Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Can someone invade us and take us over? Canada? PLEASE invade us?!?!?!?
the GOP is finally having to deliver on 30 years of promising the christian right they'd ban abortion. they're doing it the way that congress ended the vietnam war - defunding it.
If you want to have sex, simply saying that your state isn't responsible for paying for the abortion or birth control or STI's it may cause isn't the same as denying your right to have sex. It just places the financial burden for one persons recreation where it belongs, on that person.
Nor does saying that we'll no longer pay for your prescriptions through a non-governmental private group like PP deny your right to medication. Need that prescription? Better go out and buy it, or get a skill set that will land you a job with health insurance. Your bad life choices in no way obligate your fellow taxpayers to pay for your medical care.
Planned Parenthood is NOT, not, not a government agency. They have no god given right to taxpayer funding.
Really, how hard IS logic and reason for the left?
Because not funding Planned Parenthood is EXACTLY like the Nazi death camps.
You're cordially invited to leave this country permanently anytime you like. You know, rather than wishing a military invasion on us like the America hating piece of trash you are.
What, still here? Well, I guess if you have no money or job skills emigrating can be a bit difficult. Poor little Cato!
why is it so hard for the right to acknowledge that there is value in societal infrastructure?
1060 Ray Street
Manchester, NH 03104-1620
And if you want to give him a call:
Home Office: (603) 624-1655
Office: (603) 271-3632
Cell: (603) 345-0304
Or drop him an email (respectful, of course, unlike anything he's said):
Scenario: 16 year old sexually-active, straight CHRISTIAN boy in high school contracts gonorrhea. He can't tell anyone in his family or church. He knows he can go to PP and get treated without too many questions and for the kind of subsidized fee he can afford.
You close PP off to him. What does he do? Try to live with his infection until he gets sterile or seriously ill? Spread it around to YOUR DAUGHTER?
Things have consequences, indeed. And some of them are more stupidly unnecessary than others.
(Regarding my previous comment, I do realize that women are hurt in general much more directly than men by Planned Parenthood being gutted. Just wanted to make the point that everyone is hurt to some degree, and that they do provide a smaller but still valuable range of services to men.)
It's when you confuse government activity with private charitable activity that I cavil. This view protects you as well as I. You aren't forced to support the religious charities with taxpayer money, for example, if you disagree with their religious base. I shouldn't be forced to support charities whose mission or philosphies I disagree with as a taxpayer.
The tax exemption for charities doesn't stress me. If they aren't making a profit, I can't see the point in taxing that non-existent profit. If they are, they should lose their tax exempt status. (As, if I recall, they can under IRS rules.) This kind of tax code gives us an incentive to be charitible, which is about the limit of charitible activity the government ought to be involved in.
If you feel so strongly that every young woman above 11 years old needs 4 abortions and unlimited birth control, by all means donate to PP. Just don't ask your fellow taxpayers to do so as well.
Come the fuck on New Hampshire. I expect more from you.
"Public health?" Define please.
Your 15 year old has the same obligation my kids have. If they break the neighbors window, hit his car with a baseball overthrown, they know they can't handle this on their own. They have to come to their parents and let us know what happened so that we can help them deal with it. It's part of growing up. One of the key lessons any kid needs is that no problem gets better for avoiding or hiding it. At some point it must and will be faced, and we don't do them any favors pretending otherwise.
So, your hypothetical 15 year old may not want to tell his parents he's been sexually active. It may be difficult or embarrassing. They may be disappointed or upset or even angry. Tough. Negotiating these kinds of family situations is part of growing up.
But it's my duty as a parent of a minor to monitor his or her medical care, reproductive or otherwise. How I'm supposed to do this if PP is keeping medical secrets about my minor children from me is a bit obscure.
This doesn't have FUCK-ALL to do with abortions. You don't get urinary tract infections from abortions, and you don't cure them by not getting abortions. You cure them with medicine that PP is now barred from dispensing. WHAT THE FUCK?
You think it's awesome that poor women go untreated for UTIs. I think it's awesome that you and your family get hit by cars. WHAT A FUCKING ASSHOLE. You motherfucking sack of shit.
Ironically, if Planned Parenthood stays defunded, this will mean fewer women being able to afford birth control, more unplanned pregnancies, and in all likelihood MORE abortions.
These "conservatives" aren't being conservative at all. The best, comprehensive way to prevent unplanned pregnancies and abortions is knowledge and birth control which Planned Parenthood provides.
I've posted this on my facebook and encouraged all the people I know in New Hampshire to sign the petition. But I want to do more. This is getting ridiculous. We can't let them chip away at women's (hell, people's) rights any more.
Governments at all levels are feeling the squeeze right now, so if cutting charitible activities help balance the books, I'm fine with that. If you cut off the charitible deductions for all charities, secular or religious, I'd think it poor policy. This has less to do with churches or secular charities as such, but tax incentive for citizens to donate to them as their conscience or belief dictates.
FYI, I don't know of any Fucking Churches in this country. Still, that'd be one way to increase church attendance...
Clearly logic is beyond you, as is basic civility-
PP isn't being barred from dispensing anything. They're being told that doing so isn't a taxpayer obligation. Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
I don't care if PP dispenses the medications or not. That's their outlook. All that I wrote, despite your willful misinterpretation of it, is that they aren't a government agency entitled to governent funds. Nor is financial obligation to purchase a thing denying the right to that thing.
And I wish you and your family health and prosperity as well.
Again, no-one is being denied medical care or abortions or anything else just because taxpayers decline to pay for it. They're being told to pay for their own bills, just as any adult ought to do.
And again, if this is such a crying need, if the American people are vociferously demanding this, they have a way to do it. They can personally donate to PP, and the problem is solved.
You are WRONG. They are PROHIBITED from dispensing the medicine. Even if I paid for it all with my own private donations, THEY CANNOT DISPENSE IT. They have to give scrip that can be taken to a pharmacist.
It also doesn't fucking matter what you want. It doesn't even matter what the NH legislature wants -- they're against this move. Everybody's against this move except three motherfucking asswipes. And you.
You can die of a UTI. How I wish it would happen to your daughters.
They are being denied care because they can't afford to pay for it elsewhere! Planned Parenthood offers sliding scale fees. I got my first pap smear from them a few years ago for free. Thank goodness everything was fine. But god forbid, had there been indications of cancer, at least I would have found out somewhat early. If there'd been no Planned Parenthood, I wouldn't have been able to get that pap smear. The best health care is prevention which is what they provide.
You are so myopic, you're in danger of becoming a fascist.
There is a need and we do donate to PP. But I still don't have much money, like a lot of people right now, and I doubt my $5 is going to keep them afloat.
Don't you see the irony in saying that the people who should fund Planned Parenthood are the very people choosing them because they can't pay for health care elsewhere?
What is your issue with family planning? STI prevention/treatment? What ever happened to the old-fashioned Republicans who were actually reasonable and pragmatic...Planned Parenthood began its federal funding under Nixon, with Republicans at the time recognizing that providing these services has positive (and yes, cost-effective) effects on society.
Fnarf, really, you gotta wish death-by-UTI on this person's daughters? Are you assuming that they agree with this position, or do you feel like they're acceptable casualties? I so love it when people on my side of an issue make people on my side of an issue look bad.
No, he is a fascist. A gleeful, fuck-everyone-unlike-me, fascist.
Stellar argument! Superb! Your command of the language combined with your clear desire to eschew personalities and calmly discuss issues is a lesson to anyone wishing to study rhetoric.
It's as though Cicero were reborn, with elements of Martin Luther and Churchill combining to make up one irrestible juggernaut of reasoned debate.
Sir, If I wore hats, I'd tip mine to you in sincerest admiration.
So, the 15 year-old kid in NH with a urinary tract infection and no insurance will no longer be able to get cheap medicine to cure his condition at a PP, because you and your penny-wise, pound-foolish cohorts believe it's "his responsibility" to see to his own health needs. So, guess what the kid is gonna do, then? He's going to NOT DO anything until until the pain becomes so excruciating that he collapses at school or whatever, and is rushed to the nearest ER via ambulance, where all-told he'll end up being treated at, oh, about 100 times the cost of those cheap medications you and your vile ilk didn't feel obligated to help pay for - and yet you'll STILL end up paying THOSE costs instead through increased insurance premiums, through increased costs passed through by the hospital onto YOUR bill to help cover what the kid CAN'T pay, etc., etc.
But hey, you showed that lousy bum of a parasite who's boss, didn't you? So what if it ends up costing you even more in inflated health care costs for the satisfaction, right? You'd rather inflict the pain, even if it ends up taking even MORE money out of your pocket in the end, because, that's really what it's all about for people like you - paying for the right to watch other people suffer needlessly, instead of making a very modest contribution towards helping them NOT suffer in the first place.
And you wonder why normal people revile you so thoroughly (although I wouldn't be in the least surprised to know you actually enjoy being reviled - after all, you must enjoy pain, since you're so ready to inflict it on others for your own amusement).
I'd no more dream of wishing harm on Fnarfs family than on mine, for instance. I don't wish him, or anyone else, dead for the simple fact of disagreeing with me. I don't wish them financial harm, or starvation or disease or any of the other things I've been wished here for merely expressing another viewpoint.
Nope. Disagreement isn't just seeing the world through different eyes. It makes someone evil, fascist, worthy of death and so on.
Seriously, get a grip folks.
I have no issue with family planning. In fact, I started my family a bit later than most because that's when I could emotionally and financially handle the obligations of a husband and father. It's called delayed gratification, but I understand this is a concept increasingly foreign to my fellow citizens.
I have some issues with Planned Parenthood, but a fair percentage of what they do is admirable. The whole infanticide thing kind of throws that out of the equation for me, but that's another issue.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. The liberal misperception is that Planned Parenthood has some innate right to federal or state funds. They do not. They aren't a government agency, and have no claim on the purse of government at all.
Is THAT sufficiently clear?
Fnarf may be saying some hateful things I don't agree with but he's absolutely right on something that you haven't responded to:
"You are WRONG. They are PROHIBITED from dispensing the medicine. Even if I paid for it all with my own private donations, THEY CANNOT DISPENSE IT. They have to give scrip that can be taken to a pharmacist."
So, every time someone says something truthful that you don't want to believe, you just ignore it? Seems like it. You're ignoring all of the rational arguments put forth to you, all the humanitarian arguments.
Easy. If the person has money but just doesn't wish to pay their bills, hospitals should aggressively pursue delinquent medical bills. Here's a hint- If you can afford a cell phone for every member of your family, cable tv, beer or wine or other luxuries, a fancy new car and so on, you can pay your medical bills. If you didn't buy insurance, I can't see where that's my problem.
I pay for shoplifters, or embezzlers or fraud in consumer products. Doesn't mean I excuse any of those activities or deny the retailer the right to prosecute them.
I didn't see his comment buried in his strangely out of control anger.
But so what? They can't go to a pharmacy? There are 2 within a few miles of my house, and I'm deep in suburbia, for goodness sake.
As for the humanitarian arguments, they boil down to 'we should help the unfortunate.' Absolutely. And privately with our own money. To use taxpayer money to do so is out and out theft. It is taking one persons income against his or her will to support another citizen.
PP is now barred from dispensing the antibiotics NO MATTER WHO pays for it. Even with zero state funding THEY CANNOT DISPENSE IT AT ALL. Even if I pay for it.
You know that, and you know that you are wrong, and yet you continue your baseless strawman arguments about welfare queens or shoplifters or WHATEVER THE FUCK. You are a lying piece of shit, and you don't deserve courtesy or respect. Eat shit and die.
I have a cellphone on a family plan that my mom generously pays for. It ain't a smart phone.
I don't have cable or a car and I'm pretty damn frugal. My biggest expense by far is groceries.
Screw you to tell me I can't buy wine or beer when I can afford it.
I work more than full time because I have my own business. I can't afford health insurance and I can't pay for a regular doctor without insurance. I make do without seeing the doctor or dentist very often (I went to a dental clinic once and a medical clinic once in the last 7 years) and by using Planned Parenthood once in the last 4 years.
I don't have a credit card and therefore no credit card debt. I pay my student loans back every month and am up to date on all my bills. I have been on one 3 day vacation in 6 years.
Does it sound like I am a spendthrift?
I deserve health care. Just like you.
finally someone has the guts to go on record and admit that you if you want to do anything fun, you've gotta pay for it.
I'm like that and I started getting UTIs as a young teen, years before I became sexually active (in fact, I've never gotten a UTI I could connect to recent sexual activity). I followed every piece of advice the doctors gave me to reduce my risk of getting UTIs, but I kept on getting them, so I guess I just have a shitty immune system. Thankfully I have insurance so I can go to a walk-in clinic for treatment but not everyone does. PP helping low-income patients get antibiotics for UTIs isn't putting the cost of their "good times" onto the taxpayer--many of those patients didn't have any fun sexytimes to get that UTI!
And, you know, paying for a pee test and some antibiotics is a lot cheaper for everyone than making the patient suffer through the UTI until it gets into their kidneys and they have to get rushed to the ER after they start vomiting and pass out from the pain, where they'll have to be hooked up to IVs and have diagnostic tests run to see if their kidneys are permanently damaged. (happened to me when I was young and didn't understand my symptoms, NOT FUN).
PS. fuck off SeattleBlues
I know how that goes. I couldn't afford health insurance for the first 3 years of my business. I couldn't afford vacations or to replace my car or remodel my home for the first 7. I rarely worked under 60 hours a week for the first 7 or 8 either. And I visited a dentist once every couple of years, and physicians at need and hoped like hell nothing would go wrong when I wasn't insured. The effort pays off in the end, if you're working a good business model with the diligence you seem to be.
If I caused offense I do apologize. It certainly wasn't intended.
Nor did I tell you what to buy or not. That isn't my business. But IF a families two kids have cell phones, and IF they have a $150 a month cable and internet bill and IF they have 2 car payment out of their means, then they can afford to pay their medical bills by forgoing some of those things.
If the liberal argument were to remove insurance companies from the health care mix, that's a talking point. But Obamacare does exactly the opposite, increasing the role of for profit insurance in our medical costs. Nor does single payer accomplish this, replacing for profit insurance with inefficient government. (And I could care less what the CBO or some interest group says, look at their record over the last 2 decades, and you'll find they and meteorologists are about equal for accuracy.)
Yes, something needs done about medical care availability. Yes, a person should be able to go to the doctor without mortgaging the house. I just haven't seen anyone propose a viable 'something' as yet.
And don't forget the fluoride that is impurifying our precious bodily fluids...
There. Fixed it for you.
Holy crap. I agree with you. It feels weird.
"Nor does single payer accomplish this, replacing for profit insurance with inefficient government. "
And back to disagreeing with you. Government may be inefficient compared to perfection, but when it comes to health care the private sector has proven itself the worst.
But hey, I agreed with two sentences you wrote. What an odd day. But Hitler liked dogs and I like dogs, so I guess it's not that weird.
I think what is often missed in this debate is that many young women depend on PP for all kinds of health care while they are in school, starting their careers, etc. They are able to get affordable health care that *enables* them to get an education and a good job, thus being productive members of society. No, PP is not *entitled* to money, but it sure is a damn good, smart investment in our fellow citizens.
It isn't 'good ones' and 'bad ones' except in the partisan narrative. Conservatives aren't trying to destroy the country for their corporate overlords, despite what liberal talking heads say, and many on the left believe. Liberals aren't all Marxist swingers trying to corrupt kids into wild sex and cocaine and spill bankers blood down Wall Street, except in the fevered imaginings of Limbaugh and his type.
Most of us, left or right, are Americans doing what we think best for our country. We just disagree on the details.
Having said that, liberals are far less capable of a civilized discussion on the relative merits of political views without recourse to personalities. Just in this brief thread, I've been called a fascist and compared to Hitler and had the deaths of myself and my family wished on me for example.
I can tell you that "live free or die" really does exist as a life slogan (for at least the old timers). It certainly did for my Grandfather, a vet of WW1. That attitude carried on right up until the reality of out of state developers raping his community because zoning laws didn't exist. Then the idea of "for the good of the community" took over.
For the good of the community means looking at threats to others in the same priority as for yourself. While my kids have access to health care, others don't because it is ridiculously expensive. There was a great attempt by a large university to institute an almost forced flu vaccine inoculation drive to decrease the available pool of hosts for spreading the disease. Was it an egregious big brother power grab, or a cost effective maneuver to minimize loss of productivity? I view it as a pragmatic move on the part of the leaders of a community.
The Lord knows that STDs won't be eradicated in my lifetime, but it is possible. Using the model of treating the flu epidemic, if we decrease the available pool of infected hosts (by treating anyone with an STD with antibiotics)(and by distributing condoms protecting the hosts at risk), the risks to the community as a whole decrease. Since I reside south of the border this approach would be labelled anything but pragmatic. And since I have some small inkling of NH politics I would say that, unfortunately, the people that did this are egotistical pricks that live to show the world how much better they are than as many people as possible. These people aren't leaders working for the benefit of their community, they're psychopaths that revel in the pain of the morally inferior (not racially inferior since it's one of the whitest states). It is a quirk of the government that a small number of assholes could subvert the will of the majority, and that said majority wants their money to be spent to decrease the risks for their communities.
Question A: How is it fiscally conservative to deny funding for inexpensive preventives of expensive diseases? Even if a person CAN pay, cell phone, cable, ect, dosen't mean they will. Just because you have a cell phone and cable currently paid up dosn't mean you have $80 on hand for an antibiotic perscription right now. Or in the case of a UTI, three hours ago. (Those things are HELL, and I've been to PP many a time over them. They're cheaper, faster and open on weekends). UTIs and unplanned pregnancies onset abruptly. Bad decision-makers don't plan ahead for the rent, much less unexpected medical expenses. If they don't have the $80, they'll go to the ER, perhaps with a kidney infection, turning the $80 into $2K. We tax payers will have to pay the $2K. We just spent $2K to save $80. The unplanned pregnancy for lack of free/easy birth control works the same way. Tell me again how we saved money?
B. Pro-life. How is it pro-life to defund PP? I hate abortions-I'd like to see pills behind the pharmacy counter and condoms for free on street corners. I'd also like comprehensive sex-ed starting in the 5th grade. Want to opt out? Homeschool. How is it compatible to be pro-life and anti-free/easy birth control for people at highest risk for unplanned pregnancy?
C. How does it matter that PP isn't a government agency? Neither are private banks, but we still back them with tax dollars and bail them out with tax dollars when they fail. Then we're told by the government that this was done for the greater good. PP serves a population that nobody else is serving. If charitable donations don't hold them up, who will fill the gap they leave? If nobody fills it, will the costs exceed the savings? They will. How is that fiscally conservative, and how is it pro-life?
And someone tell me, what is up with the Republicans? They used to make sense. I used to vote for them. Where did the across-the-board religious nuttery come from, and did it seem to start suddenly? And who do you vote for if you want sane limits on government spending, but you don't want to cut off your feet to save money on shoes?
Which is more meritorious? For the government to subsidize an unemployed man's job search, or for the government to subsidize research and drilling done by huge and immensely profitable petroleum corporations?
@45: Ah, your usual response to any issue of government welfare programs.
"Well, my tax dollars shouldn't be paying for John and Jane Q. Public's health insurance! Not while they're buying big-ass TVs and loud cars with shiny rims! (That's what ghetto people do, right?)"
Okay, let's suppose that some poor people spend money on stupid shit. Does that mean that we should withhold support from the other poor people who DO work hard and manage their money responsibly?
Your answer, as far as I can tell: "That's an invalid question. There are no such responsible poor people; if they were responsible and hard-working, they'd be upper middle-class! I mean, that's how it was for me, right? Isn't that how it is for everyone?"
If you have an INTELLIGENT response to the question I pose, please let me hear it. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.
@58: In one Savage Love column, Dan actually told someone to fuck a tub of frosting.
"I can't afford health insurance and I can't pay for a regular doctor without insurance."
Really? Group Health has high deductible plans that cover checkups starting at $75/month. With a $2k deductible that you can cover in one year putting $166/month into an HSA and you're covered, tax free. $10 co pays on your doc visits.
But doing all of that would mean taking responsibility of your health care.
"I deserve health care. Just like you."
So call Group Health tomorrow.
I, like a few others, am surprised to find myself agreeing with some of your points.
I think I finally understand what it is about your commentary that irritates me so much. It's the generalities that you assert: you derogatorily speak of "liberals" as if it's a monolithic label, you speak of abortions as though they're all the result of (women's) irresponsible debauchery, you speak of poor people as if they all come to their economic class through personal failings.
I believe you'd find it equally as irritating for me to generalize all conservatives as socially backwards idolaters who've sold their morals off in the name of The Free Market Economy, or all Christians as regressive Bible-thumpers who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the moral sophistry their religion has and continues to perpetrate.
You say "liberals are far less capable of a civilized discussion on the relative merits of political views without recourse to personalities." But your generalizations are recourse to personalities, no matter how you mask it in flowery rhetoric.
Your posts all belie thoughtless privilege, of a person who believes that his own experiences and values either are or should be reflective of everyone else's. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that in addition to being male, Christian, straight, and conservative, you're also middle-aged, white, and upper-class.
But as soon as Brooklyngirl explained her personal circumstances you flipped from your usual ass-hattery to empathy. Which makes me far more sympathetic to you.
If you want to civilly debate political views, why not take Lissa up on her many offers to talk at SLOG Happy? Or otherwise engage liberals in a manner where you have to deal with them as actual people? The internet is not the place for civilized discussion, and it never will be. Anonymity and the fragmented nature of online discourse are not conducive to meaningful conversation.
I ask you this as someone who, as you said, is an American who is concerned with doing what is best for the country. And who believes that the only way to do that is to try to actually understand the point of view of those who disagree with me. Is that what you believe? Or are you just trolling here to give yourself more reasons to dislike liberals?
But we ARE forced to support religious charities, through the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, created 9 days after the inauguration of GWB. I disagree with federal funds going to any charity with a religious base, but I don't get to make the decisions. We can't always have it our way, SB.
"If you feel so strongly that every young woman above 11 years old needs 4 abortions and unlimited birth control, by all means donate to PP. Just don't ask your fellow taxpayers to do so as well."
You've had plenty of time to think about the wisdom of that statement; still proud of it?
@24: "...if cutting charitible [sic] activities help balance the books, I'm fine with that. If you cut off the charitible [sic] deductions for all charities, secular or religious, I'd think it poor policy."
So, ideally, the government is supposed to allot your tax dollars to only charities and responsibilities that you personally agree with? That sounds like a compromise that would require a helluva lot of extra management. I thought libertarians were all about reducing bloated government?
@35: "What is it about the average liberal that reasoned calm debate absent hyperbole and vituperation isn't possible."
You are forgetting of course the Brooks Brothers riots of the 2000 election and the health care "debates", and pretty much every hour of programming on FOX. Discourse in this country has taken a nose dive in recent years, but if you're being intellectually honest, you certainly can't point to the left side of the aisle as the main reason for it.
@36: "A fair percentage of what [Planned Parenthood does] is admirable. The whole infanticide thing kind of throws that out of the equation for me, but that's another issue."
You mean, the 97% of their funding that goes to helping prevent the need for the "infanticide"? (Seriously? That isn't hyperbole to you?) No one--NO ONE--wants abortions to be the primary method of birth control. PP provides them as a service, because despite all their efforts to educate and keep people from having unwanted pregnancies, despite the free condoms they provide in their entry room, despite all the OTHER contraceptive services and items they provide, people still get pregnant when they don't want to, even if they've taken precautions against it. All that is of course irrelevant because they don't get a dime in funding for abortions anyway, and everyone (except those who only listen to/watch/read conservative media) knows it.
@52: "...liberals are far less capable of a civilized discussion on the relative merits of political views without recourse to personalities."
Have you ever actually watched the "fair and balanced" FOX? Are you familiar with the names Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity? (In case you choose to not watch the linked videos, those are examples of: biased statements or outright lies posed as facts, lies to deny the prevalence of ad hominem attacks on Fox, probably Fox's biggest ad hominem attack ever filmed (against the rightfully elected President, no less), and proof of lies told through the use of deliberately misleading editing, respectively.
I am just dumbfounded that such a thing exists. How can a state with that Live Free or Die thing going on LIVE under such an non-democratic and certainly faaaaar from Libertarian "government?"
Who chooses this committee? Are members on there for life? Can they be removed? Who is qualified to be on the committee?
It's an elected governmental body, which I gather is intended to be some sort of counterpoint or limitation on the powers of the governor.
Perusing their website, they seem to have administrative oversight on spending issues, but solely from a financial responsibility standpoint. Because they don't have legislative power and this latest action strongly resembles a legislative decision, I'm going to be somewhat surprised if there's no way to challenge them in court.
Disclaimer: I don't live in NH and I have no idea what I'm talking about. Just my opinion after looking at their website.
I now have my new "ya'll are assholes" diatribe against folks who are for this legislation. In 2002, I had a UTI. I didn't treat it, because I didn't have insurance. Predictably, a few days later, I was sicker than a fucking dog. But I didn't go in, because yep, didn't have insurance. (I was young and stupid at the time, and unawares that one could go to Planned Parenthood for UTIs... thanks, religious right!) I waited all weekend, until Monday morning, when my then-boyfriend, now husband borrowed a car from one of the frat brothers, and hauled my ass into the sliding scale clinic (I made just enough to have to pay full price, btw, and I made about 18K a year). I could barely stand, I went into a random exam room and barfed, and they would have hospitalized me if I HAD INSURANCE.
So, because I didn't have this shit looked into when it was a lowly UTI, it resulted in 10 fucking UTIs/Kidney infections that year. It cost me several thousand dollars, and my University health plan, and ultimately employer-paid health plan tens of thousands more.
How the fuck is this smart? Sure, Planned Parenthood provides abortions..... but 99% of their services have nothing to do with abortions, and I imagine they provide prenatal care as well. And my little adventure could have turned out differently, and with a poorer outcome. I'm fucking appalled that a) there isn't a basic level of guaranteed care (no fucker should go bankrupt from cancer, even if they are just the kind of fucker who supports this legislation) and b) that the righties think that it's okay to defund what is one of the few quality health care providers to the poor community in Planned Parenthood.
And to the dipshit who thinks women should "pay" for having sex, well, guess what, fuckstick? We all pay for it too, or are you gonna defund welfare so babies starve to death and we end up with more Casey Anthonys?
Ok, so it IS an elected committee. I guess that is good.
Still weird though. If they are allowed to boss the legislature around, and not just the governor, it gives them too much power. bleh.
Yeah, and since a couple of them admitted that they canceled the contract bc they object to LEGAL abortion, this isn't just a "financial responsibility" issue. They way overstepped here.
bad UTIs are so scary. its really a test of one's sanity to look in the toilet bowl and see it full of blood. and then to wonder if that pain in your side is your kidneys signing off...
"But IF a families two kids have cell phones, and IF they have a $150 a month cable and internet bill and IF they have 2 car payment out of their means, then they can afford to pay their medical bills by forgoing some of those things."
I haven't been able to afford cable since I started college. My internet is required for college. I have no car, and they just cut the bus schedules for the third time this year. I live in a tiny apartment with another person. Of course I can't afford health insurance. I work a minimum wage job enough to pay living and food expenses while going to school more than full time so that I will have less to pay back in student loans in the end because, you see, I am funding my own education. I recently received a raise due to all my hard work, because I was a "model employee." It was .30 cents more per hour.
Your argument is essentially that all of these low income women don't deserve access to cheaper (not even free) health care because they didn't "earn it." You are completely ignoring the fact that there is no way to earn it. And, as several people have said, if I get sick or cannot get preventative treatment for something, it WILL cost you much more later on in the wrong run. You accuse the left of personal attacks, but you fail to recognize that your own stereotypes of everyone who can't afford your lifestyle as lazy and extravagant are insulting to those of us who are low income. Most people do not like being low income. They don't chose to have to pick between buying food and paying rent on time. Only in your head do most people choose to live in poverty.
By your logic, nobody should get to have anything but you. You do realize that right? Not born particularly bright? Got a mental illness? Physical handicap? A sick relative to take care of? No sex for you. No health insurance. No job. No food. No shelter. If you try hard and you can't get a job, because of the shitty economy or one of the reasons above, you should simply die. You're essentially advocating survival of the fittest.
You sir, are no Christian.
I can't afford $75 a month, really. If I told you what I paid myself a month, you'd laugh. I live in my mom's house, thankfully, and don't have to pay rent.
My business model might not survive, I run a used bookstore, but there are some promising signs on the horizon.
I appreciate your point that low-income people sometimes don't make the best financial decisions. Poverty isn't just about not having money. I come from a middle class background so I have some knowledge of financial planning. But that's not to say that most low income people don't want health care for themselves and their kids. (Another way I'm lucky, I'm only responsible for myself)
Planned Parenthood is an uncomplicated, inexpensive health option. Whether you like it or not, a lot of women (and men) simply don't get treatment when they can't afford it or think they can't afford it. Why not provide them with a place to get treatment? It's better for them and it's better for you when they don't end up in the emergency room down the road with a much pricier health bill that the taxpayers will have to pay. Like I said before, an ounce of prevention...
The reason people have gotten so angry at you is because you seem so cold-hearted. You honestly don't give a crap that thousands of women might not be able to get their prescriptions filled or tested for cancer. I called you a fascist because you seemed like you wanted to legislate people's decisions. Deciding that the government should tell women what they can and can't do to their own bodies is pretty fascistic.
I don't know whether you've looked out your window lately, but that's one hell of a skill set to try to acquire at present.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? They're fucked in the head. Their arguments make no fucking sense. And yet the rest of us have to indulge their fuckery to try to point out the fallacies in their "logic".
Poor people don't deserve health care????? REALLY????
I've been out of the country for two months and I'm supposed to return next week. Shit like this makes me want to stay the fuck away.
And there is no one with more rights to be in America. Born and bred. A family of military heroes. So those of you saying if I don't like it I can leave, or that I'm an America hater, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourselves.
The only solace to take from this is that the temper of the country IS changing. The youth of today aren't filled with the hate and the vitriol of these twats.
- There are always people who say things like, "If people want to have fun, they can pay for their own birth control.". In reality, most of the people who go to Planned Parenthood DO PAY for it. It's discounted because they have a sliding scale for fees. And patients pay for their exams and meds.
- The concept of the "working poor," that includes people working low paying jobs with no benefits. There are people working 2 jobs to get by. And they chose PP because of that sliding scale, and the fact that their offices are conveniently located near low income areas.
People like to stereotype all poor people as lazy idiots who sit around all day popping babies out. However, the reality is that most of them do work. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to go to PP for their reproductive healthcare.
Eff you NH and Eff you too SB. From one person who happens to (now) be well-to-do/privilaged to another, the fact you think you got there by yourself and you owe your fellow citizens nothing, let alone helping poor people and particularly poor women with health care, makes you one selfish bastard.