's a difference between doing something reluctantly and doing something enthusiastically.

Also, deep-fried butter is not as big of an offense as Rick Perry and Tom DeLay are.

Miles11 · 2011-06-20 20:51:05

Even so, Chagen, that doesn't mean that the thread has to turn into whether abortion is right or wrong, more that the topic should be about whether what Texas officials are doing is right or wrong...which...in my opinion, it is.

EDIT: Damn me and my forgetting which thingy to use!

Forzare · 2011-06-20 20:51:11

I meant an ethics-of-abortion debate that will inevitably spiral down in a glorious firestorm worthy of the Hindenburg.

ninjars

glennmagusharvey · 2011-06-20 20:52:22

~~^ WMG: fetuses contain hydrogen gas.~~

Chagen · 2011-06-20 20:52:33

You do realize that any discussion on any matter will turn into an "ethics-of-x debate that will inevitably spiral down in a glorious firestorm worthy of the Hindenburg."?

Forzare · 2011-06-20 20:53:18

^^ IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW

^ Yeah, only not really.

Tnu1138 · 2011-06-20 20:55:00

Planned Parenthood should be a stirctly state program anyway and not a federal program. There's no federal authority for it at all and states should be allowed to Nullify it at their discretion.

Vivi · 2011-06-20 21:27:49

I disagree. Like Gay Marriage, Abortion should be a federal decision. (Allowing it everywhere, I mean)

Tnu1138 · 2011-06-20 23:58:21

See? That right there is the problem with our economy. Corporatism. Subsidies and bailouts. Planned Parenthood should stay private and not have federal funding. No orginization should have federal funding. Only states have3 that authority. and yes it's a states rights issue you don't see anything in Article I Section 8 about it do you? Or in any of the amendments? No then per the tenth amendment it's a state issue.

Tnu1138 · 2011-06-21 00:12:00

let's look at that "general welfare" this is elaborated on further in Article I Section 8. Itr covers things such as post offices, roads, army, Navy and other such specific services. It does not cover providing welfare to certain demographics based on race, sex, or economic class. It also does not covermedicine. Subsidies and bailouts only increas corruption in the market. now if someone were to amend the Constitution saying " right to healthcare" it would be fine apart form that these things are a states rights issue.

Also GENERAL Welffare which DOES NOT mean giving to businesses or playing Robin Hood? It means the services have to benefit eveyrbody universally. Not specific groups.

Tnu1138 · 2011-06-21 00:22:15

Yes it's inflexible for a fucking reaosn. to keep the government limited in its zpowers to ensure it doesn't infringe on our rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

This firmly establishes us as a government of enumerated powers. Government specifically gets its pwoers from the Constitution and a strict readign is nessecary to keep from abusing it. It is not the abuse of power but the power to abuse. You give them that power and it will be abused. Also you want them to ahve a specific power then you can give it to them! Read Article V!

Tnu1138 · 2011-06-21 00:44:40

If this is what people are getting from it? To create a situation that gives the state powers it's not specifically given then I seriously fear that we are fucked. Completely fucked. I'm scared of the death of liberty by the hand of the state. You've co nvinced me of one thing funnyguts.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-06-21 09:57:43

You DO realize that the Constitution was written in order to give the federal government more power, right?

delta534 · 2011-06-21 09:59:25

Oh, look it's this thread again.

Hatter · 2011-06-21 10:04:15

GMH, if that was true, then why is there the Bill of Rights?

Maybe if you're looking at it from the perspective of the Articles of Confederation, but overall the Constitution is designed to define the rights and responsibilities of the federal government so that it wouldn't have too much power.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-06-21 10:08:27

Yes, I am looking at it from the perspective of the Articles of Confederation.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Texas.

Comments