im more pro-life than pro-choice, so i dont mind. if i read that article right, he is suggesting that if you are pro-choice you can still decide to send some of your tax funds to planned parenthood? weird.

The amount of services and benefit to society that Planned Parenthood provides outside of abortions is like 90% of what they actually do. Such an annoying political issue.

Would a federal law banning funding for X have any real impact? If Congress were later to pass statute Y providing for funding of X, would not the latter statute automatically override the first one, both being passed by the same body?

I think Paul is saying he would use his veto power if funding for abortion shows up on his desk, not that he is pressing for legislation specifically banning federal funds for abortion.

We really need to start funding more post-term abortions. I figure up until the 9th or 10th trimester, so many people have kids that shouldn't.

skrum, don't you need 2/3 to make a law?

would not that mean tha you need 2/3 majority to enable funding again, while without a ban you only need 50%?

I really don't know how this works in US.


also, I would add that even if I am pro choise, I would support stricter rules on abortion, in norway there is only early term abortion.

97% Sam. Only about 1/3 of planned parenthood's revenues come from the federal government anyway.

But this shouldn't be a surprise. Ron Paul wants to ban funding for anything not specifically budgeted by word-for-word constitutional law. This includes, but is not limited to:
Abolishing the IRS, the Fed and almost all regulatory agencies.
Privatizing or eliminating Medicare and Social Security.
Dismantling the FBI, CIA, NSA, and HSA. Suspending all international activity by the US Military and recalling all internationally deployed troops.
Instituting the gold standard.
There's more too but go to his website and check it out for yourself. Unfortunately his views have normalized a bit to conform to the tea party's agenda.

mr Kreuzfeld,

Norway does better than us on preventing late term abortions; however, it's unclear how much is as a result of law and how much is as a result of the mandated health coverage. (That's not to say the coverage is better or more economically viable, but certainly more universal)

Incidentally, many of Planned Parenthood's other activities such as women's healthcare, birth control distribution and family planning are generally accepted means of reducing abortions of any kind.

Yeah this is one of the many things that the government has no business spending other people's money on. Good for him. Planned Parenthood can survive without government assistance; and shouldn't have gotten this funding to begin with; along with literally thousands of other programs that should also be defunded. Time to tighten the belt.

Pandering to the lowest rung of the conservative rights social issues, boring...

time to tighten the belt yes, but Planned Parenthood is not the place to start. also, what Sam said about 90% of their services not being abortions