The plan to overturn Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court is already in motion

The plan to overturn Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court is already in motion

By Clare Foran, CNN
Updated 6:58 AM ET, Fri June 29, 2018

Washington (CNN) Now that President Donald Trump has the opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, some abortion opponents hope that Roe v. Wade will end up overturned or gutted -- and they have already been working towards that moment.

Over the past year, state legislatures in Iowa, Louisiana and Mississippi have advanced strict limits on abortion that some lawmakers believe could trigger a successful challenge to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

"I think it's virtually certain that some or all of those laws will wind up before the Supreme Court," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "And they will get a much more favorable reception with any of the judges on President Trump's list of 25 possible nominees."

When Trump ran for president in 2016, he pledged to appoint "pro-life" justices to the Supreme Court, while his running mate, now-vice president Mike Pence, said that he hoped to see Roe v. Wade end up on the "ash heap of history."

Trump's first Supreme Court pick, made after Senate Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's pick to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, was Neil Gorsuch, who has been a reliable conservative vote. Trump said he will pick from a list of 25 conservative candidates.

Trump's opportunity to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had voted to uphold Roe in 1992, is "exactly what we had hoped for," said Jim Carlin, an Iowa Republican state senator.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...m-plus-169.jpg

Anthony Kennedy didn't save the liberals


"With (Kennedy) as the swing vote, I don't know that we would have had the capital on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade," Carlin said. "If we were to get another conservative justice to the bench at the Supreme Court, I think our chances are much, much higher."

"Anything that we can do to soften the blow of Roe v. Wade or weaken it or dilute it, it's up to us to do that," said Lawrence Bagley, a Louisiana Republican state representative.

RELATED: Anthony Kennedy didn't save the liberals

Iowa's "heartbeat" law prohibits doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen as early as six weeks, with exceptions in the case of certain instances of rape, incest or medical emergency.

Mississippi and Louisiana recently passed legislation banning abortion after 15 weeks with limited exceptions.

In Arkansas, a legal battle is currently playing out over a law that imposes limitations on access to medication-induced abortions.

RELATED: The Senate and the next Supreme Court justice: What you need to know

Planned Parenthood reacted on Wednesday to the news that Kennedy will step down with alarm.

"The right to access abortion in this country is on the line," Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. "The idea of Trump having his choice to fill another vacancy is terrifying for not only abortion rights, but for our ability to live free from discrimination in this country."

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood have challenged Iowa's law in state court, and it was put on hold by a judge as the case plays out.

Veronica Fowler of the ACLU of Iowa said that while getting the law to the Supreme Court "was definitely the goal of some extremist politicians in the Iowa Legislature," the group "purposely chose to challenge it under the Iowa Constitution because any appeals would end up in the Iowa Supreme Court."

She added, "the US Supreme Court does not have the opportunity to review state supreme court decisions concerning state constitutional questions -- it doesn't have jurisdiction."

RELATED: Iowa AG won't defend state's new abortion law

The fact that the law faces a state challenge hasn't convinced some of its supporters that it won't make it to the Supreme Court, however.

"The question we are raising is if you have a heartbeat, you have a life and if you have a life then under the Constitution, you are guaranteed a right to life and due process and equal protection under the law before that life is taken away," Greg Heartsill, an Iowa GOP state representative, said in an interview. "That's essentially what we're putting before the court and if they do their due diligence, they've got to answer."

In the end, the Supreme Court doesn't have to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade to leave the legal standard substantially weakened or even effectively gutted, said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

"The Supreme Court could do quite a lot of damage to the right recognized in Roe without ever formally overruling it, simply by upholding state laws that make it harder and harder for women to obtain abortions without banning them," Vladeck said.

That idea could be tested in Arkansas.

The 2015 state law says that any physician who "gives, sells, dispenses, administers, or otherwise provides or prescribes the abortion-inducing drug" shall have to have a contract with a physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The Supreme Court last month refused to take up an early challenge to the law, which cleared the way for it to take effect in mid-July, but did not say if the law is legal or not, leaving that to a lower court to determine. Earlier this month, a federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order on the law, setting the stage for the case to potentially return to the Supreme Court at some point in the future. Planned Parenthood has said that the law is both medically unnecessary and would effectively ban medication abortion in the state.

Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization, said the Arkansas law "conflicts with Roe by imposing an undue burden on a patient seeking an abortion."

In Mississippi, after Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill banning abortion after 15 weeks, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging it as unconstitutional and a federal judge temporarily blocked the law from going into effect.

Louisiana's 15-week law is also on hold pending the outcome of litigation in the Mississippi law.

The Center for Reproductive Rights points out that in recent years, the Supreme Court has declined to review a number of lower court decisions striking down abortion bans prior to the point of viability.

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to abortion over many decades and it has done that with many justices from appointed by many different administrations," said the group's senior director of litigation, Julie Rikelman.

State lawmakers pledge to keep trying.

"Until the Supreme Court chooses to touch on that issue again, you're going to continue to see states push the edge and push the envelope on pro-life protections," said Louisiana state Rep. John Stefanski.

"I think inevitably we're going to come up with something that I believe the Supreme Court is going to have to take a look at again," the GOP lawmaker added.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/polit...urt/index.html

Go back to cloth diapers and see how fast this issue goes away.

It will not go away.

And all those against abortion...please get in line to ADOPT and pay 100% for every unwanted child...MILLIONS.

What do they suggest we do with them? Warehouse them all for 18 years?

Free vasectomies, tubal ligations and strict guidelines on abortion.

End breed and feed programs, can't feed 'em … don't breed 'em.

And go after the fathers to pay up!

Lifetime maximum benefit of welfare and foods stamps should be THREE years! So unzip your drawers wisely!

Take 'em all to Jeffress house.

Quote:

---

Now that President Donald Trump has the opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, some abortion opponents hope that Roe v. Wade will end up overturned or gutted -- and they have already been working towards that moment.

---

Roe-v.-Wade has already been gutted. I don't want unlimited abortion. I don't want publicly (taxpayer) financed abortion.

I feel it is a national, not a state's issue. You shouldn't be under different laws by crossing a state line. We need a national standard.

Since Roe-v.-Wade was created, many limitations have been put on abortions. Doctors shouldn't be prosecuted for performing legal abortions. Partial Birth Abortions should be outlawed throughout the country. But first trimester abortions should be permitted.

The SCOTUS does not have the last word. Lawmakers could rewrite laws, but pretty much haven't when it comes to abortion. So Roe-v.-Wade remains the law of the land. I don't think the majority of voting Americans want to outlaw all abortion.

Abortion is actually a personal issue that government really shouldn't be involved with at all.

Trump vows that he will overturn Roe v. Wade “automatically.” | The ...
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/.../trump-vows-will-overturn-roe-v-wade-automatical...
During the beginning of the third presidential debate, Trump came out hard against abortion. He affirmed that, if elected, he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and that Roe v. Wade would be “automatically” overturned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Abortion is actually a personal issue that government really shouldn't be involved with at all.

---

But a woman should be able to decide within the first trimester! After that, it becomes a public issue. There is a point where that new life must be a consideration, not just an inconvenience!

And if it is a "personal issue" taxpayers should not be paying for it! Let potential abortion-seekers buy abortion insurance! Or those willing can contribute to a fund to pay for abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

During the beginning of the third presidential debate, Trump came out hard against abortion. He affirmed that, if elected, he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and that Roe v. Wade would be “automatically” overturned.

---

So what? He also said that on day one, Obamacare would be history! We were going to have a big beautiful wall, paid for by Mexico!

So now you think this campaign promise will become a fact? :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

But a woman should be able to decide within the first trimester! After that, it becomes a public issue. There is a point where that new life must be a consideration, not just an inconvenience!

And if it is a "personal issue" taxpayers should not be paying for it! Let potential abortion-seekers buy abortion insurance! Or those willing can contribute to a fund to pay for abortions.

---

If you're a woman, then decide yours in the first trimester if that's how you feel. Otherwise, someone else might want or need more time to figure out if they're even pregnant or not and what they want to do about it.

Federal taxpayers don't pay for abortions. Federal taxpayers have been protected by the Hyde Amendment from paying for abortions in the United States since 1974.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

If you're a woman, then decide yours in the first trimester if that's how you feel. Otherwise, someone else might want or need more time to figure out if they're even pregnant or not and what they want to do about it.

---

Just like you could wait to call 911 as your child chokes to death. But there are legal consequences for that "indecision"! Most women note changes that make them seek to verify with test kits or even a doctor visit. Three months is plenty of time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Federal taxpayers don't pay for abortions.

---

You're delusional! That's why they screamed so loudly when the Omnibus Bill contained the defunding measure that wasn't in the final bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Federal taxpayers have been protected by the Hyde Amendment from paying for abortions in the United States since 1974.

---

At least that is what you have been brainwashed to believe! Have you ever heard of "money laundering"?

Federal taxpayers don't pay for abortions, they never have. The girls and women have to pay for them, always have

No the religious right that's opposed to abortions makes up this thing about Planned Parenthood and the money they collect from Medicaid for other services. They think they're using that money to finance their facilities, organization and overhead. And they may be doing that, the same as every other abortion provider. Planned Parenthood only provides about 25% of all abortions in the United States so they're entitled to use any insurance payments whether it's private or government the same as any other abortion provider uses them that provides other services and accepts Medicaid payments. You can't discriminate against one to the benefit of the others to push the price of abortions up. That would violate Sherman Anti-Trust Laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Federal taxpayers don't pay for abortions.

---

That statement is absurd.

Do you believe in Q also?

Not interested. Bye Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Federal taxpayers don't pay for abortions, they never have. The girls and women have to pay for them, always have

---

If that were true, PP could have a separate system that would perform abortions and one for all other services. But that abortion clinic couldn't survive.

If the government paid for the building abortions were performed in, you would argue that they weren't paying for abortions. But without the government money, they couldn't afford to pay the doctors and for the building so they couldn't survive. They are the only abortion mill on the taxpayer's back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

They think they're using that money to finance their facilities, organization and overhead. And they may be doing that, the same as every other abortion provider.

---

How many other abortion providers have abortion as 40% to 50% of their business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Planned Parenthood only provides about 25% of all abortions in the United States so they're entitled to use any insurance payments whether it's private or government the same as any other abortion provider uses them that provides other services and accepts Medicaid payments.

---

Quote:

---

National Women's Law Center

• Twenty-six states have laws that prohibit insurance plans from offering coverage of abortion as part of a comprehensive health care plan sold in the insurance Marketplaces set up by the ACA.
• Eleven of those states go even further and prevent all private insurers in the state – whether in the Marketplace or elsewhere – from offering coverage of abortion as part of a comprehensive health care plan.

---

There is no plan

Fake News the DemoRATS use every election cycle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtdc

If that were true, PP could have a separate system that would perform abortions and one for all other services. But that abortion clinic couldn't survive.

If the government paid for the building abortions were performed in, you would argue that they weren't paying for abortions. But without the government money, they couldn't afford to pay the doctors and for the building so they couldn't survive. They are the only abortion mill on the taxpayer's back!

How many other abortion providers have abortion as 40% to 50% of their business?

---

They claim they do have separate systems. Of course the PP abortion clinic would survive. They charge the patients for the abortions. It costs about $950 for most in-clinic abortions which take about 5 to 10 minutes.

I would imagine most other abortion providers have abortions as the majority of their business.

Planned Parenthood has been around longer than Roe V Wade. Planned Parenthood has been around longer than legal abortions in most states. Planned Parenthood has been around decades longer than "ACA". No one with a Medicaid card has ever used that card to pay for an abortion, because it's never been legal to do so. You couldn't use Medicaid for an abortion before Roe v Wade and you certainly couldn't use it after Roe V Wade because of the Hyde Amendment that was passed by Congress to make sure that even though abortions were now legal nationwide, girls and women couldn't use Medicaid to pay for it because of "religious" reasons of our government (and gee I always thought our government was supposed to be neutral on religion, you know that ole separation of church and state thingy that was supposedly there to protect our people against Sharia Law and other such religious doctrines).

In any event, not one penny of your taxes or anyone else's has ever paid for an elective abortion by anyone, PP or others. Did you pay for some of the light bills in the other part of the facility where people come for other things like birth control pills, tests, check-ups, information, counseling and so forth? Possibly, just like everyone else's who provides services covered by Medicaid.

Now when do we start removing maternity benefits from Medicaid? Personal choice, you want it, you pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

They claim they do have separate systems.

---

You mean there is a separate building that people go to for an abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Of course the PP abortion clinic would survive. They charge the patients for the abortions. It costs about $950 for most in-clinic abortions which take about 5 to 10 minutes.

---

Then why would they need money from the taxpayers? And you are claiming that teenage girls are all paying $950 to get abortions? That's like the "poor" illegal aliens who can afford $5,000 to $10,000 to a coyote to get smuggled into the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I would imagine most other abortion providers have abortions as the majority of their business.

---

Can you name any other abortion mills?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Planned Parenthood has been around longer than Roe V Wade. Planned Parenthood has been around longer than legal abortions in most states. Planned Parenthood has been around decades longer than "ACA". No one with a Medicaid card has ever used that card to pay for an abortion, because it's never been legal to do so. You couldn't use Medicaid for an abortion before Roe v Wade and you certainly couldn't use it after Roe V Wade because of the Hyde Amendment that was passed by Congress to make sure that even though abortions were now legal nationwide, girls and women couldn't use Medicaid to pay for it because of "religious" reasons of our government (and gee I always thought our government was supposed to be neutral on religion, you know that ole separation of church and state thingy that was supposedly there to protect our people against Sharia Law and other such religious doctrines).

---

When they are getting a half million dollar grant each year directly from the Federal Government, there is no need. Abortions have only become big business recently. Apparently PP didn't provide abortions prior to 1991.

Planned Parenthood doesn't need any money from taxpayers to provide abortions. Not a dime. They provide other services and some of their patients are on Medicaid and can use their Medicaid coverage for those.

Planned Parenthood has several private sources of assistance to help low income and often no-income girls and women with some of the costs.

Planned Parenthood serves all ages of girls and women. Teenage girls get the money from their parents or friends or work to save it up. That's why it can take awhile for some to schedule it. There's also a separate medical exam with your doctor to confirm the pregnancy and number of weeks before you can go to Planned Parenthood, then you go to Planned Parenthood for the procedure or another provider, whichever you're most comfortable with or is available in your area.

Planned Parenthood has been providing and arranging abortions through providers long before 1991. Planned Parenthood has been around since 1916.

People who are opposed to abortion are okay, that's their choice, that's up to them, what I don't understand is why they want to take their view and exploit the rights of others who have a different view using the force of government to achieve it. Conservatives claim they don't like the government forcing them to do things they don't like or want to do. They're opposed to the government forcing a baker to bake a gay couple a cake. They're opposed to the government forcing employers to pay for birth control medications through their company health insurance. Yet they have no problem using the government to force a 13 year old into childbirth against her will. To me, that's just plain screwed up irrational thinking.

Not only are the taxpayers forced to fund abortions we are also forced to fund an organization who funds Hillary Clinton's campaign

Planned Parenthood’s Wisconsin political-advocacy arm is being fined for failing to immediately disclose almost $120,000 in Democratic campaign contributions, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Not only are the taxpayers forced to fund abortions we are also forced to fund an organization who funds Hillary Clinton's campaign

Planned Parenthood’s Wisconsin political-advocacy arm is being fined for failing to immediately disclose almost $120,000 in Democratic campaign contributions, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

---

Oh wake up, you're funding thousands of organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates. Every time you use your computer or phone to twitter or facebook or google search or buy on line or make a bank deposit or go the store or pay property taxes or read a paper or see a doctor or order a prescription, you're funding organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates.

And no taxpayer money is used to pay Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider a dime for abortion services. That's the law and has been since 1974.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Planned Parenthood doesn't need any money from taxpayers to provide abortions.

---

Then why do they cry like hell when Congress considers stopping their funding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

They provide other services and some of their patients are on Medicaid and can use their Medicaid coverage for those.

---

So they are already getting paid by Medicaid for legal medical services!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Planned Parenthood has several private sources of assistance to help low income and often no-income girls and women with some of the costs.

---

So if they lost funding, private donors would finance them, as it should be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Teenage girls get the money from their parents or friends or work to save it up.

---

"Or friends". Keeping it a secret from their parents who are responsible for them. https://www.alipac.us/images/icons/icon13.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

There's also a separate medical exam with your doctor to confirm the pregnancy and number of weeks before you can go to Planned Parenthood, then you go to Planned Parenthood for the procedure or another provider, whichever you're most comfortable with or is available in your area.

---

Your proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Planned Parenthood has been providing and arranging abortions through providers long before 1991. Planned Parenthood has been around since 1916.

---

They have been around since 1916, but not performing abortions until 1991 when it became lucrative. Yes, they arranged abortions through other providers before 1991, but now they farm out many of the other services to other providers and do the abortions themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

People who are opposed to abortion are okay, that's their choice, that's up to them, what I don't understand is why they want to take their view and exploit the rights of others who have a different view using the force of government to achieve it.

---

Many states prohibited abortions before Roe-v.-Wade. I don't agree with them. But I want a uniform law for the United States of America. Roe-v.-Wade opened the door for partial-birth abortions. I am against those. And with the ease of getting an abortion, I see promiscuity way up. If I am conspiratorial about it, like you are about the Drug War, I would say the big pharma is behind it. They make a lot of money from people who contact HIV and other STDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Conservatives claim they don't like the government forcing them to do things they don't like or want to do. They're opposed to the government forcing a baker to bake a gay couple a cake. They're opposed to the government forcing employers to pay for birth control medications through their company health insurance. Yet they have no problem using the government to force a 13 year old into childbirth against her will. To me, that's just plain screwed up irrational thinking.

---

Of course you would. But the baker who won't bake a cake is not spreading a disease. Forcing employer to pay for insurance to cover birth control pills is dictatorship. The insurance may have the option to provide that for those who want it to add it to their policy, at their expense. And in most states (if not all) it is illegal for a 13 year old to have sexual intercourse. That is for her parents to deal with, and perhaps the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh wake up, you're funding thousands of organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates. Every time you use your computer or phone to twitter or facebook or google search or buy on line or make a bank deposit or go the store or pay property taxes or read a paper or see a doctor or order a prescription, you're funding organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates.

---

What's that to do with taxpayers paying PP for abortions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

And no taxpayer money is used to pay Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider a dime for abortion services. That's the law and has been since 1974.

---

Just like PP didn't sell body parts, which was and is illegal, to enhance their profits from abortions they "CLAIM" are not funded by taxpayer money! https://www.alipac.us/images/icons/icon13.png

I don't know, you'll need to ask stoptheinvaders.

I don't know if what they did was illegal on the body parts. It's my understanding they can sell the tissue and parts, but not for a profit, but since they're a not-for-profit, not sure where that's headed. Last I heard in the news was the FBI is investigating the allegations.

FREE VASECTOMIES AND TUBAL LIGATIONS WILL CUT DOWN ON ABORTIONS!

END BREED AND FEED PROGRAMS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't know, you'll need to ask stoptheinvaders.

---

Why ask me--the quote was for something you said, not me!

Remove maternity benefits from Medicaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Why ask me--the quote was for something you said, not me!

---

No, that's jtdc inadequate cut and paste operation, my statement was in response to your statement about PP contributing to some Democratic candidates in Wisconsin. jtdc was asking what does that have to do with taxpayers paying for PP abortions to which I replied, I don't know, ask you. Maybe you can explain your issue you raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

No, that's jtdc inadequate cut and paste operation, my statement was in response to your statement about PP contributing to some Democratic candidates in Wisconsin. jtdc was asking what does that have to do with taxpayers paying for PP abortions to which I replied, I don't know, ask you. Maybe you can explain your issue you raised.

---

------------------------
Here is what jtdc was asking YOU about what YOU said

https://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Judy https://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_...post-right.png
Oh wake up, you're funding thousands of organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates. Every time you use your computer or phone to twitter or facebook or google search or buy on line or make a bank deposit or go the store or pay property taxes or read a paper or see a doctor or order a prescription, you're funding organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates.



What's that to do with taxpayers paying PP for abortions?
--------------------------------------
DO NOT accuse me of those words!

I hope you answer jtdc because I also would like to know what---using a computer or phone to twitter or facebook or google search or buy on line or make a bank deposit or go the store or pay property taxes or read a paper-----has to do with our tax dollars going to PP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

------------------------
Here is what jtdc was asking YOU about what YOU said

https://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Judy https://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_...post-right.png
Oh wake up, you're funding thousands of organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates. Every time you use your computer or phone to twitter or facebook or google search or buy on line or make a bank deposit or go the store or pay property taxes or read a paper or see a doctor or order a prescription, you're funding organizations that use your money to fund Democratic candidates.



What's that to do with taxpayers paying PP for abortions?
--------------------------------------
DO NOT accuse me of those words!

I hope you answer jtdc because I also would like to know what---using a computer or phone to twitter or facebook or google search or buy on line or make a bank deposit or go the store or pay property taxes or read a paper-----has to do with our tax dollars going to PP.

---

The post isn't about money going to PP, it was about your money going to Democratic candidates that you were complaining about. My post doesn't say anything about taxpayer money going to PP. It's explaining to you that when you spend your money for taxes or consumption or production or whatever, to whom you pay it is free in this country to take money that is theirs now and spend it however they wish including contributions to political candidates, including Democrat candidates.

For example, when you pay property taxes that include school taxes, you're funding teachers who belong to the NEA that contributes to Democratic candidates. That's our free market system. Once it leaves your hands, it now belongs to someone else to do with as they please.

Same as when you pay taxes to the federal government, once it leaves your hands and goes into Medicaid, Medicaid pays for legal services performed by PP and doctors and vendors and hospitals who are then free to use it however they please including contributing to Democratic candidates just like the NEA and Google and Facebook and well, most enterprises in the United States because most of them are run and controlled by Democrats.

When you sign up for cable and watch television and see a movie, a portion of that fee you pay every month ends up in Hollywood's pockets and a bunch of that money ends up in the Democratic Party.

So you'll have to answer jtdc's question if he wants an answer, because I don't know what your issue of Democratic candidates funded by PP has to do with your taxpayer money any differently than it has to do with any money you spend in this country.

Here's your post that I responded to:

stoptheinvaders wrote:

Quote:

---

Not only are the taxpayers forced to fund abortions we are also forced to fund an organization who funds Hillary Clinton's campaign

Planned Parenthood’s Wisconsin political-advocacy arm is being fined for failing to immediately disclose almost $120,000 in Democratic campaign contributions, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

---

And I know jtdc read it because he gave you a like on it. So why everyone is now acting like they don't know what the discussion is about is pretty peculiar.

Thus, I'm going to leave you all to bash it out among yourselves.

Bye Bye!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beezer

FREE VASECTOMIES AND TUBAL LIGATIONS WILL CUT DOWN ON ABORTIONS!

END BREED AND FEED PROGRAMS!

---

Beezer---That is what I have been saying for years!

That is one freebie I am definitely in favor of!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Beezer---That is what I have been saying for years!

That is one freebie I am definitely in favor of!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Make it as easy to get as a Dental appointment!

No questions asked!

Make an appointment...snip snip...and outpatient!

There are many men who do NOT want children (and women)...let them get it done without any hassles!

Women have enough plumbing problems...men need to go get this done.

It's already available through Medicaid Expansion and most insurance companies.

Planned Parenthood helps people do this as well. PP working for you!!

How do I get a tubal ligation procedure?
In This Section

Sterilization
How effective is tubal ligation?
How safe is tubal ligation?
What can I expect if I get a tubal ligation?

How do I get a tubal ligation procedure?
What are the benefits of sterilization?
What are the disadvantages of tubal ligation?

Many hospitals, private doctors, clinics, and Planned Parenthood health centers do tubal ligation. You may be able to get sterilized for free or at a low cost.
Thinking about sterilization?
Find a Health Center
What’s the cost of tubal ligation?

Tubal ligation can cost between $0 to $6,000, including follow-up visits.

The cost of a tubal ligation varies and depends on where you get it, what kind you get, and whether or not you have health insurance that will cover some or all of the cost. Tubal ligation may be totally free (or low cost) with some health insurance plans, Medicaid, and other government programs.

Even if tubal ligation costs more than other methods up front, it usually ends up saving you money in the long run because it lasts forever. Vasectomies (aka male sterilization) are usually a lot cheaper than female sterilization.

If you’re worried about cost, check with your local Planned Parenthood health center to find out if they can hook you up with birth control that fits your budget.
Can I get tubal ligation for free or cheap?

There’s a good chance you can get a tubal ligation for free (or at a reduced price) if you have health insurance. Because of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), most insurance plans must cover all methods of birth control with no cost to you, including some female sterilization procedures. Learn more about health insurance and birth control.

If you don’t have health insurance, you’ve still got options. Depending on your income and legal status in the U.S., you may be able to enroll in Medicaid or other state programs that can help you pay for birth control and other health care.

Planned Parenthood works to provide you with the services you need, whether or not you have insurance. Most Planned Parenthood health centers accept Medicaid and health insurance, and many charge less for services depending on your income. Contact your local Planned Parenthood health center for more information.
Where can I get a sterilization procedure?

You can get a tubal ligation at a doctor’s office, hospital, or health clinic. Many Planned Parenthood health centers also do sterilization procedures.

Some choose to get sterilized right after giving birth or having an abortion. Talk with your doctor ahead of time if you want to combine sterilization with another procedure.

Depending on where you live, there may be age restrictions or waiting periods to get a tubal ligation. You can ask about these when you call to make an appointment.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...tion-procedure


Medicaid Coverage of Family Planning Benefits: Results from a State Survey

Jenna Walls, Kathy Gifford, Usha Ranji, Alina Salganicoff Follow @a_salganicoff on Twitter , and Ivette Gomez
Published: Sep 15, 2016
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print

Executive Summary Introduction Survey Results Conclusion Appendices Endnotes

Sterilization Procedures
Key Finding: Sterilization
Coverage of sterilization services varied by eligibility pathway. States must cover surgical and implant sterilization procedures for women under ACA Medicaid expansion, and all of the responding states reported that they cover these procedures in Traditional Medicaid as well. However, not all family planning expansion programs cover these services.

This survey inquired about states coverage of sterilization procedures for women (tubal ligation and non-surgical essure) and men (vasectomy). As with FDA-approved reversible methods, the ACA requires coverage under the ACA Medicaid expansion to include surgical and non-surgical sterilization procedures for women. The requirement does not apply to vasectomy for men.

Federal Rules for Payment of Sterilization

Federal funds can only be used to pay for the sterilization of an individual when:

a) The individual is at least 21 years old at the time consent is obtained;

b) The individual is not a mentally incompetent individual;

c) The individual has voluntarily given informed consent in accordance with all the requirements prescribed in §§441.257 and 441.258; and

d) At least 30 days, but not more than 180 days, have passed between the date of informed consent and the date of the sterilization, except in the case of premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery. An individual may consent to be sterilized at the time of a premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery, if at least 72 hours have passed since he or she gave informed consent for the sterilization. In the case of premature delivery, the informed consent must have been given at least 30 days before the expected date of delivery.

Source: 42 CFR §441.253

The federal government requires states to cover sterilization procedures only when certain conditions are met. These requirements are intended to protect against coercive practices that had historically forced sterilizations upon marginalized groups, including low-income women, women with disabilities, women of color, and incarcerated women.1 Protections against these practices include requiring women to sign an informed consent form at least 30 days prior to a procedure as well as prohibition of federal matching funds for the sterilization of a mentally incompetent or institutionalized individual.

Most states with a Family Planning waiver or SPA also cover the procedures for women (Table 13), but there are exceptions. Ohio and Oregon do not cover tubal ligation (neither general nor post-partum) in their family planning programs. Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, and Mississippi do not cover tubal ligation performed post-partum in their family planning programs, with Georgia noting that pregnant women are not enrolled in the state’s family planning waiver.

Although vasectomy is not a required benefit, all but two of the surveyed states covered this service for men. The District of Columbia and Hawaii, do not provide the benefit in their ACA Medicaid expansion programs. In Michigan, Missouri, Wyoming, Georgia and Maryland, only women are enrolled in their family planning waivers so they didn’t cover vasectomies. Ohio’s’ family planning SPA included men, but also did not cover vasectomies.

In the survey, three states noted utilization controls. North Carolina noted that only one procedure is allowed per lifetime. Kentucky requires prior authorization for vasectomies. Alabama will not pay for family planning services after a sterilization procedure has been conducted and also requires prior authorization for Essure.
Table 13: Number of States Covering Sterilization Procedures, by Type of Program
Procedure Traditional Medicaid
(n=41) Family Planning Waiver/SPA
(n=23) ACA Medicaid Expansion
(n=25)
Tubal Ligation Post-Partum 41 17 Required
Tubal Ligation General 41 21 Required
Essure: Non-surgical 41 19 Required
Vasectomy 41 17 23

https://www.kff.org/report-section/m...on-procedures/

They need an all out campaign to get the word out then!

And these Doctor's DO give women a hard time about tying tubes! They make $$$$ off of delivering babies.

So set up a spay and neuter clinic that just does that!

Kind of like the "bookmobile"...drive it through the neighborhoods...LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't know, you'll need to ask stoptheinvaders.

I don't know if what they did was illegal on the body parts.

---

Playing the "I don't know" card?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

It's my understanding they can sell the tissue and parts, but not for a profit, but since they're a not-for-profit, not sure where that's headed. Last I heard in the news was the FBI is investigating the allegations.

---

The videos shows them asking for much more than that. And the they sure ran for cover when exposed.

The FBI is investigating PP for this, opened the investigation last year, so I'm sure if they broke the law, the people responsible will be prosecuted. I think some vendors in those videos have already been fired years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

The post isn't about money going to PP, it was about your money going to Democratic candidates that you were complaining about.

---

Excuse me! stoptheinvaders wrote

Quote:

---

Not only are the taxpayers forced to fund abortions we are also forced to fund an organization who funds Hillary Clinton's campaign

---

AND YOU CLAIM STOPTHEINVADERS' POST WASN'T ABOUT MONEY GOING PP? https://www.alipac.us/images/icons/icon13.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

My post doesn't say anything about taxpayer money going to PP. It's explaining to you that when you spend your money for taxes or consumption or production or whatever, to whom you pay it is free in this country to take money that is theirs now and spend it however they wish including contributions to political candidates, including Democrat candidates.

---

"SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION"! https://www.alipac.us/images/icons/icon13.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Bye Bye!

---

Judy retreats in frustration yet again, only to return! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

The FBI is investigating PP for this, opened the investigation last year, so I'm sure if they broke the law, the people responsible will be prosecuted.

---

Do you mean the same way Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner, etc have been prosecuted?