Democrats & Liberals Archives

Boehner Calls it quits

After privately meeting with Pope Francis last Thursday, Speaker Boehner has announced that he will resign his seat at the end of October.

Presumably, this is timed to enable Boehner to fund the government for one additional year, although it is highly likely he will once again violate the Hastert rule in order to do so. It is unknown what impact Francis I's visit had on Boehner, who is a devout Catholic.

In any case, the task of coralling Tea Party fanatics into a governing coalition will likely fall upon Kevin McCarthy. I don't expect he will be much different than Boehner What is more interesting is to see who the next majority leader and whip will be. If the Tea Party captures those positions, Congress will be due an even wilder ride.

Posted by Warren Porter at September 26, 2015 2:39 PM
Comments
Comment #398984

WP,
We’ll see if McCarthy gets to be Speaker. He is relatively young and relatively inexperienced, with not much time as either Whip or Majority Leader, but no one else in the GOP can make much of a case. Like you observe, if the Tea Party fills the Majority & Whip positions with one of its own, the House GOP could become even more dysfunctional.

Part of the dysfunction is due to gerrymandering. Too many incumbents, especially in the Republican Party, are gerrymandered into districts where they know they will not be challenged, unless that challenge comes from even farther right. It results in states like OH, which went for Obama, being represented in Congress 75 - 25% in favor of the GOP. There are some states gerrymandered in the Democrats favor, but the really big ones, like CA & NY, use a non-partisan method for calculating representation. A large number of red states rely on gerrymandering.

In the Senate, 20 million more people voted for Democrats than Republicans, yet due to the imbalance established by the Constitution, small states represent disproportionate representation in that body. The House, however, is supposed to be more representative of the people and the popular vote. Due to gerrymandering, it is not. And just to repeat myself, it means challenges to incumbents in safe districts tend to come from those more extreme- usually, more radical and right wing.

And what this means is that Republican representation in the Legislatures does not reflect the ways American citizens actually vote. But it convinces the GOP they are stronger and more popular than they actually are. This plays a part in making the party get more and more radical and extreme. And I think that played a role in Boehner’s resignation. He did not want to preside over another catastrophic government shutdown, or threats to crash the economy by not raising the debt limit. McCarthy may take the helm, but the party will become even more rabid with Boehner gone. Boehner might pass some important short term legislation to save the country from the GOP fringe, but this resignation will embolden them. Once Boehner is gone the problem will get even worse.

Recently you mentioned the GOP was not more extreme in their positions, only in their tactics. I thought that was an interesting observation. But we are seeing more and more examples of positions that would have been unthinkable even recently, such as revoking birthright citizenship, or building a wall on the southern border and making Mexico pay for it. And it’s not just Trump. Carson just finished saying a Muslim could not be president because of the religion. Fiorina cited a bald faced lie to justify defunding PP- she literally just made it up during a debate- and when called on it, she blames the media and liberals.

It’s getting bad. If he does win the Speakership, I hope McCarthy can hold things together this winter.

Posted by: phx8 at September 26, 2015 11:49 PM
Comment #398987

There’s a lot at play within the conservative movement. Ultimately, it boils down to the uneasy marriage between the culturally conservative base and the secular establishment that is more keen on liberalizing economic policy. With the former, you get people who probably support the welfare state 10x more strongly than I do, but they vote GOP because they oppose abortion or gay marriage. With the latter you have a collection of various degrees of libertarian philosophy. Traditionally, the former group provides the movement’s body while the latter supplies its mind.

The body of the conservative movement always had very extreme positions on some issues. I doubt many Republicans in the ’70s could imagine themselves supporting gay marriage or a Muslim presidential candidate either. The difference was that back then, the mind kept the body out of the spotlight. In the ’80s, Republicans won 3 landslide Presidential victories. Because conservatism had spent so many decades on the margins of American politics, the body of the movement was content to support a mind that at least paid them lip service. This continued during the WJC and GWB eras, but since 2008 things have been very different.

Traditionally, the Democratic primary has featured a face off between a candidate representing affluent progressive “latte liberals” and a candidate representing the working class Democrats. The latter had won every primary until 2008. Obama built a unique coalition between African-Americans and affluent Whites and it has completely upended the political regime. In particular, it has instilled a rage into the body of the conservative movement.

With the advent of the tea party, we have seen the body usurp the mind and the results have been unmitigated disaster. This is why we have seen such a radical change in the GOP’s tactics. The positions are nothing new, but they were latent because the mind was in control, but that is true no longer.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 27, 2015 2:53 PM
Comment #398990

This is just the next step in the plan for those that hold the purse strings for the radical right. Their problem has always been how they can win elections and control the majority with a minority of votes. They have solved that over the years with, as phx8 tells us, gerrymandering and with the assault on voting rights. But they have also had an amazing propaganda program that is tough to beat. A relentless use of myth and misinformation, the attacks on Planned Parenthood being an excellent example of the propaganda, they have found easy and simple lies to work rather convincingly on many Americans today.

When you can convince the American people campaign bribes/money is free speech you have done a good job. When you can get the masses upset because their heritage is under attack, because the rebel flag is removed from a public building, and they are from the north or the west you have done a good job. When you can get a Democrat county clerk to go to jail for not issuing marriage certs because her religious beliefs are being attacked you have done a good job. When you can get the Speaker of the House of Representatives to step down because he won’t shut down the government over planned parenthood you have done a good job.

The problem of course is the damage being done to the country by a lack of leadership in the repub party. Boehner wasn’t able to control these radical right guys so the answer is to let them take the reins according to the repub party leadership. To bad the Pope didn’t inspire him to fight instead of give up. But it seems the culture wars will be the issue this election instead of the real issues we face as a country.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 28, 2015 1:21 PM
Comment #398991
the attacks on Planned Parenthood being an excellent example of the propaganda, they have found easy and simple lies to work rather convincingly on many Americans today.

Not really. This whole charade regarding Planned Parenthood is going to blow up in Republicans’ faces. It will doom Cruz/Carson/etc in the general election next year if they somehow manage to become the GOP nominee. The American people speak loud and clear. Enough is enough! Conservatism is damaging our nation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 2:46 PM
Comment #398992

The House and Senate both pass a budget. It is sent to the president who vetoes it for not containing funding he prefers.

Who shut down the government?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 5:19 PM
Comment #398993

RF,
Do people really care about such minutia? With nearly 70% in favor of a budget funding Planned Parenthood people are going to blame GOP regardless.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 5:46 PM
Comment #398994

Warren asks; “Do people really care about such minutia?”

I don’t know Warren. Should people really care about how their tax dollars are spent; or, should people only care that government doesn’t shut down?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 5:54 PM
Comment #398995

Warren, have you ever wondered why our Founders gave the power of the purse only to those in the House?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #398996

I assure you people do care about how their tax dollars are spent. Many elections have been determined exactly by that. The issues is that Planned Parenthood is something 69% of people want to fund.

The House has the power of the purse because that body is supposed to be more resonant with popular opinion. However, the current system is dysfunctional. A clear majority of Congresspeople support a clean funding bill, but silly things like the Hastert rule keep them from doing what the electorate wants.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 6:11 PM
Comment #398997

It’s all a moot point at this rate. Boehner & McConnell are going to put the good of the nation above the craven ideological interests of their base. This is precisely why Boehner is resigning.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #398998

Warren writes; “…silly things like the Hastert rule keep them from doing what the electorate wants.”

Really? People rejected obamacare, the Iran deal, and much more. Was it silly for the electorate to object? Was it silly for congress to ignore popular opinion?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 6:16 PM
Comment #398999

In 2008, Obama and Congressional Democrats ran on a platform that included healthcare reform and reconciliation with Iran and the electorate awarded them the levers of power within our government.

In 2010, Republicans captured Congress amidst complaints regarding the slow recovery. Republicans were never given a mandate to toy with American society like Cruz and his allies advocate.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 6:45 PM
Comment #399000

Republicans were never given a mandate to toy with American society like Cruz and his allies advocate.
Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 6:45 PM

And you know this because…?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 6:47 PM
Comment #399001

Warren, do you have any clue as to why the electorate gave both the House and Senate to Republicans?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 6:48 PM
Comment #399002

Warren, do you have any clue as to why the electorate gave a majority of governorships and state legislatures to Republicans?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 28, 2015 6:49 PM
Comment #399004

Because Obama wasn’t on the ballot in 2010 & 2014.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 28, 2015 8:22 PM
Comment #399009

WP has the same understanding of why republicans took state legislatures and governorships, as he does republicans taking control of the house and senate. In fact Boehner is wondering what happened to his speakership and McConnell is wondering how he will hold on to the senate leadership position. C&J are having the same problem understanding why Trump is in the lead. Trump may never win the primary, but it’s a good chance that Bush is on his way home.


Let me try to explain; conservatives are fed up with spineless republican politicians. Obama’s so called victories have caused the voters to reject democrats. I think there has been clear message sent to both parties. The liberal talking heads on WB do not represent the American voters. They are a fringe group of radicals. From the looks of Hillary’s polls, the mainstream democrats are fed up with her too.

Posted by: Blaine at September 28, 2015 11:06 PM
Comment #399010

I’m impressed, I have to admit. Seldom do I encounter a blog that’s both equally educative and interesting, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is something which not enough folks are speaking intelligently about. Now i’m very happy I found this in my hunt for something relating to this.
cheap writing service

Posted by: yazzieabby at September 29, 2015 1:28 AM
Comment #399012
The liberal talking heads on WB do not represent the American voters.

Polls indicate otherwise. Like in 2012, Americans will reject conservatism in 2016. Gerrymandering and the Constitution’s natural bias towards empowering rural constituencies may keep Congress in GOP hands, but that should never be confused for a mandate to completely upend our government.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2015 2:29 AM
Comment #399014


Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of presentation.

Posted by: Stephanie Stroh at September 29, 2015 5:14 AM
Comment #399015

Seems like the robots of the world agree. I am a great writer! :p

Back to reality: http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/28/majority-says-any-budget-deal-must-include-planned-parenthood-funding/

Yet another poll confirms the result found by Quinnipiac earlier. Americans support funding PP and do not want a government shutdown over this issue. Republicans will suffer greatly if Cruz and his allies in the House get their way.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2015 8:09 AM
Comment #399016

Come on guys.
The dems have a dishonest scandal ridden legacy and a self avowed socialist as their leading candidates, but the real news is the annual predictions about the demise of the Republican party for not moving far enough left?

OMG! The hell with corruption, criminal action and p1ss1ng on the Constitution, somebody disagree’s with gay marriage and government sponsored abortion!

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2015 11:26 AM
Comment #399017

kctim,

Excuse me, but it is the GOP that is engaging in corruption, criminal action and pissing on the Constitution.

Need I remind you that former Speaker Hastert is soon going to be bargaining for his guilty plea? Also, it is established well agreed upon that the Constitution protects the right to an abortion as well as the right not to be discriminated against on account of one’s sex when seeking a marriage license. Lastly, there’s no such thing as a government sponsored abortion, at least at the Federal level.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #399018

Gerrymandering and the Constitution’s natural bias towards empowering rural constituencies may keep Congress in GOP hands, but that should never be confused for a mandate to completely upend our government.
Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2015 2:29 AM

Ah, Yes…Gerrymandering. Hmmm…the electorate placed the power in Republican hands to draw voting district boundaries. They didn’t want dems to have that power. How is that a plus for dems?

Regarding “rural constituencies” Warren…once again I ask if you understand the reasoning of our Founders?

So many excuses Warren, and so much spinning.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 29, 2015 11:34 AM
Comment #399021
the electorate placed the power in Republican hands to draw voting district boundaries/blockquote>

This wasn’t a major issue in the 2010 election. People gave power to the GOP because the economy sucked back then and the buck stopped on Obama’s desk.

I ask if you understand the reasoning of our Founders?
Yes, at the time the 13 colonies behaved as 13 sovereign nations. When the Constitution was ratified, it was essentially a cessation of a vast amount of power from the states to the Federal government. As such, there were concerns at the time that large states like Virginia or New York would dominate and overwhelm the smaller ones like Delaware. However, all of that reasoning is obsolete today. With the rise of categorical grants, state governments have been detached from their historical roles for a long time. Also, the disparities in populations density are exponentially greater today than they were before the industrial revolution when the most populous states were simply the ones with the greatest areas.

The Constitution’s bias in favor of rural constituencies has got to go.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2015 11:55 AM
Comment #399023

“With the rise of categorical grants, state governments have been detached from their historical roles for a long time.”

And therein lies the root of the problems we face.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 29, 2015 12:11 PM
Comment #399024

Oh boy, Warren Porter! I don’t know what progressive comic book you had in History class, but it’s not the text book I was taught from.

When the Constitution was ratified, it was essentially a cessation of a vast amount of power from the states to the Federal government.

That is an incorrect statement. The federal government was given permission to administer the affairs pertaining to the united states. The states chartered the federal government to be used as a tool to:
1) Establish and maintain a currency i.e. Treasury
2) To represent the united states to foreign governments i.e. State
3) To protect and defend the united states i.e. Defense

Our Founder’s Constitution left everything else up to the states. Our Founder’s Constitution had everything to do with the collective states and their affairs with foreign governments, and nothing to do with the affairs of the individual or the internal affairs of any state.

As such, there were concerns at the time that large states like Virginia or New York would dominate and overwhelm the smaller ones like Delaware.

Please turn to the chapter, “The Senate”.
Here it will describe the senate and how it was constructed by the founders. Two senators were elected by the legislatures of the individual states to represent their state in the affairs of the federal government and to check the excesses of the people’s representatives.

However, all of that reasoning is obsolete today.

Obsolete is not the word I would use to describe the senate. I would venture to say the founder’s senate, as described in the constitution, was murdered by the 17th amendment. It was replaced by a glorified house of representatives and funded by the individual.

It’s incredibly misleading to say the reasoning behind the original constitution is obsolete. Given the current situation we have with our federal government and it’s overreach, it’s obvious the 17th amendment is a mistake. The simple solution is to repeal it and return to the checks and balances set forth in the original constitution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 29, 2015 5:30 PM
Comment #399027
1) Establish and maintain a currency i.e. Treasury 2) To represent the united states to foreign governments i.e. State 3) To protect and defend the united states i.e. Defense

Under the Articles of Confederation, the states handled #1 & #3. By moving those functions to the Federal goverment represented a massive cessation of power. Not to mention the fact that the Constitution granted the Federal government additional patterns that you do not mention, including the power to spend tax monies to promote the general welfare as well as to regulate interstate commerce.

As I already mentioned, categorical grants have resulted in an even greater concentration of power in DC rather than the 50 state capitals.

Here it will describe the senate and how it was constructed by the founders. Two senators were elected by the legislatures of the individual states to represent their state in the affairs of the federal government and to check the excesses of the people’s representatives.
Yes, and originally the electoral college was selected by state legislatures and were not bound to vote for any particular candidate. However, times have changed. The Senate now claims to represent the people rather than the elite, but the mixing of popular election with equal apportionment among the states has resulted in a terrible chimera.
It’s incredibly misleading to say the reasoning behind the original constitution is obsolete. Given the current situation we have with our federal government and it’s overreach, it’s obvious the 17th amendment is a mistake. The simple solution is to repeal it and return to the checks and balances set forth in the original constitution.
The mistake in the 17th Amendment was its failure to apportion Senators by the populations they represent. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2015 7:48 PM
Comment #399029

You have to ask yourself why the original function of the senate was flawed.

The fact of the matter is, it wasn’t flawed at all. It was working as expected.

It was working so well it stood in the way of the progressive philosophy. That’s why it was destroyed. The 17th destroyed the checks and balances the state governments had over the federal government. The 17th created the monster that is now the federal government, not the founders.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 29, 2015 11:58 PM
Comment #399030

In an era before education was universal, when a small numbers of elites knew better than the commoner, the Senate worked as expected. But that came to an end with the advent of Jacksonian Democracy and its emphasis on universal suffrage. The obsolete method for choosing Senators sputtered onward until the end of the 19th century, but its shortcomings became particularly apparent in the battles over monetary policy that were fought in the 1890s. Adopting a looser monetary standard based upon silver coinage was clearly supported by the electorate, yet these silver beetles were unable to put their ideas into action due to intransigence on the part of gold bug senators. Hence, why the 17th amendment was passed soon thereafter.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 30, 2015 12:47 AM
Comment #399031

Warren

I was referring to the democratic presidential candidates, not democrats in general.
Clinton has corruption and probable criminal actions hanging over her head. Sanders supports policies that are unconstitutional and we would have to throw the whole dang thing away for him to get his way.

But yet, the ‘big news’ is that half the Republicans haven’t moved far enough left? I don’t think so.
Boehner is spineless and has worried more about losing possible votes, than standing up for principles and doing what is best for the country. THAT is why people want him out.

And, excuse me, but it is politicians in general that are engaging in corruption, criminal action and pissing on the Constitution, because we let them just as long as they support our pet issues like gay marriage and abortion. Clinton and Sanders are even further proof of that.

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2015 9:26 AM
Comment #399032

Compare the politics of the Guilded Age to the politics of today and you will find many similarities.

When excuses (corrupt state legislatures, monetary policy) are used to justify an action (direct election of senators) and the excuses are still present 100 years later, it’s safe to assume the action was ineffective. It missed the mark.

In 1907, the panic reeked havoc on homeowners. Politicians insisted a national bank will solve the problem of wildly fluctuating booms and busts that were considered common. However, the problem was not solved as demonstrated by the market crash of 1929, the S&L crisis of the ‘80’s, and the “Great Recession” of 2008. What was supposed to be a cure all for economic depression was actually a placebo that gave the American people a false sense of security. The Federal Reserve is a failure.

The same can be said for the 17th amendment. It was touted as a cure all for the corruption at the state level and the ineffective politics of the day. Yet, we still have the same problems we had then.

To me, this shows the 17th amendment was, and is, inadequate. Every excuse can be thrown up to placate the masses, but the fact remains. The 17th amendment was, and is, a mistake.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 30, 2015 10:46 AM
Comment #399033
I was referring to the democratic presidential candidates, not democrats in general.

Fine. Clinton & Sanders both suck. I’m not voting for them. This is why I turn to the Republican Party in the hopes that put forward a viable candidate that might actually protect the Constitution instead of pissing on it like all the rest.

But yet, the ‘big news’ is that half the Republicans haven’t moved far enough left
Nobody is talking about moving Republicans to the left apart from LGBT issues. The big news is that the most conservative of Republicans have rejected much of what the party stood for before 2010. Reagan could never have imagined the ridiculous antics that go on today merely in the pursuit of the title “most conservative”.

WW,
The monetary controversies of the gilded age are ancient history now. We have fiat money now and are much better off because of it. The recent ZIRP has found a consensus among all but the most hardened Austrian economists.

Corruption still exists within the state legislatures, but the magnitude would be far worse if we did not have the 17th amendment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 30, 2015 11:39 AM
Comment #399034
Boehner is spineless and has worried more about losing possible votes, than standing up for principles and doing what is best for the country. THAT is why people want him out.

Give me one example where Boehner refused to do what he thought was best for the country. Boehner has been consistent throughout his speakership, government shutdowns and defaults on our debt are NOT in the country’s best interest. Perhaps it is unfortunate for the Right that conservatives don’t have enough votes to implement their agenda, but losing a battle is not indicative of cowardice. Do you consider Christian X a coward because he refused to fight the Germans in WWII?

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 30, 2015 11:47 AM
Comment #399035

Warren, a “viable candidate’ from the Republican Party that will govern as you desire would be a Republican that has moved far enough left to adopt the positions you agree with. Yesterdays democrat.

“The big news is that the most conservative of Republicans have rejected much of what the party stood for before 2010.”

I hear that all the time from the left, but have yet to receive a reasonable explanation on how it is so.
Conservatives supported abortion prior to 2010? Gay marriage? High taxes? Large intrusive government? Illegal immigration? Massive debt? Government health care? Were they trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment?
Or has all of that been slowly happening, with Republican help I might add, and the people have been voting in more true Conservatives to represent them?

Beliefs haven’t changed, you’re definition of the “moderate” position has.

“government shutdowns and defaults on our debt are NOT in the country’s best interest”

That depends what one believes is in the country’s best interest. Shutting down the government because Obama refuses to compromise on health care and our freedom of choice, would be in the country’s best interest IMO. As would addressing the need to cut our nations spending.

“Do you consider Christian X a coward because he refused to fight the Germans in WWII?”

Yes. Well, unless Christian X was a German himself or one of their allies.

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2015 1:10 PM
Comment #399036

Warren, the States created the Federal Government and never intended the Feds tail to wag the dog.

We were hugely better off when our Senators were elected by their respective State Legislatures.

Some lefties forget the purpose of the Constitution. Power to the People. The more directly we elect our representatives the better off the people.

The national government has become a fourth branch of government which was never intended. We have tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats running our government who are unresponsive to the people. It is nearly impossible to fire the bad ones.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 30, 2015 2:19 PM
Comment #399037

Just one example of our failed federal bureaucracy.

“When you want to solve a complex problem like increasing access to health care and controlling costs, look to the marketplace, not the ivory-tower wonks and community activists whose hubris is rivaled only by their lack of practical knowledge.”

http://nypost.com/2015/09/29/obamacares-latest-victims-100000-new-yorkers-and-taxpayers-everywhere/

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 30, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment #399038

Fiat money is a curse, Warren Porter. It’s the beginning of the end of a sound monetary policy.

Fiat money is used for one purpose. It lets governments avoid responsibility for their vote buying spending habits. Fiat money allows politicians to spend without taxing. All they have to do is print and spend instead of tax and spend.

Fiat money is a silent thief.

The senate, elected by the state legislatures, is the only check against the federal government abusing the state governments. State governments should be able to send to D.C. people who know how their state government works, its capabilities and it’s limits. The people already have their representatives in the house. They don’t need another super-layer of representation in the senate. The senate was reserved especially for the state governments to keep the federal government from exceeding it’s authority. The 17th amendment destroyed that capability and we are not better off because of it. We have an out of control federal government that mandates programs to be paid for by the states without their permission.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 30, 2015 6:46 PM
Comment #399039

kctim,
I wouldn’t posit that the GOP was left-of-center or anything of that sort in the recent past. Only that they were less conservative and closer to the middle. Your wording puts various controversies in stark black or white positions. Of course, Republicans have held the conservative position for decades. My point is that the intensity of the conservatism has rapidly increased since the rise of the Tea Party.

Conservatives supported abortion prior to 2010

Before the Obama era, Conservatives supported a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, but did not advocate onerous restrictions on women and abortion providers.

Gay marriage
I said “apart from LGBT issues”
High taxes?
Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush both raised taxes substantially during their Presidencies.
Large intrusive government?
George W. Bush vastly expanded the government’s intrusion into daily life with anti-terrorism measures such as the PATRIOT ACT and the establishment of the department of homeland security.
Government health care?
EMTALA. Need I say more?
Were they trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment?
Need I list the Republicans who voted for the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act 20 years ago?
Massive debt?
How much government debt has been racked up by Republicans since the Carter administration?
That depends what one believes is in the country’s best interest. Shutting down the government because Obama refuses to compromise on health care and our freedom of choice, would be in the country’s best interest IMO.

We aren’t talking about what you or I think is best. We are talking about what Boehner thinks is best. While Boehner opposed the PPACA, he did not think a petty disagreement over a law was worth shutting down the government over. Perhaps it is because he knows most of the opposition to the law is merely a matter of politics rather than sincerely held beliefs that the law abridges personal freedom of choice.

“Do you consider Christian X a coward because he refused to fight the Germans in WWII?”

Yes. Well, unless Christian X was a German himself or one of their allies.


Christian X was King of Denmark. He and his fellow Danes in the government decided that resisting German occupation was futile so they decided to surrender without firing a shot. This decision proved fortutious as Denmark escaped many ravages of war that befell the rest of Europe. Denmark even saved most of its Jewish population from NAZI butchery because it was never under military occupation. Posted by: Warren Porter at September 30, 2015 11:14 PM
Comment #399040

Warren

“My point is that the intensity of the conservatism has rapidly increased since the rise of the Tea Party.”

A rise due to the slow erosion of our individual rights as the country moves further and further left. A response to hold on to already held principles and beliefs, NOT a response of becoming extremists, as the left claims.
The examples you give of Republicans compromising those principles and beliefs on government intrusion, health care, the 2nd Amendment etc…, are the reason why people are replacing those like Boehner.

“he did not think a petty disagreement over a law was worth shutting down the government over.”

Yeah, just as you, he believed it was all about politics and had nothing to do with principles and beliefs. And he was disliked and not trusted for thinking that. And now he is gone.
So, now just how “petty” is the loss of freedom of choice to those who’s support he needed?

“Christian X was King of Denmark….”

You asked if I thought Christian X was a coward, not if they were lucky.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2015 9:37 AM
Comment #399041
A rise due to the slow erosion of our individual rights as the country moves further and further left. A response to hold on to already held principles and beliefs, NOT a response of becoming extremists, as the left claims. The examples you give of Republicans compromising those principles and beliefs on government intrusion, health care, the 2nd Amendment etc…, are the reason why people are replacing those like Boehner.

The fact remains, the cadence of conservatism is remarkable different today than it was before. Moderation and compromise have been replaced with dogma and ideological fidelity. No longer are people concerned with what is best for the country. The focus is simply on pushing “conservatism” down the throats of the American people. Not a care in the world is given for the fact that this “conservatism” seeks to abridge and violate the individual rights we have cherished for nearly 250 years.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 1, 2015 12:00 PM
Comment #399042

“When you want to solve a complex problem like increasing access to health care and controlling costs, look to the marketplace,”

Seriously Royal! Why do you think Obamacare came into being? The market didn’t do the job. In fact the failure of these entities, if this newspaper can be believed, is the market in action isn’t it?

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Health-Republic-Insurance-of-New-York-co-op-is-6531166.php

Posted by: j2t2 at October 1, 2015 12:07 PM
Comment #399043

Not a care in the world is given for the fact that this “conservatism” seeks to abridge and violate the individual rights we have cherished for nearly 250 years.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 1, 2015 12:00 PM

I am confused with your statement Warren. What recognized individual rights, cherished for nearly 250 years, are you writing about?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 12:18 PM
Comment #399044

j2t2 writes; “The market didn’t do the job.”

The writer fails to mention the constraints placed upon the free market health care provider system by government.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 12:25 PM
Comment #399045

“Moderation and compromise have been replaced with dogma and ideological fidelity.”

No, it hasn’t Warren.
What has happened is that the leftists definition of “moderate” has moved left as the country has been pulled further and further left, while many on the right have reached the threshold of what they are willing to compromise away.

“No longer are people concerned with what is best for the country.”

Again, that depends totally on what one believes is best for the country. Are feelings more important than freedom of speech and religion? Is a false sense of security more important than the freedom to keep and bear arms? Is “free” healthcare more important than your freedom of choice?

“The focus is simply on pushing “conservatism” down the throats of the American people.”

How in the he11 do you “push” something that’s always been, down the throats of anybody? Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, but now because 5 people redefine it to be between anybody, those who object are pushing conservatism down your throat? Our government and taxes were always supposed to be limited and low, but objecting to our massive government and high taxes is now pushing conservatism down your throat? I don’t think so, my friend.

“Not a care in the world is given for the fact that this “conservatism” seeks to abridge and violate the individual rights we have cherished for nearly 250 years.”

BS, and you know it.
The leftist created ‘rights’ to not be offended, to not be scared, to have stuff provided by government, to be given special treatment etc…, are new and have NOT been “cherished for nearly 250 years.”

This conservatism, as you call it, is doing nothing but preventing the change that you want.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2015 12:44 PM
Comment #399046

RF,

I am confused with your statement Warren. What recognized individual rights, cherished for nearly 250 years, are you writing about?

The right to live my life how I see fit without interference from government or other people has been cherished for nearly 250 years. Throughout those intervening years, our conceptualization of this right has expanded and the role of government in suppressing it has waned. But now, we have people saying that they can withhold marriage licenses because the relationship is one they don’t approve of. We have people saying that some religions merit extra scrutiny when an adherent runs for elected office. We have people trying to interfere with what goes on inside the bodies of women everywhere. We have unprecedented molestations of body and invasions of privacy in the name of “security”.

But no. Apparently all of those things are supposed to pale in comparison with the horror of making someone pay for their own medical care rather than relying on the taxpayer’s funds spent through EMTALA.

kctim,

Is “free” healthcare more important than your freedom of choice?

I value my freedom of choice far more than the conservative Republicans who don’t have the balls to repeal EMTALA. I have consistently said that I support reforming PPACA to allow individuals to waive the privilege of not being denied coverage for preexisting conditions in exchange for the right to remain uninsured. Why are conservatives advocating for a full repeal, lock stock and barrel when such a simple fix would assuage their “concerns”? Of course, it’s because the GOP doesn’t give a damn about freedom of choice, it only cares about making Obama look bad.

How in the he11 do you “push” something that’s always been, down the throats of anybody
Excuse me? How long have “shall issue” concealed carry permits been the norm? This is all a recent phenomenon of the last few decades.
Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, but now because 5 people redefine it to be between anybody, those who object are pushing conservatism down your throat?
Same-sex marriage was legalized nearly a century ago when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Just because the government did a terrible job of protecting that right until recently doesn’t give anyone the right to require their individual stamp of approval when couples request a marriage license.
Our government and taxes were always supposed to be limited and low.
I’m sorry, I see nothing in the Constitution that says anything of the sort. That said, in 2010 when the Tea Party came into force, tax revenue was at its lowest point since the Truman administration. If that doesn’t count as limited and low, what possibly can?
The leftist created ‘rights’ to not be offended, to not be scared, to have stuff provided by government, to be given special treatment etc…, are new and have NOT been “cherished for nearly 250 years.”

Our unalienable rights come from Our Creator, not from some silly lefitsts. That’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote 240 years ago. Of course, what you listed aren’t rights at all, but those aren’t what I’m talking about. I am talking about the fundamental right to live one’s life as one pleases without silly conservatives using the government’s cudgel to tell one what to do.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 1, 2015 2:20 PM
Comment #399047

Looks like the preliminary favorite to take over the House Speaker is having his own set of problems with Republican “truth?”. Kevin McCarthy

From the article:
“Privately, Republicans were outraged by the remarks, saying the House majority leader had given Democrats unfounded ammunition to argue that the committee’s investigation is squarely being driven by politics.”

This is something Democrats have said since either the 2nd or 3rd committee investigation. The ongoing Benghazi investigation is the longest running congressional inquiry in history, surpassing Watergate, and at a cost of 4.5 million dollars.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #399048

Heard this jewel on talk radio today.

Liberal politicians have fine tuned the “art of saying nothing with great passion.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 3:33 PM
Comment #399049

Talk radio, huh? That explains a lot. Here is an apt description of the Republican led congress, “Doing as much nothing as possible to cause the most harm”.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment #399050

Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #399051

Speak knows the humor here. The libs don’t have talk radio…they have all failed to attract an audience. No one gives a shit what libs have to say.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 3:58 PM
Comment #399052

Yah, talk radio. That vast wasteland of conservative media pundits that regurgitate their human waste over the airwaves. Obviously you care what “libs” have to say. Thanks.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #399053

Once again Speaks is spinning on his heels. He can’t explain why libs can’t have a successful talk show so he spins the success of conservatives. He is so full of envy it distorts his meager brain power.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 4:59 PM
Comment #399054

Hillary is getting trashed in the polls by a Socialist and just can’t put together a believable campaign. Once again… the “art of saying nothing with great passion.”

Biden won’t get in the race and poor Hillary or the socialist clown will lead the ticket for the dems.

What fun that will be.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #399055

You seem to have a fetish over what liberals want, you are incorrect. Try to calm down. I don’t listen to the radio I wouldn’t know if there is a liberal talk radio show.

Let’s just let the Presidential campaign play out and see where Hillary Clinton is in late October 2016. We all know you can’t help yourself about Hillary. Strange that an old man like yourself still has feelings like that about an older woman. But hey, you listen to talk radio, what can we expect?

Biden was never getting in, that was just a wet dream by conservatives who listen to talk radio.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 5:12 PM
Comment #399056

Liberal talk radio has failed because there is only so many ways you can talk about gun control, global warming, abortion, the attacks on women, black lives matter, and of course, the evil capitalism. Who wants to listen to a constant flow of America bashing? PBS is as close as you get to liberal talk radio, and it needs federal funds to stay in business. If it depended on self sustaining funds to operate, PBS would also fail.

Posted by: Blaine at October 1, 2015 5:13 PM
Comment #399057

Speaks, for someone who never listens to talk radio, how do you know the idea of Biden running was the “wet dream ” of conservative radio? In fact it has been the MSM, who seems to be preoccupied with Biden jumping in the race. The talk radio I have listened to, seems to be having a horse laugh over Hillary’s continued drop in the polls, and not concerned about the “crazy old uncle” who might get in the race.

Posted by: Blaine at October 1, 2015 5:23 PM
Comment #399058

“The United States, once considered a bastion of economic freedom, now ranks 16th in the world with a score of 7.73. Due to a weakening rule of law, increasing regulation, and the ramifications of wars on terrorism and drugs, the United States has seen its economic freedom score plummet in recent years, compared to 2000 when it ranked second globally.”

http://www.cato.org/economic-freedom-world

What a dismal record after the big spending Bush and enormous spending obama.

A Hillary or Sanders presidency would have us in the bottom ranks of economic freedom.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 5:31 PM
Comment #399059

Just a guess from what and who I read here and elsewhere. The talk radio listeners don’t seem to have a whole lot going for them so they have to be spoon fed nonsense by the shock jocks that run them, from what I can gather. But as I said I don’t listen to the radio, bought a new car this year that came with something called Sirius. The little sales lady that called me to renew that was shocked when I told her I never turned the radio on.

I never thought that Biden was going to get into the race. If he were going to, I would believe that as a seasoned politician he would have been forming committees and getting feelers out well over a year ago. He did not.

Let’s just all wait until October 2016 and see where Hillary is then, now doesn’t count for too much.

Conservative predictions are suspect at best. “Romney will win in a landslide. Obama will never beat Hillary. Obama will never get re-elected. The oil from Iraq will pay for the war.” Just to name a few.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #399060

Well I guess we will find out about Hillary, if she does become President. I don’t think Sanders will get the nomination but hey I’ve been wrong before.

But how about that Trump guy? First he says we need to take more Syrian refugees a couple of months ago but now he says he will send them all back, what a political wind vane. One thing about him if he does become President, transportation industry will get a boost. With all of the immigrants he is threatening to send back (20 million?) it’ll be a boon to the bus and airline industry, paid for by US taxpayers.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #399061

Speaks writes; “You seem to have a fetish over what liberals want…”

Liberals have a strong and unusual need or desire for controlling other people, to condemn the successful, to celebrate abnormal behavior, and to desire only those immigrants who swallow their bullshit.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #399062

Awww, upset are we? Still working that liberal shtick? You should really see a therapist about that. Gotta go now, be nice.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 5:45 PM
Comment #399063

Speaks wrote; ” The talk radio listeners don’t seem to have a whole lot going for them…”

More envy from a lib who has no liberal talk shows that aren’t government funded.

He writes: “Let’s just all wait until October 2016 and see where Hillary is then, now doesn’t count for too much.”

LOL…if Hillary is not the nominee you’re stuck with Sanders. Poor libs, just can’t catch a break.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 5:50 PM
Comment #399064

Gotta go now, be nice.
Posted by: Speak4all at October 1, 2015 5:45 PM

Poor guy…got squashed and crawled away.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 1, 2015 5:53 PM
Comment #399068

The reason there is still support for PP is because the liberal media has refused to even show or discuss the PP videos. Except for FOX, conservative talk radio, and a few conservative websites, the American people have no idea that PP was killing and butchering babies for a profit. Abortion is becoming repulsive to more and more Americans, so the sale of body parts would also be repulsive, if the people knew. The left pushes the lies of what PP does for women, so this is all the dumbed down people know. The president of PP tried to spread the same lies and was forced to admit that PP doesn’t really do anything except abortions and referrals. Why would the left not want to use the millions given to PP; to be given to women’s clinics that would actually use the money for women’s health, instead of wasting it on salaries, travel, and as a slush fund for democrat politicians? The reason is abortions; abortions are the god of the left. The left hates God, they hate Christianity, and they hate the Constitution. God gives life, Christians believe it, and the Constitution supports it. The same can be said for gay marriage. God declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, Chistians believe it, and the Constitution was founded upon those biblical beliefs; therefore the left hates God, Christianity, and the Constitution. It wasn’t Congress who passed gay marriage, it was an unconstitutional SC who wrote the law.

Posted by: Blaine at October 2, 2015 4:26 PM
Comment #399069

The reason there is still support for PP is because the liberal media has refused to even show or discuss the PP videos. Except for FOX, conservative talk radio, and a few conservative websites, the American people have no idea that PP was killing and butchering babies for a profit. Abortion is becoming repulsive to more and more Americans, so the sale of body parts would also be repulsive, if the people knew. The left pushes the lies of what PP does for women, so this is all the dumbed down people know. The president of PP tried to spread the same lies and was forced to admit that PP doesn’t really do anything except a ebortions and referrals. Why would the left not want to use the millions given to PP; to be given to women’s clinics that would actually use the money for women’s health, instead of wasting it on salaries, travel, and as a slush fund for democrat politicians? The reason is abortions; abortions are the god of the left. The left hates God, they hate Christianity, and they hate the Constitution. God gives life, Christians believe it, and the Constitution supports it. The same can be said for gay marriage. God declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, Chistians believe it, and the Constitution was founded upon those biblical beliefs; therefore the left hates God, Christianity, and the Constitution. It wasn’t Congress who passed gay marriage, it was an unconstitutional SC who wrote the law.

Posted by: Blaine at October 2, 2015 5:06 PM
Comment #399070

Sorry for the duplication, IPhone problems.

Posted by: Blaine at October 2, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #399071

Well said Blaine.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 2, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #399072
the American people have no idea that PP was killing and butchering babies for a profit
Name me one baby butchered for a profit by Planned Parenthood.
Abortion is becoming repulsive to more and more Americans
I thought kctim spent so much time above explaining to me that there hasn’t been a rightward shift on this issue?
PP doesn’t really do anything except abortions and referrals.
Evidence? In 2013, 2.7 million patients visited Planned Parenthood clinics, but only 327,653 abortions were performed. Presumably, the other 2.4 million received other services. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 2, 2015 10:21 PM
Comment #399073

According to the President of PP abortions are at 86% of what they do Warren. She said they don’t do Mammograms because they don’t have the machines so what do they do Warren? since you seem to know more then the President of PP. All they must do is referrals and spend the money the government gives them on things not even related to women’s health. Why is PP needed since Obamacare?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 2, 2015 10:45 PM
Comment #399074

PP is more than just abortions and mammograms.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 2, 2015 11:21 PM
Comment #399075
According to the President of PP abortions are at 86% of what they do Warren.

Only a conservative would think 41% + 86% = 100%

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 2, 2015 11:29 PM
Comment #399076

Warren, If 86% is abortions then what is the other 14% that they do?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 2, 2015 11:32 PM
Comment #399077

Warren, That 86% figure is what PP President said. I’m just quoting her. Are you saying what she testified to congress was a lie?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 2, 2015 11:35 PM
Comment #399078

PP provides the following:

◾4.5 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections
◾3.6 million contraception related services
◾935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests
◾1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services

These services are provided to 2.7 million women.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/

“the American people have no idea that PP was killing and butchering babies for a profit”

“Name me one baby butchered for a profit by Planned Parenthood.”

Blaine (and anyone else who cares to participate)

I agree with WP. You’ve made a lot of terrible accusations. Back them up. Name a case where a baby was butchered for profit by PP.

Earlier in the thread, talk radio was discussed- Conservatives listen to it, while talk radio plays almost no role in politics for liberals. Why?

The reason is simple. Talk radio is outdated. Badly outdated. People who listen to it tend to be rural, hold a high school education or less, and are technologically backward. Liberals tend to be urban & suburban, be more educated, and use more sophisticated technologies, such as stereophonic sound, the internet, and cell phones.

Conservatives learned a harsh lesson about this during the 2012 election. Pollsters such as Rasmussen and Gallup failed to account for the increasing number of people who no longer use landlines, and only rely on cell phones. These people tend to be younger, more educated, and more likely to vote for Democrats. Conservatives simply could not believe the liberal polls showing Obama with a substantial lead going in to the election. Conservatives were absolutely convinced that Rasmussen and Gallup were correct, and the difference represented a bias or skewing of polls by the MSM and liberals.

We all know what happened. The liberals were right and their polls were right. The conservatives were wrong because they could not comprehend the changes in technology and its reflection in voting demographics.

It is interesting that virtually none of the talk radio hosts have made a successful transition to television or social media.

Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2015 11:40 PM
Comment #399079

With only 750 clinics throughout the U.S. Wouldn’t it be better for women and the Tax payers to use the funds that are provided to P.P. for other clinics that do what they do and more? I live in a major city and the nearest P.P. clinic is more then 10 miles away and the nearest medical center to me is 2 blocks. Tell me Warren and phx8, what woman would travel 10 miles for treatment when she could get the same or better care 2 blocks away? My daughter lives in a small town in W.V. and the nearest P.P. clinic to her is over an hour away. Please tell me what advantage do they provide besides abortions that a woman can get at a clinic closer to her? And with Obamacare Why do they need P.P.?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 12:02 AM
Comment #399080

correction 820 clinics.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 12:05 AM
Comment #399083

“what woman would travel 10 miles for treatment when she could get the same or better care 2 blocks away?”

Why not ask the 5 million patients Planned Parenthood treats a year?

Posted by: Cube at October 3, 2015 2:53 AM
Comment #399085

5 million patients travel distances to get free stuff while with Obamacare they can get that same free stuff within minutes from their homes. Something don’t seem right Cube, those 5 million people can’t be that stupid.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 8:59 AM
Comment #399087

“5 million patients travel distances to get free stuff …Something don’t seem right”

You are looking for a conspiracy, and there isn’t one. There are a variety of reasons why women prefer to go there. Which is why the majority of Americans support the continued funding of Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Cube at October 3, 2015 12:02 PM
Comment #399089

It is interesting that virtually none of the talk radio hosts have made a successful transition to television or social media.
Posted by: phx8 at October 2, 2015 11:40 PM

It is even more interesting that no notable private liberal radio talk show exists.

“Planned Parenthood is an organization that cares about one thing: making a profit at the expense of women’s health,” she added. “The investigative videos, whose authenticity was confirmed by the report, show that Planned Parenthood is an abortion-machine whose top executives and doctors haggle and joke about the harvesting and selling of baby body parts. Women deserve far better.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/29/forensic-analysis-planned-parenthood-videos-are-authentic/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouuqjKZKXonjHpfsX76%2BklUKGzhIkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcNkMbnYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 12:28 PM
Comment #399092

No not looking for a conspiracy, Cube, just stating fact that there are far better places for women’s health then P.P. and the only reason people prefer funding P.P. is because they don’t want a shutdown of government over it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #399095

RF,

It is even more interesting that no notable private liberal radio talk show exists.

Why exactly am I supposed to care about a medium invented a century ago?

KAP,

That 86% figure is what PP President said.

Show me the tape with the words “86%” coming out of her mouth.

then what is the other 14% that they do?
It’s 41%, not 14%. And this is what PP offers: STI/STD Testing & Treatment: -STI Tests, Women and Men -Genital Warts (HPV) Treatments -HIV Tests, Women and Men -Other Treatments Contraception -Reversible Contraception Clients, Women -Emergency Contraception Kits -Female Sterilization Procedures -Vasectomy Clients Cancer Screening and Prevention -Pap Tests -HPV Vaccinations -Breast Exams/Breast Care -Colposcopy Procedures -LEEP Procedures -Cryotherapy Procedures Other Women’s Health Services -Pregnancy Tests -Prenatal Services Other Services -Family Practice Services, Women and Men -Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies -Urinary Tract Infections Treatments -Other Procedures, Women and Men
just stating fact that there are far better places for women’s health then P.P.
PP does not get a subsidy from the government. They get reimbursed whenever they provide a service to somebody with medicaid or a title x benefit. Other clinics have the exact same opportunities to be reimbursed that PP does, except women visit PP because they prefer them for whatever reason. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #399096

“Why exactly am I supposed to care about a medium invented a century ago?”

Why does anyone support tax dollars for public radio?

Warren appears very envious of successful conservative talk radio with tens of millions of listeners. Apparently he is not aware of other venues carrying these programs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 3, 2015 4:21 PM
Comment #399097

Warren, Find the transcript of the hearings and you will see for yourself what she said. As far as that 14% you put up any self respecting Doctor that practices General medicine can do those procedures. My family Doctor does those things. So try again Why do we need P.P. other then abortions?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 4:21 PM
Comment #399098
Find the transcript of the hearings and you will see for yourself what she said.
I watched the video of Cecile Richards being questioned by Cynthia Lummis. Lummis stated the 86% figure, not Richards.
Doctor that practices General medicine can do those procedures. My family Doctor does those things.
Why have a clinic of even a family doctor when everything can be done at a hospital?

PP puts clinics where people need them, which might not be a profitable place for a Doctor’s practice. Also, PP might be open on the weekend when the doctor is closed.

Who knows what is going on, but in 2013 over 2 million women decided to visit a PP clinic for services that did not involve an abortion. For some reason, these women thought PP provided a superior service than any of their competitors.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #399099

Warren, My Doctor has Saturday hours and Hospital ER’s are open 24/7. So give me another reason why we need P.P. beside legal abortions? “Why have a clinic of even a family doctor when everything can be done at a hospital.” So why do we need P.P. when everything can be done at a hospital or family doctor?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 4:56 PM
Comment #399106

I’d like to know what percent of Warren Porter’s women are blacks? We must remember what planned parenthood is and why it started:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1497359113922623&set=gm.10154338347109498&type=3

The left refuses to discuss Margaret Sanger and her goal of PP to rid the earth of blacks. But a picture really is worth a thousand words.

I love watching WP and the rest of the left try to spin their way out of why standard clinics cannot do more for women than PP non-clinics. They are non-clinics because they don’t really do anything except abort black and liberal offspring.

Posted by: Blaine at October 3, 2015 5:49 PM
Comment #399109
My Doctor has Saturday hours and Hospital ER’s are open 24/7. So give me another reason why we need P.P. beside legal abortions
OK, so your particular circumstances means your wife has no reason to use PP. Other women have different circumstances. My doctor, for instance, does not have Saturday hours and I am sure many women are in the same situation. Also, there are plenty of women who might live closer to a PP clinic. Honestly, there are countless reasons a woman might prefer to visit a PP clinic over other service providers. And guess what? The decision to visit a PP clinic is none our fucking business! If other people provide better services, women will visit those alternatives and the reimbursements PP gets will go to someone else instead.
Why have a clinic of even a family doctor when everything can be done at a hospital?
I’m sorry for the typo. How about, “Why have a clinic of even a family doctor when everything can be done at a hospital?” Or in even simpler terms: “Why have a family doctor when everything can be done at a hospital?”
I’d like to know what percent of Warren Porter’s women are blacks?
I looked for stats and could not find any. It’s probably more than 15% as Planned Parenthood intentionally locates itself in areas that likely to suffer from a deficit of traditional medical infrastructure. Those neighborhoods are more likely to be poorer and because Blacks are more likely to be poorer, it is not a surprise that they will make up a disproportionate percentage of patients.

Regarding Margaraet Sanger: The woman’s been dead for half a century. She has a complex history that requires delicacy. Yes, she was a eugenicist who once spoke at a Klan meeting on the topic of family planning. But she never supported the KKK’s greater goals of white supremacy. In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr. href=”http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/family-planning-special-and-urgent-concern”>happily accepted the Margret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood and commented favorably upon the organization, saying: “The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control.”

The photo on Facebook is doctored. An image of Klan members saluting a burning cross was replaced with her likeness. No photos exist of Sanger speaking of the Klan. The fact that you continue to lie in your comments like this severely diminishes your credibility when you make unsourced statements such as ” PP was killing and butchering babies for a profit”. You still have not attempted to support this false claim, so I conclude you were simply lying for effect before.

I love watching WP and the rest of the left try to spin their way out of why standard clinics cannot do more for women than PP non-clinics. They are non-clinics because they don’t really do anything except abort black and liberal offspring.

2.3 million women wasted their time in 2013 getting services other than abortions at PP when they had better options elsewhere? Unlike you, I am a believer in free markets and I put trust in these women to choose the best provider of their care.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 9:31 PM
Comment #399111

Warren, It is my business when my TAX dollars go to them, P.P. When they operate on donations and not receive any government funds then I can say it is none of my business until then it is. My tax dollars fund Medicaid so that to is my business. When you can come up with a solid reason why P.P. exist then and only then will I listen.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 9:53 PM
Comment #399113

PP receives money from Medicaid and Title X. These monies are REIMBURSEMENTS. This means they get no money unless an eligible woman shows up the clinic and receives services. If the eligible woman shows up elsewhere, than PP gets no money and the other institution does instead.

In 2013, 2.7 million patients received services from PP. About 300,000 of those patients received an abortion. The other 2.4 million received some other service (sterilization, contraception, STI testing/treatment, cancer screening, etc). Your tax dollars support that 2.4 million. Those 2.4 million represent the VAST majority of PP’s operations. PP exists to give those 2.4 million the services they need. PP is not a monopoly, they have competitors that offer the same services without offering abortions; HOWEVER, those 2.4 million CHOOSE to bring their business to PP rather than those other providers.

I already speculated as to why these men & women choose the way they do. Frankly, this shouldn’t be necessary as it is contrary to free market principles for the government to demand justifications for people’s purchasing habits. So long as the service purchased fits the government’s criteria there is no need to ask additional questions when reimbursing the purchase. Perhaps PP is open on Saturday when the family doctor is closed. Some family doctors won’t prescribe contraception for religious reasons. Perhaps it is more expensive to make an appointment with an MD when the much cheaper RN at PP will do just as well. Sometimes the PP clinic just happens to be closer than the other options, or perhaps more easily accessed from public transportation. The options are limitless.

But seriously, this isn’t the question taxpayers like you and I should be asking. These are the questions we should be asking:

Is it appropriate for taxpayers to sponsor women’s health needs?
Does PP supply women with services to satisfy those needs?
Is PP an organization that can be trusted to follow the law?

If the answer to those 3 questions is yes, then PP deserves to be eligible for reimbursements from Medicaid and Title X. If the answer to any of those questions is no, then they deserve to have their eligibility revoked.

Whether or not other institutions provide similar services or not is not exactly pertinent to the question.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 3, 2015 11:06 PM
Comment #399115

Warren, 1-If taxpayers sponsor women’s health needs then said Taxpayers have a voice in those needs. 2-Other clinics and some of them are free clinics supply those same services and better services at that. So this one is a toss up. 3-That we will find out soon but I can bet that there are shady dealings going on with them. With Obamacare other providers with the same or similar services are pertinent to the question. By the way Warren explain to me why in a large Metro area like the one I live in only has one P.P. in a predominately white middle to upper middle class area and 4 in the predominately Black, predominately welfare areas? I think Blaine answered that question earlier

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 3, 2015 11:36 PM
Comment #399117
If taxpayers sponsor women’s health needs then said Taxpayers have a voice in those needs.
Absolutely. For instance, if taxpayers don’t think vasectomies should be covered under medicaid, then the Congress certainly has the right to remove funding for them. I personally would disagree with the decision, but it at least is a rational consequence if one believes a premise that vasectomies are somehow detrimental to American society. Of course they aren’t, but my example is purely illustrative. Likewise, Americans have already decided through the Hyde Amendment that Federal Taxpayer money cannot fund abortions. I personally disagree, but I respect that decision and I too would be upset if for example PP fraudulently received reimbursements from Medicaid for abortions in violation of the Hyde Amendment.

What doesn’t make sense is target a service provider for ostracization just because that organization also provides services that some people disagree with. We don’t convict people for guilt by association in this country.

Regarding your claim that other clinics provide better services, I again reiterate: Aren’t the women involved the best people to decide who provides the best services? If a non-PP clinic offers services for free and the PP clinic requires a copay, then one would think that a woman who chooses to go to PP must have some quite compelling reasons to do so.

I can bet that there are shady dealings going on with them.
This is an emotional sentiment, but I have not seen an iota of evidence that demonstrates

Regarding the location of PP clinics in particular neighborhoods in Cleveland:
I already said:

Planned Parenthood intentionally locates itself in areas that likely to suffer from a deficit of traditional medical infrastructure. Those neighborhoods are more likely to be poorer and because Blacks are more likely to be poorer, it is not a surprise that they will make up a disproportionate percentage of patients.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 12:00 AM
Comment #399118

“Deficit of medical infrastructure” Warren, There is plenty of medical infrastructure in the Cleveland area and even in the poorest areas of the city. So your statement is pure BULLS**T. It’s ABORTIONS, and where the most profit can be made from them is. They have to cover the cost of the free stuff they do somehow. Blaine has it right.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 4, 2015 12:31 AM
Comment #399123
There is plenty of medical infrastructure in the Cleveland area and even in the poorest areas of the city.
If so, why do so many women still choose to visit PP instead of those other places? You are the one spouting unproven assertions, not me. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 9:15 AM
Comment #399125

Warren, ABORTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 4, 2015 9:19 AM
Comment #399129

KAP,
In 2013, 2.4 million patients visited planned parenthood and did not receive an abortion.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 10:31 AM
Comment #399132

Regarding taxpayer money and funding abortions; it was brought out in the hearing that PP uses funds to support Democrat, to advertise, to lobby, and of course, for abortions. There are funds being dispersed everywhere, and WP wants us to believe no taxpayer funds are going for abortions, simply because PP says so. The republicans are saying, why do they need federal funds when they have the funds for lobbying and supporting democrats?

WP is trying to argue reimbursed funds, which is a crock. WP also believes the shady dealings of crooks is an emotional response. What organization that Obama heads up can be trusted to tell the truth? Obama said that the victimization of conservative groups by the IRS would not stand; yet we now know that is exactly what the IRS was doing. We have the secret service attempting to reveal information on a sitting congressman. Tell me WP, at what point do you begin to distrust the things said by Obama’s people?

Posted by: Blaine at October 4, 2015 1:41 PM
Comment #399143

Warren, 2.4 million patients out of how many is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of women who need Health care.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 4, 2015 4:27 PM
Comment #399147

Blaine,

I’m through with your baseless accusations. Back up your allegations if you want me to address them.

Again, PP only receives money as a reimbursement for services they render. If you want to allege that PP doesn’t actually provide the non-abortion services it claims, then please back that up with some facts.

KAP,

2.4 million patients out of how many is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of women who need Health care.

What organization serves more women than PP?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 6:00 PM
Comment #399148

Let’s put it this way Warren, If you count all the private practices in the U.S. they probably top P.P. by 20-1 in women cared for and that doesn’t include ABORTIONS which is P.P. prime service. Keep trying Warren you may score one, one of these days.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 4, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #399150

2.4 million patients also doesn’t include abortions either. Why should .3 million women who receive abortions spoil the apple cart for the 2.4 million who don’t?

And why do we even care whether PP serves more women than another organization? Why treat PP differently than their competitors?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 6:54 PM
Comment #399151

Warren, ABORTIONS are P.P. main source of revenue the other services are what they do to make themselves feel good, and you can’t deny ABORTIONS are what they are known for. Warren, all the bad press that they have been getting lately isn’t helping their image. I put P.P. on the same plain as Hillary and her E-Mail problems. P.P. has problems now and are getting their integrity challenged and that is why they are getting treated differently.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 4, 2015 7:07 PM
Comment #399160
ABORTIONS are P.P. main source of revenue

No, they aren’t. Michelle Ye Hee Lee writes in the Washington Post:

Using this calculation, advocates and opponents of abortion rights have calculated somewhere between 15 percent and 37 percent of the organization’s annual non-government health services revenue comes from abortion services. Depending on which price you use, you can even get up to 55 percent. But this type of math is speculative and has limitations. For one, it does not take into account sliding payment scales for patients or reflect costs absorbed by insurance.

Clearly, the majority of PP’s business has nothing to with abortions.

ABORTIONS are what they are known for.
Who cares what they are known for? All that matters is if they are providing the services the taxpayer wants provided.
all the bad press that they have been getting lately isn’t helping their image
PP’s reputation polls better than any nationally prominent Republican.
I put P.P. on the same plain as Hillary and her E-Mail problems. P.P. has problems now and are getting their integrity challenged and that is why they are getting treated differently.
HRC has a track record that damages her integrity. PP has no such thing. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 4, 2015 10:07 PM
Comment #399161

Warren, You have your opinion, I have mine, we’ll leave it at that.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 4, 2015 10:17 PM
Comment #399167

Warren

“I thought kctim spent so much time above explaining to me that there hasn’t been a rightward shift on this issue?”

People finding out that research specimens are coming from abortions and being upset about it, is hardly a “rightward shift.” It’s more of a “Wait, they do what?”

There are two reasons for this backlash against PP:
1- PP and candidates kept the harvesting from the public. If they had been forthcoming with all that goes on, this would not have been a shock to anybody.
2- PP receives taxpayer money. Some people just don’t like their money being used for such things.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 9:54 AM
Comment #399170

Kctim, the liberal MSM has refused to identify the issue of PP harvesting baby body parts. As the public learns what is going on, they will become more disgusted.

PP is like the rest of the left; when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the first response is to blame the person who made the cookies. PP came out with a video, apologizing for what was on the released videos. The she tried to tell the committee that was not why she was apologizing. Once the realized the media was not going to pick up on the story, then they began to blame the producers of the PP videos as doctoring them and entrapment. But we all know what’s going on at PP and that someone will answer to God for this evil. Including WP and the rest of his liberal friends.

WP and his friends believe the American taxpayer has no right to object to how tax dollars are spent. Their god is government and government knows best.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2015 12:37 PM
Comment #399171

PP will continue to be funded either by private funding or medical services provided. It is inevitable since they provide a service that many people need and see a need for. I plan on giving them more this year than I normally do but I do that locally. Many people do not like their tax dollars going to support the MIC. It doesn’t work that way, you live here you agree to pay taxes.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 5, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #399172
You have your opinion, I have mine, we’ll leave it at that.

Dismissing the 2.4 million patients of PP who don’t receive abortions is not a matter of opinion. PP’s main purpose is to empower women. From their mission statement, they: ” provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual”. There’s no mention of abortion as far as I can see.

WP and his friends believe the American taxpayer has no right to object to how tax dollars are spent.
Did I say that? If Americans don’t want taxpayer money to support women’s health then it is perfectly valid for them to object to the reimbursements given to PP. What I don’t think is right is when people make a fury over something based on false information. Conservatives continue to behave as if PP receives a grant to operate its clinics, which would subsidize abortions because subsidies are fungible. However, this is not the case.
PP is like the rest of the left; when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, the first response is to blame the person who made the cookies. PP came out with a video, apologizing for what was on the released videos. The she tried to tell the committee that was not why she was apologizing. Once the realized the media was not going to pick up on the story, then they began to blame the producers of the PP videos as doctoring them and entrapment.
I’m not going to dispute that PP’s PR people could have handled this differently.
has refused to identify the issue of PP harvesting baby body parts.
You have evidence showing PP harvested baby body parts? I thought the uproar was over the use of fetal cadavers.
People finding out that research specimens are coming from abortions and being upset about it, is hardly a “rightward shift.” It’s more of a “Wait, they do what?”
I agree. Which is why Blaine’s claim that people are becoming more and more repulsed is completely bogus. Hardly anyone who was pro-choice before the tapes were uploaded has changed his or her mind on this issue just because they discovered that the fetal remains are used for research instead of being disposed.

Keep in mind, people probably never considered what exactly is going on here. I doubt anyone had the expectation that these remains were being given funerals at the local cemetery either.

PP and candidates kept the harvesting from the public. If they had been forthcoming with all that goes on, this would not have been a shock to anybody.
This wasn’t exactly a secret before the videos. Any woman who receives consultation for an abortion is given the option to donate the fetal remains to research. Today, there is no evidence to suggest that PP ever donated a fetal cadaver from a woman that refused such permission. Likewise, there is no evidence that PP ever profited from such donations. They received money to cover the shipping/handling expenses and no more.
PP receives taxpayer money. Some people just don’t like their money being used for such things.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who don’t want their money being used to supply free contraception to women either. Why can’t those people be honest and say that is their opinion without hiding behind the abortion smokescreen? Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 1:09 PM
Comment #399173

I’ve said many of time that contraception for anyone including men should be the individuals responsibility to bare the cost, Warren. “From their mission statement” their mission statement is like a politicians full of lies and people are dumb enough to believe it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 1:28 PM
Comment #399175

Warren, yes, I agree that people probably never thought much about what happened to the bodies after an abortion, or that these tapes will change many minds about being pro-abortion.
IMO, most of the uproar over all this is due to the fact that it’s really not just “a clump of cells,” and the attitudes of the PP people on those tapes.

Most people have no experience with abortion consultations, so while it wasn’t a secret, it definitely was new information for most.

It’s been an interesting topic, really. On another board, I’ve been watching liberals being very hateful towards democrats discussing if it’s possible to be pro-abortion AND not liking what is going on with PP.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #399177
I’ve said many of time that contraception for anyone including men should be the individuals responsibility to bare the cost, Warren.

Many insurance companies subsidize contraception because it is much cheaper than having to pay for childbirth. Should Medicaid be any different?

Most people have no experience with abortion consultations, so while it wasn’t a secret, it definitely was new information for most.

Sure. But there’s no reason to say PP kept information from the public just because they didn’t pay for bulletin boards proclaiming what was going on.

it’s really not just “a clump of cells,” and the attitudes of the PP people on those tapes.
I agree with your diagnosis. Abortion is a tough issue. A zygote just hours after conception really is “just a clump of cells”. A fetus minutes from being born is a full-fledged human being. Nature doesn’t give us a convenient marker to identify when things change; fetal development is a gradual process. Add to that the unfamiliarity most people have with medicine and the ability to determine what is and is not a person fades away. Throw in the emotional attachment people have towards certain body parts (Faces, limbs and hearts) that are quite ancillary to person hood and it is a recipe for misunderstanding.

What many do not know is that in this country, abortions of convenience only occur in the first 20 weeks of embryonic development and any performed later are always out of medical necessity. Of course, those abortions that do occur in those first 20 weeks are mostly for non-medical reasons. But enough with this tangent.

the attitudes of the PP people on those tapes.
Sure, the attitudes lacked finesse, which is why PP apologized soon after the videos were released. However, I guarantee that hardly anyone has any idea what kind of chatter goes about in any hospital. Everyday, surgeons meet in the cafeteria in order to joke and jeer about the patients they operated upon this morning. It’s all part of the job. Doing something every single day acclimates the mind until one forgets the levity of the situation. I was not surprised to discover the same was true of these PP people. Ultimately, do we really want to limit medicaid reimbursements to only providers who avoid getting caught using crude language to describe sensitive medical situations?
It’s been an interesting topic, really. On another board, I’ve been watching liberals being very hateful towards democrats discussing if it’s possible to be pro-abortion AND not liking what is going on with PP.
I’m sure it is. PP is a lot like the NRA only with respect to abortion rights rather than gun rights. I bet conservatives would get in a similar tizzy if someone alleged that it was possible to be pro-gun and not like the NRA.

For the record, I am mostly indifferent about PP. Neither I nor anyone I know has ever patronized the place. I do not necessarily agree with PP’s advocacy to repeal the Hyde Amendment, but I understand the organization provides useful services to women across the nation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 2:17 PM
Comment #399179

“Should Medicaid be any different” most insurances have a co pay, and the insured pays part or all of the plan. Medicaid does not. Warren, the only way I would agree that birth control be prescribed for an individual through Medicaid is for a hormonal imbalance or other female problem. If it is just for him and her to play one or both of the partners PAYS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 2:33 PM
Comment #399180

We share common ground on almost all of that, Warren.

“I bet conservatives would get in a similar tizzy if someone alleged that it was possible to be pro-gun and not like the NRA.”

Na. To be perfectly honest, the ‘evil NRA monster that controls people who respect the 2nd Amendment’ is really nothing but propaganda.
I am pro 2nd Amendment and have never been a member of the NRA, and I have never been questioned about not being a member.

“For the record, I am mostly indifferent about PP.”

Yeah, same here really. I can see both sides of the issue, which is why I think this whole fiasco could have been avoided if PP would have just said they were pausing operations until a proper investigation was conducted.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #399181

I’m sure 14-18 year old girls understand the experimental dissection of their babies when the high pressure salesman/women give their speech. The idea that teenage girls have an understanding of what happens is bogus. PP is nothing more than a slaughterhouse of the unborn. These same people who demand a woman’s right to end the life of a baby, would never refer the girl to an adoption agency. The way I figure it, the left and the black community are killing off their own offspring. It’s for this reason they are so eager to allow millions of illegals into the country. They have got to maintain that voting base.

Posted by: Blaine at October 5, 2015 2:49 PM
Comment #399183
“Should Medicaid be any different” most insurances have a co pay, and the insured pays part or all of the plan. Medicaid does not. Warren, the only way I would agree that birth control be prescribed for an individual through Medicaid is for a hormonal imbalance or other female problem. If it is just for him and her to play one or both of the partners PAYS.

If you think we are better off paying the expenses of live childbirth, that is fine. I respectfully disagree, but acknowledge that it is a matter of opinion

I am pro 2nd Amendment and have never been a member of the NRA, and I have never been questioned about not being a member.
As with PP, it’s not a member of membership. I am certain that no matter how pro gun rights someone was, they would be thrown under the bus by their comrades if they directly criticized the NRA’s decisions as you have done with PP.
pausing operations until a proper investigation was conducted.
The anti-choice crowd wants their PP scalp and they won’t stop until the get it. Pausing operations would serve no purpose other than denying care to men and women. Additionally, what sort of “proper investigation” could be conducted? The video tapes depict the sale of fetal cadavers for the price of shipping/handling. The entire controversy was prefaced on a lie from day 0 and PP knew it. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 3:00 PM
Comment #399185
never refer the girl to an adoption agency.

1,880 PP patients were referred to adoption agencies in 2013. Granted it pales in comparison to the 327653 abortions or the 18,684 women who received prenatal services, but it isn’t zero either.

I’m sure 14-18 year old girls understand the experimental dissection of their babies when the high pressure salesman/women give their speech. The idea that teenage girls have an understanding of what happens is bogus.
I don’t know how PP gains the consent of its patients. I do know that 83% of their patients are over the age of 20. I also know that many of those same teenage girls consent to donate their own tissues in the event of a car crash when they get their license to drive at age 16. Given your track record, I am inclined to dismiss your “high pressure salesman/saleswoman” as a creature of fantasy. If Congress wants to pass a law forbidding minors from donating their tissues, then so be it, but realize that much suffering will be the only result.

BTW, Blane, you do realize that I sincerely doubt anyone has an abortion solely so they can donate the tissue for research purposes. Banning such practices won’t do anything to reduce the number of abortions or impair PP’s advocacy in any way. All it would do is redirect those specimens from the medical research lab to the garbage bin. And yes, it will be the garbage bin or perhaps an incinerator. You will never be able to force people to conduct full funerary services.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #399186

Warren do you know how to read? Where did I say I would rather pay the expenses of live child birth? I said A PERSON WHO WANT’S TO JUST USE BIRTH CONTROL TO PREVENT PREGNANCIES SHOULD BARE THE COST THEMSELVES!!! If parties can not afford to pay the 10 bucks for birth control they need to quit drinking booze and buying cigarettes.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #399188

“I am certain that no matter how pro gun rights someone was, they would be thrown under the bus by their comrades if they directly criticized the NRA’s decisions as you have done with PP.”

I criticize the NRA all the time, but for not doing enough, so I guess it’s possible, Warren.

“Pausing operations would serve no purpose other than denying care to men and women.”

No need to get all dramatic. At the very least, an investigation would give the perception that PP wasn’t ok with the allegations it was facing.

“Additionally, what sort of “proper investigation” could be conducted?”

A simple investigation that resulted in the release of a report that let the public know what is really going on. Let them disclose the costs they incur and clarify the attitudes of the PP personnel.
That stuff could have been put together within a week.

“The video tapes depict the sale of fetal cadavers for the price of shipping/handling. The entire controversy was prefaced on a lie from day 0 and PP knew it.”

As you have acknowledged, Warren, it is a very touchy subject. A little proactive PR would have been better than going on the defensive with political attacks.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 3:37 PM
Comment #399189

KAP,

So you think Medicaid shouldn’t pay for childbirth either? Medicaid currently pays for 40% of births. I’m not sure what would happen if this ceased to be.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #399190

Blaine, I apologize for not seeing your earlier post to me. I do agree that PP made a mistake in attacking the people who released the videos instead of addressing the content in the videos.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #399191

kctim,

Fair enough. I think everyone can agree that PP was caught a little flat footed here. Pausing operations would have been overkill, but a better PR team could have gotten in front of this issue by disclosing the manner PP uses to price specimens. Obviously, in hindsight it would have been better if PP had a fixed price system rather than haggling at a fancy restaurant with fine wine clenched in one’s hand.

PP wasn’t ok with the allegations it was facing
I’m going to disagree with you here because on July 16, Cecile Richards said:
Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.
Obviously, PP was not ok with those allegations. From the same statement:
The allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true. Our donation programs – like any other high-quality health care providers – follow all laws and ethical guidelines. Over our 100-year history, we have continually engaged leading medical experts to shape our practices, policies, and high standards – and always will.
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 3:55 PM
Comment #399192
I do agree that PP made a mistake in attacking the people who released the videos instead of addressing the content in the videos.

kctim, surely you aren’t alleging that the producers of those videos were acting in good faith? From day 0, those videos were a complete sham and the Center for Medical Progress knew it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 4:03 PM
Comment #399193

Warren, Quit being an A**HOLE I never said that. There is a difference in wanting to have a child and just screwing for the pleasure. I am against paying for someone else to have fun. I don’t expect anyone else to pay for my intimate moments.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 4:09 PM
Comment #399195

Warren, I don’t care about their intent. The fact is that they released videos that brought some disturbing things to light, and those things needed to be properly addressed.

This didn’t have to turn into the PR nightmare it did.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #399196
I never said that
Then what is your position? If Medicaid recipients aren’t getting contraception from medicaid, then the pregnancy rate will increase. Medicaid won’t pay for an abortion, so these pregnancies will lead to live births, which will be paid for by Medicaid.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Assuming abortion is out of the cards, there are only 3 options:
A) Medicaid pays for contraception
B) Medicaid pays for live childbirth
C) Medicaid pays for neither contraception nor live child birth.

Which one do you pick?

kctim,

those things needed to be properly addressed.

When the allegations are a sham, it is necessary to point that out when addressing them. I agree that more could have been done to educate the public regarding PP’s tissue donation policy. I disagree that they should have refrained from saying the videos were false. Those videos were false and misleading.

quote text
Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 4:47 PM
Comment #399198

“I agree that more could have been done to educate the public regarding PP’s tissue donation policy.”

That’s all I’m saying, Warren.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #399200

4th options they pay the 10 bucks, Warren. If they can afford booze and cigarettes, smart phones, cable and internet they can afford birth control. How’s that for an option Warren? Medicaid won’t pay for an abortion????? How pray tell are women who go into P.P. that are poor pay for their abortions? P.P. give it to them for free? Who pays?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 5:02 PM
Comment #399201

Then why are you feeding Blaine’s trolling by saying PP should have refrained from attacking the Center for Medical Progress’s credibility? A well-oiled PR organization should have been able to do both.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 5:02 PM
Comment #399202
4th options they pay the 10 bucks, Warren. If they can afford booze and cigarettes, smart phones, cable and internet they can afford birth control. How’s that for an option Warren?

I wish that were the case, but there’s nothing you or I can do to prevent people from having unprotected sex and pining the consequences upon the taxpayer.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 5:14 PM
Comment #399205

Warren, because as we have both stated, this is a very touchy subject and I believe countering with facts is far more effective than personal attacks based on politics.

I suppose I could have said that I think PP should have done both, but focused more on educating people?
Either way, I think we are close to being on the same page here.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #399209

“but there’s nothing you or I can do to prevent people from having unprotected s3x and pining the consequences upon the taxpayer”

Oh, there’s something we can do, most just don’t have the cojones to do it, though.

Posted by: kctim at October 5, 2015 5:47 PM
Comment #399212

Well, we could cease funding live childbirths through Medicaid. Or are you suggesting something else?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #399213

There are options Warren to prevent the Tax payers from footing the bill for irresponsible behavior.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #399215

Are you suggesting we means test expectant mothers before reimbursing the hospital for the childbirth?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 6:08 PM
Comment #399217

No, but rewarding people for irresponsible behavior is not the answer either. If a single parent on the public dole mandatory contraception deducted from your assistance check and that includes men they can provide the woman with a morning after pill or Child support until the child is 21 upon conformation of DNA. Going after the men who father children and making them pay or face mandatory jail and if the woman does not give a name she faces mandatory jail time. Society has made it to comfortable for irresponsible people it’s time to make it uncomfortable for them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 6:41 PM
Comment #399219

OK, but there are still huge logistical hurdles to overcome.

#1: Your ideas do nothing to address a woman who gets pregnant for the first time.

#2: Many women benefit from Medicaid but not from TANF or other cash transfer programs. They might be working an earning a paycheck instead, but we do not have a means to force them to buy contraception with the money they earn.

As for going after deadbeat dads, I’m pretty sure you won’t find much opposition for that.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 8:04 PM
Comment #399221

Warren, Does the words SINGLE PARENT in that comment strike you. If they are working and earning a pay check they may have employer supplied H.C. with prescription rider and they are probably contributing towards it. If they are on the public dole meaning Welfare Check it can be deducted or Medicaid deem birth control with a Co-pay.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 8:26 PM
Comment #399224

Regarding, “single parent” did strike me. Believe it or not, single parents are not the only people capable of birthing children.

Medicaid deem birth control with a Co-pay.
So you believe such a woman with Medicaid ought to walk into a clinic and receive taxpayer funded contraception so long as she pays a copay comparable to that required by private insurance? Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 8:47 PM
Comment #399227

I don’t think 2 gay men can birth a child Warren, or 2 gay women without help. Birth Control is cheap enough to either pay out right or have a slight co pay. So yes to part 2.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 5, 2015 9:20 PM
Comment #399228

A woman who is not yet a parent can still conceive and stick taxpayers with the bill when the baby is born if she is on Medicaid. The system you explained above has no means of preventing this.

Birth Control is cheap enough to either pay out right or have a slight co pay. So yes to part 2.
A slight copay means the remainder of the cost is footed by the taxpayer. If the woman goes to PP to get that contraception and pays the same copay, will you support medicaid’s reimbursement of that expense? Posted by: Warren Porter at October 5, 2015 9:49 PM
Comment #399234

Warren, if you want a kid, YOU pay to have that kid. If you need financial help, you get financial help and YOU are required to pay it back in full, plus interest.
You are not rewarded more money for more children. The money you do receive, is only enough to cover the most basic needs.

Life’s tough, but it’s not governments job to make it easy.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 9:42 AM
Comment #399252
Life’s tough, but it’s not governments job to make it easy.

I am guessing you would favor abolishing Medicaid entirely. If we repealed EMTALA as well, I cannot doubt the coherence of that proposal as it totally eliminates the possibility of anyone fleecing the taxpayer.

The problem is that we live in a world where people like KAP want the government to pay the expenses of childbirth for women poor enough to qualify for medicaid. There is no way to prevent that system from defrauding the taxpayer unless we also make efforts to make contraception as easily obtained as possible, which means paying the costs for such contraception.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 2:03 PM
Comment #399258

Warren, I believe nothing of the sort. I believe in personnel responsibility. In this country no one is that poor that birth control is beyond their pocket book. Contraceptives are easily obtainable Warren any drug store in the U.S. and the world sells it and it is cheap easily affordable to anyone even the poorest person can afford it. It’s people like you who rewards irresponsible behavior why Medicaid is in the red. We cannot keep paying for everyone who wants to screw themselves silly, it is time for those who want all the free stuff people like you offer to PAY FOR IT.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 2:30 PM
Comment #399260

KAP,
And when people are irresponsible and get pregnant, what is your solution? You cannot pretend that won’t happen. Either you believe Medicaid ought to pay for the childbirth or it shouldn’t. We are talking about people with no money, so it is impossible to make them pay for it.

Some libertarians would have no problem refusing medical services to such a pregnant woman. You have already stated that is not your belief.

I totally understand where you are coming from. This sort of thing OUGHT to be a matter of personal responsibility. Such a woman OUGHT to have the foresight to obtain her contraception before she engages in intercourse. I agree that the cheapest forms of contraception are not very costly and are quite affordable. The problem is that people are flawed, and they make poor decisions. We need a system that can handle such people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 2:39 PM
Comment #399263

Warren, yes I favor that, but I also acknowledge that most people today would prefer government to take care of the problem for them, so that they are not inconvenienced and can still worship their material objects.
That is why I said most just don’t have the cojones to do it.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 2:51 PM
Comment #399264

kctim,

Haven’t you previously said that you oppose repealing EMTALA?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 2:56 PM
Comment #399267

If someone has no money how the HELL are they surviving Warren? It take 2 people to make a child someone has to take responsibility and if they need financial help I agree with kctim they need to pay the help back with interest or at least do community service to pay for the help. I believe all those that are receiving government assistance do some sort of community service to receive the benefits that are able.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 3:43 PM
Comment #399268

Warren, perhaps I had acknowledged that my position was not feasible in today’s climate and was offering ideas I would be willing to compromise on?
Like welfare, I strongly object to our welfare state, but I know it will only continue to grow, so I offer ideas to try and keep it in check.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 3:51 PM
Comment #399273
If someone has no money how the HELL are they surviving Warren?

OK. They have enough money to survive, but nothing to pay for a live childbirth.

would be willing to compromise
This kind of compromise is why our entitlement system is totally screwed up. I prefer we either we commit to a full socialization of these services or accept the consequences of a removing the welfare state in its entirety. I know how to take care of myself so I would happily live in such a world, but just watch the Right’s reaction when you suggesting ending SS and Medicare. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 4:33 PM
Comment #399275

Yep, today’s Americans don’t have the cojones to do what’s right and remove the welfare state.

Posted by: kctim at October 6, 2015 4:41 PM
Comment #399276

Warren, Both SS and medicare are paid into all your working life through payroll deductions. Welfare and Medicaid are not. You take away something I paid into all my working life your DAMN right I going to BITCH.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 4:43 PM
Comment #399282

Therein lies our problem. “Paying into” an entitlement program is a complete facade. A lie concocted by FDR and LBJ many decades ago. In reality, SS and medicare operate no differently than welfare or medicaid. People with money (like myself) transfer money to people without money (retired persons, such as the many conservative Watchbloggers). The fact that today’s recipients funded the benefits of people who are now dead means nothing.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 5:07 PM
Comment #399286

“Paying into” an entitlement is a complete façade. That money coming out of my pay check was a façade? The only façade is in your thinking. Paying into something for 40+ years and receiving something for nothing as in WELFARE are totally different. Warren, like I told you in another comment, I took you as an intelligent person but when you make comments like in 399282 I think of you as something I cannot say on this blog.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 5:20 PM
Comment #399288

WP, how does your correlation of SS and Medicare fit with my circumstances. I collect SS and still work. I pay SS tax at a much higher rate then someone younger than myself because of my income level. I intend to do this for as long as I am physically able. Since my work provides all of my healthcare insurance and I am continuing to pay my share of Medicare taxes and haven’t had to use that at all, does this mean I am being disadvantaged? Sure doesn’t feel that way to me. In fact I feel fortunate to live in a country that provides this service.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 6, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #399307
That money coming out of my pay check was a façade
Payroll taxes are no different than any other tax. That they are different is the facade you are operating under.
receiving something for nothing as in WELFARE
Some people pay taxes for years before misfortune strikes and they begin receiving welfare benefits. Only 14 percent of people receiving TANF benefits in 2004 received those benefits for more than 20 months. See Page II-27. Evidently, very few people receive something for nothing.
how does your correlation of SS and Medicare fit with my circumstances
I am impressed by your circumstances. Given your politics, your support of entitlements is not hypocritical. I am glad to see you have structured your life so as to not depend on government entitlements. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 6:00 PM
Comment #399312

Warren, You need to go back to your old handle of “Warped Reality” it fits your thinking.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 6:12 PM
Comment #399313

Of course, when you have nothing to counter my facts an ad hominen is the only thing left in your arsenal.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 6:32 PM
Comment #399314

What facts do you have Warren, do you have to prove what you say about SS and Medicare??? Until you can come up with an irrefutable sources that proves what you say the “Warped Reality” sticks.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 6:52 PM
Comment #399315

By the way Warped, SS is NOT an entitlement. It is paid for by both employer and employee therefore it is a BENEIT!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 7:00 PM
Comment #399316

A retiree’s SS check comes from money paid by current workers and not from the money paid by the retiree decades ago when he was still working.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 7:38 PM
Comment #399318

So Warped when your children pay into the system they will be paying for your retirement, so what’s the beef. It all suppose to go into a Trust fund except our fabulous government raided it and now all it is, is a bunch of IOU’s.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 7:55 PM
Comment #399319

That “trust fund” is all a facade.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 8:03 PM
Comment #399320

If it’s a Façade Warped it’s because of our fabulous government making it that way. But we have to live with that façade until people your age decide to do something better. So I suggest Warped you get to work.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 6, 2015 8:09 PM
Comment #399328
People with money (like myself) transfer money to people without money (retired persons, such as the many conservative Watchbloggers).

Don’t you just love it when little heads of mush reach the age of reality. It’s enough to turn heads of mush into full blown conservatives.

A lie concocted by FDR and LBJ many decades ago.

Watch out WP; the left will be attacking you next for speaking ill of the gods of liberalism.

Posted by: Blaine at October 6, 2015 10:07 PM
Comment #399332

I’ve made my skepticism regarding entitlements clear for years here on WatchBlog. No need to worry about me.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 6, 2015 10:34 PM
Comment #399385

“Boehner Calls It Quits”? Not so fast! Nice title for an article, but now it turns out his handpicked successor, McCarthy, has withdrawn from contention for Speaker of the House, and will remain as Majority Leader. Since there is no viable candidate that can garner 218 votes, the most likely scenario is that Boehner will remain Speaker through 2016.

I feel a little bit sorry for Boehner. I think he truly wanted to step down.

So what happened to McCarthy? His biggest problem (that we know about) was going on Sunday talk shows recently and, when asked what was the biggest accomplishment of Congress, stating that the Benghazi Committee successfully drove down Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers. He admitted it! Twice! It completely undermined the effort to create distrust for Hillary, and conservatives were pissed that McCarthy made them look so bad on national television. That, combined with other public speaking gaffes, made too many conservatives conclude he could not succeed as Speaker.

Of course, there might be a skeleton in the closet, but no one’s talking. It’s possible. Anyone remember the Clinton impeachment, when Gingrich resigned, as his designated successor resigned over having an affair, and so the House chose Denny Hastert to lead the impeachment hearings, because he was so morally upright by GOP standards. Really great character. Oh. Except the part about paying hush money to keep that boy quiet about Denny molesting him while Hastert coached HS wrestling.

So the GOP has blown up in pretty spectacular fashion this morning. Let’s just hope the conservatives can govern well enough to keep the government open and pay our bills by raising the debt ceiling.

Posted by: phx8 at October 8, 2015 1:02 PM
Comment #406473

All things considered, nothing I can say except for incredible! I trust you’ll make more helpful articles in the up and coming days.

Posted by: Python Project Help at July 29, 2016 1:42 AM
Comment #406653

I am profoundly pulled in by your post. It is truly a decent and useful one. I will prescribe it to my companions.

Posted by: Applications of Business Analytics in Healthcare Case Solution at August 5, 2016 6:47 AM
Comment #406688

This is pleasant article. I might want to a debt of gratitude is in order for your endeavors and recommendations. I truly acknowledge to this article.

Posted by: Scatter Plot Project Help at August 9, 2016 4:02 AM
Post a comment