Aug 21, 2012
Print This Post
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that Texas can cut off funding for Planned Parenthood clinics that provide health services to low-income women before a trial over a new law that bans state money from going to organizations tied to abortion providers.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted a federal judge’s temporary injunction that called for the funding to continue pending an October trial on Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the law.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE.
State officials sought to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood clinics that provide family planning and health services to poor women as part of the Texas Women’s Health Program after the state’s Republican-led Legislature passed a law banning funds to organizations linked to abortion providers. No state money goes to pay for abortions.
The appeal’s court decision means Texas is now free to enforce its ban on clinics affiliated with abortion providers. Planned Parenthood provides cancer screenings and other services — but not abortions — to about half of the 130,000 low-income Texas women enrolled in the program, which is designed to provide services to women who might not otherwise qualify for Medicaid.
The ruling is the latest in the ongoing fight over Texas’ efforts to halt funding to clinics affiliated with abortion providers. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said that the new state rule violates federal law. Federal funds paid for 90 percent, or about $35 million, of the $40 million Women’s Health Program until the new rule went into effect. Federal officials are now phasing out support for the program.
Gov. Rick Perry has promised that Texas will make up for the loss of federal funds to keep the program going without Planned Parenthood’s involvement. State officials have said ending the program would result in more unplanned pregnancies that would cost the state much more than self-financing the program.
In a statement, Perry called Tuesday’s ruling “a win for Texas women, our rule of law and our state’s priority to protect life.”
“Texas will continue providing important health services for women through this program in spite of the Obama Administration’s disregard for our state law and unilateral decision to defund this program,” the governor said.
Pro-life groups praised the court ruling.
“So far, President Obama has been able to rely only upon his executive office and the courts in order to force taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood against the will of state legislators,” said Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. ”Ignoring grassroots is a losing game.”
Dannenfelser said states like Texas should have the right to prioritize their health care funding — especially in the middle of a financial crisis.
“The Fifth Circuit court and, we believe, others will reveal this further. Abortion-centered organizations like Planned Parenthood do not deserve taxpayer dollars,” she said.
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
No more blood money for "Damned Parenthood".
This is the state where there was PROVEN to be an execution of an innocent man (Carlos DeLuna) and almost certainly another (Todd Willingham) by the "Pro Life" legislators who run the state's deeply flawed and incompetent "justice" system.
This is the same state where the disastrous religious-based policy of "Abstinence Only" was first instituted under Bush. The result? A HUGE spiking of teen pregnancy rates, and sexually-transmitted disease rates went through the roof. Score one more against Texas's religious-based policies.
This is the state too, that changed the country's schoolbooks to push a false, revisionist tone of history, minimizing the role of Thomas Jefferson, twisting the history of the Separation of Church and State, and that claimed that McCarthyism had been "vindicated" somehow.
Witness life in Texas–the first example of a Christo-fascist terrorist state. When fundamentalist theocracy comes marching into America, it will look a lot like life in Texas.
I don't live in USA, so I don't know about these man who were executed are going to be. But I can at least talk about the abstinence. The abstence is the BEST way to avoid pregnancy and STD. The thing is teenagers these days think with their waists and not with their brain. Condoms can break, pills can malfunction and the medication can bring some health issues to some people. Besides, I don't know in which world you live in, but even in schools were people are taught to use condoms, teenagers and even adults still have sex without it. Why? Because people are stupid and would rather have 5 minutes of pleasure than think of the consequences of their actions.
Before you speak ill of abstinence google about a country called Uganda in Africa and their fight against AIDS using abstinence.
I'm 23, I'm virgin and I'm proud of it.
Forgive me for my grammar, English is my second language.
Eduardo, I would agree in principle that abstinence, as a PERSONAL choice, is quite naturally "the BEST way to avoid pregnancy and STD". That's just common sense. Don't have sex, you don't get pregnant or get an STD. If you or anyone else wants to avoid the beauty and thrill of sex, that's your personal choice. But that's not what I"m talking about here.
""Abstinence Only" as a POLICY was an absolute DISASTER. It was based on ideology, NOT facts, NOT Science. It relied upon FEAR as a motivator to scare kids into not having sex, but pushed false information. Kids were told that condoms just DID NOT WORK. (Which is false, of course) They were given misinformation about sexual diseases and pregnancy.
The result was that kids who went through Abstinence Only programs were found to only have put off sexual activity by an average of ONE YEAR. It seems that "Sex" is so powerful and natural an act between two people that you just really can't "scare" people out of doing it? But here's where the REAL disaster happened–when kids went to have sex, they just didn't use condoms at ALL, because they had been taught that they "didn't work anyway"!
Because kids were never told anything, basically, except false information, a lot of kids thought that "pulling out" was an effective way to stop pregnancy, and that oral and anal sex was an acceptable substitute without any risks! SO STD rates, even AIDS rates rose like crazy, and pregnancy rates went way up.
And you know what's the biggest crime? That even with all this data, Abstinence Only programs are STILL being funded, and STILL hurting our children and keeping them ignorant of the FACTS!
"Sex" is a strong feeling, yes. But it's not something that can't be controlled. All desires can be held back and nullified. i'll give you one example. I'm a chocolohlic. I love sweets, but diabetes appeared (don't know if that's the actual term) in me in 2009. Now I don't eat sugar because I know that doing so has a big consequence (yes, I know my life style wasn't exactly healthy, but I at least used to do exercises to burn of the extra callories and my blood tests were quite good, actually) . Nothing prevents me from eating sugar. If the desire to eat sugar were to command me I would eat sugar irregardless of the consequences (just like teenagers who have sex despite of the SEVERAL consequences). What hurts children is their stupidity and their lack of will, not the policy.
I do think abstinence should be encouraged.
Condoms, as you said, aren't as fragile as some propaganda say. Yes, using comdom during sex can prevent STDs and preganancy. But as I also said, they are not perfect. A policy that encourages people to have sex increase the number of people who use sex and supposing that everyone there used a condom, it would also increase the chance of someone buying a deffective condom and the ones who get thje deffective product…well you know the rest.
A condom-based policy is pretty much saying: "Go have sex and use protection. But some of you will have the bad luck of having a bad product. There'll be few of you who'll suffer, but sucks to be you."
"Sex" is a strong feeling, yes. But it's not something that can't be controlled. All desires can be held back and nullified. i'll give you one example. I'm a chocolohlic. I love sweets, but diabetes appeared (don't know if that's the actual term) in me in 2009. Now I don't eat sugar because I know that doing so has a big consequence (yes, I know my life style wasn't exactly healthy, but I at least used to do exercises to burn of the extra callories and my blood tests were quite good, actually) . Nothing prevents me from eating sugar. If the desire to eat sugar were to command me I would eat sugar irregardless of the consequences (just like teenagers who have sex despite of the SEVERAL consequences). What hurts children is their stupidity and their lack of will, not the policy.
I do think abstinence should be encouraged.
Condoms, as you said, aren't as fragile as some propaganda say. Yes, using comdom during sex can prevent STDs and preganancy. But as I also said, they are not perfect. A policy that encourages people to have sex increase the number of people who use sex and supposing that everyone there used a condom, it would also increase the chance of someone buying a deffective condom and the ones who get thje deffective product…well you know the rest.
A condom-based policy is pretty much saying: "Go have sex and use protection. But some of you will have the bad luck of having a bad product. There'll be few of you who'll suffer, but sucks to be you."
"Sex" is a strong feeling, yes. But it's not something that can't be controlled. All desires can be held back and nullified. i'll give you one example. I'm a chocolohlic. I love sweets, but diabetes appeared (don't know if that's the actual term) in me in 2009. Now I don't eat sugar because I know that doing so has a big consequence (yes, I know my life style wasn't exactly healthy, but I at least used to do exercises to burn of the extra callories and my blood tests were quite good, actually) . Nothing prevents me from eating sugar. If the desire to eat sugar were to command me I would eat sugar irregardless of the consequences (just like teenagers who have sex despite of the SEVERAL consequences). What hurts children is their stupidity and their lack of will, not the policy.
I do think abstinence should be encouraged.
Condoms, as you said, aren't as fragile as some propaganda say. Yes, using comdom during sex can prevent STDs and preganancy. But as I also said, they are not perfect. A policy that encourages people to have sex increase the number of people who use sex and supposing that everyone there used a condom, it would also increase the chance of someone buying a deffective condom and the ones who get thje deffective product…well you know the rest.
A condom-based policy is pretty much saying: "Go have sex and use protection. But some of you will have the bad luck of having a bad product. There'll be few of you who'll suffer, but sucks to be you."
Eduardo, I agree with much of what you say, in principle, but you have to understand that we are dealing with–in many cases—YOUNG teens and even PRE-teens, who are not even being given the proper information at ALL about the scientific facts of pregnancy and STDs, but are instead being deliberately given WRONG information with the misguided belief that if they are scared enough, they won't have sex. Well, THAT didn't work!
We have to realize that while it's admirable and worthy to encourage teens NOT to have sex, sex is NOT like diabetes and sugar; that is, it's NOT inherently dangerous of unhealthy; in fact, I would argue that its necessary for a healthy relationship and psychological health. Science also shows that sex is a vital and necessary, beneficial physical aspect of our lives that improves not only psychological, but physical health as well. We need to stop looking at sex as some "sinful" bugaboo.
As I said, however, while it's admirable and worthy to encourage teens NOT to have sex, there are those whom we cannot reach, and who WILL, despite all our best efforts, have sex. All in all, when Johnny and Mary are in the backseat, I'd rather them have access and knowledge about condoms than NOT. But that's not what the "AO" POLICY did.
Also, I strongly disagree with you that giving access and knowledge about condoms is tantamount to giving some "green light" to have sex. You might as well argue that telling kids that beer has less alcohol content than liquor is somehow encouraging them to drink. That's just not true.
Sex is indeed different from diabetes. When I said sex could be unhealthy I was talking about the risk of pregnancy and STD. Sex by sex itself isn't exactly dangerous as you said. I know this is my faith talking now, but sex is encouraged. Between married people.
My view on sex, however goes a bit beyond the religous aspect of it. For me if a couple (wheter it's a teen or adult) see sex as the foundation for their relationship then its very wrong and this said relationship is doomed to fail at the end. People should seek to enjoy other's company without the need of humping on each other.
I honestly don't know exactly what the teens were told about condoms in USA, but as far as I know about condoms they work well many times. I had a sex ed teahcer (here in Brazil) who said to us "It's better for you people to not have sex (because of some of the stuff I already explained). But if you decide to do shit at least do it protected, so use a condom otherwise you'll be very sorrry (also explained about pregnancy and STD)". I agree with this view of his. the MAIN goal should be encourage the teens to not have sex, but they should be told how to prevent damaging lives in case they decide to go against it.
As for the alchool thing, I have to disagree. Both have alchoo (beer and licor). And even if one have less achool than the other, people have different tolerance to it. I've seen people getting drunk with just one can of beer.
personally, I'm against alchool, tabaco and other form of drugs (this view has nothing to do with religion, by the way. this is just my personal feelings towards it). I'm against alchool and drugs because they alter people's judgment, peronsality and actions that lead to horrible events. As for Tabacco, it's because not only the person who is smoking can have cancer, but the smoke can contaminate others too. But I've read about the "dry" law in USA and a few years ago we also had a "Light" dry law (which was just related to drinking before driving). Both didn't work well and had a huge backlash, sadly.
By the way, I admit that my view on sex is somewhat a romantic view. Since sex should be an expression of love and the moment when two become one. But, as I said, this is the idealistic aspect of it.
I'm all about Romance, Eduardo. I agree with you on that aspect of it!
LOL. My entire comment was deleted for some reason. Facebook comments usally do this. I almost raged once when I was trying to comment on a funny picture at 9gag.com and my comment refused to appear on it. Looks like facebook likes to eat words.
But I'll sum up what I said, I had a sex ed teacher that explained to us that the most important thing was to remain in abstinence, but in case we decided to do shit (he said this part jokingly) we should wear a condom to prevent crap from happening." He also explained how to put a condom and also explained about STDs and pregnancy.
I kinda agree on this because abstinence is the best option and should be encouraged, but in case people deicde to ignore it, at least they should minimize the damage by using condoms.
LOL. My entire comment was deleted for some reason. Facebook comments usally do this. I almost raged once when I was trying to comment on a funny picture at 9gag.com and my comment refused to appear on it. Looks like facebook likes to eat words.
I'll sum up what I said, I had a sex ed teacher that explained to us that the most important thing was to remain in abstinence, but in case we decided to do shit (he said this part jokingly) we should wear a condom to prevent crap from happening." He also explained how to put a condom and also explained about STDs and pregnancy.
I kinda agree on this because abstinence is the best option and should be encouraged, but in case people deicde to ignore it, at least they should minimize the damage by using condoms.
I'll sum up what I said, I had a sex ed teacher that explained to us that the most important thing was to remain in abstinence, but in case we decided to do shit (he said this part jokingly) we should wear a condom to prevent crap from happening." He also explained how to put a condom and also explained about STDs and pregnancy.
I kinda agree on this because abstinence is the best option and should be encouraged, but in case people deicde to ignore it, at least they should minimize the damage by using condoms.
I'm slicing my comments because facebook keeps eating what I say.
XD
We are in agreement then, Eduardo! Thank you for the civil conversation and for sharing your point of view!
I had a sex ed teacher that explained to us that the most important thing was to remain in abstinence, but in case we decided to do shit (he said this part jokingly) we should wear a condom to prevent crap from happening." He also explained how to put a condom and also explained about STDs and pregnancy.
Heres a question…. if Obamacare requires everyone to have insurance than why do we need to fund planned parenthood with any money any more? Won't they be covered under their new insurance required by Obamacare? Why not dump that same money into Obamacare so it can benefit everyone if its such a great idea… specially when Obamacare says all insurance must cover free B/C and exams….