------------
(This is another news article where nearly every paragraph consists of a single sentence. It's irritating to read. Paragraphs are supposed to consist of a statement of the concept and the systematic development of it.)
The battle over reproductive-health funding is heating up again in the state Legislature as Republican lawmakers attempt to remove federal funding for family-planning clinics.
On Monday, by a vote of 10-11, the House Appropriations committee rejected an amendment that would have reinstated $4.6 million in federal Title X funds for family-planning clinics. (This is somewhat oddly presented. First, the vote was 11-10, not 10-11. Second, Republicans had already removed funding. The amendment was to restore the funding, and that amendment failed.)
Title X funds support programs that provide family planning and preventative health services, such as screenings for breast and cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, for low-income and uninsured
individuals. (Obamacare covers STDs, as well as breast cancer and cervical cancer screening.)
Rep. Kimberly Dudik, D-Missoula, proposed the amendment, saying that the Health and Human Services subcommittee heard testimony that the funds were used in accordance with federal guidelines, which stipulate that the money can’t finance abortion. (This is kind of an empty assurance, since once an organization receives federal money, those funds are co-mingled in their budget. If the organization does perform abortions, there is no isolation of funds. It's a like saying you have a dollar in your pocket to buy a candy bar and a cookie, and someone gives you another dollar with the stipulation that it can't be spent on cookies. You put that dollar in your pocket, and go buy a candy bar and a cookie. So, did you use the first dollar to buy the cookie, or the second one?)
Montana pays nothing when Title X funds go to clinics. (Where did the money come from? Of course Montana pays! Montanans pay via their federal taxes!) But if those funds were eliminated, taxpayers could ultimately pay more because unplanned pregnancies and emergency room visits increase, Dudik said. (We have already seen that obamacare covers all those things. But notice the underlying assumption: Poor people might have babies, and if they do, we all have to pay for their support. So rather than let the lower class have babies, we should pay for them to not have them, either by contraception or by abortion. Either way, the country is better off by not having so many poor people.
The battle over reproductive-health funding is heating up again in the state Legislature as Republican lawmakers attempt to remove federal funding for family-planning clinics.
On Monday, by a vote of 10-11, the House Appropriations committee rejected an amendment that would have reinstated $4.6 million in federal Title X funds for family-planning clinics. (This is somewhat oddly presented. First, the vote was 11-10, not 10-11. Second, Republicans had already removed funding. The amendment was to restore the funding, and that amendment failed.)
Title X funds support programs that provide family planning and preventative health services, such as screenings for breast and cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, for low-income and uninsured
individuals. (Obamacare covers STDs, as well as breast cancer and cervical cancer screening.)
Rep. Kimberly Dudik, D-Missoula, proposed the amendment, saying that the Health and Human Services subcommittee heard testimony that the funds were used in accordance with federal guidelines, which stipulate that the money can’t finance abortion. (This is kind of an empty assurance, since once an organization receives federal money, those funds are co-mingled in their budget. If the organization does perform abortions, there is no isolation of funds. It's a like saying you have a dollar in your pocket to buy a candy bar and a cookie, and someone gives you another dollar with the stipulation that it can't be spent on cookies. You put that dollar in your pocket, and go buy a candy bar and a cookie. So, did you use the first dollar to buy the cookie, or the second one?)
Montana pays nothing when Title X funds go to clinics. (Where did the money come from? Of course Montana pays! Montanans pay via their federal taxes!) But if those funds were eliminated, taxpayers could ultimately pay more because unplanned pregnancies and emergency room visits increase, Dudik said. (We have already seen that obamacare covers all those things. But notice the underlying assumption: Poor people might have babies, and if they do, we all have to pay for their support. So rather than let the lower class have babies, we should pay for them to not have them, either by contraception or by abortion. Either way, the country is better off by not having so many poor people.
This is a variation of the eugenics advocated by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was convinced that blacks were inferior, so she advocated that the birth rate among black should be reduced as much as possible.)
“For every $1 spent on family planning now, it saves the state $4 down the road,” Dudik said.
Texas is scrambling to deal with negative consequences after its Legislature voted to cut Title X funding by two-thirds in 2011. Legislators there claimed they were defunding the abortion industry, but the shortfall
resulted in the loss of more than 50 family-planning clinics, according to the New York Times. (They say this like it's a bad thing.)
Now Texas legislators may spend $100 million of their general fund on family planning to head off estimates of 24,000 unplanned pregnancies that could cost taxpayers $273 million. (Notice once again the phrasing of this. It seems at first glance that there is some sort of legislation pending before the Texas legislature that will cost $100 million to implement. But that isn't true. What this actually is saying is that should there be 24,000 unplanned pregnancies that would have been stopped otherwise, and should the Texas legislature decide that it should provide services to these 24,000 people [all poor, of course], then that cost could amount to buku bucks.)
In Helena, HHS subcommittee chairman Ron Ehli, R-Hamilton, refused to support Dudik’s amendment because, like the Texas legislators, he doesn’t want money to go toward abortions.
On Feb. 22, Ehli spearheaded a subcommittee vote to cut all Title X funding from the Health and Human Services budget.
The proposal passed on a 4-2 party-line vote. Legislative fiscal analyst Lois Steinbeck said Montana has never received a penalty for a negative federal audit on its Title X money. If it had, the funding would
have been jeopardized.
Democrats argued that very few clinics offer abortions, and many aren’t equipped to do so. (So we have an admission that some of the funding goes to clinics that perform abortion. But more of these clinics also supply the "morning after" pill which prevents pregnancy post conception. And still more of these clinics provide referral services to abortionists. So clearly these funds are supporting the abortion industry in some fashion.) They claimed the GOP was using a hypothetical case to jeopardize low- to no-cost health care that 28,000 needy Montanans, including college students and single parents, depend on. ($4.6 million divided by 28,000 is $164.29 per person. This $164.29 is "critical." So how much "low-to-no-cost health care" does $164.29 buy. It's safe to say, not much...)
Rep. Bill McChesney, D-Miles City, said many of the people flocking to eastern Montana didn’t have high-paying oil jobs; they either aren’t hired or land minimum-wage jobs in the service industry.
“Where will they go without a health center?” McChesney said. “To the emergency room, which means our health insurance rates go up to pay for it.” (So all these people flocked to eastern Montana, got stuck either with a low wage job or no job, and Rep. McChesney thinks that the government needs to set up a health center? These people came of their own free will. They make their own choices in life, some good, some bad. But we need government to rush in and rescue them from their bad choices?
“For every $1 spent on family planning now, it saves the state $4 down the road,” Dudik said.
Texas is scrambling to deal with negative consequences after its Legislature voted to cut Title X funding by two-thirds in 2011. Legislators there claimed they were defunding the abortion industry, but the shortfall
resulted in the loss of more than 50 family-planning clinics, according to the New York Times. (They say this like it's a bad thing.)
Now Texas legislators may spend $100 million of their general fund on family planning to head off estimates of 24,000 unplanned pregnancies that could cost taxpayers $273 million. (Notice once again the phrasing of this. It seems at first glance that there is some sort of legislation pending before the Texas legislature that will cost $100 million to implement. But that isn't true. What this actually is saying is that should there be 24,000 unplanned pregnancies that would have been stopped otherwise, and should the Texas legislature decide that it should provide services to these 24,000 people [all poor, of course], then that cost could amount to buku bucks.)
In Helena, HHS subcommittee chairman Ron Ehli, R-Hamilton, refused to support Dudik’s amendment because, like the Texas legislators, he doesn’t want money to go toward abortions.
On Feb. 22, Ehli spearheaded a subcommittee vote to cut all Title X funding from the Health and Human Services budget.
The proposal passed on a 4-2 party-line vote. Legislative fiscal analyst Lois Steinbeck said Montana has never received a penalty for a negative federal audit on its Title X money. If it had, the funding would
have been jeopardized.
Democrats argued that very few clinics offer abortions, and many aren’t equipped to do so. (So we have an admission that some of the funding goes to clinics that perform abortion. But more of these clinics also supply the "morning after" pill which prevents pregnancy post conception. And still more of these clinics provide referral services to abortionists. So clearly these funds are supporting the abortion industry in some fashion.) They claimed the GOP was using a hypothetical case to jeopardize low- to no-cost health care that 28,000 needy Montanans, including college students and single parents, depend on. ($4.6 million divided by 28,000 is $164.29 per person. This $164.29 is "critical." So how much "low-to-no-cost health care" does $164.29 buy. It's safe to say, not much...)
Rep. Bill McChesney, D-Miles City, said many of the people flocking to eastern Montana didn’t have high-paying oil jobs; they either aren’t hired or land minimum-wage jobs in the service industry.
“Where will they go without a health center?” McChesney said. “To the emergency room, which means our health insurance rates go up to pay for it.” (So all these people flocked to eastern Montana, got stuck either with a low wage job or no job, and Rep. McChesney thinks that the government needs to set up a health center? These people came of their own free will. They make their own choices in life, some good, some bad. But we need government to rush in and rescue them from their bad choices?
The real question is, in communities that have government "health centers," can we asks what the emergency room utilization is? Is it safe to say that emergency rooms are overrun whether or not there is a government "health center?" Is it also safe to say that $164.29 won't make a bit of difference in this situation?"
Two Republicans, Reps. Steve Gibson, R-East Helena, and Rob Cook, R-Conrad, joined Democrats in supporting the amendment.
Bozeman’s Bridgercare clinic is one of two dozen across the state that receives Title X funding. Bridgercare director Mari Dominguez said Title X money allows the clinic to offer free services to about one-third of its
6,000 patients around the Gallatin Valley. (Bridgercare has already been discussed here.)
The money also helps the clinic offer contraceptives at a reduced price. If the price jumps to $70 for a monthly package of pills, Dominguez said, many women who may already have children could risk going without contraception. (And it;s vital that we keep poor people from having more children, of course. The only way that can happen is with contraception, which is also paid for with obamacare. Poor people just can't seem to do anything without government help. No wonder the Left want to keep them from procreating. They're apparently too stupid to do the right thing.)
“We’ve been emailing the GOP legislators because their argument is ideological,” Dominguez said. “Responsible government should make it easier for citizens to do the right thing.” (Yes, here we have it. "The right thing." Can you imagine? Someone has an idea of what the "right thing" is, and it's government's responsibility to make sure people do the "right thing." That's down right scary.)
In 2011, legislators eliminated all federal funding and almost $1 million in state funding for contraceptives. After the session was over, then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer negotiated with GOP leaders and restored Title X
funding.
Dominguez said she expects the same may happen this year.
Dominguez was concerned that the GOP is blocking Title X for use as a bargaining chip in future legislative negotiations.
Rep. Tom Woods, D-Bozeman, said Democrats have a few more opportunities to restore Title X funding before the budget reaches the governor’s desk.
“We’ll pursue all that we can,” Woods said.
Laura Lundquist can be reached at 582-2638 or llundquist@dailychronicle.com
Two Republicans, Reps. Steve Gibson, R-East Helena, and Rob Cook, R-Conrad, joined Democrats in supporting the amendment.
Bozeman’s Bridgercare clinic is one of two dozen across the state that receives Title X funding. Bridgercare director Mari Dominguez said Title X money allows the clinic to offer free services to about one-third of its
6,000 patients around the Gallatin Valley. (Bridgercare has already been discussed here.)
The money also helps the clinic offer contraceptives at a reduced price. If the price jumps to $70 for a monthly package of pills, Dominguez said, many women who may already have children could risk going without contraception. (And it;s vital that we keep poor people from having more children, of course. The only way that can happen is with contraception, which is also paid for with obamacare. Poor people just can't seem to do anything without government help. No wonder the Left want to keep them from procreating. They're apparently too stupid to do the right thing.)
“We’ve been emailing the GOP legislators because their argument is ideological,” Dominguez said. “Responsible government should make it easier for citizens to do the right thing.” (Yes, here we have it. "The right thing." Can you imagine? Someone has an idea of what the "right thing" is, and it's government's responsibility to make sure people do the "right thing." That's down right scary.)
In 2011, legislators eliminated all federal funding and almost $1 million in state funding for contraceptives. After the session was over, then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer negotiated with GOP leaders and restored Title X
funding.
Dominguez said she expects the same may happen this year.
Dominguez was concerned that the GOP is blocking Title X for use as a bargaining chip in future legislative negotiations.
Rep. Tom Woods, D-Bozeman, said Democrats have a few more opportunities to restore Title X funding before the budget reaches the governor’s desk.
“We’ll pursue all that we can,” Woods said.
Laura Lundquist can be reached at 582-2638 or llundquist@dailychronicle.com
No comments:
Post a Comment