Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill banning abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving money through the state, her office said in a statement.

The Republican-backed Whole Woman's Health Funding Priority Act cuts off funding for family planning and health services delivered by Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations offering abortions.

"By signing this measure into law I stand with the majority of Americans who oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion," Brewer said in a statement.

Arizona joins six other states with similar laws, officials said. But three of those states — Indiana, Kansas and North Carolina — are facing legal challenges.

Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion, but backers said the law is needed to make sure that no indirect monies are funneled to organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion and other health services. There were no estimates of how much money is involved.

But officials at Planned Parenthood Arizona, the state's largest abortion provider, said the law means that thousands of women in the state may now go without life-saving cancer screenings, birth control and basic health care.

"We are most concerned about the women and men who could be forced to go without health care as a result of this bill," Bryan Howard, Planned Parenthood Arizona's president and CEO, said in a prepared statement.

"We remain committed to providing Arizona communities with the professional, nonjudgmental and confidential health care they have relied on for 78 years," Howard said.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List called the bill a "major victory" in its fight to bar funding of abortion providers.

"Abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood do not need or deserve taxpayer dollars," Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for the organization, said in a written statement.

While Planned Parenthood suffered a setback in Arizona, it won a temporary battle in court on Friday with Texas. A federal appeals court ruled that the organization could participate in a health program for low-income women in Texas, despite a new state rule there that bans affiliates of abortion providers.

Not sure how I feel about this one. I'm okay with birth control being covered by health care insurance/providers. Better not to have more children born to those who don't want them or can't care for them properly; that's much more costly to the public.

However, while I completely support a woman's right to choose, I'm not sure that I want my tax dollars paying for abortions except in cases of non-consensual sex resulting in pregnancy. If a woman chooses to have sex without using birth control and gets pregnant, it's her responsibility, not mine. Having said that, if the pregnancy is unwanted and the woman has no means to support the child and can't afford an abortion, we're back to more neglected children and more tax payer dollars going towards that problem for a much longer duration than simply funding the abortion. Torn.

Planned parenthood does much more than facilitate abortions and some of their programs merit tax-payer funding, imo, regardless of the abortion issue. Too bad it's all nothing for some states. Wish they could fund some of the health and preventative services at least, and then simply audit periodically to ensure that the tax payer funds were used as intended.

It's just a fucking red herring imo. Abortion services are pretty low on the rung, it's just the fact that that's part of the services. Planned Parenthood's been demonized by the left forever. All that money getting cut off hurts the women in that state.

(05-05-2012, 02:23 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: It's just a fucking red herring imo. Abortion services are pretty low on the rung, it's just the fact that that's part of the services. Planned Parenthood's been demonized by the left forever. All that money getting cut off hurts the women in that state.

Fucking liberal bullshit. Women who utilize abortion by choice need to pay for that shit themselves.

There should never be a single dollar of tax money collected by the state spent on this shit.

The lack of personal responsibility hurts the whole nation.

Don't bring your fucked up bullshit to me to fix.

Not all of course but it's usually a certain "class" of women who utilize Planned Parenthood, these are the same women who left on their own will breed like bunnies and that money will be spent on welfare for her and all her little bastards. I say nip it in the bud, I don't care if my taxes go for abortion.

(05-05-2012, 02:52 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Not all of course but it's usually a certain "class" of women who utilize Planned Parenthood, these are the same women who left on their own will breed like bunnies and that money will be spent on welfare for her and all her little bastards. I say nip it in the bud, I don't care if my taxes go for abortion.

Ok let's explore that, how do you compel these stupid bitches to have abortions instead of getting 450.00 a month raise on their welfare?

If you can guarantee that women will have to have abortions rather than having the baby and us tax payers get a say in the decision based on how many kids they already have,their ability to support the new baby,and their abilities as a parent, I say go for it spend the tax dollars.

But if any one of those is out then I say fuck it, if they want an abortion let them pay for it themselves.

I understand your point, Dick, I wasn't being argumentative with you. You know I wish I could have all the undeserving people spayed & neutered.

(05-05-2012, 03:14 PM)IMaDick Wrote:

(05-05-2012, 02:52 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Not all of course but it's usually a certain "class" of women who utilize Planned Parenthood, these are the same women who left on their own will breed like bunnies and that money will be spent on welfare for her and all her little bastards. I say nip it in the bud, I don't care if my taxes go for abortion.

Ok let's explore that, how do you compel these stupid bitches to have abortions instead of getting 450.00 a month raise on their welfare?

If you can guarantee that women will have to have abortions rather than having the baby and us tax payers get a say in the decision based on how many kids they already have,their ability to support the new baby,and their abilities as a parent, I say go for it spend the tax dollars.

But if any one of those is out then I say fuck it, if they want an abortion let them pay for it themselves.

Dick, you are talking about two different groups of women, imo. The women who use Planned Parenthood for birth control, female testing, and abortions are not the welfare mothers who breed for cash (probably some small intersection using PP for different services, but largely two different groups, I surmise).

Cash breeders choose to have children, as you noted, to get government funding on a per per-child basis. It's their income. Cash breeders aren't aren't interested in birth control and abortion. If PP tax funding is cut altogether, SOME of those that don't have the ability to get the birth control and abortion services that they now get from PP will likely transition to the category of being mothers who require tax funding to take care of their children; they will become cash breeders/welfare mothers.

So, while cutting abortion and birth control services may reduce the short term tax cost for for "birth related" government assistance in the the "preventative" category, it will almost certainly push some segment of PP users into the welfare mother category thereby increasing the TOTAL cost of funding birth related services (or "low income" family services) to the tax payer for a much longer duration, imo.

Women are women are women.

I don't seperate them into groups, that is really counter productive since the laws R v W does not have any such boundaries within it's text.

This is the law that made PPH what it is and what sustains it with tax dollars.

(05-05-2012, 04:24 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Women are women are women.

No, they are not.

(05-05-2012, 04:28 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-05-2012, 04:24 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Women are women are women.

No, they are not.

According to the law they are.

although my personal experience has been that some are women, some are Ladies and some are sluts, none of which we men can live without.

(05-05-2012, 02:43 PM)IMaDick Wrote:

(05-05-2012, 02:23 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: It's just a fucking red herring imo. Abortion services are pretty low on the rung, it's just the fact that that's part of the services. Planned Parenthood's been demonized by the left forever. All that money getting cut off hurts the women in that state.

Fucking liberal bullshit. Women who utilize abortion by choice need to pay for that shit themselves.

There should never be a single dollar of tax money collected by the state spent on this shit.

The lack of personal responsibility hurts the whole nation.

Don't bring your fucked up bullshit to me to fix.

Yeah and if you need any other service besides that, you're fucked. Get real. And it isn't up to you to determine what's moral or isn't. Tax dollars for public health in a democracy is messy, like it or not.

I do agree that abortion as birth control is just wrong, but that isn't what many abortions are about unfortunately. When you can insure as a man that a woman CANNOT get pregnant as a result of your coming inside her, then you can make that determination. Otherwise, too bad you don't agree.

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

• Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.

• Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order.[18] About 20% of abortion patients report using Medicaid to pay for abortions[6] (virtually all in states where abortion services are paid for with state dollars).[19]

• In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[20]

(05-05-2012, 04:50 PM)Ma Huang Sor Wrote: Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control

That surprises me. I would have thought it would be much, MUCH higher.

Most women are responsible. If men could get pregnant we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Personal responsibility wins just as I said it would.

ethnicity,finacial status and age are not road blocks to personal responsibility.

I see in your anger you left out the number of abortions that were performed for the same time period.

And what the cost was to the tax payer.

Federally mandated court ordered abortions are an abuse of power and an undermining of states rights.

What the hell is a "federally mandated court ordered abortion"?

Quote:I see in your anger you left out the number of abortions that were performed for the same time period.

Here y'go d00der.

Number on the left is per 1000 women

2% of women who can get pregnant (technically this sampling is 16 to 44) overall are having abortions.

Your beef is what exactly, that we can't afford to take care of 2 percent of our women?

Quote: • Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order.[18] About 20% of abortion patients report using Medicaid to pay for abortions[6] (virtually all in states where abortion services are paid for with state dollars).[19]

That's the problem with copy and paste intelligence you would had to have read the information to know what the fuck you just posted.