Jenn says:
Thu, 24th Feb 20119:37 am 

The reason that people against abortion support removing funding to Planned Parenthood is because that funding really does help to provide abortions indirectly. If PP gets tax dollars to support health services more of their non-tax dollars are able to go towards providing abortions. This bill is a big deal, because PP performs a large percentage of abortions in our country (about 25% I believe). I'm not interested in getting into a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, I just wanted to give people perspective on the reason pro-life people may support this funding cut.

Lauren - University of Michigan says:
Thu, 24th Feb 20119:43 am 

I understand what you're saying, Jenn, but this bill is going to do far more harm than good. Forget the fact that PP performs abortions and think about all the other services that will no longer be provided. What are women supposed to do if they don't have access to birth control or STD screenings anymore? There has to be a better way.

Christine says:
Thu, 24th Feb 201110:00 am 

Unfortunately it's a bit of a false savings. Abortions are used as a form of birth control these days. If the cheap & easy non-surgical contraceptives are harder to get, then people are going to have more abortions. This is going to be even more so with teenagers, who tend to take a middle ground between taking responsibility for their sexuality and being responsible, sexually active people, and not having sex. They will have sex, but they won't prepare for it. It's something that "just happens". The more planning/care that is required for contraception, the less likely it is to happen. (Sorry, can't remember the name of the study, it's a little dated, but the problems still exist. This was specific to condom usage however.)

Anon says:
Thu, 24th Feb 201110:17 am 

Do you know anyone who has ever had an abortion? I do. She was on birth control and he was using a condom and she still got pregnant. Despite being very pro-choice her entire life, she freaked out when it came time to make the decision. No one takes this decision lightly and I've never met ANYONE who has treated abortion like birth control. Nor is it an inexpensive choice, even PP abortions can cost hundred of dollars. $350-600 was the number listed on their site (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp). So birth control at $20 a month (which is the norm with health insurance) cost $240 a year. Please explain to me why someone would choose an abortion over birth control.

Carly says:
Thu, 24th Feb 201110:58 am 

Ok, what bothers me more about this than anything (admittedly this might be because I am anti- big government) is the PP is a business. Not a non for profit, but a business, and receives millions in funding from the government. Remember everyone making a big fuss about bailing out car companies? this is the same thing, private companies should not be propped up by the government.
I also have a problem with people who do not believe in abortion or contraception for religious reasons being forced to pay for other people to access these things. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean they should be forced to fund things that go against their moral code. There are other ways to access abortions and birth control, try reforming insurance companies and hospital practices and stop funding a business that should be supporting itself.

Jenn says:
Thu, 24th Feb 201112:32 pm 

I agree that access to birth control and health screenings is very important! I have honestly never understood how anyone could be pro-life and anti-contraception. That is an issue that will need to be dealt with if this bill passes. However, for people that truly believe abortion is wrong the good work that PP does not make up for the fact that it is a huge provider of abortions in our country. There are other low cost resources besides PP. They are not concentrated in one business, but they are out there. Plus, I believe more resources would become available to meet demand if PP is unable to operate.

SLW says:
Thu, 24th Feb 20111:00 pm 

Taxpayers: Would you rather pay for the abortion now or the child and it's mother for the rest of the child's life? Because that is the most likely scenario when an unwanted child is brought into our lives. She'll likely be a single mother living off medicare and sometimes welfare.

12.9 million or 34% of children in the USA are brought up by single parents households.
At least 80% of that number is single mothers.

Maire says:
Sat, 26th Feb 20114:47 pm 

After reading this article it is very surprising that it was written to “Keep us informed” and that it is written to all people, “No matter where we fall politically” because the article is completely biased. Please know that you have many pro life readers that you have upset with this article since the author twisted every issue to be a bad thing. I am okay with articles that are open to being pro choice but the fact that you would label this all inclusive ‘news’ is absurd and unprofessional. The author of this article needs to take a step back from her opinions if she ever wants to be a journalist.

Rachel says:
Mon, 28th Feb 20112:13 pm 

Since you believe an individual's tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for programs that person disagrees with in regards to abortion and contraception, what about people who do not agree with capital punishment, or the war in Iraq?

Dani says:
Mon, 28th Feb 20113:02 pm 

Whether or not you're pro choice or pro life, I think these bills being passed should be alarming to you. At the end of the day, if passed, these bills only take away our rights as women. People are getting side tracked and tricked into thinking it's about funding, but it's not, it is all about the legal ability to abort a pregnancy. That should not be territory the law should be stepping foot in. Pro life readers, tell me you have never had to use Plan B, or that if caught in that situation you would not, or that if complications arise in your pregnancy, you would be okay with the doctors telling you that you had to die because they could not legally terminate the fetus to save your life. These are our rights they are trying to take away, and they will ONLY affect women.

criolle johnny says:
Mon, 28th Feb 20115:01 pm 

ONLY women? Do they affect fathers? Do you see fathers as people?

PP Volunteer says:
Mon, 28th Feb 201111:13 pm 

There are several branches of Planned Parenthood. The clinic is a non profit. The branch that does advocacy work is not a non profit.

Kendra says:
Tue, 1st Mar 201112:44 am 

These bills ARE bad things… Being pro-choice isn't about getting abortions or whether they're right or wrong but about women's rights and not allowing male politicians and doctor's decide what we are or aren't allowed to do with our own bodies. Thank God I live in Canada.

Casey says:
Tue, 1st Mar 20111:35 am 

I know a girl who had one in 11th grade. She told me in the hall between classes one day, "I just found out I'm pregnant, and I'm getting this shit removed TOMORROW!". So yeah, some people do take it lightly. There are a lot of immoral people in this country who just don't care.

Casey says:
Tue, 1st Mar 20111:37 am 

This site seems to do that a lot :/

Katie Bonneau says:
Tue, 1st Mar 20112:29 am 

These four comments about each "pro-life" topic in the article are actually all fact and none of the writer's opinion at all. Please go to the House of Representatives website to find out if it is actually correct information or not before you destroy the writer's credibility and possibly make her lose her job. "if she ever wants to be a journalist" is very culturally intolerant and you are discrediting everything this writer stands for. How would it feel if you were in her position?

All I ask is that you think before you comment. And don't judge as harshly as you have in this post, because you may one day be in the position of the accused and lose your job over it… I would call that karma.

Megan says:
Tue, 1st Mar 20115:00 pm 

Katie:

Perhaps you should think before you call someone "culturally intolerant"–especially since a) Maire's comment about journalism had nothing to do with culture, and b) it's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, no?, and c) she has a legitimate point.

Phrases such as "This is problematic because" and "(including college women!)" demonstrate a bias. When the reporter takes it upon themselves to explain to a reader why he/she thinks an issue is problematic, that's opinion, not fact. Yes, what the writer is describing could be viewed as problematic if you agree with the writer–but if you don't, her statement isn't fact. Trying to get a population on your side ("Hey, college women, this means you too!") is also not journalism; it's persuasion. Even the construction of the sentences, "The reasoning behind the bill? To cut funding from an organization that provides abortion" is inflammatory. If the author's intent was to provide unbiased information, she should have taken more care in how she conveyed the information. If it comes down to it, heading up an article with a picture of pro-choice protesters doesn't exactly help me think this article is unbiased.

It's fine for the writer to provide all the information on these issues, and Katie, you're correct, the basic information about the bills is true. Going beyond describing what the issues are, as this writer did, means that Maire's point about bias is also true–even if the writer didn't intend for it to happen.

Katie Bonneau says:
Tue, 1st Mar 20118:17 pm 

maybe her assignment was a persuasive piece! then you would be discrediting her boss… do you really wanna do that?

Amy says:
Tue, 1st Mar 201110:16 pm 

Thank you so much for bringing this information out. It is so important for women's health and rights. Let's hope that we don't lose our right to make a choice about our own bodies… something generations of women before us have worked so hard to provide for us!

Jammms says:
Tue, 1st Mar 201111:10 pm 

This is about whether you should have the right to kill your own child. Facts is facts but we know many of you will twist the truth so you can sleep at night. All this for an orgasm. Heck most of the time you don't even get that . Sickening.

Kay says:
Tue, 1st Mar 201111:56 pm 

Fathers don't carry around a baby inside them for nine months. Fathers are people, but if a woman gets pregnant she has to deal with it regardless of whether the father is there or not. They are trying to take women's rights away- the woman carries the child, and she might not be able to make decisions about things that are happening to her own body.

avsecbostjan says:
Fri, 4th Mar 20119:10 pm 

OBAMA = STALIN = BUSH&USA = USSR….WHO, WHY, AND HOW RUINED YOU&FROM 911 TO AUSTRALIAN FLOODS ARIZONA SHOOTING WIKILEAKS is CIA – ESKIMO SARAH PALIN'S "BRIDGE TO NOWHERE" — LEARN ABOUT REAL HUMAN FLASH EATING MACHINE OR SO CALLED ECONOMY – BREAST FEEDING INSANITY — CIVIL RIOTS IN ARAB COUNTRIES – NEWS/MEDIA or simply CENSORSHIP AND BIG FAT WORLD OF LIES !!??? – NEW WORLD ORDER POLITICAL PARTIES(REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS) http://avsecbostjan.wordpress.com/ or http://avsecbostjan.blogspot.com/

janey says:
Fri, 4th Mar 20119:36 pm 

a collection of cells is not a child. a child is a human being not in the womb. and right now i know i could not afford a child. if i got knocked up by my husband, i should have the right to choose whether or not i want to go through with the pregnancy. and you can't stop people from having sex. it's always going to be a huge part of life. and yes, i get mine, every time.

mary says:
Sun, 6th Mar 20116:42 pm 

Life begins at conception! A woman has a right to her own body so why not take that right and get sterilized instead of killing innocent babies? Why does the children always have to suffer?

Horatio says:
Thu, 10th Mar 20119:28 pm 

but those who do care and take this information seriously shouldn't be punished for it.

let's scrap planned parenthood! tax breaks for big business!

america! FUCK YEAH

Dani says:
Sat, 19th Mar 201110:39 pm 

How much do you really care about life? What about people that are already born? People that are too poor to feed themselves or seek medical attention when needed? Because the same conservatives that are pro-life, were against "Obama Care." They force women to have babies, and then cast them off in the streets to fend for themselves afterwards. Leading to more poverty, crime and probably another unplanned pregnancy in 15-20 years when the first unwanted child gets pregnant.

And, as a vegan, I find it repulsive to see people care so much for undeveloped cells in a woman's body but show no concern for the daily suffering and murder of billions of farm animals a year. Why don't we worry about reducing the suffering of the people and animals already living?

Stefany says:
Wed, 14th Mar 20129:27 pm 

Pro-Choice, First, I’d like to tell you that I truly appreciate your vsintiig this site and taking the time to consider a view different than your own – that is something that many in today’s culture are reluctant to do, and I am very grateful for your willingness to engage in discussion. Although I do not believe WhyProLife.com is affiliated with any particular religious point of view, the questions you pose do hold merit. Personally, I actually am Christian and would be happy to explain what I believe. The first point you raise actually relates to a much broader question that we all find ourselves pondering at some point in our lives – “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and similarly,” Why would God allow these bad things to happen?” In order to gain an understanding of this of what initially may seem to be irreconcilable, you have decided that there must be a good reason why bad things happen. In this view, an abortion must have been in the divine plan and have a deeper meaning than we can see. However, I would like to offer you an alternative view, which is this: God is not responsible for the evil in this world, humanity is. The responsibility to end evil lies with us. There is a divine plan in this world. From the very beginning, God has possessed the ability to control all of his creation and knowledge of what all his creation will do. However, this does not mean that he will intervene and control all of what we do. If he would, then we would be nothing more than mere puppets and life would have very little purpose. What defines our lives the most is not what happens to us as much as how we choose to respond to whatever it is that happens to us – whatever circumstances we face. As long as we live on Earth, ours will always be an imperfect existence in which we will likely encounter some form of suffering or hardship on a daily basis. Bad things will happen. As a Christian, I feel it is my duty to be a force for good on this Earth, take an active role in trying to help others, and pray that I may one day be considered worthy to enter a realm that is perfect, heaven. While it has never been my approach to use yelling in arguing a point as a few others in this thread have (the volume at which a statement is made cannot be thought to bear impact on its legitimacy), I can understand the sense of urgency in their statements. I will try to respond point by point to your arguments to explain why. You mentioned that an unborn baby is not alive. The abortion industry used to be fairly effective in persuading people that this was indeed the case – to this day, they make every effort to refer to preborn babies as mere uterine contents, products of conception, blobs of tissue, and other similar terms. Instead of letting women know that abortion ends an innocent life, they try to describe it with euphemisms, such as “terminating a pregnancy.” However, the only problem with this is that the facts tell an entirely different story. For example, according to a 1985 Senate report, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” I would actually have to agree with the statement you made, which is that rights do not apply to a person who is not alive. However, this argument is not applicable to the discussion of the preborn, because science actually shows that preborn children are very much alive. There is a great deal of additional evidence I could give you that the preborn/unborn baby is human and alive –a preborn’s heart can start beating between 18-21 days after conception, development of organs begins during the fifth week of development, and the head and spinal column begin to form just a few weeks after that. However, all of these developmental facts are really beside the point. While they make the preborn’s personhood more apparent, the indisputable truth is that all of these preborn babies are at stages in life that is every bit as valid as any other stages in life. They may not yet be able to use their voice or be educated in the ways of the world, but they are just as alive as anyone else in the world. Whether a life is still inside the womb, several years from having been inside the womb, or many years from having been inside the womb, the individual deserves to have his or her life protected at every stage. You mentioned that a mother is not able to abort a child if the baby is only a month or two from its delivery date. While I wish this were true, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton actually allow a baby to be aborted at any point in the pregnancy, for any reason (or no reason). Approximately 98% of abortions may be categorized as convenience abortions, abortions due to rape are extremely rare, and (thanks to modern medicine) situations where a pregnancy must be ended to save the life of the mother are practically not existent – we have found ways to protect the mother’s well-being without endangering the life of the preborn baby. I believe you mentioned something along the lines of that abortion is ultimately the choice of the woman, because it is her body. In response to this, I would say that no one (neither men nor women) should have the ability to do whatever they want with their bodies. Please let me explain… One of the greatest minds in philosophy, J.S. Mill, published a book entitled On Liberty, in which he advocated several key principles for society. One of his key ideas is the harm principle, which holds that individuals may act as they wish, as long as these actions do not harm others. When they do, we must intervene and provide protection to whoever is the target of that harm. Also, because no one lives in isolation, even harm that is thought to be done exclusively to oneself often results in harm to others as well – immediate family members perhaps, but also the community, and we do have an obligation. This general philosophy might seem familiar; it underlies much of the legal framework we see in America today. We often hear the phrases “My Body, My Choice” and “Pro-Choice: the radical idea that women have control of their bodies” uttered by those who are in favor of abortion. However, what those who hold these signs don’t seem to be aware of is that the pro-life movement is not out to take away any of their rights, nor deprive them of any of their freedoms. All individuals, both men and women, have every right to exercise their freedom, but society always has an obligation to intervene when harm is being brought to another life. This is the case in all areas of society, not just abortion, and it holds true for men and women alike. Especially given the great damage that abortion does to women (let alone the unborn life), society has both a personal and public obligation to discourage abortion in whatever ways it can. This actually brings me to another argument you made – that an abortion is relatively painless for both the baby and mother and the mother can resume life as normal the very next day. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case for the mother or the preborn child being aborted. It has been found that a preborn baby is capable of feeling pain by as early as 8 weeks. Many abortion clinic employees have actually been shocked when they first see an ultrasound of an abortion procedure – they see babies doing everything in their power to move away from the abortion instruments, only to find nowhere escape. Despite the pro-abortion rhetoric, the reality is that abortion can be incredibly painful for the baby. As for the woman, her pain can come in a great variety of forms – immediate physical complications, long-term problems, and psychological/emotional trauma. The reason why these women suffer from these problems is not because they are stupid, but because the information regarding risks is suppressed, they are lied to about the facts regarding their pregnancy and the abortion procedure, and they are often pressured (nearly 2/3 of the time, according to surveys) into getting an abortion by others who do not necessarily have their best interests in mind. The list of painful consequences to abortion are far too numerous to mention here, but they include an increased risk of breast cancer, depression, an inability to have children, post-traumatic stress disorder, and various anxiety disorders to name a few. Many women also find themselves in deep emotional pain over their abortion for the rest of their lives. In fact, much of the core of the pro-life movement is post-abortive women who have learned firsthand of the hardship of abortion and have dedicated the rest of their lives to trying to prevent other women from making the same mistake. – Mike Y.