money

Planned Parenthood finances campaigns of all but one Senator who voted against defunding

On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Senate concluded a historical vote. For the first time in history, a majority of U.S. Senators voted to defund Planned Parenthood, America’s abortion giant. The final vote was a successful 53 to 46, yet due to the Democrats’ filibuster, the vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

While we Americans who are concerned about the rife abuses and culture of inhumane death at Planned Parenthood are winning the battle, there is a large force standing in the way: the abortion lobby.

Detailed research proves that the abortion lobby pads the pockets of lawmakers. In turn, these lawmakers are willing to stand on the Senate floor, blatantly spewing out the very same lies Planned Parenthood tells the public – all to prevent an abusive organization from being defunded.

According to publicly available federal campaign donation records, every single Senator who voted not to defund Planned Parenthood, except one, has been awarded money from the abortion giant.

Senator Angus King is the one exception, the only Senator who has not accepted Planned Parenthood cash. (Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “no” vote was merely procedural, and had to be done in order for him to bring up the defunding bill again in the near future.)

In order to fund nearly every Democrat in the U.S. Senate who voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPA) and Planned Parenthood Votes (PPV), have spent $1,609,498. Roughly 2/3 of this money was spent in 2012 alone.

President Obama with Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards
President Obama with Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards

Notably, Planned Parenthood spent many more millions as they worked to gain the blind trust of President Obama. The White House has still, to date, failed to disclose whether or not the President has even bothered to watch the investigative videos that show Planned Parenthood breaking a host of federal laws and violating HHS regulations.

According to the Washington Post:

“Combined, the two Planned Parenthood advocacy groups say they spent $15 million on ads, phone calls, events, mail and door-to-door canvassing [in 2012]. In 2008, their campaign spending was about $4 million total.

… Most of the groups’ money went towards boosting Obama or attacking Romney. Eighty-seven percent of funds spent by Planned Parenthood Action Fund and 80 percent of spending by Planned Parenthood Votes went toward the presidential race, according to the Sunlight Foundation tallies.”

Interestingly, the Senate donations made by PPA and PPV may not even be fully available to the public, as the availability of campaign reports prior to the 2004 cycle are somewhat unreliable. Candidate details are not fully available, and the PAC details are incomplete.

United-States-SenateBoth PPA and PPV are limited in what they are legally allowed to give. PPA may donate up to $5,000 per election – for both the primary and the general – to each individual candidate. PPV is unable to donate directly to any candidate, but they spend huge chunks of money on things like research, get out the vote efforts, and advertising on behalf of or in opposition to candidates. This is how they are able to have a sizeable impact, simply because their spending is unlimited.

Finally, the reason the contributions to some of the most vehemently pro-abortion Senators is lower than might be expected, is because they are in “safe” districts where their reelection is virtually guaranteed, or because they are newly elected Senators and Planned Parenthood is limited in the amount they can give.

Senatorial Campaign Contributions from Planned Parenthood Action Fund

(Dated: 1998-June 2015)

  • Murray(D-WA) – $29,282
  • Shaheen (D-NH) – $26,000
  • Boxer (D-CA) – $25,702
  • Udall (D-NM) – $22,500
  • Schumer (D-NY) – $20,985
  • Peters (D-MI) – $20,926
  • Gillibrand (D-NY) – $19,825
  • Merkley (D-OR) – $19,762
  • Stabenow (D-MI) – $19,035
  • Franken (D-MN) – $19,000
  • Kirk (R-IL) – $18,000
  • Baldwin (D-WI) – $16,000
  • Markey (D-MA) – $15,535
  • Menendez (D-NJ) – $15,016
  • Tester (D-MT) – $15,000
  • Brown (D-OH) – $14,380
  • Carper (D-DE) – $14,000
  • Durbin (D-IL) – $14,000
  • Mikulski (D-MD) – $12,035
  • Coons (D-DE) – $11,610
  • Nelson (D-FL) – $11,000
  • Reed (D-RI) – $10,500
  • Cantwell (D-WA) – $10,000
  • Feinstein (D-CA) – $10,000
  • Heinrich (D-NM) – $10,000
  • Wyden (D-OR) – $9,535
  • Warner (D-VA) – $9,000
  • McCaskill (D-MO) – $8,803
  • Blumenthal (D-CT) – $8,740
  • Cardin (D-MD) – $8,535
  • Hirono (D-HI) – $8,500
  • Murphy (D-CT) $7,911
  • Schatz (D-HI) – $7,500
  • Klobuchar (D-MN) – $7,000
  • Whitehouse (D-RI) – $7,000
  • Sanders (I-VT) – $6,535
  • Booker (D-NJ) – $6,000
  • Casey (D-PA) – $5,000
  • Bennet (D-CO) – $4,750
  • Warren (D-MA) – $3,500
  • Leahy (D-VT)- $2,500
  • Heitkamp (D-ND) – $2,396
  • Kaine (D-VA) – $845
  • Reid (D-NV) – $824

Planned Parenthood Votes’ Expenditures in Support of Senators or in Opposition to Their Opponents:

(Dated 2012-2013)

SUPPORT

  • Baldwin (D-WI) – $144,058 (2012)
  • Kaine (D-VA) – $114,615 (2012)
  • Markey (D-MA) – $62,818 (2013)
  • Tester (D-MT) – $55,165 (2012)
  • Brown (D-OH) – $52,003 (2012)
  • McCaskill (D-MO) – $32,520 (2012)
  • Murphy (D-CT) – $31,057 (2012)

OPPOSE

  • Rehberg (Tester (D-MT)) – $351,996 (2012)
  • Allen (Kaine (D-VA)) – $113,176 (2012)
  • Akin (McCaskill (D-MO) – $67,316 (2012)
  • Thompson (Baldwin (D-WI)) – $49,807 (2012)

When the millions Planned Parenthood spends to fund these Senators and the President is considered, it should be no surprise that many government leaders constantly regurgitate the abortion giant’s lies.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has publicly refused to watch the Planned Parenthood videos, falsely stating that only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s budget deals with abortion.

On the Senate floor, during the defunding vote, Senator Richard Blumenthal outrageously declared that defunding Planned Parenthood would “create a public health crisis” and that, without the abortion giant, services for women would be “unaffordable and inaccessible.” He stated that Planned Parenthood is “trustworthy and professional,” and that, if defunded, “women will be without their most trusted heatlhcare provider.” This despite the factual assertions of the bill’s sponsors, who stated that the money would remain with women’s healthcare, but be transferred to more trustworthy organizations – like federally qualified health centers and community health centers that already serve ten times the number of people Planned Parenthood does, yearly.

Senator Richard Blumenthal
Senator Richard Blumenthal

A mere four months before Blumenthal’s vehement and false speech on behalf of Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards, personally donated $1,000 to his election fund.

It should come as no shock, when politicians are given thousands of dollars, that they simply bow before Planned Parenthood, taking the abortion giant’s word for everything.

As White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated, Planned Parenthood is following the “highest ethical standards” simply because Planned Parenthood says they are.

It’s amazing what can be gained from spending $12,000,000 on the highest office in our land.

  • PJ4

    The same people who screech that churches should lose their tax exempt status for their stand against abortion and ssm (because they think those are political issues), are ok with organizations like PP who receive our tax money and have the same non-profit status as the church, being heavily involved in influencing political issues.

    Oh the pro abort hypocrisy
    Quite frankly, I’m tired of it
    As per usual though, Liberal pro aborts lack any kind of self awareness.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      One “R” in the whole list. When the Demon-crat Party comes to its senses and has it’s 60’s moment on abortion, they will be shouting from the rooftops “We were with you all along on protecting the rights of the preborn!” Just like they did with Civil Rights, after 100 years of owning black people, whipping black people, lynching black people, denying the civil rights of black people, and uniformly voting against Civil Rights Acts and Constitutional Amendments for black people.

      And like the 60’s, the subterfuge will probably work. Frankly, I prefer the approach the French Resistance took with the Nazi collaborators, but that may just be a guy thing. :-)

      • MamaBear

        I’m not sure exactly what the French Resistance did to Nazi collaborators, but if my guesses are any where close, I’m pretty sure we could not get away with doing it to Democrats.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Jail time. Crimes against humanity. But, yes, I’m sure that would not fly.

      • tpcowberry

        In 1942, the Nazi-supported Vichy government of France made abortion a capital crime. They sent people to the guillotine for this. In 1943 Germany made providing an abortion to an Aryan woman a capital offense. Both laws were repealed when democracy was reinstated.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Yes – even the Nazis knew that abortion was a crime against humanity – thank you! How is it that the Nazis could figure out what Demon-crats cannot?!?

          Of course, abortion was still legal for the “sub-human” Jews. That sounds vaguely familiar:

          “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939

          http://akathleptos .blogspot .com/2015/08/slavery-hitler-and-planned-parenthood.html

          • tpcowberry

            You have got to be kidding me…

    • YouHateMe

      Mic drop.

  • P Smith

    This funding scheme proves that Perpetual Motion is not a fallacy.

  • MamaBear

    No wonder PP has so much political support. They pay quite well for it. Quite well indeed!

    • tpcowberry

      Planned Parenthood barely covers the costs of the services they provide–97 percent of which have nothing to do with abortion.

      • MamaBear

        That supposed 97% is doubted by very many people, even pro-choice people. And they are certainly doing far far better than “barely covering costs.”
        Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion provider in the US. They have plenty of money to pay top executives 6 figure salaries, including Ms. Richards of almost $600,000. They make massive political contributions to pro-choice candidates on local and national levels, including half of congress.
        And they have plenty of money to run smear campaigns against anyone who tries to touch any of their income sources. When Komen tried to cut ties because they felt Planned Parenthood was misusing money meant for cancer screenings, Planned Parenthood ran an extortion campaign against them that would put the Mafia to shame.

  • Joe Izquierda

    Those $’s are a vast understatement of supporting $’s from pro-abortion PACs. In the 2014 North Carolina Senate campaign, Kay Hagan bombed the state with “Thom Tillis defunded Planned Parenthood. This is evil” ads. It was actually the main promo (even more than “he’s funded by the Koch brothers, they are oil billionaires.”) I for one didn’t know that Thom Tillis had done so. That ad informed my vote, and let me know who was truly in the hands of the evil one. I think those ads earned a 5% swing towards Tillis.

  • Beentheremovedaway

    How are the “non-profit”? Isnt thsi the sort of org that should be looked at by the IRS, much like “Media matters and daily kos they are simply a political action group! PPH pushes a brand of liberalism that would lose non profit status in any just world!

    • Jeepers

      True and we’re positive O’s Justice Department and the IRS who criminalizes conservative groups will definitely investigate. Let’s hold our breath.

  • tpcowberry

    Either you believe that a woman should have sovereign control over her own body and her own reproductive function, or you believe that the State should be empowered to take that control away from her and dictate that she continue a pregnancy and give birth against her will.

    Those are the only two options. You either favor one or you favor the other. It’s all about a woman’s right to make her own choice, not which choice she makes. Those who are pro-choice are not automatically pro-abortion.

    What level of government intrusion into the most private aspects of your personal life are you comfortable with?

    By the way, is anyone here actually under the mistaken impression that anti-choice factions aren’t funneling enormous amounts of money into the hands of politicians who support anti-choice legislation at every opportunity? Don’t fool yourself for a moment. Their votes are being bought with monetary contributions at every legislative level.

    • Hmmmmm

      LOL. Seriously? This whole “forcing” and taking control away from a woman and her body is an out-dated, old and tiresome argument. You know quite well that a woman and a man both can control themselves and if they can’t there’s a possibility that they may just create a new, individual little human being. When that happens, this little human must now be protected and given the rights to grow and live his or her life to its fullest. Go look at an ultrasound, study the little human being from the moment of conception until it is able to viably live without its mother’s care (which is well past the day that little infant plops out of the womb.) And you aren’t pro-choice. You are pro-death. Your belief system is whack and you advocate killing PERIOD! I am on the right side of history in this issue. Science and technology is on my side. We can now see the child growing within her/his mother. This information and the visual of it all blows away your weak argument.

      You and your kind are despicable and disgusting in your views. Pro-life/anti-abortionists/anti-death are on the right side of history. How does it feel to be on the wrong side of the issue? Liberals think they are so enlightened and are always on the right side of issues but not this one and with every horrific truth that is exposed about Planned Parenthood and abortion in general. It’s really hard for you guys to find out that you are actually on the wrong side of an issue and it’s a really, really heinous side to be a part of and that you’ve been duped by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industries lies this whole time. That’s hard to deal with, so you continue to turn your back on the truth and you keep going on with arguments and beliefs that are as thin as the the slime left from a snail trail. You can’t defend against the technology and truth. Sorry, you just can’t. http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

      • tpcowberry

        “Seriously? This whole “forcing” and taking control away from a woman and her body is an out-dated, old and tiresome argument.”

        Yes, seriously. Totally, completely, and absolutely seriously. As serious as the the intention of the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution designed to protect the individual citizen’s rights and freedoms against the power of the State, and against the powers and beliefs of any Church that would compel their obedience.

        If a person doesn’t at least have complete and sovereign authority over the area that’s bounded by their own skin, they’re no longer their own person. Their freedom has become a lie. They have become the property of the State.

        The problem with freedom is that not everyone will think and behave exactly as you believe they should. Accepting this is part of the price of having it.

        • Hmmmmm

          That makes no sense because when a woman becomes pregnant, it is now two bodies. Let’s put it this way, we are all living on the domain of earth and we are all living and feeding off of her body for how ever many years we live on her, but in the end we are all our own separate bodies and we deserve to live. Within the womb, it is the same exact thing.

          It’s an individual human being using a woman’s body to survive and thrive, but it is still a part of the massiveness of the same universe we are all existing in. Once this human comes into existence, we can’t pick and choose who lives and who doesn’t. It’s a human being and you know it. You just don’t want to give up the power you have over a defenseless little person. That’s disgusting and you are then PRO-DEATH, PRO-MURDER and just a disgusting, despicable human being. You’re a bully and you are on the wrong side of history.

          I know this and I am soooo proud to say that I don’t support an act that butchers, slaughters and floods our world with bloodshed of innocent human beings. I thank my higher power for enlightening me to this fact (through research and open eyes and open ears). I’m confident that you are on the wrong side of history on this and I am not.

          You are wrong 100 percent and science and technology proves this. The Constitution is fallible when it is in the hands of man. Technology and science and what it shows me and proves to me is TRUTH and truth is the truth whether you believe in it or not. It needs no one to believe in it to exist, but lies only exist because someone believes it. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry’s rhetoric only exists because you and the other puppets they control believe in it.

          • bamboodread

            We CAN pick and chose, and we do it all the time. You should worry more about how poverty, lack of health care and other social ills affect those who are already here. Incidentally, overpopulation is the biggest threat to human existence: not abortion. God is an ironic creature, isn’t he? Ps. your government chose to kill millions of people abroad every year. I hope your opposition to those deaths is just as vigorous

        • PJ4

          Ironically, you’re fine with the human being in the womb being the property of his/her mother.

          So you accept the acts of murderers, thieves, rapists and pedophiles as a “price to pay for your freedom”.
          Duly noted.

          • tpcowberry

            I do not believe a developing fetus to be more than an empty house awaiting the eventual occupancy of a conscious, self-aware spirit. It is, in fact, the property of the woman who is carrying it, at least until such time as evidence indicates a level of brain activity associated with consciousness. Until then, her decisions are a matter of her own personal beliefs and her own conscience. It is not my place your yours to impose our own views upon her.

            You can take your talk of murderers, thieves, rapists, and pedophiles to some other discussion. With all due respect, they have no part in this one.

          • PJ4

            You can take your talk of “belief” and “self aware spirit” to some other discussion
            With all due respect, your “beliefs” have no part in this conversation

          • YouHateMe

            In a sense they do. She makes an erroneous argument that spirit does not indwell a person until it is self aware or born. That is a lie and shows ignorance in the matter .

          • PJ4

            Yeah
            If you believe in that spirit stuff, sure
            He doesn’t even follow his own line of “logic” in that sense
            Good call :-)

          • PJ4

            It is my place to defend human beings who cannot defend themselves
            It is not your place to place arbitrary criteria on what makes a human being, a human being.
            That’s been done before, if you don’t recall

          • YouHateMe

            Where does the spirit originate?

          • bamboodread

            There is no such thing as “the spirit”

          • YouHateMe

            Sure thing buddy.
            You don’t have spirit?

          • bamboodread

            Yes my friend. In my liquor cabinet

          • YouHateMe

            Bwaahaa. Ha.

          • bamboodread

            I hope that was a real laugh. I like making people laugh :)

          • tpcowberry

            Anyone who claims to know the answer to that question with certainty is talking through their hat. The spirit either arises spontaneously as some necessary level of biochemical complexity is attained, or it already exists and takes up residence when a physical vessel adequate to its needs becomes available. The point is that a developing body can be there but not yet be the abode of a conscious being, just as a body can remain alive and breathing even though the consciousness that once called it home has permanently departed.

          • YouHateMe

            Is speaking out of FAITH. See?

            You can intelctualize this from here to the grave, won’t make a difference to me or you.

            The God you hate says the opposite of you and I will trust Him over a hateful little man like you all day, every day.

          • I do not believe a developing fetus to be more than an empty house awaiting the eventual occupancy of a conscious, self-aware spirit.

            Uh-huh. Well, science tells that he or she is a living human being, so we’re going to push for laws reflecting that.

            You can take your talk of murderers, thieves, rapists, and pedophiles to some other discussion. With all due respect, they have no part in this one.

            Actually they do: the examples that PJ cited involve a stronger party harming a weaker one just for his or her own benefit, and that’s a great analogy for what you’re advocating.

          • bamboodread

            So the state forcing a woman (raped child) to carry to full term is not abuse of a stronger party? Your logic is warped

          • So the state forcing a woman (raped child) to carry to full term is not abuse of a stronger party?

            The women in this article were conceived in rape:

            http://liveactionnews.org/think-child-pay-father-crimes-opponents-wisconsins-late-term-abortion-ban-seem/

            You’d be fine with killing them for their father’s crimes?

          • bamboodread

            You might punish your daughter twice for being horrendously abused but I would not. Your conscience is yours: mine is mine. All I am trying to point out to you tyrants is to stop being so $%^&*£” right all the time. The world is a complex place – we can’t have the simple–minded dictating to the rest of us

          • So is that a yes?

          • tpcowberry

            “Well, science tells that he or she is a living human being, so we’re going to push for laws reflecting that.”

            Apparently the word “science” is supposed to confer some authoritative quality to a statement so vague that it essentially means nothing.

          • PJ4

            is, in fact, the property of the woman who is carrying it, at least until such time as evidence indicates a level of brain activity associated with consciousness. Until then, her decisions are a matter of her own personal beliefs and her own conscience.

            So even you do not agree with your own original statement after the second trimester
            Interesting

          • bamboodread

            I bet you would also advocate a 9 year old rape victim to go full term

          • Wootsauce

            Is her name Aisha??

          • bamboodread

            Who is Aisha?

          • Wootsauce

            Mohamhead’s wife in the koran… actually he married her at the ripe old age of 6…

          • bamboodread

            I find Islam as abhorrent as all the other faith-based insane political organisations

          • Wootsauce

            Point for consistency at least…

          • bamboodread

            That’s what I’m about Wootsauce

          • PJ4

            A tiny tiny troll once told to me
            A weak argument is not strengthened by using ridiculous worst-case scenarios

            You should take that advice :-)

          • bamboodread

            No I am not a troll PJ, but I am a logician and love to have a discussion along those lines. Beliefs about what is right or wrong are just that: deeply held beliefs

          • Nordog6561

            So, you deny any objective right and wrong?

            If someone were to murder you, calling it wrong would only reflect a belief, and not an actual ontological reality?

            Is that what you “believe”?

            Or are you absolutely right in taking that position?

          • bamboodread

            I do not use “belief” as a tool for organising my thoughts. The word is actually quite meaningless. Belief is the absence of evidence. As for your question (?), no, there is no objective right or wrong: just different ideas on how we should conduct our selves.

          • Nordog6561

            Hey, it was your usage of the word in question, not mine.

            So, if a bunch of prisoners escaped, gang raped you, and then killed you, that would not be wrong per se in what passes for the organization of your thoughts.

          • bamboodread

            Well it would be most unpleasant for sure! But we don’t, I think, have the space and time to really investigate here the deep philosophical conundrum of right and wrong: I don’t know if you realise that this has been discussed over millennia by philosophers and scribes perhaps even wiser than I am? We are conditioned to accept easy and comfortingly convenient answers. That way the leeches who rule over us and feed off us can have an easy ride with not enough serious questions asked of them. This is why me and you learnt the Bible as babies but not Socrates or Aristotle

          • Nordog6561

            You assume too much. Way too much.

            >>I don’t know if you realise that this has been discussed over millennia by philosophers and scribes perhaps even wiser than I am?<>This is why me and you learnt the Bible as babies but not Socrates or Aristotle.<<

            I didn't learn the Bible as a baby, or a child.

            But I have studied Socrates and Aristotle. And Augustine, and Aquinas, and Descartes, and many others.

            Still, the fact remains that by your own admission there is nothing wrong per se. So, in your "thinking" there is nothing wrong per se in torturing you and killing you.

            The point is not to pontificate at length about the condundrm found in discussions of right and wrong so much as it is to simply acknowledge that they exist.

            But you deny them both, while making assumptions about other's personal history and education, and this from some guy going on earlier about "evidence".

          • bamboodread

            That was a wide sweep as to your personal upbringing and education; not meant to be a real assessment of you, and I feel you are aware of this. I was merely giving thought to the cultural influences in which we grow up. I would hardly even try to assess someone I actually know

          • Nordog6561

            >>That was a wide sweep as to your personal upbringing and education; not meant to be a real assessment of you, and I feel you are aware of this.<<

            I don't care about your feelings.

          • bamboodread

            Good for you

          • PJ4

            You don’t sound like a logician
            You can’t even take your own advice

          • bamboodread

            You did not answer the question

          • PJ4

            What does it matter?
            There is no right or wrong for you as those are just “beliefs”.

          • bamboodread

            That is right. I am not trying to be obtuse or particularly confrontational, but that is just how the human mind works. Feeling very strongly about something does not ascribe to it the attribute of right or wrong. To think that it does explains the dire state of our planet where people give themselves the right to annihilate others because of deeply held emotional decisions

        • cindyhj

          So, if someone has sex and the result is another human being, you’re okay with punishing forever the child for the actions of the parents? What about the rights of the child?

          • bamboodread

            What about the rights of a raped child?

          • cindyhj

            I believe a raped person or child makes the choice. This is where I differ from pro life advocates. A child rapist should be in prison for life.

          • bamboodread

            Totally agree

          • tpcowberry

            There is no “child” if the pregnancy is terminated. A developing fetus only has the potential to become a child at some point in the future.

        • YouHateMe

          By your logic a 20 week old baby is not an individual and has no rights accorded to him/her?!

          • bamboodread

            Rights are ascribed, not set in stone

          • YouHateMe

            No. Rights are freely given by our Creator. All deserve a chance at life.

          • bamboodread

            The said creator also seems to specialise in death and eternal torture

          • YouHateMe

            I don’t debate atheists because I can’t fathom why they argue against something that does not exist to them??!

          • bamboodread

            Unfortunately, it exists in crazy ideas and teachings that affects all of us. Bishops make decisions in the House of Lords here with no other qualification but that they are high-born and spout superstitious nonsense

          • YouHateMe

            How did the universe become?

          • bamboodread

            You tell me

          • YouHateMe

            Answer a query with a query. Is that the game? C’mon, show some spine!!

          • Nordog6561

            Actually, human rights are a function of our created nature.

            They can be abused and even denied (much as you seem to be doing here) but they are co-relative to being a human being.

            They do not belong to another person to bestow upon others.

          • bamboodread

            Human rights, as well as all others, are what we make them. I don’t think you can provide evidence for a “created nature”. What on earth does that actually mean anyway? If our nature is created and so many terrible things happen, shouldn’t we point the finger at whoever created our nature? Are you, yourself, trying to deny the right of a woman to decide what she does with her body?

          • Nordog6561

            No, I’m trying to figure out what you think, or what passes for thinking for you.

          • bamboodread

            I am not sure that you are in possession of the necessary mental acuity to understand the depth of my philosophical reasoning

          • Nordog6561

            >>I am not sure that you are in possession of the necessary mental acuity to understand the depth of my philosophical reasoning<<

            You're not sure of anything.

          • bamboodread

            You keep agreeing with me!! Very satisfying. Beware of those who are certain (eg. suicide bombers are certain and also “know” that they are “right.” I am very very willing to admit that I am not sure of anything. That’s also the basis on which science works

          • Nordog6561

            I’m certain that you aren’t.

            But you can’t be certain of anything, especial about others.

            I’m astounded at the degree of fatuousness exhibited by taking pride in ignorance, but then, here you are.

          • bamboodread

            Admitting you don’t know is the beginning of wisdom. A wise man must always doubt his own conclusions. Thank God, (excuse the joke), that I am not arrogant enough to think otherwise

          • Nordog6561

            >>Admitting you don’t know is the beginning of wisdom.<<

            Having as a principle that one can't really know anything is the murder of wisdom.

          • bamboodread

            Maybe I am just not as wise as you. Below is a little homily I learnt as a very small child:

            “He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool – shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple – teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep – wake him. He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise – follow him.”

      • Wanda Wyatt

        Thank you–well said.

    • Joanne Kemmerer

      From the moment of conception, the baby has its own DNA. The mother had the ‘choice’ whether or not to have sex. The baby has its own body and organs. The mother has her own body and organs. They are two separate individuals! So please knock off that broken record of a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body….we all agree! Dealing with the consequences of immoral behavior outside of marriage is HER and her PARTNER’s business. Their personal intimate behavior is their responsibility, not the responsibility of strangers/taxpayers. NO to public funding of PP abortions. The tax monies PP received is fungible, is used to pay the light bill, freeing up their other monies for abortionists’ salaries and politicians’ campaigns. Pro-life organizations support some candidates with DONATIONS, not tax monies!

      • tpcowberry

        Her ‘choice’ whether or not to have sex doesn’t have anything to do with it. A woman isn’t required to surrender sovereign authority over her own body in order to engage in sexual activity. That seems to be yet another rule that some people would like to impose on others. They don’t have any right to do so.

        DNA is nothing but genetic code. It’s unique to a person, but it isn’t what makes someone a person. My full DNA code is contained in a single drop of blood.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Surely all reasonable men and women can come together and show both compassion for human beings and a respect for settled science. The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

          1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

          2. What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a distinct individual human being. (settled science)

          “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

          “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

          3. Therefore, abortion kills a distinct individual human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

          The only difference between a human in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb too. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 distinct individual human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it? Let’s end this holocaust now.

          • tpcowberry

            “The only difference between a human in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.”

            That “only difference” is everything. Until there is consciousness, or awareness of self—an indwelling spirit, if you wish—nobody is home. There is only an empty house, still under construction, awaiting some future occupant who has yet to appear.

            Just as a fetus is not yet a person, a person who has once been present may be forever gone even though their human body lingers on life support. It isn’t the body that makes a person.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Until there is consciousness, or awareness of self”

            Prove it – prove that there is no self awareness in the womb. Furthermore, your criteria is arbitrary. Some say there is no self-awareness up to the age of 2 or 3 years – would you allow for the killing of those human beings too?!? (Peter Singer would.)

            As for consciousness, you just made an “excellent” argument for murdering sleeping people and those in comas or under anesthesia. :-(

            Nope, you don’t get to cordon off a certain segment of the human population and eradicate them based on arbitrary criteria that have nothing to do with their humanity, just to satisfy your selfish desires.

            The 3 point argument above stands – for reasonable men and women anyway. At least you didn’t try “clump of cells.” That one doesn’t work so well with the videos of arms and legs in those dishes, now does it?

            (Waiting for a shifting of the goalposts to another criteria now. Perhaps “viability.” smh)

          • PJ4

            That’s completely arbitrary and irrelevant
            Neoates are not self aware.
            Are you going to justify infanticide next?
            It is speculated that fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks.
            Do you support a ban of abortion after 20 weeks?

            It isn’t the body that makes a person.

            So, if a you were to spike your date’s drink with tetrodotoxin and then proceeded to rape her while she was completely unconscious, not self aware, and wouldn’t remember what happened to her… would you still be committing a crime?

            Do you also support raping patients in a hospital who are in a vegetative state? I mean, after all, they’re “spirit” is gone (however temporarily) there is awareness of self, no consciousness–there is only an empty house, no longer even under construction.

          • bamboodread

            A weak argument is not strengthened by using ridiculous worst-case scenarios

          • PJ4

            Tell that to the pro aborts on here

          • YouHateMe

            But your opine does not rebuke PJ4’s point?

          • bamboodread

            That was not an opinion but a statement of pure common sense. I do not do opinion: logic is by starting point for all my thinking

          • YouHateMe

            Than you have failed out the gate. You understand that nothing cannot begat something right??

          • bamboodread

            So who “begat” God?

          • YouHateMe

            No one.

            There is a limit to what logic can achieve because there is a limit to man’s intellect.

          • bamboodread

            I KNOW THAT!!!! That is the root of all my argument and you have said the truest thing anyone has said on here. If you follow your own logic, now you have started down the right path, it will soon become apparent to you that NO ONE could possibly use human intellectual capacity to understand a God. In fact, wouldn’t you have to be God him/herself to know what he/she thinks, feels and has planned? I cannot really work out all that goes on in my children’s heads never mind some eternal, omnipotent everlasting being. The scale of our understanding wouldn’t stretch so wide as to understand such a creature. The computer in our head is brilliant but still not good enough to “know” things outside the realm of our senses. Imagination is a wonderful and wondrous tool but we must not fool ourselves with it

          • bamboodread

            Here you accuse me of not using logic, then you say there is a limit to logic. No there is not: you are either logical or you are not. Obviously there is a limit to YOUR ability to apply logic (hint:you just admitted it above). I think the water here is too deep for you. Go swim elsewhere

          • YouHateMe

            Well, sir insult a lot, man’s intellect is FINITE. See? Hence his ability to understand his universe with logic is also FINITE. See? Boring me now. Good day

          • bamboodread

            If, as you say, the intellect is finite, how are you so sure of the things you think you know? Where does the intellect stop? Does it stop at the point, as I proposed 100 comments ago, where you can understand the concept of immortality and superior beings? This is all beyond you and I know I shouldn’t reply but couldn’t resist it. Goodbye

          • YouHateMe

            Faith is hope in things unseen. Good day

          • bamboodread

            I “hope” a pair of sex-crazed supermodel twins will turn up at my house but I don’t have much “faith” in it. Aaaw, reality is such a wanker :(

          • FredSlice

            I thought it was a girls name.

        • Joanne Kemmerer

          The baby’s body is not the mother’s body! Her choice to have sex with her body and her partner’s body is her choice. After that, she may choose to kill her baby, but the baby’s body is not her body. I think you know that.

          • Wanda Wyatt

            It is part of her body they are now one. Doesn’t the baby have any rights? Abortion is murder–how sad that you feel that way.

          • Joanne Kemmerer

            Of course abortion is murder! You misread my statement. I am responding to pro-aborts who use the tired argument that “…a woman can do what she wants with her own body…”. I am trying to make it clear that abortion is the killing of another body, the baby’s. You and I are both saying that the baby has a right to life! Scroll up and see that I stated that the baby has its own D & A from the moment of conception. A mother does NOT have the moral right to CHOOSE to kill an innocent babe in the womb. Furthermore, as a pregnancy counselor for 12 years, many are pressured into abortion and suffer severe emotional trauma later. We must pray for them. They are victims along with the child. The roaming Romeo or the incestuous step-father or the soccer coach get off scot free and Planned Parenthood makes $$$!

        • Deborah Olsen

          But HOW did YOU get that drop if blood??? I assume it was from your mother, who “willingly surrendered sovereign authority over her own body” to GIVE LIFE to you! Would you be pro-abort if you were a little victim of abortion and somehow were allowed to come back and share your experience about the whole ordeal??? Please stop the lies! Your arguments don’t hold water! Theyr’e all based on assumptions and fallacies.

        • Jeepers

          You claim there are women who think that sex has nothing to do with having children? Or that women who have sex have no control over their bodies, so taxpayers have to pay for children they conceive? So tell us what “makes a person” and why a 6 month old born prematurely or unborn isn’t a person. Silence.

    • PJ4

      Either you believe that a woman should have sovereign control over her own body and her own reproductive function, or you believe that the State should be empowered to take that control away from her and dictate that she continue a pregnancy and give birth against her will.

      Ok, let’s cut through all this pro abort speak and get the heart of the matter:
      Either you believe a mother can kill her own baby due to size and location or you don’t.
      That’s what all your pro abort speak of “reproductive function” and control over her own body” really means
      But, like every other pro abort I’ve ever met, you hide behind your euphemisms.

      Sounds like you’re ashamed of what you so willingly defend.
      I don’t blame you.
      If I were on the wrong side of history, I’d be ashamed too.
      But…blacks and Jews weren’t considered people either at one point….. so you’re in very good company.

      Those are the only two options. You either favor one or you favor the other

      Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
      Here, let me help you learn to debate:
      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

      You’re welcome

      It’s all about a woman’s right to make her own choice, not which choice she makes.

      No. It’s all about protecting the life of the child.

      Those who are pro-choice are not automatically pro-abortion.

      Yes they are.

      Look… it’s even in the dictionary.

      I’m so tired of spoon feeding pro aborts who aren’t even self aware enough to know what they are and what they represent.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proabortion
      http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/pro-abortion

      Again.. you’re welcome

      What level of government intrusion into the most private aspects of your personal life are you comfortable with?

      To the point of protecting the weakest human beings.

      By the way, is anyone here actually under the mistaken impression that anti-choice factions aren’t funneling enormous amounts of money into the hands of politicians who support anti-choice legislation at every opportunity? Don’t fool yourself for a moment. Their votes are being bought with monetary contributions at every legislative level.

      Lesson number #2 in logical fallacies:
      Two wrong don’t make a right.
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

      Again, you’re quite welcome.

      • tpcowberry

        “Do you know what a false dichotomy is?”

        Yes, in fact I do, but you apparently do not. My observation is not an example of a false dichotomy. It’s an example of a pair of mutually exclusive possibilities. If one is so, the other cannot be. The two states of affairs cannot simultaneously exist.

        Either you believe that a woman should have sovereign control of her own body and her own reproductive capability, accepting with that position the possibility that she will make choices that you do not approve of, or you do not believe she should have that control, and confer it by default upon someone else—in this case the State, which under our Constitution should be given no such authority.

        This is one of those situations where you simply cannot have it both ways. You’re creating a logical contradiction, and then presuming to lecture me on the fine points of logic.

        • drPC

          It is a false dichotomy because the baby is a body of its own. The baby is not the mother’s body. Therefore, the mother has no sovereignty over another human being’s body (i.e., the baby’s). It is simple once one understands biology.

          • bamboodread

            “Morality” has nothing to do with biology, nor is it set in stone: morality differs from person to person; culture to culture

          • bamboodread

            It is not an easy decision, I would imagine, for a woman to make the decision to abort. You would sit in judgement about her state of mind, capabilities and all the other variables. She will, of course, think it is her “right” to take that course of action. What makes you think your view is superior?

        • PJ4

          Sorry, dude
          Your example is not a pair of mutually exclusive ideas
          Two humans beings can have the same exact rights.
          How is that so hard for you to understand?
          Unless you’re ready to prove to me that the child in the womb is not human using biological texts and/or scientific peer reviewed papers or studies, I will continue to believe my embryology texts over your theories

          She has control over her body
          Not the body of her child
          Your silly beliefs is the some “self aware spirit” and “empty houses” notwithstanding
          *snicker*

          • bamboodread

            There are no such thing as “right.” What tpcowberry is trying to teach you is that if your “right” is completly in opposition to another person’s “right” you can’t go about claiming moral supriority. Since you, unnecessarily, brought race into the mix, do you consider that it was a “right” to own slaves. Morality shifts and changes. Its a wavy line; not a straight one

          • PJ4

            Who’s claiming moral superiority?
            Certainly not I

            It wasn’t unnecessary.
            Of course I don’t consider owning slaves “right”
            No morals don’t necessarily shift–laws do

          • bamboodread

            Oh morals shift all the time. Just look at history

          • PJ4

            When in history has killing or raping someone been acceptable morally?

          • bamboodread

            In the Bible and Koran

          • PJ4

            Works of fiction don’t count

          • bamboodread

            I am now in 100% agreement with you! And I like discussing with you. Apologies if I come across as forceful. What I lack in spirituality I make up for in passion :)

          • PJ4

            “forceful” wasn’t the word of which I was thinking
            At any rate I try to be as respectful as I can of other people’s beliefs
            I’ve got a lot of friends and family who are all kinds of religious

          • bamboodread

            I am from Jamaica that has the reputation of having the most churches per square mile in the whole world. You are considered demonic or insane if you don’t follow the religious line. I was sent to a seminary school as a child and could have ended up a priest! I suppose I kind of react to the easy acceptance of ideas by most people. Thinking is painful. As a child, I would be with the school chaplain in his study (from around 11 years old) discussing these very same things. Lucky for me, and others, he did not force belief on you but really tried to open your mind to thinking things through

          • infadelicious

            when ted kennedy was alive? no? ok, how bout when billy Clinton was president?

          • YouHateMe

            Okay. Someone may be jealous, but I really like you! LOL!

          • infadelicious

            ;-)

          • YouHateMe

            *.*

          • infadelicious

            Good morning YHM.. How are you this fine morning?

          • YouHateMe

            Results are not all in, but it’s trending upwards! Hope the same for you!
            I see u saw my first barrage on Herr Doktress? He he

          • infadelicious

            Ha ha ha……Herr Doktress…….Don’t these ghouls ever sleep?

          • YouHateMe

            Ghouls can not sleep due to the fear and trembling deep in their paltry souls.

          • bamboodread

            Hosea 9:11-12

            11 Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird—
            no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
            12 Even if they rear children,
            I will bereave them of every one.
            Woe to them
            when I turn away from them!

            Numbers 5:11-21 – The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

            11 Then the Lord said to Moses,

            12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

            16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

            Chapter 33 verse 50 of the Koran:

            “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father’s side, and the daughters of thine uncles on the mother’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother’s side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage a privilege for thee only, not for the [rest of] believers. We are aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hand possess that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

          • PJ4

            What part of “works of fiction don’t count” did you not understand?
            You might as well he quoting The Hobbit saying, this happened in Middle Earth, so there was a time when killing goblins was allowed”.

          • bamboodread

            Sorry I might have incorrectly bracketed you with the fundamental right wing Christians who are the most vociferous on this subject, but it does answer your question about when killing and raping was right. Government and legal bodies make decisions on justifiable homicide and rules of war etc., so it is not as clear cut as people here would present it when we, as a society, decide to take a life. Decisions of this nature cannot depend on perfection of thought or action. We live in a “best fit” world and have to make decisions for the greater good. We will always differ from each other as to what this “best fit” is, and that’s a good thing

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I LOVE Halloween!

          • YouHateMe

            Do you know the difference between Old Testament and New Testament and the difference in total to the koran? Nope. Just copy and paste to suit your fallacious comment.

          • MamaBear

            The Hosea passage is prophesy – warning – of what will happen if Israel continues to worship Baal and God withholds His protection of them from their enemies. Read the whole chapter.

            I do not know what translation you found that used “miscarriage” for the Numbers passage, but the Hebrew word for “miscarriage” is nowhere in there. Instead, in the Hebrew, it says “wasting thigh” and it is dealing with suspected (no evidence) adultery, not pregnancy. Probably shut a lot of unreasonably jealous husbands up when the wife drank that water with some harmless dust in it. What “wasted thigh” means is disputed, but “miscarriage” is not there.
            Remember, you are dealing with a translation. If someone changed where Shakespeare wrote “rose” to “petunia” when they were translating it, it would not change that Shakespeare wrote “rose.”

            Now, as for the Koran ….. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE! No connection! Whole different religion. Neither Christians or Jews recognize it as Scripture!

          • bamboodread

            Its all insanity. Collective mental illness. Major symptom of this illness is: you can’t realise you had it until you don’t. A bit of a paradox. Like God. You people need to develop a sense of irony.

          • MamaBear

            Gee, I was just wondering about the sanity of someone who tries to equate the Bible with the Koran.

          • bamboodread

            You will not involve me in fatuous conversation. My point is:their book is stupid, your book is stupid, all the @%$£”^&*% books are stupid. What u talkin bout?

          • YouHateMe

            When one has no morals and defends the same, one can not be sensible.

          • YouHateMe

            You don’t believe in objective reality do you? Morality is not wavy. Your subjective idea of morality is just depraved and corrupted. See?

          • bamboodread

            And of course, it goes without saying that your version of morality is the right one

          • YouHateMe

            I believe you are a cretin. Old Nick is your buddy, not mine.

          • bamboodread

            Every thing is subjective because none of us can know what goes on in another persons mind – never mind God. You need to stick your holy book somewhere cosy and go and read something useful like a book on neuropsychology or something. I think you use a lot of words like a parrot but you don’t actually know what they mean

          • YouHateMe

            I don’t know why you hate God but being ignorant is no excuse. You think gravity is subjective? Light? Darkness? Murder? Rape? Viable babies being used for parts?? And I think you look up words that have nothing to do with the morality and evil that PP and filth like you promote in your moribund widdle heads full of mush.

          • bamboodread

            Yes even gravity differs from planet. I’m going to say goodbye now you are too lightweight for me to…………………………………………………Thanks for the amusement x

          • YouHateMe

            Yet gravity is not subjective, is it not? And your participation trophy has been sent to your sand box.

          • YouHateMe

            Morals degrade. Period.People of your ilk are on that negative continuum. There is Right and Wrong. Black and White do exist no matter how much you want to make the two relative. Go back to your Nietzsche and cookies.

          • tpcowberry

            “Two human beings can have the same exact rights.”

            That has nothing whatsoever to do with with our pair of mutually exclusive possibilities. You’re simply dodging the fact that you cannot have both possibilities at the same time. You either acknowledge a woman’s sovereign control of her own body, or you deprive her of that sovereign control and assign it to the State.

            Further discussion is a waste of time. You abandon reason when the conclusions it leads to are not to your liking. You also have little real understanding of the basic models of human existence, if the simplest allusions to Cartesian duality strike you as silly. My own religious views are predicated on a duality that involves a material world and a spiritual world, where human beings consist of a body and a spirit. The body is only the spirit’s temporary home. It comes from dust and it returns to dust. When it has only just appeared, it is a vessel waiting to be filled. When it has died, it’s just an abandoned, empty shell.

          • PJ4

            You’re dodging the fact that both possibilities can exist at the same time
            You have no evidence to the contrary although I’ve asked several times
            The only logical conclusion is that you are pulling your assertions out of your a$$.

            But yes, further discussion with you is pointless as you keep inserting your religious beliefs were they do not belong

            And then you try to sound smart about it by mentioning Descartes and pretending that I’m the one who is abandoning reason
            Lmao

            A woman has autonomy of her own body until she forces another human being into depending on her and her alone.

          • Paul

            You have the right of it PJ. The cow is claiming that sovereignty and life are comparable or equivalent to the extent that one excludes the other. It is pure sophistry. Two can be alive in the same instance. Two can be sovereign at once. Sovereignty and life are properties both posses and this strange logic two-step sheds no light on why one should be preferred over another. It is bafflement by mystic bullcrap.

          • PJ4

            Indeed.
            Can I request you post something similar to the “enlightened” cowberry?

          • Paul

            I’m not sure I could make that much cowdung stick together without a whole mess of superglue. The cow has asserted that the things it cites are mutually exclusive and then proven it with a dissertation (embellished with mysticism) that does nothing of the sort.

          • tpcowberry

            Either a woman has the sovereign authority to decide whether she will carry a fertilized egg until it becomes a child, or she does not have such authority. Either does or she does not. One state of affairs excludes the other.

            You people are the ones spinning out lines of illogical bullshit. The rules of logic are not conveniently nullified simply because the conclusions it leads to are not to your liking.

            If individual freedom is a priority as our Constitution would have it, then the proper state of affairs is that she does have such sovereign authority over her own body. She can decide to continue a pregnancy or not. I do not get a say, you do not get a say, nor does the person who would come to exist in the future if she decides to continue, because no such person yet exists. She can make her decision in accordance with her own beliefs and the dictates of her own conscience. Likewise, you can make your decisions in accordance with your own beliefs. What you cannot do is impose behavior based on your own religious precepts onto someone else.

          • Paul

            You (or some boob you read) has made up a nebulous undefined concept of “Sovereign authority” and wave it like a talisman. It is crap. Individual freedom is not a priority “as our Constitution would have it” The Constitution is the contract between the citizen and government Establishing governments powers and setting certain prohibitions on it. The government has no role in promoting, granting or protecting freedom as an ideal or concept.

            My own religious beliefs? So that is what this is about. Bashing Christians under the color of hand-wringing concern. Look you arrogant poser, I am not a religious person, was not raised in any faith and would most accurately be described as agnostic. Your knee jerk assumption reveals your agenda.

          • Cletus B Neckbeard

            You’re good, Paul. At times, disturbingly so.

          • Paul

            Thanks Bruva.

          • cwgf

            Second Cletus’s comment. You are good, Paul.

          • PJ4

            You said that under our Constitution the state can’t prohibit abortion. Where in the Constitution does it say that, exactly?

            Either you believe that a woman should have sovereign control of her own body…

            What does that have to do with dismembering someone else’s?

            My own religious views
            And they’re relevant to discussions of public policy because…?

          • tpcowberry

            Because they have no more or no less validity under the law of the land than your own.

          • PJ4

            Which is why I have none.

            Good of you to avoid the other two questions and the fact that I caught you disagreeing with your own statement
            *giggles*

    • Paul

      This is such a mess. The woman did not have “sovereign control” over her own body before she became pregnant. The act of getting pregnant did not confer it upon her.

      No one is taking anything away from her. She would still have the exact same right to choose If it became illegal that she would have if it remained legal. The difference is that she would suffer the consequences of her act of volition if she broke the law. This is not a remarkable outcome, it happens all the time with lawbreakers. It is called due process, and yes, your rights can be severely impacted should you chose to break the law and due process finds you guilty and imposes sentence upon you. Why does this scenario seem so exceptional? Doesn’t your deprivation of sovereignty argument apply to any law and any sentence?

      She would not be punished because she will not do with her body as society wills, she would be punished for what she does to another body, the sovereign property of another individual. It happens all the time. Make all the arguments you wish that there is not another being involved. But if it is found that there is, then this reduces to the interests of one individual versus another and is the province of law to settle.

  • Tony Devlin

    Thanks for the background and all the research. I used this on my Facebook page, Planned Parrothood: “The Senate votes to fund Planned Parenthood who uses some of that cool half billion in taxpayer cash to fund the campaigns of the Senators who vote to fund Planned Parenthood who uses the money to fund Senators who vote to fund Planned Parenthood who use the funds to….sheesh! No wonder they call it laundering money. The spin cycle is killing me!”

    • Joanne Kemmerer

      Contact your Senators to demand the GOP leadership under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reduce required vote from 60 to 51 to end Dem filibuster so the Republicans’ vote to defund PP actually means something. Scroll above to see my detailed post. Thanks.

  • Blake Helgoth

    don’t get duped. This is not a party thing, the Republicans are just as much to blame. They wouldn’t have voted to defined PP is they knew it was going to pass. The Republicans just want to the votes of the pro life movement. They have yet to do a darn thing to help the cause. They been playing this card since the Regan years. The two party system is a ruse…

    • Wanda Wyatt

      Thank you I agree with you that both parties are too blame for turning America into the new Holocaust killing 50 million + innocent aborted babies.

    • elcer

      I disagree that both parties are as much to blame. The democrats actually have it in their platform. Almost to a person, Dems vote for abortion. The Republicans have a few senators who are pro-abortion such as Collins in ME. Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have enforced the Mexico City Policy which denies US funding to any foreign organizations that promote or fund abortion. I agree the Repubs have been weak but they are our only chance to defeat the pro-abortion culture of our country.

      • Joanne Kemmerer

        Only if we pester our Senators to stand up to Mitch McConnell and demand procedural vote to reduce requirement to end Dem filibuster from 60 to 51 votes! Please scroll above to see my detailed post.

    • Joanne Kemmerer

      Contact your Senators and demand that they change the voting procedure from 60 votes to 51 so defunding PP can pass. Under Mitch McConnell, they did it so the Dems could raise the debt ceiling. Please scroll up to see my post in more detail.

  • Vicki Pickerell Donovan

    The blood of 50 million + babies are on their heads.

  • cindyhj

    If only 3% of the budget deals with abortion… they are giving away more for campaign support? What about the millions of babies? Pocket change?

    • Joanne Kemmerer

      That 3% is propaganda, not accurate. Say a woman gets a pregnancy test, STD test, and a PAP smear. They count that as 3 services even though it is one woman. Meanwhile, an abortion on one woman counts as 1 service. A baseball team may have sold 24,000 tickets to a game, but 50,000 hotdogs. At first glance, you could make a report that the team’s owners are in the restaurant business!

  • JoAnn Baracosa

    And God will judge them all.

    • bamboodread

      “God” has killed FAR more people than abortionists. In fact, almost ALL the people in the world at one time. Apparently……

      • YouHateMe

        God did not create PP. Margaret Sanger did.

        • bamboodread

          Ye but “god” created many instances of genocide (not to mention child rape and other unimaginably abhorrent practices

          • YouHateMe

            No. Man in his rebellion to a holy God created all the woes of this world, but an unbelieving spirit such as you wouldn’t understand that now, would you?

          • bamboodread

            If you are “pro-life” god is the wrong direction to turn in. He is the supreme baby killer, par excellence. There are many, many more disgusting examples, some far more bizarre than the below in your book of “moral” guidance:

            Hosea 9:11-12

            11 Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird—
            no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
            12 Even if they rear children,
            I will bereave them of every one.
            Woe to them
            when I turn away from them!

            Numbers 5:11-21 – The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

            11 Then the Lord said to Moses,

            12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

            16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

          • YouHateMe

            It seems your disagreement is with God. You should talk to HIM, not me for guidance.

          • bamboodread

            Since he can be everywhere all at once, it would probably be easier for him to drop in here to see me. He would be most welcome and I would make him a very nice cup of herbal tea

          • YouHateMe

            Too funny. But he’s probably a Yank and prefers a good cup of Joe!

          • bamboodread

            I think we could be friends :)

          • Joanne Kemmerer

            Evil comes from Satan and every time we sin.

          • bamboodread

            Satan comes from God. Your God didn’t even get it right with first man…seems a bit risky to trust him(?)

      • JoAnn Baracosa

        God gets to make that choice. He made life and he chooses when to take life. I choose to take life in the Noah Flood because of sin. We people do not get to judge sin. God will judge our sin and for us Abortion in murder. God said do not murder when he gave Mosses the commandments. Do you think you have the right to judge God and what he does. He did not kill everyone in the world. PP is man made not God made. Human babies are allowed by God.

  • Jeremy Martin

    Casey (D-PA) – $5,000. Bob Casey’s Harrisburg staff had the gall to say that he is pro-life. . . after rewarding the criminal organization Planned parenthood with millions of taxpayer dollars. 330,000 innocent children intentionally killed in their mother’s womb’s last year and selling body parts, and Bob Casey rewards them with millions. . . This morally reprehensible action will forever be attached to Bob Casey. We will never forget.

    • Wanda Wyatt

      Thank you for this info. I did not know about it. I know that Nancy Pelosi who is a Catholic believes in abortion as Hillary, Barbara B, and many other women senators.

      • Joanne Kemmerer

        Please contact your Senators to vote to reduce vote from 60 to 51 votes so defunding PP passes. Please scroll up to see my explanation in more detail.

        • Wanda Wyatt

          Hi Joanne I have contacted them. Boxer and Feinstein both women (sic) believe in abortion.

          • Joanne Kemmerer

            Good for you! Isn’t Boxer retiring? With all the publicity re the PP videos, perhaps you can work w county pro-life group to publicize their records. Or get a petition form from Bd of Elections, and run for precinct exec in 2016 to have a say on county Republican Central Committee re candidates. Build from bottom up!

  • Maggietish

    These Democratic senators and those in the house are paid by taxpayer money. They were elected to serve this nation and the American people and not their own special interest like Planned Parenthood. Prior to voting on the defunding of Planned Parenthood they should have watched the videos as most of the American people did and there’s no doubt of the atrocities tbat Planned Parenthood is committing. Who are they to refuse to watch these videos they work for us and should’ve have the common sense do you have all the evidence and facts before they place their vote regarding the defunding of Planned Parenthood. The reality is that their votes were only based on how much money Planned Parenthood is giving to their reelection campaigns. This is another reason why we have to demand term limits. These fetuses are being butchered and some are born alive. That’s murder pure and simple. Plus it’s against the law for Planned Parenthood to be harvesting organs and selling them. This has nothing to do with abortion or a woman’s rights nor with research but clearly has everything to do with Planned Parenthood making a profit. Those Senators who voted against defunding Planned Parenthood are complicit in the crimes that Planned Parenthood are committing. The tax money given to Planned Parenthood needs to stop now. Plus none of our tax dollars should be given to any senator or anyone else in Washington by Planned Parenthood. No normal human being could watch those videos and continue to support Planned Parenthood. What in God’s name do we have representing us in Washington? But that’s the key, they’re not representing us at all they have no ethics, integrity, morals or honesty and they just proved that by this vote. We have to kick these political hacks to the curb. There is no justification or excuse for what Planned Parenthood is doing but the bigger atrocity is how those Senators in Washington are supporting Planned Parenthood.

    • Joanne Kemmerer

      Please contact your Senators: insist that they stand up to the leadership under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for a procedural vote to reduce the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for cloture to end the Democrat filibuster. Only then, can Planned Parenthood be defunded with a simple up or down majority vote of 52. McConnell el al did this so the Dems could successfully vote to RAISE the DEBT CEILING and the Republicans could vote No, pretending that they opposed raising the debt ceiling when they made it possible for the Dems to raise it! Too many in the GOP want to continue spending!
      It does not matter if your Senators are pro-life, i.e. voted to defund PP. That vote was a sham without the procedural vote first!

    • Wanda Wyatt

      The video was barbaric–I don”t know how anyone can watch that and not be totally against abortion. Abortion is murder!

  • JoAnn Baracosa

    No matter where you stand…Abortion stops a heart beat kills the growth of a baby and hurts the mother.

  • JoAnn Baracosa

    No mater where you stand. God will never change. He is and always be the same.

  • Desk of Lori

    Disapointing, sad very sad. shame, shame. :(