I don't care if 90% of their buiness is giving lollipops to kids and helping grandmas across the street. It still is has no buiness being funded by taxpayers. No one is singling out planned parenthood out here. It is amonsgt the thousands of businesses that have lobbied for a piece of the taxpayer pie; this should all be rolled back.

I would believe that planned parenthood is lobbied by a non profit organization. there is little wrong with the public getting influence through special interest groups, in principle. In a healthy, working democracy the special non profit interest groups provide the people with a voice on all the issues that is possible to decide in the selection between 2 different representatives. lobbying becomes wrong when big business lobbies to increase their own profits, at the expense of the wishes of the voters.


a good example on where the lobby system failed was the bail out. When the first suggestion failed, then the special interest groups representing the voters should have been the ones that had been heard, not the lobby for the banks.

why should middle-class taxpayers (or any taxpayers, at that) that struggle enough to make ends meet on their own in this economy have to pay for welfare-recipients? fact of the matter is, maybe we should cut some billions of dollars from our military spending before we worry about cutting funding to PP.

Greekboi, why not cut it all at the same time.

It is easy for you and I to say why not pay for PP. I mean I don't care about abortions. However this isn't about cutting the programs you don't like while guarding the programs you do. Otherwise everyone guards and nothing gets done. Its about cutting back everything.

Until then; you are just doing exactly the same thing as the current parties; cut the opposition; guard the programs that your base uses.

bit of a tangent

we know a lot of people who are "struggling to make ends meet", yet still somehow have cable/satellite, mutliple apple ipad/ipod/iphone devices, etc, etc. i know this sounds harsh, but the struggling people really need some discipline in managing a personal budget. meh.

I know monte what gives, 97% of poor people have refrigerators, such excess luxury in the lower class.

Sarcasm aside, your point has some merit, but the cost of some of the "luxuries" you mention aren't that high and some increase a poor persons ability to earn money and potentially not be as much of a burden on society, cell phones being the chief example.

deadcode, can you agree that there is a difference between programs that help and teach people how to take care of themselves, and a "nannystate"?

could you not put planned parenthood in the first group? it costs about 1USD per american, but abortion right have shown positive correlation with crime prevention (people who can see that they are not capable of raising a child at this point can opt to abort).

I'm not arguing whether or not that Planned Parenthood is a beneficial service. I am just stating that the government should not be using taxpayers money (ie. other peoples money) to subsidize businesses.

I don't understand your question about the difference between programs that teach and nanny state. What is your point?

The federal government has no authority to issue these programs; regardless of whether they are liked/helpful or not. The ends do not justify the means; neither in morality nor legal doctrine.

To me it is pandering and intellectually dishonest to make a stand about Federal Funding largesse over Planned Parenthood instead of stating the more comprehensive case and layout a plan for the serious and drastic cuts in Federal Programs the libertarians want.

This is a stupid wedge issue based on abortion and reproductive rights as well as sexual liberation and education cloaked in a call for fiscal responsibility. It is FUCKING pandering to the lowest common retards on the right and is part of the reason we continue to have stupid and dishonest representation in the Federal Government. Ron Paul's continued willingness to pander to the social conservatives on issues that should be matters of personal choice annoys the shit out of me and it should annoy those that support him as well.

interesting. ive seen and been a part of a lot of girl v girl debates on planned parenthood. kinda cool to see what the guys think on this matter.

imo tightening the belt is a good thing and planned parenthood and other programs like it have the capability and connections to be privately funded. whether or not they are good programs is not for the government to decide but for the consumer to decide...which also a different conversation.