Christi stops payments to abortion clinics

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by general35, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. general35

    general35 5,000+ Posts

    Part of Gov. Chris Christie’s belt-tightening plan for New Jersey was the termination of $7.5 million in public funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in the state, a decision Democrats in the legislature countermanded with a bill that cleared the Senate with a 30-10 vote — sufficient to override a veto. But when that veto came and the Democrats scheduled an override vote, Republicans in the legislature backed down, and the measure failed 23-17.

    Now, Planned Parenthood facilities in the state are shuttering their doors:

    After the New Jersey state Senate defeated an attempt to override the decision of Gov. Chris Christie to cut off state taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood abortion businesses, the first facility run by the national abortion giant is closing.

    The Cherry Hill Courier Post newspaper says a Planned Parenthood facility located on Haddonfield Road and operated by Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey will close down.

    PP-SNJ stands to lose as much as $160,000 in taxpayer funds because of Christie’s decision and the upholding of his veto. With the closing of the Cherry Hill center, Planned Parenthood customers seeking abortions or other “services” must go to PP centers in Camden, Bellmawr, and Edgewater Park.

    Good for him, Planned Parenthood has plenty of money, they should fund themselves. It is little steps like these that end up saving tax dollars.
    The Link
  2. BrothaHorn

    BrothaHorn 1,000+ Posts

    Good for him and NJ. You want an abortion, pay for it. I did [​IMG]
  3. Burnt Orange Bevo

    Burnt Orange Bevo 1,000+ Posts

    Cool, cost cutting that I wholeheartedly agree with.
  4. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

  5. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    No, it's not an excellent point. Give me a break.

    But I'm willing to take this the bitter end. Are you?

    I won't pay a cent for your cancer if you smoked. You damn well better not get an organ transplant if you have a drinking problem. You're fat? Then screw you. I'm not paying for any of your health problems brought on by your gluttony, sloth, and lack of exercise.

    I swear, how did people get so stupid about abortion post Roe?
  6. parkerco

    parkerco 500+ Posts

  7. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    Well get this, you don't have a "right" to healthcare yet we pay for others' healthcare all the time.

    If people like you are sick of people like me, then I'm doing something right.

    So let me ask again: when exactly, and why, did people get so stupid about abortion post Roe?
  8. parkerco

    parkerco 500+ Posts

    Cool answer, bro. Just because we pay for something all the time doesn't mean it is right. Get a job and pay for your own crap, it is actually a nice feeling once you get used to it.

    And can you direct me to exactly where in the holding in Roe did it say anyone has a right to have the procedure paid for by public funds? Is that in a footnote I missed?
  9. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

  10. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    Cool answer, bro. Just because we pay for something all the time doesn't mean it is right.

    Sigh. The context was one of being "a right", as in a fundamental aspect of our existence of living in the us of a. It was not whether it was "right".

    Let's at least read, and understand, what's here before we start discussing legal footnotes.
  11. parkerco

    parkerco 500+ Posts

    Ahh, the sigh of the intellectually superior liberal. That means you have them on the ropes. I'll be branded a racist next.

    Let me be very clear on this, I am pro-choice but very anti-me having to pay for your ****. So when you asked when did Americans become so stupid about abortion post Roe, I'm trying to figure out why Roe has anything to do with public funding. Unless by "stupid" you mean "silly enought to disagree with Perham" and I suspect you just might.

    So why don't you answer a question- explain to me why exactly an elective procedure to cure a problem that is the result of voluntary action and is not life threatening should be publicly funded? (For our little exercise let's go ahead and concede public funding in the cases of rape or mother's life is in danger just so you can't make that argument) And the answer of "we already do it all the time anyway" is circular reasoning.
  12. gecko

    gecko 2,500+ Posts

    Wait....did you just equate killing a baby with having a smoking addiction...?
  13. Ag with kids

    Ag with kids 2,500+ Posts

  14. RomaVicta

    RomaVicta 5,000+ Posts

    As a purely cost-effective argument, is this a wise move? Isn't he saving a paltry $7.5 Million today so he can pay tens of millions later on unwanted children some of whom will end up in the legal system after being raised on state/federal funds?

    Is that fiscally responsible or conservative?

    The governor has chosen to remove the moral element from the argument. Does this action really make sense in pure accounting terms?
  15. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

  16. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    Roma: no, it doesn't.

    Why not refuse to pay for women's contraception pills, the "pill" as well? It often works as an abortifacient, so let's get rid of that payment, too.

    And as if all abortions are the equivalent of birth control.

    My question remains unanswered.
  17. pasotex

    pasotex 2,500+ Posts

    Was this actual funding for abortion or just ordinary care for poor women? Planned Parenthood typically does a whole lot more than abortions (where they even do abortions) and I am not aware of state funind of abortions (although I suppose it is possible it happens).
  18. mcbrett

    mcbrett 2,500+ Posts

  19. Ag with kids

    Ag with kids 2,500+ Posts

  20. 7Titles

    7Titles 500+ Posts

  21. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    I think a lot more people would agree with that statement then you think.

    Until it's someone in their family who is going to die.

    Or until some paper or tv show makes a "very special" segment about how some cute, sympathetic (fill in the blank: orphan, infant, grandmother) patient is going to die.

    Face it, people may say they agree with that approach, but when push comes to shove, very few have the guts to follow through.
  22. Ag with kids

    Ag with kids 2,500+ Posts

  23. Ag with kids

    Ag with kids 2,500+ Posts

  24. Perham1

    Perham1 2,500+ Posts

    Why should you pay against your will so that my family member lives?

    Like why should I pay income taxes?

    I don't know if you're serious or what. There's a whole galaxy of issues there, but I don't know at what level you're trying to address the issue, or if you're even serious.
  25. Ag with kids

    Ag with kids 2,500+ Posts

  26. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

  27. IRC

    IRC 1,000+ Posts

  28. Black Ninja

    Black Ninja 500+ Posts

    I'm willing to take my chances on people "underperforming" rather than them being killed.
  29. RomaVicta

    RomaVicta 5,000+ Posts

    You won't be taking chances, you'll spending more money.

    If the argument is that this saves money, the argument is invalid.

    Ironically, the governor in question, seems to be supporting a moral stance by lying.
  30. Namewithheld

    Namewithheld 2,500+ Posts


Share This Page