Culture

[NorthDakota]

Jesus dude, now you are bitching about Catholic hospitals "hindering" care?

 

[Legacy]

Jesus dude, now you are bitching about Catholic hospitals "hindering" care?

You did get past the headline, right?

Women of Color More Likely to Give Birth in Hospitals Where Catholic Beliefs Hinder Care
Jan 19, 2018, 10:49am Amy Littlefield

Women of color bear the brunt of Catholic hospital restrictions on abortion, sterilization, contraception, gender-affirming procedures, and other care under religious directives.

Bethany S. Watkins, right, with her son, Kareem I. Wali Jr., and her daughter, Namandje K. Wali. “Both of my children were born at Saint Raphael’s,” Watkins told Rewire in an interview. “So it was OK for me to give birth as a young, unwed mother but it wasn’t OK for me to take control of this happening again.”

When Laurie Bertram Roberts was 12 weeks pregnant, she noticed a pink discharge running down her leg. She went to her local Catholic hospital in Indiana. They sent her home and told her to come back if she started bleeding. After she began bleeding heavily the next day, she returned to the hospital, where providers confirmed Bertram Roberts was miscarrying and her pregnancy was not viable.

But because the fetus still had a faint heartbeat, they said they couldn’t do anything to help her. Instead, they sent Bertram Roberts home again.

Hours later, Bertram Roberts passed what she believed was her pregnancy into the toilet. She was bleeding so heavily that she put on a child’s diaper. Then she blacked out, Bertram Roberts told Rewire in an interview. She felt like she was going to die. One of the paramedics, her neighbor, was uncharacteristically serious, which scared her. She felt cold, which she realizes now was likely her body going into shock.

After she arrived at the hospital, she remembers hearing her doctor yell, “Who the fuck sent her home? She could have died!”

A groundbreaking report reveals how women of color like Bertram Roberts bear the brunt of these restrictions. Researchers with Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project analyzed data from 33 states and Puerto Rico. In 19 of those states, women of color were more likely than white women to give birth at a Catholic hospital. Nationally, 53 percent of births at Catholic hospitals are to women of color, versus 49 percent of births at non-Catholic hospitals.

“Pregnant women of color are more likely than their white counterparts to receive reproductive health care dictated by bishops rather than medical doctors,” the authors wrote in the report, “Bearing Faith: The Limits of Catholic Health Care for Women of Color.”

There's more to that article, of course.

Report: hundreds of US hospitals follow Catholic rules on reproductive care

Catholic directives against abortion and emergency procedures for pregnant women have led to potentially life-threatening complications, ACLU report said

When she was 22 weeks pregnant, Mindy Swank began to bleed. She had known for nearly two weeks that she was miscarrying – and in such a way that she was at risk for infection.

But the Catholic hospital near her home had refused to induce labor, apparently believing that doing so would violate its ban on abortion. And on this morning, the bleeding made no difference. The hospital sent her home – and then again and again, for five more weeks until she began severely hemorrhaging at week 27. Then, they induced her labor.

Swank’s story comes from a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union and MergerWatch, a public health watchdog that monitors healthcare institutions with religious affiliations. The report finds that one out of every six beds in the country’s acute care hospitals is in a hospital with Catholic affiliations and that Catholic hospitals make up 15%, or 548, of the country’s hospitals. Those numbers attest to the sharp rise in Catholic control of medical institutions over a decade: since 2001, through a steady thrum of sales and mergers, the number of hospitals with Catholic ties has gone up by 22%.

 

[NorthDakota]

You did get past the headline, right?

Women of Color More Likely to Give Birth in Hospitals Where Catholic Beliefs Hinder Care
Jan 19, 2018, 10:49am Amy Littlefield



There's more to that article, of course.

Report: hundreds of US hospitals follow Catholic rules on reproductive care

Not sure what the point was? If you go to a Catholic hospital, you'll get Catholic care. That's not exactly news.

What do you want from them?

 

[loomis41973]

7-2

THANK YOU!!!!



Let customers and business owners make their own decisions.

 

[Legacy]

Not sure what the point was? If you go to a Catholic hospital, you'll get Catholic care. That's not exactly news.

What do you want from them?

The examples in these may illustrate the some of the issues.

Below the Radar Fact Sheet: Religious Refusals to Treat Pregnancy Complications Put Women in Danger
(National Women's Law Center)

Study: Catholic Hospitals ‘Dump’ Abortion Patients, Often Refuse Referrals (Rewire)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That assertion suits Whiskey.

It's not an "assertion", Legacy. Everything I posted about the Guttmacher Institute is a fact that's easily verifiable via a 30s Google search. It was founded in 1968 as a division of PP. It was named after Alan Frank Guttmacher, one of PP's previous presidents. It was still receiving direct financial support from PP as recently as 2013. You literally could not be citing a more biased source than Guttmacher. If you've got evidence of their objectivity on this subject, I'd love to see it.

You may have noticed that I do not advocate for abortion.

Really? Because you've done nothing but link to Guttmacher's propaganda. You've also flatly refused to engage with my arguments about Sanger's outspoken eugenicism, the racially disparate impact of PP's "services", the demographic impacts of contraception and abortion, etc.

Did you notice that the link Whiskey provided on Abortion Facts was from "Abort73.com" with sublinks to "Bringing an End to Abortion" and "The Case against Abortion"? Propaganda? There are two different tables for reasons for abortion, though he posts the figures for one from just Florida. Reflective of reasons nationally? He should do better.

All of the stats I've cited either come directly from PP's annual report or from various state agencies. Here's a direct link from Florida's "Agency for Health Care Administration" showing their recorded reasons each pregnancy was terminated in 2015. Of the two, I shared that table because the former came from a Guttmacher survey, and is therefore not objective.

He should do better.

Spare me. I'm a busy attorney who has already spent far too much time debunking your sophistry in 5-10 minute chunks over the last week or so. I've presented multi-faceted arguments with cites from all over the web, as opposed to you who has linked nothing but Guttmacher propaganda and personal testimonials from post-abortive women looking to rationalize their complicity in this evil. How convenient their children aren't around to respond...

I'll leave it to the board to decide who's made a more credible argument here.

 

[Legacy]

The points I am making is in regard to women getting their health care services that are national standards of care. The American College of Obstetric and Gynecology (ACOG) to which all Ob-Gyns belong have clear guidelines on their goals and requirements in training physicians. There is a subset of them that are Pro-life but who do recognize clinical situations that require abortions in certain circumstance but will not perform them. Yet they may refer the patient to one that can, for example in placenta abruption that may well cause life-threatening hemorrhaging, or non-ob conditions like cancer that requires chemotherapy, situations where a pending fetal demise that threaten the life of the mother, etc. Ideally, the referring physician should not be constrained from sending their patient to a non-Catholic hospital, the ER doc should be able to transfer the patient when stable to another hospital without repercussions from the admin, insurance would pay for care and appropriate treatment at that non-Catholic hospital, that accepting physicians at other hospitals will agree to take the patient, federal cutbacks don't affect availabilty of physical exams and testing which is often with Medicaid, care clinics and physicians are not overwhelmed with the millions of patients from PP, and Congress does not make such severe cutbacks in Medicaid that deprives women in poverty of their care for all conditions and meds. So this about access, meeting national standards for health and any barriers to that. I'll like to refer any who wish to the two artices from the National Women's Law Center and Rewire that I listed and their copious references for the full discussions, views and studies by Ob-Gyns.The ACLU has a good article on some women's cases too, titled "Health Care Denied" or some such and lawsuits they have filed. ACOG and the Association for Family Physicians (AFP) have expressed concerns about changes at the federal and state levels with regwrd to their standards. Guttmacher has been posted not in support of their beliefs or purpose but only any factual evidence. Again for discussion, please post any differing evidence. There's some CBO reports on the impacts of proposed changes by Congress and I've found some Universìty Ob-Gyn concern about changes proposed by the Iowa legislature on residency training, the certification of their program, and the shortage of Ob-Gyns. More later if I have time on these and other aspects on the delivery of womens' health care services.

The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine
(ACOG)

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Satire today, reality tomorrow. <a href="https://t.co/ojItrlPh6o">https://t.co/ojItrlPh6o</a></p>— Bill Hobbs (@billhobbs) <a href="https://twitter.com/billhobbs/status/1004571745687363586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishLax]

It's not an "assertion", Legacy. Everything I posted about the Guttmacher Institute is a fact that's easily verifiable via a 30s Google search. It was founded in 1968 as a division of PP. It was named after Alan Frank Guttmacher, one of PP's previous presidents. It was still receiving direct financial support from PP as recently as 2013. You literally could not be citing a more biased source than Guttmacher. If you've got evidence of their objectivity on this subject, I'd love to see it.

I'm shocked that you're still wasting your time here. It's honestly a joke how much good-faith effort you put in to this argument just to be met by walls of text, contrived hypotheticals, disrespect, and obfuscation.

 

[Irishize]

Doctors recommended Tim Tebow’s mother abort him. She refused.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/teb...72598788&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

[greyhammer90]

Doctors recommended Tim Tebow’s mother abort him. She refused.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/teb...72598788&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Weird board to present an argument for abortion.

 

[Irishize]

Weird board to present an argument for abortion.

Huh? It’s not an argument for abortion. Tebow’s mother refused the physician’s recommendation for an abortion. How is that an argument FOR abortion?

 

[greyhammer90]

Huh? It’s not an argument for abortion. Tebow’s mother refused the physician’s recommendation for an abortion. How is that an argument FOR abortion?

 

[Irishize]

Ahhh

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kids across the country are getting busted for operating lemonade stands without a permit. We're taking the lead to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaveLemonadeStands?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SaveLemonadeStands</a> by paying for kids' fines + permits this year. For every RT this gets we’ll donate $1 (up to $500,000) to help kids next year + beyond.</p>— CountryTime (@CountryTime) <a href="https://twitter.com/CountryTime/status/1004723588937732097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kids across the country are getting busted for operating lemonade stands without a permit. We're taking the lead to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaveLemonadeStands?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SaveLemonadeStands</a> by paying for kids' fines + permits this year. For every RT this gets we’ll donate $1 (up to $500,000) to help kids next year + beyond.</p>— CountryTime (@CountryTime) <a href="https://twitter.com/CountryTime/status/1004723588937732097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Pretty neat, but Country Time isn't lemonade.

 

[Legacy]

Why Are More American Teenagers Than Ever Suffering From Severe Anxiety? (NYT)

8 Habits That Make Millennials Stressed, Anxious And Unproductive (Huff)

 

[zelezo vlk]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Average time in West from "that should be legal" to "that should be mandated", now approximately 15 seconds. <a href="https://t.co/qwUwy8Wehq">https://t.co/qwUwy8Wehq</a></p>— David Shane (@david_shane) <a href="https://twitter.com/david_shane/status/1006954004469907456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Average time in West from "that should be legal" to "that should be mandated", now approximately 15 seconds. <a href="https://t.co/qwUwy8Wehq">https://t.co/qwUwy8Wehq</a></p>— David Shane (@david_shane) <a href="https://twitter.com/david_shane/status/1006954004469907456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I will pray for the emerald island. Though I have a feeling they've gone so far that the prayers won't help.

 

[Legacy]

Legacy, with all due respect, Whiskey pointed out the extreme propagandistic bias that is the Guttmacher Inst. I'm interested in reading your posts, but could you at least try to find other sources, please?

BBG, I trust you have discerned my focus on recent developments affecting women's health care. Those include Trump's and HHS's regulatory changes on private women's health clinic, the gag rule on physicians in Catholic hospital systems combined with private insurance contract requirements with those systems, the disportioncate impact on women of color and on low-income women, the need for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and ob-gyns to increase their patient loads by 2-3 times to meet women's health care needs for screenings, STDs and HIVs and early treatment depending on location, the need for increased federal funding for those FQHCs to expand both physically and with respect to providers, the difficulties state legislatures have in meeting rural women's (and all) rural health needs with physician shortages and clinic and hospital closures there (see post in Health Care thread), the opposition to federal changes by national provider organizations representing over 300,000 physicians including the American College of Obsteticians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and Title X funding being redirected from its original purposes of preventive health screenings to organizations (licensed and unlicensed) that advocate that women bring the baby to term and for sexual abstinence.

Catholic hospital system will not change and will continue to follow Catholic teaching despite physicians' concerns about limiting full disclosure to their patients, eliminating tubal ligation in C-Sections requiring a woman's choice for it to undergo another procedure possibly paying out of pocket, an absence of birth control pills or prescriptions by their physicians for such conditions as heavy vaginal bleeding. Catholic hospital systems are increasing with mergers and now represent one out of every five hospitals in the U.S. Religious organizations will continue to follow their moral and ethical doctrine.

I find that those who have discussed the immorality of abortions and other family planning techniques inherent in residency training miss my points. Abortion training can be opted out in that training. Those are the delivery of appropriate women's health care. I'll never be satisfied with an attitude that does not address specifically how women's health care needs will be addressed now and in the future. You can't talk about the impacts without also considering poverty, elimination of federal and state funding for low-income and minority women who disproportionately are affected and the future for women and their resultant families who may be deprived of safety net programs. Catholic teaching on the morality of addressing these issues faced by these women and their children is clear.

This is what I see as needing to be addressed in a moral culture.

 

[Legacy]

From Pope Francis's address to the U.S. Congress:

But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.

Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today’s many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.

The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.

On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12).

In these times when social concerns are so important, I cannot fail to mention the Servant of God Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker Movement. Her social activism, her passion for justice and for the cause of the oppressed, were inspired by the Gospel, her faith, and the example of the saints.

How much progress has been made in this area in so many parts of the world! How much has been done in these first years of the third millennium to raise people out of extreme poverty! I know that you share my conviction that much more still needs to be done, and that in times of crisis and economic hardship a spirit of global solidarity must not be lost. At the same time I would encourage you to keep in mind all those people around us who are trapped in a cycle of poverty. They too need to be given hope. The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.

In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to “redirect our steps” (ibid., 61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a “culture of care” (ibid., 231) and “an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (ibid., 139).

In particular, I would like to call attention to those family members who are the most vulnerable, the young. For many of them, a future filled with countless possibilities beckons, yet so many others seem disoriented and aimless, trapped in a hopeless maze of violence, abuse and despair. Their problems are our problems. We cannot avoid them. We need to face them together, to talk about them and to seek effective solutions rather than getting bogged down in discussions. At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.

 

[zelezo vlk]

A pretty good thread.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">U S I N G <a href="https://t.co/6uKZaNZb3X">https://t.co/6uKZaNZb3X</a></p>— Brandon McGinley (@brandonmcg) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandonmcg/status/1006999952780922881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

While we're on the subject, McGinley just published an article in First Things titled "Her Name Is Monroe Christine":

er name is Monroe Christine. She is twenty months old. She was born on television.

You see, Monroe belongs to a reality television star and his partner—Jeff Lewis and Gage Edwards of Bravo’s Flipping Out. Her conception, gestation, and birth were part of the drama of the show, and now her parties and wardrobe and babbling continue to be part of the show.

The men will not do business with the woman who gave birth to Monroe ever again. Her name is Alexandra Trent, and she’s suing the men and Bravo.

As part of the transaction, Alexandra agreed to have her ultrasounds filmed while the men who paid for Monroe watched. But, according to Alexandra, she did not agree to having her delivery filmed and broadcast. And she certainly did not agree to the reality star’s commentary on her delivery.

“If I was a surrogate,” he observed, “and I had known there was going to be an audience, I probably would have waxed.” (Of course, he will never be a surrogate. He is a man. And he is rich.) “And that was the shocking part for Gage. I don’t think Gage had ever seen a vagina, let alone one that big.”

Someday Monroe will see the episode of her father’s show in which she was born. After so many years in the custody of men who find women’s bodies by turns amusing and repulsive, maybe she will be disgusted, too. I wonder what they will tell Monroe about her own body when it begins to change. Maybe they’ll tell her to make sure she waxes.

Monroe will not have a mother to talk about her body with. The men never met Monroe’s mother; they picked her out of an egg catalogue. What will the men tell Monroe about the catalogue? Monroe will probably want to know what made her mother special. Do they remember?

And Monroe certainly will not have Alexandra Trent to talk with. “I guess we won’t be using her again,” the reality star tweeted. I wonder what woman they will use next time. Whoever it is, she had better read the contract closely.

A concerned fan of the reality star observed that it was probably a mistake to let Alexandra spend time bonding with the newborn Monroe. After all, Monroe was paid for by the men, not by the woman whose being she had shared for nine months. They probably won’t make that mistake next time. Better to get the baby used to her new reality right away.

Monroe was baptized on television by an Episcopalian minister with a posh accent. Everyone at the event seemed bemused by the rite. (What level of sincerity is required for the renouncement of Satan to be efficacious? For Monroe’s sake, I hope not too much.) But it made for good television—especially interspersed with footage of Alexandra weeping at the ultrasound and screaming during delivery. The men beamed, and viewers sniffled: What a happy journey they had gone on together!

Monroe’s childhood will continue to unfold on television until either the reality star or the network decides it is no longer profitable for it to do so. She might belong to her men, but her men belong to the market. Everybody has a master, I suppose.

Alexandra Trent certainly understands that now. The reality star is upset that Trent’s lawsuit might “tarnish the most amazing experience of [his] life,” which was watching the girl he paid a clinic to manufacture be evacuated from the womb he rented while cameras rolled and he mused about the birth mother’s substandard grooming. He paid good money for that girl; that womb; that experience. He “thought this was over,” like any other temporary contractual relationship.

It may someday really be over for Alexandra. She might move on; a financial settlement might help her do so. But it will never be over for Monroe. She will always have been born on television. Her childhood will always have been a marketable commodity. She will always be the product of the will and the checkbook of two men who wanted a bespoke parenting experience.

Her name is Monroe Christine. She is a little girl who was paid for by two men. Her mother was picked out of a catalogue; the woman who gave birth to her was a contractually obligated guest star on a television show who was publicly humiliated by her father.

Remember Monroe Christine when you hear words like “equality,” “autonomy,” and “identity.” Who is equal, and who is a symbol of someone else’s equality? Who is autonomous, and who is an expression of someone else’s autonomy? Whose has an identity of his own, and who is an extension of someone else’s identity?

Who is a person, and who is an accessory?

Who is an end, and who is a means?

Who is a girl, and who is a pet?

That is the question.

Surrogacy should be illegal.

 

[loomis41973]

While we're on the subject, McGinley just published an article in First Things titled "Her Name Is Monroe Christine":



Surrogacy should be illegal.

That's quite a bold statement and not one I agree with.

My wonderful wife's aunt and uncle had to go that route. She graduated last week as Valedictorian of her Catholic high school and attending Notre Dame this Fall.

 

[loomis41973]

On another note.....

Planned Parenthood Spending $1.5 Million to Re-Elect PA Gov. Tom Wolf | Breitbart


"In December, Wolf vetoed state Senate Bill 3, a measure that would have banned late-term dismemberment abortions during which an unborn baby’s limbs are torn off its body prior to removing it from the mother’s uterus. Wolf said the ban was “extreme” and “restrictive.”

 

[Legacy]

"Surrogacy should be illegal."

That's quite a bold statement and not one I agree with.

My wonderful wife's aunt and uncle had to go that route. She graduated last week as Valedictorian of her Catholic high school and attending Notre Dame this Fall.

Clearly, he is asserting that since IVF with surrogacy is immoral based on Catholic teaching, it should be illegal.

Donum Vitae ("The Gift of Life"), addresses the morality of many modern fertility procedures. It teaches that if a given medical intervention helps or assists the marriage act to achieve pregnancy, it may be considered moral; if the intervention replaces the marriage act in order to engender life as IVF, it is not moral. If the couple is aware that IVF is not moral, they have commited a sin. Multiple eggs as the result of fertility meds may have been fertilized with more than one conception. Ensoulment begins at conception. Only one embryo is kept for surrogacy.

Would you argue that IVF as a legal option for couples should be retained and the moral decision and responsibility on this should be the couple's?

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH)

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Planned Parenthood is spending $50k to beat a pro-choice woman after she supported Planned Parenthood workers trying to unionize. For a state legislative seat. <a href="https://t.co/mHEbUgIv7L">https://t.co/mHEbUgIv7L</a></p>— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) <a href="https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1008171126600683527?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

h/t Whiskey for this link. I don't even think I need to comment on the hypocrisy of an organization that is supposed to be ultra progressive and nonprofit union busting.

Planned Parenthood cares about their $$$ above all else, and their business is abortion. The end.

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Planned Parenthood is spending $50k to beat a pro-choice woman after she supported Planned Parenthood workers trying to unionize. For a state legislative seat. <a href="https://t.co/mHEbUgIv7L">https://t.co/mHEbUgIv7L</a></p>— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) <a href="https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1008171126600683527?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

h/t Whiskey for this link. I don't even think I need to comment on the hypocrisy of an organization that is supposed to be ultra progressive and nonprofit union busting.

Planned Parenthood cares about their $$$ above all else, and their business is abortion. The end.

Holy cow. Can't wait to see how they explain this away. Guessing you won't see this reported on the front page of CNN or MSNBC.

 

[connor_in]

Wasn't sure where to put this

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Chris Pratt with all of the wisdom <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MTVAwards?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MTVAwards</a> <a href="https://t.co/eu5cXU7WcQ">pic.twitter.com/eu5cXU7WcQ</a></p>— FANDOM (@getFANDOM) <a href="https://twitter.com/getFANDOM/status/1008902822098681859?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Legacy]

CBO report on Defunding Planned Parenthood

CBO report on Defunding Planned Parenthood

September 22, 2015

Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Budgetary Effects of Legislation That Would Permanently Prohibit the Availability of
Federal Funds to Planned Parenthood

At the request of your staff, CBO has estimated the effect on direct spending of legislation that would permanently prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds. CBO estimates that implementing such a bill would increase direct spending by $130 million over the 2016-2025 period. The difference in the estimated costs reflects the different time periods over which use of federal funds would be prohibited.
Under both policies the effects of the legislation on federal spending are highly uncertain
and would depend largely on the extent to which individuals who otherwise would obtain
Medicaid-funded services from Planned Parenthood would either:
 Continue to obtain services from Planned Parenthood without Medicaid
reimbursement;
 Obtain services from other health clinics and medical practitioners that receive
Medicaid reimbursement; or,
 No longer obtain such services.

Page 2
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government of Permanently Prohibiting Federal
Funding for Planned Parenthood
The estimated budgetary impact of permanently prohibiting federal funding for Planned
Parenthood is shown in in the following table. For this estimate, CBO assumed that such
legislation will be enacted near the end of calendar year 2015.

Based on information from a variety of government and private sources, CBO estimates
that Planned Parenthood receives approximately $450 million annually in federal funds. Of that amount, roughly $390 million is provided through the Medicaid program and less than $1 million is provided through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Medicare program combined. The remaining amount, approximately $60 million, is provided through the National Family Planning Program, which operates under Title X of the Public Health Service Act (commonly referred to as Title X). Funding for that latter program is subject to appropriation.

Direct Spending
The budgetary effects of a bill that would permanently prohibit federal funding from being made available to Planned Parenthood depend mostly on whether Planned Parenthood would continue providing services without Medicaid reimbursement and if so for how many years it would continue to do so. CBO estimates that federal funds accounted for about one-third of Planned Parenthood’s total revenues in 2013. The extent to which federal funding would be replaced by nonfederal resources under a permanent prohibition is highly uncertain. The amount replaced and the length of time such funds would be used to provide services would depend on actions taken by Planned Parenthood and by others, including state and local governments.

If none of the federal funds were replaced, CBO expects that some of the Medicaid
beneficiaries who would obtain services from Planned Parenthood under current law
would not obtain services at all, leading to lower Medicaid spending. Other people would

Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Page 3
continue to receive services—from providers that are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. For those people, CBO estimates that there would be little change in Medicaid spending.

If almost all federal funds were replaced, over the 2016-2025 period, CBO expects that
most Medicaid beneficiaries currently served by Planned Parenthood would continue to
obtain services from Planned Parenthood, but at no cost to Medicaid. Under that
circumstance, there would be little change in the services provided by Planned Parenthood and a large reduction in Medicaid spending for those services.

CBO has no clear basis for assessing the extent to which Planned Parenthood would be able to replace Medicaid funding. Therefore, for this estimate, CBO assumed that in the first year in which federal funds would be not be available to Planned Parenthood,
approximately half of the federal funds Planned Parenthood would otherwise receive from
Medicaid would be replaced, the center of a wide range of possible outcomes. CBO
expects that any amount of funds replaced by Planned Parenthood would decline over time and eventually most beneficiaries would instead receive services from other providers that receive Medicaid reimbursement. The combination of those effects would reduce direct spending by $235 million in 2016 and by $520 million over the 2016-2025 period, CBO estimates. Those savings would be offset by increased spending for other Medicaid services as discussed below.

To the extent that there would be reductions in access to care under such legislation, they would affect services that help women avert pregnancies. The people most likely to
experience reduced access to care would probably reside in areas without access to other
health care clinics or medical practitioners who serve low-income populations. However,
how many Medicaid beneficiaries served by Planned Parenthood live in such areas is
uncertain. On the basis of an analysis of Essential Community Providers that offer family
planning services compiled by the Health Resources and Services Administration, CBO
estimates that as little as 5 percent or as much as 25 percent of the estimated 2.6 million
clients served by Planned Parenthood would face reduced access to care. For this estimate CBO projects that 15 percent of those people would lose access to care in the first year following enactment of the bill, the center of the distribution of possible outcomes. CBO also expects access to care for those individuals would improve as other health care providers expanded or newly offered services, but the timing of that improvement is also uncertain. By 2020, CBO estimates that that only about 2 percent of the clients served by Planned Parenthood would continue to face reduced access to care.

The government would incur some costs for Medicaid beneficiaries currently served by
Planned Parenthood who would not receive services that help women avert pregnancies if a bill that permanently prohibits federal funding from being made available to Planned

Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Page 4
Parenthood were enacted. Because the costs of about 45 percent of all births are paid for by the Medicaid program, CBO estimates that additional births that would result from
enacting such a bill would add to federal spending for Medicaid. In addition, some of those children would themselves qualify for Medicaid and possibly for other federal programs. In the first few years in which federal funds for Planned Parenthood would be prohibited under the bill, CBO estimates the number of births in the Medicaid program would increase by several thousand per year. CBO expects that the number of additional births would decline over time as beneficiaries found other health care providers from which to receive family planning services. Nevertheless, the bill would increase the number of births in each year over the 2016-2025 period. CBO estimates, in total, the bill would increase direct spending for Medicaid by $20 million in 2016, by $130 million in 2017, and by $650 million over the 2016-2025 period. Most of the increased spending for the
pregnancies that occur in 2016 will take place in 2017.

Netting those costs against the savings estimated above, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase direct spending by $130 million over the 2016-2025 period.

Spending Subject to Appropriation
In 2013, Planned Parenthood received approximately $60 million under Title X. Services
funded by Title X include contraceptive education and counseling; pregnancy diagnosis
and counseling; cervical and breast cancer screening; and education, testing, and referral
services associated with sexually transmitted diseases. CBO estimates that the bill would
not affect spending subject to appropriations because any discretionary grants, such as
those made under Title X, that might otherwise have gone to Planned Parenthood would be awarded to other health clinics or medical practitioners.

I'm fine with no federal funding for Title X going to organizations that use their private funds for political purposes.

Under Trump, Family Planning Funds Could Go To Groups That Oppose Contraception (NPR)

Another Effort To Get Rid Of The 'Johnson Amendment' Fails (NPR)

A provision in the U.S tax code that bars churches and charities from engaging in political campaigns remains intact, more than a year after President Trump pledged to "get rid of and totally destroy" it.

I'm also fine with keeping the Johnson Amendment and think that SCOTUS's decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission opened up a can of worms on regulation of political campaign spending by organizations.

Excerpt from Majority Decision:

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.[28] The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The decision overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the decision said that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over the dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.