(08-27-2015 01:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I chose my words wrong, they chose not to fund the program despite being cash positive. Why?

I don't live in colorado, but a quick search showed an increase in public school funding, higher education, and transportation. I'm sure they had a lot on their plate and did the best they could with what they had.

I do find it a little difficult to believe you chose your words wrong. You most likely wanted us to think that the Republicans chose not to fund the program because they are meanies and don't want to help prevent abortions.

I stated I chose my words wrong because they were the incorrect words to choose as that wasn't an accurate way of stating what happened, as you pointed out. The more accurate statement would be that the Republican led house chose not to fund this cash positive program that limited abortions. I don't need to project the Republicans as meanies who don't want to help prevent abortions, their own policies do that for them honestly. Not that any group that large doesn't include people who don't agree with those policies, like this Republican State Representative from Colorado for instance, but the Republican national party platform isn't exactly conducive to promoting contraceptive usage, and states it supports Abstinence only education and "oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception."

As for your concerns about the ACA picking up this slack, these programs went beyond what you'd find in the ACA with actively looking for at-risk groups and informing them of these IUD's, things which go directly against the GOP's stated stances.

States have limited money and do the best they can. As for the GOP as a whole, its a broad policy they have that obviously assumes a level of personal responsibility that many don't exhibit.

I thought their policy was to protect unborn life? Why aren't they championing cost-effective ways to limit abortions like this one then?

Because money isn't unlimited for one. Stop acting like you don't know how complicated budgets are.

But it's cash positive. Stop acting like it costs money when you get a 585% return on the investment.

(08-28-2015 10:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But it's cash positive. Stop acting like it costs money when you get a 585% return on the investment.

So where specifically do you want the Colorado legislation to take the funds from? Should they just ask the taxpayers to pony up more so they can fund the program?

(08-28-2015 10:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But it's cash positive. Stop acting like it costs money when you get a 585% return on the investment.

So where specifically do you want the Colorado legislation to take the funds from? Should they just ask the taxpayers to pony up more so they can fund the program?

If they believed that it would stop children from being murdered? Of course. Are you claiming otherwise?

(08-28-2015 10:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But it's cash positive. Stop acting like it costs money when you get a 585% return on the investment.

So where specifically do you want the Colorado legislation to take the funds from? Should they just ask the taxpayers to pony up more so they can fund the program?

If they believed that it would stop children from being murdered? Of course. Are you claiming otherwise?

I'm not claiming anything other than you should know budgets are complicated and funding for this would mean defunding another program without and additional source of private funds.

(08-28-2015 10:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But it's cash positive. Stop acting like it costs money when you get a 585% return on the investment.

So where specifically do you want the Colorado legislation to take the funds from? Should they just ask the taxpayers to pony up more so they can fund the program?

If they believed that it would stop children from being murdered? Of course. Are you claiming otherwise?

I'm not claiming anything other than you should know budgets are complicated and funding for this would mean defunding another program without and additional source of private funds.

I am trying to point out the disingenuous nature of your argument; that republicans do push for contraceptives as much as they are anti-abortion. That's simply not true, not in their own words and not in their actions. Pro-lifers are far more concerned with making abortion illegal than they are preventing actual abortions from occurring, and that is shown time and time again. Maybe you don't feel that way, but then say that and don't excuse the party as a whole.

(08-28-2015 11:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:35 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But it's cash positive. Stop acting like it costs money when you get a 585% return on the investment.

So where specifically do you want the Colorado legislation to take the funds from? Should they just ask the taxpayers to pony up more so they can fund the program?

If they believed that it would stop children from being murdered? Of course. Are you claiming otherwise?

I'm not claiming anything other than you should know budgets are complicated and funding for this would mean defunding another program without and additional source of private funds.

I am trying to point out the disingenuous nature of your argument; that republicans do push for contraceptives as much as they are anti-abortion. That's simply not true, not in their own words and not in their actions. Pro-lifers are far more concerned with making abortion illegal than they are preventing actual abortions from occurring, and that is shown time and time again. Maybe you don't feel that way, but then say that and don't excuse the party as a whole.

Quote where I said that exact statement. I'll save you some time. I didn't. I'm not discussing something with you that I never said.

(08-28-2015 11:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:39 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So where specifically do you want the Colorado legislation to take the funds from? Should they just ask the taxpayers to pony up more so they can fund the program?

If they believed that it would stop children from being murdered? Of course. Are you claiming otherwise?

I'm not claiming anything other than you should know budgets are complicated and funding for this would mean defunding another program without and additional source of private funds.

I am trying to point out the disingenuous nature of your argument; that republicans do push for contraceptives as much as they are anti-abortion. That's simply not true, not in their own words and not in their actions. Pro-lifers are far more concerned with making abortion illegal than they are preventing actual abortions from occurring, and that is shown time and time again. Maybe you don't feel that way, but then say that and don't excuse the party as a whole.

Quote where I said that exact statement. I'll save you some time. I didn't. I'm not discussing something with you that I never said.

This is the comment I'm referring to

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Not an exact quote, and I injected republican for 'pro-life candidates and individuals', but the sentiment is there. They are no concerned with providing contraceptives or preventing abortions outside of making abortion illegal. Show me otherwise, I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives.

(08-28-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:41 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  If they believed that it would stop children from being murdered? Of course. Are you claiming otherwise?

I'm not claiming anything other than you should know budgets are complicated and funding for this would mean defunding another program without and additional source of private funds.

I am trying to point out the disingenuous nature of your argument; that republicans do push for contraceptives as much as they are anti-abortion. That's simply not true, not in their own words and not in their actions. Pro-lifers are far more concerned with making abortion illegal than they are preventing actual abortions from occurring, and that is shown time and time again. Maybe you don't feel that way, but then say that and don't excuse the party as a whole.

Quote where I said that exact statement. I'll save you some time. I didn't. I'm not discussing something with you that I never said.

This is the comment I'm referring to

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Not an exact quote, and I injected republican for 'pro-life candidates and individuals', but the sentiment is there. They are no concerned with providing contraceptives or preventing abortions outside of making abortion illegal. Show me otherwise, I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives.

Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals

We support the President’s strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.
Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republi...ortion.htm

(08-28-2015 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 10:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'm not claiming anything other than you should know budgets are complicated and funding for this would mean defunding another program without and additional source of private funds.

I am trying to point out the disingenuous nature of your argument; that republicans do push for contraceptives as much as they are anti-abortion. That's simply not true, not in their own words and not in their actions. Pro-lifers are far more concerned with making abortion illegal than they are preventing actual abortions from occurring, and that is shown time and time again. Maybe you don't feel that way, but then say that and don't excuse the party as a whole.

Quote where I said that exact statement. I'll save you some time. I didn't. I'm not discussing something with you that I never said.

This is the comment I'm referring to

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Not an exact quote, and I injected republican for 'pro-life candidates and individuals', but the sentiment is there. They are no concerned with providing contraceptives or preventing abortions outside of making abortion illegal. Show me otherwise, I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives.

Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals

We support the President’s strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.
Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republi...ortion.htm

Like I said, they promote abstinence only programs and do not support education or funding going towards contraceptives. I don't know exactly what you think I said, but I think you need to reread my post, because everything you're posting fully supports my claim that "I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives."


This goes directly against your claim that "If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Where am I wrong here?

(08-28-2015 12:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  I am trying to point out the disingenuous nature of your argument; that republicans do push for contraceptives as much as they are anti-abortion. That's simply not true, not in their own words and not in their actions. Pro-lifers are far more concerned with making abortion illegal than they are preventing actual abortions from occurring, and that is shown time and time again. Maybe you don't feel that way, but then say that and don't excuse the party as a whole.

Quote where I said that exact statement. I'll save you some time. I didn't. I'm not discussing something with you that I never said.

This is the comment I'm referring to

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Not an exact quote, and I injected republican for 'pro-life candidates and individuals', but the sentiment is there. They are no concerned with providing contraceptives or preventing abortions outside of making abortion illegal. Show me otherwise, I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives.

Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals

We support the President’s strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.
Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republi...ortion.htm

Like I said, they promote abstinence only programs and do not support education or funding going towards contraceptives. I don't know exactly what you think I said, but I think you need to reread my post, because everything you're posting fully supports my claim that "I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives."


This goes directly against your claim that "If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Where am I wrong here?

I can't find anything along these lines anywhere, unless it's from a leftist site that demonizes republicans for not wanting 8 years olds taught sex education or forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control.

(08-28-2015 12:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 12:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:42 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:31 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Quote where I said that exact statement. I'll save you some time. I didn't. I'm not discussing something with you that I never said.

This is the comment I'm referring to

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Not an exact quote, and I injected republican for 'pro-life candidates and individuals', but the sentiment is there. They are no concerned with providing contraceptives or preventing abortions outside of making abortion illegal. Show me otherwise, I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives.

Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012
Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals

We support the President’s strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.
Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republi...ortion.htm

Like I said, they promote abstinence only programs and do not support education or funding going towards contraceptives. I don't know exactly what you think I said, but I think you need to reread my post, because everything you're posting fully supports my claim that "I have shown you multiple examples where pro-life legislatures denied doing exactly what I describe, and that the political party which identifies with the pro-life viewpoint distinctly supports abstinence only programs and disagrees with public education on contraceptives."


This goes directly against your claim that "If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

Where am I wrong here?

I can't find anything along these lines anywhere, unless it's from a leftist site that demonizes republicans for not wanting 8 years olds taught sex education or forcing religious organizations to pay for birth control.

Right there. I doesn't explicitly state 'abstinence only' education, but it states it supports doubling down on abstinence education while at the same time stating it doesn't support public education on "contraceptives and abortions". There's no reading between the lines there, they support abstinence, and they don't support the other options; abstinence only.

As for your response concerning "8 year olds taught sex education", they don't delineate that at all. They don't state any acceptable age or educational level, they state they outright don't support it at all.

So, again, where am I wrong here?

Damn dude, where were these questions directed at democrats during Obama's campaign? Do you need someone to spell out every detail of your daily activities for you?

What sort of non-sequitur nonsense is that? Answer the question. Where am I wrong with that statement? You made the claim I was, I presented the information showing I was not, so either defend your statement or be an adult and admit you made an incorrect statement.

(08-28-2015 06:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What sort of non-sequitur nonsense is that? Answer the question. Where am I wrong with that statement? You made the claim I was, I presented the information showing I was not, so either defend your statement or be an adult and admit you made an incorrect statement.

"it’s time for over-the-counter birth control, which will drive down prices and increase availability." - presidential candidate Carly Fiorina.

As Fl Governor, Jeb Bush created funding opportunities for adoption counseling for women who were committed to placing their children up for adoption.

"In our 2011 budget, we stopped funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, the state now contracts with less controversial organizations (like county governments) to promote health care for women. We also prohibited any health plan from covering abortion, and a bill that requires that sex education stress abstinence as the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and STDs." presidential candidate Scott Walker

Republican candidates have and do talk about alternatives to abortion that include more than 100% abstinence-only education, though the party's official stance is one of teaching abstinence as the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. Paint with a wide brush is you want to, it only shows you are intellectually lazy and more concerned with continuing the tired and worn out "war on women" than anything else.

(08-31-2015 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 06:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What sort of non-sequitur nonsense is that? Answer the question. Where am I wrong with that statement? You made the claim I was, I presented the information showing I was not, so either defend your statement or be an adult and admit you made an incorrect statement.

"it’s time for over-the-counter birth control, which will drive down prices and increase availability." - presidential candidate Carly Fiorina.

As Fl Governor, Jeb Bush created funding opportunities for adoption counseling for women who were committed to placing their children up for adoption.

"In our 2011 budget, we stopped funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, the state now contracts with less controversial organizations (like county governments) to promote health care for women. We also prohibited any health plan from covering abortion, and a bill that requires that sex education stress abstinence as the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and STDs." presidential candidate Scott Walker

Republican candidates have and do talk about alternatives to abortion that include more than 100% abstinence-only education, though the party's official stance is one of teaching abstinence as the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. Paint with a wide brush is you want to, it only shows you are intellectually lazy and more concerned with continuing the tired and worn out "war on women" than anything else.

Out of those three quotes, only one mentions contraceptives and is therefore providing alternatives to abstinence education. If you think that that is compelling evidence that the GOP and pro-life candidates themselves encourage alternatives to abstinence, I think you need to reread what you posted. It has nothing to do with me painting with a wide brush or being intellectually lazy, it has everything to do with the words that come out of their mouths and the legislation they pass or refuse to fund.

Just admit it, what I stated was correct. It's really not up for debate, the GOP themselves state as much in their official website. If you want to support a party which supports pragmatic sex education, including accurate information about abstinence and contraceptives, you cannot support the Republican party.