(02-01-2012 02:26 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Serious question, Rebel. Awaiting your reply.

Is there a point? Answer me this, why are PP abortion clinics always in depressed areas like ghettos? Trying to continue Sanger's "cause"? I don't see'em out here in Evans, Ga.

Oh, you're trying to get us off the topic we created. Gotcha. I guess you have no answer for that.

If you think that the primary mission of PP is abortion, then you should have a response. If you don't then I'm not sure why you brought it up in response to an article about cancer screenings.

Federal dollars should not go to funding abortion. Period. I don't care what percentage they account for, it is one of their primary goals.

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you putting words in my mouth is as well. Poor people go to PP for free screenings and mamograms. With less money for PP, you can't see any way that this might result in less screenings and mamograms?

No, because the amount of money hasn't dropped, only who it goes to. Whatever doesn't go to PP will still go to organizations that perform the same services.

PP isn't upset beause they will have less money for mamograms. They're upset because they have less money to give to their abortion lobbyists and to kill the unborn.

(02-01-2012 02:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:26 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Serious question, Rebel. Awaiting your reply.

Is there a point? Answer me this, why are PP abortion clinics always in depressed areas like ghettos? Trying to continue Sanger's "cause"? I don't see'em out here in Evans, Ga.

Oh, you're trying to get us off the topic we created. Gotcha. I guess you have no answer for that.

If you think that the primary mission of PP is abortion, then you should have a response. If you don't then I'm not sure why you brought it up in response to an article about cancer screenings.

Federal dollars should not go to funding abortion. Period. I don't care what percentage they account for, it is one of their primary goals.

Good news, they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:26 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Serious question, Rebel. Awaiting your reply.

Is there a point? Answer me this, why are PP abortion clinics always in depressed areas like ghettos? Trying to continue Sanger's "cause"? I don't see'em out here in Evans, Ga.

Oh, you're trying to get us off the topic we created. Gotcha. I guess you have no answer for that.

If you think that the primary mission of PP is abortion, then you should have a response. If you don't then I'm not sure why you brought it up in response to an article about cancer screenings.

Federal dollars should not go to funding abortion. Period. I don't care what percentage they account for, it is one of their primary goals.

Good news, they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Do federal dollars fund PP?

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:20 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Amazing that conservatives don't feel it's important for breast cancer screenings and mamograms for the poor who can't afford it. Just let them die I guess?

We support Susan G. Komen foundation that gives money directly to that effort. Your incorrectly assume that because Komen has halted giving money to Planned Parenthood, that poor will stop getting them. That is a lie. Komen hasn't stopped funding mamograms, they've stopped giving money specifically to planned parenthood.

Your hope that fewer people give to Komen in hopes Planned Parenthood can continue its mission to perform as many abortions as possible is repugnant.

And you putting words in my mouth is as well. Poor people go to PP for free screenings and mamograms. With less money for PP, you can't see any way that this might result in less screenings and mamograms?

Yes because if PP doesn't get the money... no on does. hee, hee, hee.

(02-01-2012 02:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:26 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Is there a point? Answer me this, why are PP abortion clinics always in depressed areas like ghettos? Trying to continue Sanger's "cause"? I don't see'em out here in Evans, Ga.

Oh, you're trying to get us off the topic we created. Gotcha. I guess you have no answer for that.

If you think that the primary mission of PP is abortion, then you should have a response. If you don't then I'm not sure why you brought it up in response to an article about cancer screenings.

Federal dollars should not go to funding abortion. Period. I don't care what percentage they account for, it is one of their primary goals.

Good news, they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Do federal dollars fund PP?

Yes, and the money provided cannot be used for abortions.

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  No, because the amount of money hasn't dropped, only who it goes to. Whatever doesn't go to PP will still go to organizations that perform the same services.

This is probably the case.

(02-01-2012 02:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:26 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If you think that the primary mission of PP is abortion, then you should have a response. If you don't then I'm not sure why you brought it up in response to an article about cancer screenings.

Federal dollars should not go to funding abortion. Period. I don't care what percentage they account for, it is one of their primary goals.

Good news, they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Do federal dollars fund PP?

Yes, and the money provided cannot be used for abortions.

Sheer naivety.

If you give your kid lunch money and find weed in his room, at least you can take comfort knowing that he didn't use any of your money to buy it.

(02-01-2012 02:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Yes, and the money provided cannot be used for abortions.

And all lottery monies go to the schools.

(02-01-2012 02:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:27 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Federal dollars should not go to funding abortion. Period. I don't care what percentage they account for, it is one of their primary goals.

Good news, they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Do federal dollars fund PP?

Yes, and the money provided cannot be used for abortions.

Sheer naivety.

It's naive to think that how that money is spent is not watched like a hawk by pro-life groups.

(02-01-2012 02:50 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Good news, they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Do federal dollars fund PP?

Yes, and the money provided cannot be used for abortions.

Sheer naivety.

It's naive to think that how that money is spent is not watched like a hawk by pro-life groups.

Keep telling yourself that, sparky. They're not the ones in the back room dealing with the books. It's easy as hell to fudge numbers.

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you putting words in my mouth is as well. Poor people go to PP for free screenings and mamograms. With less money for PP, you can't see any way that this might result in less screenings and mamograms?

No, because the amount of money hasn't dropped, only who it goes to. Whatever doesn't go to PP will still go to organizations that perform the same services.

PP isn't upset beause they will have less money for mamograms. They're upset because they have less money to give to their abortion lobbyists and to kill the unborn.

Does Komen provide for free screenings and mamograms anywhere?

(02-01-2012 02:52 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:50 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:45 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Do federal dollars fund PP?

Yes, and the money provided cannot be used for abortions.

Sheer naivety.

It's naive to think that how that money is spent is not watched like a hawk by pro-life groups.

Keep telling yourself that, sparky. They're not the ones in the back room dealing with the books. It's easy as hell to fudge numbers.

Good to know that you assume that organizations are breaking the law unless it can be proven that they're not.

(02-01-2012 02:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:52 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Keep telling yourself that, sparky. They're not the ones in the back room dealing with the books. It's easy as hell to fudge numbers.

Good to know that you assume that organizations are breaking the law unless it can be proven that they're not.

All they have to do is put money into the general operating fund and it's going to fund abortions. That, while unethical, is not breaking the law. ...but you are a fool if you don't believe it's funding abortion.

(02-01-2012 02:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:52 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Keep telling yourself that, sparky. They're not the ones in the back room dealing with the books. It's easy as hell to fudge numbers.

Good to know that you assume that organizations are breaking the law unless it can be proven that they're not.

All they have to do is put money into the general operating fund and it's going to fund abortions. That, while unethical, is not breaking the law. ...but you are a fool if you don't believe it's funding abortion.

So your standard is guilty until proven innocent, right?

I'm not certain, but it's not unreasonable to assume that the money cannot go to general operations. It is most likely marked for specific uses.

(02-01-2012 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Does Komen provide for free screenings and mamograms anywhere?

They give money to many organizations that do.

If you need one just follow the linky.

Now that they aren't giving money to abortion provider PP that money can go to another organization who can now give even more free screenings and mamograms. There is no rational basis to argue fewer people will get those services simply because PP isn't getting money from them anymore.

And Komen is a private organization that has every right to determine where they send the money donated them. Your desire to see them penalized for exercising that constitutional right in hopes they can help fewer people is, as I said, repugnant.

(02-01-2012 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:31 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 02:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you putting words in my mouth is as well. Poor people go to PP for free screenings and mamograms. With less money for PP, you can't see any way that this might result in less screenings and mamograms?

No, because the amount of money hasn't dropped, only who it goes to. Whatever doesn't go to PP will still go to organizations that perform the same services.

PP isn't upset beause they will have less money for mamograms. They're upset because they have less money to give to their abortion lobbyists and to kill the unborn.

Does Komen provide for free screenings and mamograms anywhere?

Yes. One example:

West Virginia
West Virginia has one of the highest breast cancer death rates in the country. It’s estimated that more than 40 percent of all women 40 years and older haven’t been screened for breast cancer in the past year. A $300,000 Komen grant is helping:


Develop media campaigns to promote Bonnie’s Bus, a mobile digital mammography unit that will reach people who normally don’t have access to such technology. The bus already has visited 12 rural communities.
Two staff members were hired.
The grant also supports the development of a statewide network for newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients to gain access to clinical trials.

Yes...thank you and thanks for the links. They do provide those services in an around where I live which I didn't realize.

And I have no issues with who they want to send their money too. They just aren't handling it very well by doing it in this purely political way, in my opinion.

(02-01-2012 03:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I have no issues with who they want to send their money too.

Then why say this?

Quote:Hopefully it results in fewer contributions to Komen and more to PP.