Some of Planned Parenthood's patients are poor and use the federally funded Medicaid as their insurance. Others use private insurance including plans they pay for which may have been purchased thru an ACA exchange. These are all different insurers. The federal money being discussed goes to pay for covered healthcare services thru Medcaid just as all other insurers pay for similar services at Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood cannot, by federal law (Hyde Amendment) submit claims for abortions, so that's how they come up with the phrase "...no tax dollars going to fund abortions...". However, these other services are the vast majority of PP's work and are routinely paid for by whatever the patient's insurance. What the conservatives in Congress are talking about is singling out one provider of women's health and trying to stop Medicaid from paying for legal services not covered by other insurance.
October 6, 2015 at 10:20 a.m.
I think America spoke loud and clear in 2008 and again in 2012 that we are no longer interested in the macho BS that suggests America is the "savior of the world". We have issues in America that have been neglected far too long (infrastructure, education funding, taxes and more) to be wasting more American treasure and lives doing the dirty work for others.
For instance, the countries surrounding the areas affected by the horrors of ISIS (Iraq, Iran, Suadi Arabia, Jordan, etal., have a combined military capability of nearly 5 millions troops. ISIS has roughly 50,000 or less. What's going on over there is first and foremost a regional sectarian issue. It's their issue to resolve. Trying to be the savior in this and many other situations is the height of American arrogance, folly and too often, failure. It is the region's problem.
We actually have to endure the spectacle of one GOP contender promoting the idea of sacrificing more American troops to kill off ISIS and then steal Iraqi oil as tribute. Could that be any more moronic? Is that what the savior of the world does? That's what a bully does. That's what colonialists do. That's what an arrogant nation would do. That is NOT what America does.
Our President was correct in his initial platform to reduce our dependence on war and emphasize peace and diplomacy instead. Americans were given a choice again in 2012 between one party that promotes war and one that promotes peace. America chooses peace.
September 17, 2015 at 7:20 p.m.
Solely because of the inappropriate religious zealotry and heretofore political influence of the Kim Davis' and the Teabaggers of the world trying to make America into a theocracy.
I'm done with this discussion. The issue of Kim Davis is settled. She lost and America won.
September 15, 2015 at 10:11 a.m.
You don't get to define the terms incorrectly and inappropriately and then take others to task based on those errors. A baby is a child born. Before then, particularly in its earliest stages, the organism is a fetus. A fetus, therefore, is not a baby. Babies are not aborted.
Regardless the terms, the Supreme Court ruled long ago that what a woman chooses to do with her body and her reproductive system are protected by her Constitutional right to privacy. A guaranteed Constitutional right. An abortion is a legal medical procedure, just as marriage is a legal contract. As has just been demonstrated by the Kim Davis affair and in your own words: the government (the US Constitution) has total control.. Neither is bound by the restrictive precepts of any one religion's beliefs. These are matters of the laws that form the foundation of our national belief in equality, our freedoms, liberties and responsibilities. These things are not matters of religious doctrine.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. In short, what other people do with their lives is not you or your religion's business.
Don't like guns? Don't own one. I have never owned a gun, never will and wish no one else ever did, but that's not what the Supreme Court has ruled. Individual gun ownership is a Constitutional right. It is equally a protected Constitutional right as is abortion and as is marriage. No more and no less. That's equality.
September 13, 2015 at 9:45 p.m.
HappyBob is referring to the completely faulty train of thought that thinks the government is picking on poor Ms. Davis. It's been covered in every detail in the above posts. It is quite clearly demonstrated that the issue is not Ms. Davis' religion because her religion is of no legal relevance---only the law. Please read the posts.
September 12, 2015 at 11:48 p.m.
Not sure what you're getting so worked up about. I agree that the Supreme Court would protect a Constititonal right and could thus invalidate a state law which sought to change or prohibit theat right. That's exactly what I stated in my post. The SCOTUS has jurisdiction to protect the basic Constitutional rights.
And so it is with marriage. No law passed by any state or inside any state Constitution which restricts the basic Constitutional right to marry can be held valid. The reasoning works exactly the same way. That's the ruling of the same Court--the exact same make up of Justices that in recent years affirmed the individual right to bear arms.
Sensible is correct about severability. Additionally, there is a legal portion of the Constitution that deals with every state recognizing certain actions taken wishing other states. I don't recall what it's called. Marriage is one of those things where every state, for instance, recognizes my marriage regardless where it was performed. The same is true with drivers' licenses and other issues. Since about 38 states had already recognized same-sex marriage and the Court sees marriage as a basic right it is important that the laws be consistent throughout the country. This too is the ultimate purview of the Constitution and therefore the Federal government and the SCOTUS. States don't get to make up all their own rules to codify discrimination and to deny people basic rights.
The fact that Ms. Davis was released confirms that A) this episode was NOT about Ms. Davis or her religion. The court order she defied was to have the clerk's office issue licenses. The clerk's office is a governmental agency, not a person. Mint exists and has the responsibility to issue licenses regardless of who the clerk is now or 10 years from now. Ms. Davis can't prevent the lawful issuance is licenses. Since the Court's order is being followed, it makes sense to release her. The questions what happens when she returns. But is now a fact that she pulled this stunt for her own purposes and dramatically overstepped her authority.
September 9, 2015 at 8:52 a.m.
Let's start with some history and context. With the upcoming 2004 election, the Ohio legislature (and Kentucky and a few other states) put an anti same-sex measure on the ballot to bring out social conservative voters to help re-elect GWBush.
They knew that as the law was written there was no restriction on same -sex couples marrying. If such a restriction had existed, the ballot measure and the law wouldn't have been necessary., would it? But, States cannot pass laws that impinge on the basic Constitutional rights of every citizen even if 100% of the people in that state backed the un-Constitutional change. So, when the SCOTUS ruled Kentucky's and Ohio anti same-sex marriage changes un-Constituional, the original laws were reinstated. In this case with no prohibition on same-sex couples. The answer to your question is that the governing laws are same laws that were in place before the un-Constititional action.
Here's another way to look at it. Imagine if a state were to pass an amendment to their state Constitution banning all guns. One can certainly imagine that the SCOTUS would declare such a law un-Constitutional and invalidate the state law because it too would violate a basic Constitutional right. Thus the state which passed that amendment would revert to their Constitution prior to the change.
And yes, the Supreme Court most certainly does have jurisdiction and is the final and authorative arbiter on this.
September 8, 2015 at 10:44 a.m.
The only FACT we know for certain is that if she wasn't a religious zealot deliberately defying a lawful court order to comply with a Supreme Court ruling she would have obeyed the law in the first place. Then she wouldn't be in jail. The court didn't compel her to engage in a same-sex relationship nor perform a same-sex wedding. Her job is like the ATM. It is to mindlessly issue marriage licenses. Her office is not a synagogue or a church or a temple. It is a public accommodation.
Not all religions share the same position as Ms. Davis has expressed, but Conservative Islam has doctrinal issues with same-sex marriage, too. If the clerk was a Muslim and refused to issue licenses because it offended her religion, one wonders how supportive Christians would be in solidarity. Had the Muslim or a Hindu done the same defying of a lawful order, they too be jailed. Religion is a choice like a hobby, an elective activity. It is not the law.
To suggest she's in jail because of her Christianity demonstrates that you either don't understand or don't much care for the way America works. Your desire to claim victimhood for her is just a deliberate lie. She did this to herself.
September 7, 2015 at 4:42 p.m.
The clerk in question doesn't work for a commercial enterprise. She was elected to her position. By KY law, she can only be removed by her resignation or through legislative action. Neither would appear to be in the immediate future-for now.
September 7, 2015 at 6:37 a.m.
Yawn! We all agree Jerry Sandusky is a bad person. Neither his actions nor those of Penn State have anything to do with the county clerk in KY refusing to obey the law. Changing the subject after having lost the issue so thoroughly only accentuates the fact that you've lost. Your Sandusky rant might make a good start for a new thread, but it nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
September 6, 2015 at 8:47 p.m.