Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Planned Parenthood Funding Ban
- Posted on May 5, 2012 at 3:38pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
PHOENIX (AP) — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood’s access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization’s clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona’s Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 685 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 651 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 318 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 187 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 213 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 187 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (188)
Magyar
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:55pmYou go GIRL!….way to be!
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:28pmThat’s my governor and I damn proud of her.
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 8:05pmTexas did the same thing; now there is a law suit; GOV Perry said he‘d cut off ALL of the funding for the ’poor girls health program’…..good
Defund all these leftist programs and organizations.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 8:21pmLawsuit to force a government to give taxpayer monies to a private organization? I can see AG Holder stepping in on this hate crime.
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:35pmMagyar…Ditto
Report Post »N-TIME-WATCHER
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 10:42pmI couldn’t agree more, keep up the good job Governor Brewer! WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU ;)
Report Post »Grey Eagle
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:25pmTX did the same thing, but Obama yanked the Medicaid money and Planned Parenthood is suing the state. Get ready Arizona, these people are vicious.
Report Post »Marine 1
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:15amExcellent!
Way to go! Love Gov. Jan and Sheriff Joe,
King Obama needs to go to prison for being a fraud.
Standby…More Good News to come.
Report Post »muddpuddle
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:25amNice
Report Post »oudbob
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:49pm56 err 49 to go!
Report Post »Miami
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:44pmGood for her,
Why should I pay for others actions…?
Report Post »VerySeniorCitizen
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 10:45pmAnd WHY should YOU be allowed to drive the roads that I paid for?
Why should I have to pay for the police to protect YOU – or the fireman to save YOUR house?
Report Post »ldaopines
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:09pmTo Veryseniorcitizen: 100% of us drive on the roads that only 53% of us pay for. 100% don’t get abortions. I suspect only 47% would consider it while 53% pay for it.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:45pm@VerySeniorCitizen—-Compare driving on roads to supporting end of life issues?.Just how old are you really?
Report Post »Christianmyson
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:43amYou are an Idiot verysenior, I wonder if all of you sick dumb AS$ people all took the same bad acid trip or what, the way you people look at the world is so screwed up it freeks me out, I use to pray for all of you, not anymore you freeks are a lost cause, so go ahead and finish breathing and answer to the Lord for all that you have done, good luck freek.
Report Post »On Eagle Wings
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:59am@christianmyson in your tirade I see no christian love in your outburst, you hold prayer as a weapon over people? reread Mathew 5- 8 again.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:38pmOn Eagle Wings – I’ll bet you insult and mock Christians who wait until marriage to have sex, hypocrite.
Report Post »doglady
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:36pmJan Brewer is my hero; wish she was our governor in Illinois.
Report Post »Helpful
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:34pmOkay, Maybe we can get Texas on board, come on Rich Perry,do what Jan B.did in Arizona …Its about time all the states say NO to OBAMA……………………….if you got the _alls
Report Post »Christianmyson
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:45amTexas has already done it jerk, were you living Idiot.
Report Post »Azzman
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:23pmGreat job Jan making liberals insane one signature at a time! You s lle a z y l i ber a l w h u r r e s can pay for you own abortions.
Report Post »Azzman
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:19pmJan – driving liberals crazy one signature at a time! Pay for your own abortions all you sleazy liberal whures.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:08pmFederal law already prohibits use of taxpayer money for abortion. So does Arizona law. This law doesn’t have anything to do with abortion.
What this law does is deprive 20,000 poor people from receiving low cost medical care. This is eugenics, Arizona style.
Report Post »marcus_arealius
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:22pmGee, I was ready with my Do-It-To-Yourself home coat hanger abortion kits..
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:41pmJZSaul,
If just one of my tax dollars is given to PP, for whatever reason you want to believe, that frees up some other dollar to perform an abortion.
Any way you look at it JZS, you can not ignore the fact that if money goes to them in any way, shape, or form, it is supporting abortionists and murder.
And you are fine with that, that’s understood. You belong to the party that supports murdering unborn children. Because…..as you like to say…….“Abortion just happens to be legal in this country”.
Did I miss anything or misquote you JZS?
I find it quite amusing when you, or anyone even remotely like you, try to lecture the right about anything at all, when you support one of the most vile things imaginable.
Report Post »Miami
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:54pmFor the slow people who stood in the back of the class, Eugenics is the act of killing a race NOT denying the funding for killing them….
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:08pm@MIAMI
Perfectly said.
Report Post »survivorseed
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:16pmWho cares about 20 000 stupid poor people JZS, as long as they don’t have access to an abortion they can die for all we care. Hang on…..crazy times
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:31pm@THEBADSEED
Address the real issue here Seed.
What about the millions of aborted babies that never had a chance to become rich, or poor, or even born?
Why do democrats hate babies?
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:41pm@JZS and Survivor
I take it take the two of you have your checkbooks out and are writing a hefty check to PP, since you are so concerned. Or does that concern stop when your money is involed, instead of my Arizona taxes.
Report Post »survivorseed
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 7:33pmOh dear Billy, I know you like to have your little fantasy image of democrats feeding babies through a shredder with a maniacal laugh and that is why this discussion will never evolve into a common sense debate.
Why do you hate women so much Billy?
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 7:53pm@survivor
In true liberal fashion you duck the issue, which is ‘Why do liberal, such as yourself, support abortion and why do you need the taxpayers to fund it?”
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 8:26pmTherightsofbilly
What about the millions of aborted babies that never had a chance to become rich, or poor, or even born?
Well, since they all would have been the children of irresponsible numbskulls who weren’t prepared to care for them, there would have been more poor ones and fewer rich ones per capita than in the rest of the population. There would have been more crooks, and lunatics and bums, and fewer doctors and teachers and scientists and artists and statesmen than in the general population. And overall, we are all much better off that none of them were born.
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:07pm@chet
“we are all much better off that none of them were born.”
The same can be said about you, but alas you were born.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:08pmChet: by that logic, a mother should be allowed to kill her one-year-old child if she‘s she doesn’t want to take care of him. After all, there would then be fewer poor children and more rich ones; there would be fewer crooks, lunatics, and bums, and more doctors and teachers and scientists and artists and statesmen. Overall, we’d all be much better off if the children of irresponsible numbskulls were put to death.
Right?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 10:31pmAhhh, I see the grim reaper has arrived.
Chet, I was just about to use you as an example, and try to chide JZS / Seedy in to at least manning up like you do and cheering for abortion.
You at least put your views right out in the open for all to gasp in horror at.
Seedling just cops out and deflects like most mindless liberals.
Report Post »dennisS
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 10:44pmJZS go back to your eugenic loving, liberal, communist agenda. As a resident of Arizona I applaud Gov. Brewer for this decision. In this state we DESPISE the communists from the other states that try to impose their agendas on us. So, JZS, come on down here and bring it on.
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:59pm@jzs—I suppose you also believe all child support money awarded in a divorce goes “to the children”. Just like pp doesn’t use tax money for abortions. Oh and just for the record Isn’t there a Federal/state law about illegal‘s that’s being challenged? Just to let you see a federal law doesn’t mean compliance.Taking away the funding for pp assures that pp won’t have taxpayers money available to KILL more babies! Get it? you naive little liberal.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:22amdataweaver
Report Post »A one-year-old child is a person, it has free will and has started to develop a human mind. Therefore, it has a right to live. A fetus has neither, so its mother still has a right to dispose of it as she sees fit.
dataweaver
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:33amWould you mind providing some scientific research that supports your claim that a baby doesn’t have a mind until its location changes from “inside the womb” to “outside the womb”? Or is there something mystical about the process of birth that grants someone sapience? Why do you think that birth is any less arbitrary of a dividing line between “person” and “nonperson” than any other line one might draw?
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:39amYou guys just don’t get it do you? Did you read the lead in for this thread? “Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood’s access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.” Didn’t catch that part I guess.
Since neither state or federal funds are, or have been used for abortions, this does bill does nothing to eliminate federal or state money for abortions, which is less than 3% of what Planned Parenthood does, all of which is funded by private donations. This bill just shuts down low cost medical services for the poor.
No, what this bill does is deprive low cost medical care to the poor including cancer screenings, birth control, vaccinations, sexual health education and health counseling.
No this doesn’t have anything to do with abortion because already not a single tax dollar goes to abortion. This is simply eugenics policy of the right, the policy to deprive the poorest among us of access to medical care. I get it: if you eliminate access to medicine to the poorest, they die sooner, and can’t vote for Democrats. Sucks for them, they can’t receive medical care for themselves or their children, and so they’re pushed further down into the dirt.
Republicans are speaking clearly: the poor can eat grub worms and roots and dumpster dive but they sure aren’t going to receive medical care. Good luck explaining to St. Peter your treatment of the poorest among us.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:23amdataweaver
Report Post »It doesn’t have a mind because it doesn’t have anything to think about. As soon as it enters the world it begins it receive external stimuli through its senses. Its attempts to interpret those sensory stimuli are its first thoughts. Once it starts to use its brain to think it is a person.
happ77
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 10:51amJZ, first back up your stats. Where do you get that
Report Post »PP’s abortians amount to less then 3% of what they
do. 2nd progressives are the ones who have backed
eugenics. lastly lets see if we can explain why taxpayer
money goes to abortions in terms evan you could
understand. Lets say you have $5 dollars in your pocket,
you are hungry and being a smoker you are also dying
for a cigerette. You ask me for $5 and I give it to you
providing you don’t buy smokes so now you use my $5
for a ham sandwich and your $5 for smokes. See how
it works now ??
Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:58amThanks HAPP77,
But I don’t think JZS can process simple logic……..he’s just too damn smart.
Actually, he does understand it, he iust likes playing his Lewinsky games, ooops, I mean Alinsky games.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:26pmChet: are you aware that babies in the womb can hear music and voices in the mother’s vicinity at least as early as the seventh month? By your own definition (that the baby’s first thoughts are its attempts to interpret sensory stimuli), a seven-month-old fetus is having thoughts. As well, _touch_ is a sense, too; setting aside its ability to feel the amniotic fluid surrounding it for most of its time in the womb, the baby is very definitely experiencing sensory stimulation through the skin once the mother goes into labor. So at the very least, a partial-birth abortion is the killing of an innocent human life.
And that’s ignoring your _initial_ claim that viability should be the determining factor – something which is _also_ true of seven-month-old fetuses. By _either_ measurement, the start of the third trimester makes just as much sense as a dividing line between non-person and person as the moment of birth does.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 9:15pmOkay, I don’t know if fetuses can really hear music, and I don’t know how you or anyone else can claim to know, but if it’s true, then just to be on the safe side, I will grant that I most cases it is preferable to not abort fetuses in their last two months of gestation. Of course, I am neither a woman nor a doctor, so it’s not really up to me. Bear in mind, however, that it is a proven fact that drummers can hear and appreciate music, and they are barely human.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 1:56am“Okay, I don’t know if fetuses can really hear music, and I don’t know how you or anyone else can claim to know,”
We know that fetuses can hear voices and music in the same way that we know that the hands and feet are well-formed by the fourth month and that the eyes are able to open by the sixth month: the womb is not a mysterious black box that we have no way of peering into, and the overall process of prenatal development is reasonably well understood.
“but if it’s true, then just to be on the safe side, I will grant that in most cases it is preferable to not abort fetuses in their last two months of gestation.”
Glad to hear that.
“Of course, I am neither a woman nor a doctor, so it’s not really up to me.”
What does being a woman or a doctor have to do with it? If the fetus is a person, being a woman or a doctor doesn’t give you any special right to kill it: the fetus is the _child’s_ body, not the mother’s.
“Bear in mind, however, that it is a proven fact that drummers can hear and appreciate music, and they are barely human.”
Report Post »I’ll have to plead ignorance here: the only drummers that I can think of at the moment are musicians who play the drums. So until you identify what you mean by “drummers”, I can’t respond.
skippy6
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:49pmCould we please get Brewer to be our Governor in MN!!! Dayton sucks…. He is more worried about getting a losing team a football stadium than doing whats best for the State… Typical progressive politics in the land of 10,000 taxes!!!!
Report Post »LotsaBullits
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:06pmThat’s why my wife and I moved 16 years ago. We immediately started having better luck at jobs and careers. I also don’t miss the winters.
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:33pmGood, Jan Brewer should be the model for all governors. Cut every penny of tax funding for the abortin mill known as planned parenthood. This is NOT the role of government, so GOOD JOB JAN!
Report Post »fr0thing
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:04amI moved from California to Arizona 15 years ago to escape the high taxes and high cost of living. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. Jobs have never been a problem and my wife started her own business that is doing well. Worth a look for sure.
Report Post »cuinsong
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:45pmGood for you AZ and Jan B. Abortion is wrong and we should not subsidize it.
Report Post »sparkspeaks
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:26pmAgree. Go Jan! A woman with a spine. If someone wants to kill a baby, make it done with blood on their own hands and money out of their own pockets, rather than on the hands of all who have to pay taxes.
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:37pmYeah!
Report Post »cassandra
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:42pmNo abortions, period, I love this woman she has more guts then anyone God Bless Jan planned parent claims they educate then answer this questions why do their abortion rate keep going up every year
Report Post »c.foster4722
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:38pmWay to go Gov. Brewer! But be careful, the traitor in chief may be waiting for you the next time you step off a plain in DC! Then you really can flip him the bird!! LOL!!
Report Post »crusaderx9
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:38pmGovernor Jan Brewer is a tough honest chief executive. I absolutely love Gov Brewer, and “janet from another planet” napolitano has been shown to be the buffoon…
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:35pmYAY, Jan! Go get ‘em!! And may there be MORE of your patriotic ilk elected!! That reminds me — please support Gov. Walker in Wis. in his fight against the unions and everyone else that’s trying to stand up and do the right thing.
Just got through watching this very strange video re Obama in the Bible Codes — yes, I know it doesn’t prove a thing and all the different ones out there – but this one was posted Oct. 30, 2008, before his election and before we really knew so much about him – his personality, etc. Not only did it predict him winning, but then you have all these descriptive words about him which pretty much nails him! So for anyone interested :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7DB93FqWiM&feature=related
Report Post »spirited
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:33pmAbortion is legal……and so is bowling and going to the movies.
You want to play, you have to pay.
>Go and have an abortion; But, get a job first.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:14pmSpirited..God willing we will change that law in America!!!
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:27pmThat’s great news, AZ! I wish we in Colorado had a Gov. that had half the spine than Jan does. Hear that Hickenlooper??
Report Post »Beckaj
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:21pm“The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.”
They are going to sue the government for not giving them money? Because the constitution guarantees that they get funding? Because they have a “right” to get funding? Because they are being discriminated against because they kill babies? Under what possible law could they have legal recourse?
Report Post »spirited
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:52pmWhat a not-so-funny joke!
Even seniors on medicare often have to pay something
Barack Obama was going to go “line item by line item” to get rid of wasteful spending…
–Oh well!
While he is busy touting the, “pay your fair share”
and
campaign fund-raising from the “1%”,
surely he can drum-up some money to help those who “get into trouble”.
Matter O fact,
>After a month or two-long vacation; beginning January 21, 2013
he can organize the Grass-Roots Private-Citizen Fund For Abortions at Planned Paret(less)hood
&
his wife can be the adminstrating executive of the GRPCFFAAPLP.
>~~> They both do enjoy talking so,
Report Post »…. telling folks what they need and want… and spending other folk’s money.
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:18pmIf You had a budget of $5 for Ice cream and $20 for crack and I gave you $5 xtra for ice Cream,you would have $5 for Ice Cream and $25 for crack.That is how Government funding works. Your Ice cream budget does not change and you can always say,”Hey! I am not using that $5 for crack! See? $5 on ice cream!” Even a Democrat should be able to figure that out.
Report Post »Doctor Nordo
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:46pmI have attempted so many times to use this very logic to explain to people that yes, the government most certainly DOES fund abortions, and all they can do is cover their ears and scream “NUH UH!”
I won‘t give up until I’m dead, though.
Report Post »Gita
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:15pmGod bless you Governor Brewer! You are exactly what this country needs in these times of diabolical disorientation. Brewer for VP
Report Post »steveh931
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:32pmJan’s job is not finished in the State of Arizona, we’re still trying to recover Napolitano and her progressive policies.
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:12pmWay to go Jan. You got the lady backbone going.
Report Post »Steelhead
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:01pmArizona will have more unwanted pregnancies from this. Go back to you tanning booth Jan
Report Post »Kathleen
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:02pmNo they won’t, if they don’t have sex outside of marriage.
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:08pmNot if women keep their knees together and the men keeped their pants zipped. Quit fornicating outside the institution of marriage and be responsible. Quit killing babies because of hedonistic lifestyles. Those babies did nothing wrong.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:13pm…so some young girls will learn a very important life lesson and there will be more babies available to be adopted into caring homes who want them and can afford them…sounds like a winner…let them be “punished with a baby”.
Report Post »My Two Cents
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:30pmSTEELHEAD: Planned Parenthood probably accepts personal checks. Feel free to send them one.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:32pmI love how ignorant the responses are to the problem of unwanted pregnancy–”just don’t have sex.” Typical of conservatives to repeat a mantra at a problem until it goes away (at least that’s THEIR plan), rather than INVESTIGATE the CAUSES of the problem (rather than just ASSUME you already know what’s going on), and actually DOING something that will CHANGE the specific CAUSES. I’m gonna let you in on a little secret conservatives–a lot of people in the world, and this country, think you are just flat out wrong when it comes to many of your norms of sexual behavior. Now, either your claiming your right to impose your sexual mores on others who might very well not share them is MORE important than preventing unwanted pregnancies, and by extension abortions, OR you just don’t understand how decreased contraception use (as a share of populace) is directly correlated to more unwanted pregnancies, and by proxy more abortions. Here’s a clue–some people think your wrong about sex, and those people will have sex regardless of what you think. If given the OPTION, MOST of them (who know better, incidentally something conservatives ALSO want to prevent) would choose to use contraception. However, IF these people get pregnant, they are ALSO likely to be exactly the people who think you are ALSO wrong about the morality of abortion.
Report Post »TheSoundOf Truth
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:38pmLike you?
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:42pm@the third
Here’s a news flash, the bill dosen’t outlaw the sale or the use of contraception, it just say that we the Arizona taxpayers are not going to pay for it.
Report Post »My Two Cents
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:48pmTHE THIRD ARCHON: Consider this conservative’s viewpoint. What you do in your bedroom is your business. When you want my money to pay for your birth control and abortions it becomes my business.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:55pmHey JZS,
What’s up with this?
Is it possible for a woman to be leading the “WAR ON WOMEN” (You have to imagine those words being spoken by a very deep, authoritative, male, 1950′s Sci-Fi movie trailer voice).
You may have to re-think that title.
Maybe form now on you can call it what it what it really is.
Any ideas?
I’ve got a few.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:55pm@THE THIRD ARCHON
Report Post »…you’re saying we should “INVESTIGATE the CAUSES of the problem” of unwanted pregnancies?…the cause is simple – having sex – people have been doing it for a million years…no investigation needed…you can prevent unwanted pregnancies by either not having sex or by having protected sex…it‘s not complicated and we don’t need a study done to explore it further…and we don’t need a rambling, nonsensical rant by you to tell us otherwise…you make no sense…and if a girl makes the mistake of not using contraception and gets pregnant, then it’s time for her to learn an important lesson and not be shielded from her mistake by killing a kid…she won’t make that mistake again…but if she knows she can just abort her mistake, she’ll likely do it again.
The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:58pmYeah–the point isn’t that no one will be able to get contraception (stupid, although I wouldn’t put that past Arizona EITHER). The POINT is that FEWER people will be able to afford it if the cost goes up (simple economics–I thought this was supposed to be the conservatives’ specialty), and therefore more unwanted pregnancies, which has a correlation (not 1:1, again stupid–not EVERYONE who will now get pregnant who wouldn’t have will get an abortion but SOME of them certainly will) to abortions.
Now, MY point was that these “limiting laws” are redundant and stupid EVEN FROM A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE, because people who SHARE the conservatives’ sexual mores, ALREADY aren’t likely having sex, so the ONLY people who this effects are people who would be more LIKELY to get an abortion anyway–the conservatives’ INTENT is to decrease sexual activity they find immoral, but those who ALREADY think its immoral aren’t doing it, whereas those already DON‘T think it’s immoral aren’t going to change their mind because of a law. The law doesn’t decreases sex, it just increases unwanted pregnancies, and by correlation abortions. That’s why I say it (and all the other laws following the same logic) don’t make sense, even from a CONSERVATIVE perspective, which is why it’s confusing that they get passed at all.
Report Post »steveh931
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:21pmActs of sex and the results of, are personal responsibilities.
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:36pmSTEELHEAD, you have no ability to use logic, so stop trying. It only makes you look stupid. But since you are an idiot, I guess its okay.
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:38pmSTEELHEAD, explain how killing a baby that is unwanted is moral. You liberals are pathetic.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:15pm@MY TWO CENTS
Report Post »I would divide that from the conservative perspective and call it the libertarian perspective–both part of the “Right wing” (as opposed to the “Left wing,” literally in the architectural sense as historically the terms originate from the division of the French parliament with the Right side of parliament being occupied by pro-monarchist traditionalists, i.e. the conservatives, and the Left side the opposition voice for change, the Radical wing). That’s just how I personally think of it conceptually, it’s not really objective features so much as conventional terms used, but if that‘s not what you would use ’a rose by any other name…’ you are entitled to your own political self-definition–under the Left wing, you have your Liberals (i.e. reformists who see problems with political execution not structure) and Radicals (i.e. structural critiques of the culture) which includes Communists (who propose a socialist command economy), Syndicalists (who propose a socialist market economy) although most self-identify as the broad term “Socialists” perhaps prefixing it with “anarcho,” but most refer to the same thing, and finally Anarchists (who can be sub-grouped into three classes for the most part, anarcho-primitivists, who advocate a regression to pre-agricultural economies, anarcho-syndicalists who we’ve covered, and anarcho-capitalists who are a weird kind of hybrid between Left and Right philosophy probably best exemplified by the Gilded Era).
The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:31pm“”Is it possible for a woman to be leading the “WAR ON WOMEN””
Yes.
Can black people be racist against black people?
Yes.
@DISENLIGHTENED
“you can prevent unwanted pregnancies…by having protected sex”
Exactly–you MIGHT even say that there is a PUBLIC INCENTIVE to preemptively prevent expensive and much more physically exhausting pregnancies and abortions, OR the misery experienced by unloved children and the socioeconomic costs, by making ACCESS to the MEANS of “protected sex” to all who would seek them. It seems the outcome is ALWAYS net better and you ADMIT as much–so why the hell do you support this policy? Unless you are simply playing devil’s advocate…?
“Acts…responsibilities.”
That‘s why it’s important to take precautions against consequences that are unwanted. Given the status of modern technology, there’s no REASON anyone should need to be made parents against their will.
“STEELHEAD…pathetic.”
Report Post »I’m not STEEL, but I’ll do it anyway since you ask. Call it a baby or whatever you like, “a rose by any other name…” the fact of the matter in contest is whether or not the baby/fetus (and it would depend heavily upon the development stage what you would call it–it’s quite a stretch to call a zygote a “baby” but conservatives would have you believe it is) has rights claims that supersede the mother’s, a subjective judgment of valuation. If sentience is your metric, then there’s not really a “thing” to harm until l
Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 7:13pmIs it possible that the Third Acorn takes himself much too seriously, and can not recognize when someone is just giving JZS a hard time because he is a Media Matters Troll?
YES……and YES.
Sheeeeeeeeeeesh.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 7:29pm@THIRD
At what stage would YOU call that “life” a baby?
And if you decide to answer that question…….what, or who gives you the right to decide?
Why are liberals so stupid that they can not understand that things begin at the beginning……..by definition.
And things end………when you end them.
It’s simple really.
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 7:36pm@ the third
“it’s quite a stretch to call a zygote a “baby” but conservatives would have you believe it is”
Hitler use that same kind of reasoning about Jew’s being human.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 8:09pm@TheThirdArchon: you said “the fact of the matter in contest is whether or not the baby/fetus (and it would depend heavily upon the development stage what you would call it–it’s quite a stretch to call a zygote a “baby” but conservatives would have you believe it is) has rights claims that supersede the mother’s, a subjective judgment of valuation.” It’s also quite a stretch to say that a fetus [i]isn’t[/i] a baby until it’s out of the womb; but liberals would have you believe that partial birth abortions are perfectly fine because the baby hasn’t been born yet. If you’re going to complain about conservatives pushing the line all the way to conception, you should consider that the point of birth is at least as arbitrary of a dividing line. But I can understand your reluctance: if you admit that a nine-month-old fetus [i]is[/i] a baby, you’ve opened yourself up to a slippery slope argument.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 8:39pmTherightsofbilly
That’s easy, it’s a baby when it can live outside of somebody else’s body. And just to be clear, I am talking about real viability – just feed it and keep it warm and it will be fine, not some phony standard of theoretical viability based on the most premature infant that a team of doctors working around the clock once succeeded in saving.
What gives me the right to decide? Since I’m not trying to decide for anybody else, I don’t need to be given any rights. What gives those of you who think that you should be able to decide for somebody else that right?
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 8:45pmAlso: the conservative argument isn‘t that the baby’s rights _supersede_ the mother’s rights; it‘s that the mother’s rights in general _don’t_ supersede the baby’s right to live. The _only_ time that I personally would find an abortion to be acceptable would be if the mother’s _life_ (not merely her health or well-being, and certainly not just her comfort) is endangered by the pregnancy. And even then I would find it distasteful.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:17pmHmm… one of my posts appears to have been lost in transit. Here it is again; and if the original shows up in the meantime, sorry for the double-post.
Chet: If you’re talking about real viability, then it shouldn’t matter if the baby is in the womb or not; it should only matter if it _can_ survive out of the womb. In particular, you should be willing to acknowledge that there isn’t be a difference between the moments _before_ birth and the moments _after_ birth. And if you’re going to complain about conservatives trying to push the line as far back as possible, you should be willing to accept the criticism that liberals are trying to push the line as far _forward_ as possible.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:41pmSo the lefties don’t think that the promiscuous sluts should have to suffer the consequences for the stupid choices they make in life.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:51pmTo be fair, not everyone who gets an abortion is a promiscuous slut, or even someone who made stupid choices (_before_ deciding to have an abortion, that is).
What _I_ object to is the unborn baby suffering the consequences of the mother’s decision to abort.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 10:39pmChet,
I already know your opinion Chet.
But since you are now the Acorn’s proxy, if the baby in the womb has no God given right to life, then neither do you, or I.
And that is what your ilk is shooting for, isn’t it Chet?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:16pmAnd Chet,
Why do liberals care more about protecting the lives of insignificant minnows, and insects, and even certain weeds, than they do for their own offspring living inside their own wombs?
They can abort their own child without blinking an eye, and then recoil in horror over the shooting of a Canadian Goose.
Report Post »JustMeHere_01
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:57pm@The Third Archon
I have to ask if you are drinking tonight or are you on drugs. You appear to be a bit disoriented tonight. I think I have read some of your comments before and you seemed to be articulate. What I am reading from you this night is irrational, spotty and all over the place.
What gives.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 1:29amdataweaver
Report Post »You’re right, it isn’t a baby until it’s born. It doesn’t have free will, and it hasn’t perceived the world by means of its senses, so it has not yet begun to form a human intellect. It’s okay to kill it as long as its head is still inside its mother. After that it’s a person and has the same right to not be killed as the rest of us.
dataweaver
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 3:22amInteresting. You start by saying that I’m right, and then proceed to contradict everything I said. In particular, how did you get agreement with “it’s okay to kill it as long as its head is still inside its mother“ from ”it shouldn’t matter if the baby is in the womb or not“ and ”there isn’t a difference between the moments _before_ birth and the moments _after_ birth”? Or are you just trolling?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:26amdataweaver
Report Post »After it’s born it begins to develop a mind. Until it enters the world it doesn’t have a mind because it has nothing to think about.
disenlightened
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 8:19am@REDDENBLACK
“yeah, for the entire course of human history kids have been having sex and getting pregnant as teenagers, but THIS TIME, one law in arizona is gonna change that because if there is ONE THING that kids ALWAYS PAY ATTENTION TOO, it’s the law. Marijuana is illegal, and no kids smoke that anymore….”
Pay attention: Before liberals built the abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods to begin the culling of minority kids, teenage pregnancy was pretty rare. Once the culling began, and girls were relieved of facing the consequences of their irresponsible behavior (and their parents the financial cost), the rate went up. When the culling got subsidized by the actual taxpayers (read: conservatives), the rate increased further. If you build it, they will come. High schools now have classrooms full of teenage mothers now that didn’t exist when you were a child. My point is simply that if we reinstate the disincentive to having unprotected sex there will be less.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:03pm@DISENLIGHTENED Said:
“If you build it…..they will come”
Perfect, one sentence, description.
That nails it, in more ways than one.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:45pm“At what stage would YOU call that “life” a baby?
And if you decide to answer that question…….what, or who gives you the right to decide?”
Birth, or somewhere in the third trimester. That’s actually kind of my point–it doesn’t matter, so long as there is a standard, and that standard commands assent, because WHATEVER standard we decide, be it yours of conception, birth, or the Romans’ “walking and talking,“ there is no ”objective standard” to which we can incontrovertibly appeal–whether we adopt your standard or any other, the justifications given, the ONLY ones that can be demonstrably given, will be reasoning informed by HUMAN subjective judgments of value. You can stomp up and down all you want, insisting your standard is “objectively validated” by some higher authority (whatever you care to conjure) but that doesn’t address the problem that MAKES this an issue in the first place–there ISN’T such an uncontroversial authority, in LIEU of such, we are politically FORCED to make SOME determination (i.e. abortion WILL be either totally illegal, totally legal, or somewhere in between–but regardless there WILL be a de facto policy) as best we can.
@THEREALCONSERVATIVE
Report Post »Hitler didn‘t give reasons why Jews weren’t to be considered humans–he just DIDN’T consider them humans. Besides which, most reasonable people who wouldn’t call zygotes either sentient or human, would say calling Jews (I’m assuming you mean extant ones) “non-human” woul
The Third Archon
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 4:55pm@DATA
Report Post »Actually, because I realize that all these standards are only arbitrary conventions (or at least, unless and until we can see the mind of another through their own eyes, we have no way of KNOWING whether or not they are anything more than arbitrary conventions), I’m not emotionally invested in one essentialist standard for human life–I think that whatever standard way arrive at through democratic consensus is acceptable, although this is NOT to say that SOME standards aren’t BETTER than others from a certain value perspective. For example, if you value sentience as a basis for ascribing value to human life (i.e. consider it a defining characteristic), then any later than birth would definitely be troublesome. And, as you point out, there are empirical reasons to suspect our exact limitation should be fixed somewhere in the 2nd to 3rd trimester, if sentience is our basis of determination. And I am perfectly fine with somewhere within that range–knowing that such judgments are contingent upon how much knowledge we have about the subject at any given time, unlike conservatives, I am not committed to any particular static a priori (that is, to an examination of observations) definition of “human life” but rather RECOGNIZE that our definitions can become more accurate PRECISELY BECAUSE we proceed from ignorance to knowledge, and don’t START “knowing.”
The Third Archon
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:13pm“would say calling Jews (I’m assuming you mean extant ones) “non-human” would be factually inaccurate.”
Stupid character counter lies!
@DISENLIGHTENED
Report Post »@THERIGHTSOFBILLY
There are OTHER historical factors besides just SUPPLY that are responsible for the increasing teen pregnancies and single motherhood, particularly among impoverished urbanites. Factors which you COMPLETELY ignore; factors having to do with the economy and politics that reshaped people‘s lives starting since about the 70’s, in ways that made these phenomena more visible and frequent. Abortions were still happening, just as they were STILL happening when abortion was illegal–the DIFFERENCE was the visibility to the public. But for some people “out of sight out of mind,” right?
dataweaver
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 6:10pmThe Third Archon: then I take it that you‘re willing to speak out against Chet’s claims that sentience doesn’t start until birth? And/or to get Roe vs. Wade overturned so that states can start putting in laws concerning abortion that are decided by democratic consensus?
The way things stand right now, it doesn’t matter if conservatives are using an a priori definition of where human life begins, because the law has set the moment of birth as an a priori definition for it. The only way that we’re going to even have a shot at getting abortion laws that are based on facts rather than dogma will be to put the question back on the table; and if your goal really is to follow the facts wherever they may lead, you should be in favor of removing obstacles to doing so.
As for me, I’d rather err on the side of protecting something that might be an innocent human life rather than killing it: that is, the burden of proof ought to be on the people claiming that a fetus _doesn’t_ have the right to live rather than on those who claim that it _does_.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 7, 2012 at 2:05am@THIRD
Did you know that it is against the law to destroy an egg from certain birds?
Is that law right or wrong in your opinion?
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 3:58pmAnyone wanna place bets on the net change in teen pregnancy rates for Arizona over the next 5 years?
Report Post »Steelhead
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:04pmthey will go up
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:05pmNo but I’ll take this bet… that the number of murdered babies goes down.
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:11pmThen make them raise their children. Fine them and put them in jail for bringing unwated children into this world to suffer. Why should babies pay the price for people fornicating? Fornicating and having unwanted babies is not a mistake. It is a sin. Call it by it’s name Sin. People need to know that a mistake is like dialing the wrong phone number or writing down an incorrect number, etc. Sin and crime is what people are trying pawn off as mistakes. Changing the word to “mistake” does not fool God or the fact some child has to pay with its life because two people are sinning against their own bodies outside of marriage. Get to know what you are doing.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:24pm@GODLOVINMOM
Report Post »I wouldn’t count on it–Arizona’s bill just makes them COST more by taking away funding; given that contraception is statistically the single greatest preemptive way to reduce abortions, by increasing the cost of these services (i.e. the non-abortion services offered by PP), there’s no reason to think (given the statistical data we have on the subject) the result will be any different than how it ALWAYS is when access to contraception (as a share of populace) goes down, which is unwanted pregnancies go up, and then by correlation abortions go up.
disenlightened
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:30pm…the rate may go up initially, but even young girls are capable of learning and will either stop having premarital sex or use birth control…or face the consequences…people want to treat these girls like mental handicaps – some might be slow learners but they do have a brain.
Report Post »TheSoundOf Truth
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:42pmThird Reich: The people of the state of Arizona voted, democratically through their representatives, to ban funding.
This is the 10th amendment in action.
If you don’t like it, don’t live in Arizona.
Unless you live in Arizona, you have no gripe, no recourse, and no business being bothered by it. Sorry pal, but the constitution wins in this case.
Report Post »TheSoundOf Truth
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:46pm“Arizona’s bill just makes them COST more by taking away funding”
Yes, Archon, it is called “behavioral economics” and it is imposed on us every day by the federal government with regards to cigarettes, beer, and now states are taxing “unhealthy foods” in order to make those foods more expensive so that people buy less of them.
So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Deal with it. You lose this round, and it’s because the same tactics that people like you praise are being used against the ideology that you promote.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:25pmI love how you equate access to contraception, the same thing as ABORTION..maybe if our government didn’t fund this crap, and Americans are made to raise these babies..they just might wake up…ABORTION is not a medical proceedure…a contraception…or even a right…it is killing a baby…plain and simple…Your agruement is nothing more than evil itself….besides that, if funding for abortion is cut off…that just leaves us more money to help young Americans with all that other stuff…don’t ya think.
Report Post »ReddenBlack
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:40pm@disenlightened
“but even young girls are capable of learning and will either stop having premarital sex or use birth control…”
BWAHAHAHAhAHAhAH
yeah, for the entire course of human history kids have been having sex and getting pregnant as teenagers, but THIS TIME, one law in arizona is gonna change that
because if there is ONE THING that kids ALWAYS PAY ATTENTION TOO, it’s the law. Marijuana is illegal, and no kids smoke that anymore….
@Third Archon
Report Post »Good to hear a voice of reason.
godlovinmom
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 5:48pmVoice of reason…good one!
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:46pm@DISENLIGHTENED
That‘s not what the statistical data we’ve collected on the subject would suggest. Also, to reiterate a point made above, why, if the GOAL is to make them use contraception if they have sex, is the policy DEFUNDING Planned Parenthood? That’s the OPPOSITE of the reasonable conclusion from the purpose of getting people to use contraception if they have sex (assuming they don’t want children)?
@THESOUNDOF TRUTH (1st)
I didn‘t say the decision wasn’t done by the correct legal PROCEDURES, I just said it was nonsensical.
@THESOUNDOF TRUTH (2nd)
Well for ONE, I DON’T agree with the puritanical notions of “sin” taxes. For two, my POINT (did you read anything I wrote?) is that it DOESN’T make ECONOMIC sense from a conservative perspective–less contraception consumption means MORE unwanted pregnancies and children (or abortions) not less!
@GODLOVINMOM
Report Post »Now that technology gives us the CAPACITY to be masters of our reproductive destiny, to CHOOSE on our OWN TERMS and NO ONE ELSE’S when we shall be parents, there is no reason not to use technology to achieve that purpose. For intelligent prevention (of venereal disease AS WELL as undesired pregnancies) one SHOULD use contraception. But contraception is not 100% foolproof–taking every precaution you or your partner could still become pregnant against your desires (setting aside the life threatening situations). Why should we be forced to be parents against our will, to protect something insen
The Third Archon
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 6:49pm-tient.
@REDDENBLACK
Report Post »Nice to see another rep’n the red and the black.
godlovinmom
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 7:01pmUnlike you…if I’m gonna have sex with someone…then I take the chance of getting pregnant…unlike you I will take responsiblity for MY actions..wow your reasoning astounds me…not only do you think killing babies is okay..but its also okay for someone else to pay for it…amazing!
Report Post »And if you are the voice of reason, then I’m living in Hell.
dataweaver
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 9:47pm“Well for ONE, I DON’T agree with the puritanical notions of “sin” taxes. For two, my POINT (did you read anything I wrote?) is that it DOESN’T make ECONOMIC sense from a conservative perspective–less contraception consumption means MORE unwanted pregnancies and children (or abortions) not less!”
The law in question isn’t defunding contraceptives; it’s defunding Planned Parenthood. If that results in less contraceptives, that’s because Planned Parenthood chooses to allocate fewer of their remaining resources to providing contraceptives – as opposed to, say, allocating the same or more to contraceptives and less to abortions.
Report Post »JustMeHere_01
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 12:05am@The Third Archon
Anyone wanna place bets on the net change in teen pregnancy rates for Arizona over the next 5 years?
—————————————————————
This is a peculiar response. I think the story is about cutting funding for abortions. For an abortion to happen the person would have already been pregnant.
If you had stated how many teenage girls will now have babies instead of aboting them then it may have made some sense. The more comments I read tonight from you the more I am concerned about you. You appear disoriented for some reason. Your comments seem to be nothing short of babbling about this and that with no real clear message.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 5:35pm“The law in question isn’t defunding contraceptives; it’s defunding Planned Parenthood. If that results in less contraceptives, that’s because Planned Parenthood chooses to allocate fewer of their remaining resources to providing contraceptives – as opposed to, say, allocating the same or more to contraceptives and less to abortions.”
If the correlation between decreasing resources available to a primary provider (statistically) of both contraception and abortion, and the consequent decrease in the number of people who will then be SERVED by those resources (and thus some who were on the margin, previously having access, no longer will) by extension resulting in more unwanted pregnancies, isn’t OBVIOUS to you, then there’s nothing I can do for you.
@JUSTMEHERE_01
Report Post »The story ISN’T about cutting funding for abortions (that’s ALREADY a law in Arizona, if you read the story), it’s about cutting funding for THE REST of what planned parenthood does (which, yes, does largely involve contraception provision). If you don’t understand the causal chain between decreasing the resources available for anything “x”, decreased access to “x”, and finally decreased UTILIZATION of “x”, with all attendant consequences, then see above. If you still don’t understand, I can’t help you.
dataweaver
Posted on May 6, 2012 at 7:45pmAgain, Planned Parenthood is free to allocate its resources however it wishes; and if it chooses to continue allocating resources to abortion services to the detriment of other services, it‘s Planned Parenthood who’s responsible for any subsequent loss of other services.
And I say “if” in part because Planned Parenthood gets funding from more sources than just the Arizona government, and contraceptives are available from more sources than just Planned Parenthood; and contraceptives aren’t the only (or even necessarily the most effective) means of reducing the teen pregnancy rate. So it _isn’t_ immediately obvious what sort of effect fewer tax dollars to Planned Parenthood will have on teen pregnancies. What _is_ obvious is that Arizona tax dollars aren’t going to be funding Planned Parenthood anymore, so Arizona citizens don’t need to worry about being forced (directly or indirectly) to fund something that they consider to be morally reprehensible.
I know you don’t agree with this; but you should at least understand that it’s a logical and consistent position for a conservative to take.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 3:53pmAfter allowing the bible back in her state’s schools and shaking her finger at obama over border enforcement :) now this…way to go Jan…republican women rock!
Report Post »Kathleen
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:01pmJan might have the guts to ask Obama that he says that he supports his daughters being able to get an abortion, but does he support them not wanting one? Does Obama support his children making the choice to keep their baby?
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:13pmYes, Go Jan. You got a toe hold. Stand your ground.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:19pmNow Kathleen.We all know Obama thinks babies are a mistake.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 3:49pmPlanned Parenthood should not get one thin dime of tax payer money for any reason. They are an abortion mill and cannot be trusted since abortion is their bread and butter.
Report Post »Jan Brewer is one of this nation’s heros. God bless her.
blackyb
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 4:16pmShe is a hero. So is Joe Apraio. Arizona has some good and great people. I am proud of them. I am originally from North Carolina. Hope we got some heros there. If not I may just tell everyone I am from Arizona. Lol. This is great.
Report Post »Pilotswife
Posted on May 5, 2012 at 3:45pmGood! This is one of the reasons I voted for her.
Report Post »