Archive for Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Kansas ordered to resume funding Planned Parenthood

August 30, 2011


— A federal judge has ordered Kansas to resume funding Planned Parenthood on the same quarterly schedule that existed before a new state law stripped it of all federal funding for non-abortion services.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten on Tuesday rejected the state's request that it pay Planned Parenthood monthly and only for services provided while it appeals his Aug. 1 injunction blocking the law.

Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Western Missouri said last week it would stop providing medical services Friday at its clinic in Hays unless it were told it would soon receive the money. Friday would also have been last day the organization offered a sliding fee scale for low-income patients at its Wichita clinic.


Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years ago

Things are not boding well for the facist Republicans in Kansas. In Germany in 1939 or thereabouts the Nazis managed to gain control of the courts and dictate what was to be considered as justice and law. Wonder what is holding it up here?

overthemoon 5 years ago

Um...are you not familiar with the Roberts Supreme Court? And the hundreds of Obama appointees to lower courts that are being held up by the GOP congress?

ljwhirled 5 years ago

When you go Nazi, you lose.

Try keeping the rhetoric to a medium roar and someone might listen to you.

CreatureComforts 5 years ago

As a Jew, I'm always absolutely in awe when people on here compare the current Kansas administration to that of Nazism in 30s and 40s Europe. Amazing and disgusting at the same time.

fancy80 5 years ago

As well you should be, but unfortunately, they will have some justification for it. These posters are the biggest bunch of whiny crybabies and they should know better than to compare this to what happened in Germany. Of course, I will probably be called a tea bagging, red necked, right wing terrorist for posting this.

thebigspoon 5 years ago

Well, Sam, looks as if you are going to have to start following the law of man rather than make up your own "faith-based initiatives". Your days of kicking the law around are numbered, big boy, and you'd better start looking for another line of work. I hear the Kochs are going to need a lawyer, so maybe you can go screw their organization up as you are the state of Kansas.

Cai 5 years ago

Oh, if only I believed that . . . .

ljwhirled 5 years ago

I am sure Mr. Brownback would practice law in the same thoughtful and even handed manner as Phil Kline.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Maybe he can go join Phill Kline at Miskatonic U. (Oh excuse me! Liberty U. !)

notanota 5 years ago

+1 for working in a Lovecraft reference.

riverdrifter 5 years ago

My God, H P Lovecrafters around here?! Well, rats in the walls!

cowboy 5 years ago

abortions are legal in the United States Coach , if you don't like it move to Afgahsnistan, you'd fit in with the Taliban quite well.

bagzlady 5 years ago

Who voted for this jerk in the first place. I know that I did not vote for him. He's a menace.

Alexander Smith 5 years ago

All the MORON Republicans who live 50 years in the past I believe that conservatism will save the world... a world in which these same people vote to have our production sent overseas to third world countries so they can have more stuff for cheaper. Here is the difference between the two parites.

Republicans - Hide the problems - give breaks to big business and rich - seperation of church and state but yet church is controlling their actions - screw the masses for some arrogant ideology -Finally for them its "I" the people of the United State of America

Democrats - Expose the problem - support the masses that support the industry - regulate the corrupt industries (as proven in the bailout) because the greed of the stock holders and upper management and rich - seperate chruch and state but let the church be a sounding board for what might be right but yet not control us - Finally for them its "WE" the people of the United States.

Armen Kurdian 5 years ago

Nice emotional diatribe, but here's some realism.

Point 1: Why is production headed overseas? Because it's too damn expensive to build anything here, thanx to over-regulation, ever increasing benefits, labor unions etc. What do you think happend to the steel mills, television industry, and the pineapple plantations in Hawaii?

Point 2: Who hires people for jobs? Business does, big & small. Oh you love to denigrate big business, but if govt were to stop squandering trillions on giveaways that do nothing to stimulate the economy, and let that money stay in private hands, that is the best stimulus I can think of. Look at the $800B stimulus bill that was supposed to reduce unemployment. A big nothing. A bunch of temporary jobs that have gone away, and almost $300B was simple transfer payments to the states, effectively turning state debt into federal debt.

Point 3: Democrats want to raise taxes during a slow economic period. Democrats want to keep borrowing massive amounts of money in the guise of jobs creation. Give the economy some clarity, let entrepreneurs and businesses large & small understand that govt is going to get out of the way, tell them we're going to ease the burdens on you, now go out & hire.

I challenge a rational response.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Point 1-- The benefits and the regulations had very positive effects for many decades, improving the lives of nearly all Americans. But the businesses you so worship saw that they could increase their profits by killing jobs here and sending them overseas, where people live grim existences because businesses are unregulated, allowing them to pollute with impunity and run factories with dangerous working conditions. Your solution-- join the race to the bottom.

Point 2-- Government jobs are just as real as those in the private sector. You may not like the way they are funded, but that's a different argument. And the stimulus bill did, in fact, reduce unemployment. And cuts to payments to states led to 100,000 people losing their jobs. Again, you may not like those jobs for ideological reasons, but they were real jobs that people got real paychecks for, and the money the spent was just as real as anyone else's.

Point 3-- Republicans couldn't care less about deficits-- they just want to make sure they benefit the wealthy, not the working and middle classes.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years ago

Since when is the taxpayer "Required" to fund a non-profit organization, any of them?

ebyrdstarr 5 years ago

It isn't "required" but the federal government does provide this money for family planning services. The question here is whether the state can make its own decisions about distribution of the funds instead of following the feds'.

ljwhirled 5 years ago

I like the trailing apostrophe. It took me a minute to get it, but it really works here.

It isn't too often that folks use the possessive of "feds" correctly. Nice work.

Armen Kurdian 5 years ago

I was just about to say that. The federal government has no business telling a state that is has to fund a non-governmental organization. The only valid reason I can think of is if there were some pre-existing legal contract between the state & the organization or other agreement.

jafs 5 years ago

Which there is in fact, between the state of KS and PP.

And, if the money is federal money, then the federal government has every right in the world to tell the states how it should be spent.

Which it is.

13Nate13 5 years ago

there is no current contract between the two. The federal government could have told them how to spend it when it gave them the money but it didn't. They simply told them the kind of services the state was supposed to pay for and did not specify any specific organizations.

jafs 4 years, 12 months ago

I'd have to look it up, but according to a story I read just the other day, the state has a 25 year contract with PP that hasn't concluded yet. Do you have a link/source?

And, the question there is whether the state can arbitrarily cut PP out of the funding from the feds - according to the judge they can't.

We'll see what happens on appeal, etc.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Just out of curiosity, who will get the cuffs slapped on them for contempt of court if they keep refusing to make the payment?

Jeff Barclay 5 years ago

Everyone realizes we are talking about taking the life of an unborn child correct?

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

No we aren't. Neither clinic provides abortion services. The only clinic in Kansas that does receives no government money from the state or the feds.

Alexander Smith 5 years ago

Yes we do and after various reseach, Pro Choice are more Pro Life then most Pro-Life people. The big diffrence is Pro-Life people try to dictate personal beliefs and control over another persons body. Pro-Choice, as much as we hate the thought of killing a life, its not our position to take away a persons RIGHT to their own body. They are the ones that have to deal with the consiquences. Another way to look at is what would you say if the Governement came in and took away your right to freedom of speech?? OR take away your home because THEY know how you should live? Its wrong to take a life but it is all wrong to bring in draconic rule and dictate the lifes of others that you could care less about.

Pastor_Bedtime 5 years ago

Nope. We're talking about control-freak religious zealots who can't even keep their own house clean.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Considering that the clinic that may be closed and the other clinic that will have it's services cut provide cancer screenings, mammograms and prenatal care, you just may be right, Barclay. We could be talking about the lives of unborn babies as well as the lives of adult women. But then I don't think that was what you were thinking when you said it, now was it?

notanota 5 years ago

Yes. We're talking about the lives of those unborn children who will be jeopardized because the state doesn't see fit to fund the places offering women's healthcare to poor people. Neither clinic offers abortions.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Brownback marches onward in p***ing off his base. Hays' clinic is teetering on the edge of closure along with Fort Scott's and Pratt's SRS offices. Who's next in his gunsights? Chanute? Salina? Lessee, so far he's covered the NE, the SE, south central, and west. That means that Garden City is next and I'll bet it will be illegal immigration. What will Tyson doooooo without it's $1.00/hour employees?

lucky_guy 5 years ago

Tyson gets Somalians for nearly free. We should send the National Geographic to Garden City to film the Somali's they don't need to go all the way to Africa to see them when they can see them here, and just as poor.

somedude20 5 years ago

"There is not enough love and kindness in the world to give any of it away to imaginary beings." - Nietzsche

Take that to heart (i kid Brownie, I know you do not have one) I wonder why he hates women so much!! Boo hiss Brownback, Boo hiss

Kellee Pratt 5 years ago

cait48- thanks for bringing to light some actual facts to this conversation. Barclay's response indicates how many do not understand the frightening truth of what's going on in Kansas and within the Brownback doctrine. btw, LOVE the Irish harp symbol.

lawslady 5 years ago

Dominion theology. Google it. It helps explain the steady march towards a theocracy form of government in the US.

Pastor_Bedtime 5 years ago

Well this citizen will be one of those who refuses to be marched off to the soon-to-be Jeezus Reeducation Centers. You hold no dominion over me, Christians. And if you want a culture war you may be surprised how thin your flocks actually are.

verity 5 years ago

Dominion theology.

You are so correct. There is rhyme and reason behind Brownback's seemingly mindless agenda and it is Dominion theology. And it is scary.

Mercy 5 years ago

There are laws that were passed recently concerning Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Abortion Reporting Accuracy and Parental Rights Act, and Abortion Facility Licensure, and Health Insurace without Abortion. Brownback couldn't do all that by himself. There were many times that pro-life bills were passed in the legislature, only to have them vetoed by Sebilius. Thank you Gov. Brownback for listening to the voice of Kansans!

Title X federal money for 'reproductive-related' services was only to go to public health clinics, and those qualified hospitals and clinics offering full service primary and preventative care-- thus, due to limited ‘services,’ Planned Parenthood was to lose tax-payer funding of $300,000 or more. Evidence shows that 80% of the local health outlets’ clients were at poverty level, compared to only 15% of Planned Parenthood’s clients.

PP did not have a current state contract with KS. If the 2 clinics in question are Kansas Aid for Women and Center for Women's Health, their websites indicate they do abortions. and

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

This is a plant by a shill and it uses tactics that seriously anger me. The gloves are off "Mercy"! (Which is not just ironic but oxymoronic.)

Neither of the clinics in question are named Kansas Aid for Women nor Center for Women's Health. They are simply called Planned Parenthood Hays Health Center and Planned Parenthood Wichita Health Center. But you know what? I'm pretty certain you already knew that. And by the way, yes, the state of Kansas does have contracts with these two facilities to provide services that the local health departments did not.

You use tactics in this post that are eerily similar to the tactics used by so called "crisis pregnancy centers" ; deliberate obfuscation, creation of confusion and outright lies.

Paragraph one is a recap of legislation recently passed, all of which is currently under fire, with lawsuits either directed at this state or other states that have passed the same legislation that will effect the legislation in this state, but stated in such a way to imply it's a done deal. (Obfuscation and creation of confusion)

Paragraph two is an out and out lie. You recap the legislation that was passed that is the subject of this particular article. However, the very reason that the state had contracts with PP was because the local health centers were not offering those services, therefore it wasn't PP whose services were "limited" but the exact opposite. (Lie and obfuscation)

"Evidence shows that 80% of the local health outlets’ clients were at poverty level, compared to only 15% of Planned Parenthood’s clients." This is another lie where the stats were deliberately skewed. 75% (or more) of all PP clients are at 150% of poverty level or below. (Lie and obfuscation.)

The last paragraph throws out the names of two completely unrelated clinics, both of which are in Kansas City, completely unrelated to Planned Parenthood and have nothing to do with Wichita or Hays. (Creation of confusion and obfuscation.)

Just to let you know, "Mercy", your bulls**t didn't fly here. Go sell it somewhere else.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Oh and by the way, just to put a little thrill of fear into you, there are bills currently being written at the Federal level to be introduced in the next legislative session that will bar so called "crisis pregnancy centers" from the tactics i just mentioned. Not only will they be open to legal penalties for fraud but civil penalties as well

verity 5 years ago

Thanks, Cait, for exposing the misinformation. Keep the Pen sharp!

13Nate13 5 years ago

good luck getting that through the House haha.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

So you think these clinics should be allowed to engage in these kind of deceptive practices? You support them? Wow!

Glenn Reed 5 years ago

Here's an interesting tidbit. Seems appropriate to the current conversation here.

broadpaw 5 years ago

I understand what the article says, but this sentence (pretty much the crux of the article) is too condensed. It doesn't make any sense. Clarify the two "it" ! I realize it's just a repost of an AP article but the writing is RUBBISH.

"U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten on Tuesday rejected the state's request that it pay Planned Parenthood monthly and only for services provided while it appeals his Aug. 1 injunction blocking the law."

jafs 5 years ago

Seems pretty clear to me - the "it" in both instances refers to the state.

"the state's pay....while it appeals..."

13Nate13 5 years ago

@cait48 Your rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous first of all. The federal government gives the states money to be used for programs that address the needs of a certain group of people. If they wanted to give money to Planned Parenthood they could do it themselves without going through the states or they could specify in giving the states the funding that a certain amount has to go to Planned Parenthood. The burden of proof in this forum rests on YOUR shoulders to show where this is specified when this funding is given. The court ordered the state to continue paying these groups while the legality of the decision to not fund them is determined. We have elected officials to manage these funds in the way in which most Kansans approve of. If you don't like the fact that most Kansans aren't too thrilled about giving money to an organization that supports abortions across the country that is your problem. It also has yet to be proved that these centers are even the most effective way in which to help meet the needs of women and the poor. The job of our elected officials is to put funds towards the most effective programs and if you don't like their decision making you are welcome to show up and vote at the next election along with everyone else.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Actually, the "burden of proof" is on the state to prove why it feels it has the right to impose more stringent conditions on any organization (Planned Parenthood included), then what Federal law requires, to receive funds from Title X. Planned Parenthood also has some very powerful evidence that indicates that the state legislature deliberately created this legislation specifically to defund them. As this is a civil and not criminal case there is no burden to prove "guilt" as no criminal law was broken. The burden of the plaintiff is only to prove the deliberate infliction of harm and the burden of the defendant is to prove otherwise.

13Nate13 5 years ago

This assumes that Planned Parenthood has any claim to any of the funds.

jafs 5 years ago

Which is up to the feds, not the state, since it's federal money, and a federal program.

13Nate13 5 years ago

@cait48 you and I both know it was created to defund them. The question is whether that is legal or not. Indiana simply tried to stop paying them and that didn't work, so Kansas is using a new tactic. Also the amount of money being withheld comes out to be 5% of Planned Parenthood's budget, hardly irreparable harm...

13Nate13 5 years ago

@cait48 "Evidence shows that 80% of the local health outlets’ clients were at poverty level, compared to only 15% of Planned Parenthood’s clients." This is another lie where the stats were deliberately skewed. 75% (or more) of all PP clients are at 150% of poverty level or below. (Lie and obfuscation.)

Wohoo, great you think this stat is false. Proof please? Link to the actual study to back your claim?

13Nate13 5 years ago

And I'm talking about Planned Parenthood's in Kansas. You cited a nationwide stat, not the stat for Planned Parenthood's in Kansas which is what the above stat was about. That took all of 1 minute to find your source for that stat online. Mercy was siting a stat that was brought up during the case in court that showed in Kansas only 15% of Planned Parenthood's clients are below the poverty line while other providers have 80% of their clients being below the poverty line. It would seem Brownback was merely trying to put the money where it is most useful for those who need it in KANSAS which is what matters. In your claim for wanting transparency it would seem you also are lacking...

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

How do you know what her stat is about? Where did she get it? She didn't exactly provide proof either. If you AND she have PROVABLE stats to back up your claims then show them! Since you were able to Google mine then I should be able to Google yours! Funny that I can't. "Mercy was siting (sic) a stat that was brought up during the case in court that showed in Kansas only 15% of Planned Parenthood's clients are below the poverty line while other providers have 80% of their clients being below the poverty line. " I'm curious to know where you AND she got this. You have access to the court filings? What's the source of your stat? Is it provable? And by the way, you just outed yourself and Mercy. You've proven you have a far greater stake in this thing than just some local Lawrence resident putting in an opinion. So what's your organization? Operation Rescue? Army of God? Kansans for Life? I stand by everything I said in my original post. I think you've pretty well proven my point for me.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Oh and by the way, I did find this little gem: Let me quote from it.

27,000 patients served 21,000 patients were uninsured or under insured paying reduced or no fees

It's not statistics per se, but the numbers certainly don't match your claims.

13Nate13 5 years ago This shows how the funding is being spent in Kansas. Out of the 86 clinics only 2 are Planned Parenthood's...

"under insured" is pretty broad. That probably includes everyone who is doesn't have full comprehensive coverage or coverage that pays for contraception... Plus assuming someone is under the poverty level because they don't have insurance is quite a claim to make.

jayhawxrok 5 years ago

Right wing lunatics need to get it through their thick skulls that PP has never used public funds for abortion - FACT and abortion amounts to 3% of their budget - FACT

Why is it you're all so comfortable lying while you lecture the country on virtue? Hypocrites.

Evangelicals are America's Taliban.

13Nate13 5 years ago

Planned Parenthood provides service to 3 million people every year and 332,278 abortions are performed every year by them. That means 1 out of every 10 clients of theirs approximately receives an abortion. You also fail to realize that just because the dollars we hand them aren't used directly to fund abortions, doesn't make it any better. It doesn't take a lot of smarts to realize that they can just use the money given to them for non-abortion services and move more of their own money to pay for abortions. Your number also doesn't take into account the Plan B pill that we are paying for which we believe to be an abortion as well, but which falls under "contraceptive funding". So yes we are paying for abortions. Here is a unbiased look at the true numbers:

Also don't blame the poor Evangelicals for my post. Its your other favorite punching bag this time who is to blame....the Catholics ;)

13Nate13 5 years ago

Oh yeah I forgot the normal birth control pill also states that it can potentially be an abortifacent as well on the handout that it comes with. I've seen estimated in studies that approx. 3% of the time the pill relies on the third method by which it works to prevent pregnancy when the other two fail, which is to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. All be it in our minds you have a life at that point, which is another reason why we oppose funding to Planned Parenthood.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Then you should be highly aware that one of the seven cardinal sins is "a lying tongue". But since the Jesuits pretty much made a mockery of that particular sin I can understand how you think that's just perfectly fine.

13Nate13 5 years ago

yet again the claim of falsehoods from you... Please point out my error and I will be happy to say I was wrong. I don't claim infallibility ;)

13Nate13 5 years ago

Also I have to say for you to presume that every bit of information posted that you believe to be nonfactual is posted knowingly as a lie is offensive. If you believe something is not true simply show the error or if it is so obviously untrue, it should not be necessary for you to make a correction. Anyone who is taking information posted here as truth without a source to back it up is making a big mistake. I gave a source for my information above and have knowingly stated I do not have a source for the claim that only 15% of Planned Parenthood's clients are under poverty level however I do know this was touted in the court battle as evidence which lends some credibility to it. As for the pill being a abortificant go find a phamphlet and then come talk to me.

deec 5 years ago

So in other words, you have no source for your claim, no "...source to back it up"? You admit you have no source for your claim about the percentage but you call out the other poster who does cite sources? Project much?

13Nate13 5 years ago

haha I do know it was stated in the court battle between the State and Planned Parenthood. That doesn't necessarily make it true but if they had enough gumption to put it forth as evidence in the case I believe that lends some credibility to it at least for me. The court case has not been decided yet either, the court merely put forth an injunction which said the state had to pay Planned Parenthood the money as usual until the court case was settled. If the court rules in favor of the State the funding will stop.

13Nate13 5 years ago

Also as I stated before I believe the pill and Plan B, which are considered forms of contraception are aborificants that our tax dollars are paying for. The source for those claims is the pamphlets that come with those products themselves. Now if you don't agree with me on this that is fine, I merely wished to describe why I had my opposition to Planned Parenthood.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

You still haven't stated how you had access to court filings in this case that are, apparently, not public. The only place I'm finding your "15%" figure are from a couple of "pro-birth" blogs that claim it's in the defense filings but don't show how they sourced it. I would really like to know where this came from.

13Nate13 5 years ago

I'm getting it from the Kansan's for life blog that is doing the play by play of the case ;) They are not the ones touting the stat but stated it in the context of talking about the arguments that were put forward in the case. I'm also at a loss for locating court documents, but this shouldn't be a fact that is up for debate. The state are exactly the people that should know how this money is being spent considering that they are the ones who hand it out. They definitely have a case considering the judge has not thrown out the case and it is also apparent that there is no existing contract between the state and Planned Parenthood that says they have to give them the money. Take the stat or leave it. If there is some truth to it, the State will win the case.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Considering that Planned Parenthood was the one who brought the case in the first place, it truly does say much that the case hasn't been thrown out or dismissed.

13Nate13 5 years ago

yeah I looked into it more and the case is about the constitutionality of the law that was passed that basically rules out Planned Parenthood as a possible benefactor of this funding. It really isn't about whether Planned Parenthood is effective in reaching out to those women in need but whether the state has the ability to do what the vast majority of Kansans would like them to do and stop funding Planned Parenthood. I can understand if you don't agree with the State and how it feels the money should be used, but don't you agree that the state has the right to distribute the money as best as it sees fit? They are only doing so because they believe it is in the interests of a vast majority of Kansans. If there is no contract, I don't see on what bounds the court can say the State has to give Planned Parenthood funding against the will of a majority of people.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

I would like to take exception with a couple of statements here.

Point 1. "....don't you agree that the state has the right to distribute the money as best as it sees fit?" No, I don't agree. Bottom line, it's not the state's money. Title X funds are federal dollars given to the states for distribution through state channels. Nothing more, nothing less. If Planned Parenthood qualifies for those dollars under Federal law then Kansas cannot impose super qualifications for who gets that money when it's not the state's money in the first place. In this case, the state must compete for that money like any other private non-profit and if PP can prove to the Feds that it is providing services that the state is not then the state doesn't have much to stand on. I'm not sure but I think Brownback can refuse to accept the money for distribution (just as it did the arts funding) but doing so would also cut off funding to programs other than just Planned Parenthood, including county health departments, tribal clinics and hospitals within the state. That's a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you have a problem with how Title X is legislated and funded then you will have to take it to the Federal level and, as that will effect every state, frankly, I don't think you will win.

Point 2. "...whether the state has the ability to do what the vast majority of Kansans would like them to do..." "I don't see on what bounds the court can say the State has to give Planned Parenthood funding against the will of a majority of people." (My emphasis.)

This is an argument that's been used in the past and it's a false argument. Unless you have a direct mental link with every person in this state then you don't know what the "majority" thinks, feels or wills. And don't try to point to the election of Sam Brownback to prove your case. BB's election was exceedingly weird. It was a light turnout election where less than two thirds of registered voters voted. BB won by 62% of the vote, which isn't exactly a super majority. Crunch the numbers and less than one third of eligible voters in the state elected this man. Many, many people now regret staying away from the polls that day as, since then, Brownback has done everything in his power to systematically demolish this state. Not just Democrats are screaming but moderate Republicans, who initially voted for him, are as well. You really need to think before you start throwing around statements about the "will of the majority". To quote an earlier poster, "...if you want a culture war you may be surprised how thin your flocks actually are."

13Nate13 5 years ago

I found it in a law journal as well that was tracking the case. It mentioned the argument was brought up in court by the State. These guys are either siting in on the case or know something we don't about tracking don't court files.

Richard Heckler 5 years ago


It should also be noted that shortly after news of Neil Bush’s involvement in the S&L scandal hit the press his father, George Bush Sr., announced the Desert Storm campaign in Iraq, which subsequently had the result of making Neil’s name quickly fade from the headlines.

In addition, while Neil Bush's divorce proceeding were exposing more backroom Bush dealings, America was once again bombarded with war propaganda for Operation Iraq Freedom.

The S&L scandal is by no means the only incident of questionable, and actually illegal, financial activity that the Bush family has been involved in. The line of questionable, illegal, and unethical businesses practices goes back at least to Prescott Bush Sr., George Bush Sr.’s father. Prescott Bush was a Senator from 1952 – 1963.

Previous to his time as a Senator Prescott was a banker and businessman. Prior to the American entry into WWII Prescott Bush was director of Union Banking Corporation. Union Banking Corporation helped to finance Hitler’s regime. The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany were labor camps that the Nazis used to make products for their regime as well as for sale to raise money. Prescott profited directly from the Auschwitz labor camp.

In 1942, after Hitler declared war on America the United States government seized the Union Banking Corporation under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a front operation that was supporting the Nazis. Much of the profits from the operation were already pocketed by Prescott however, and $1.5 million was put in a trust fund for George Bush Sr.

For more on Prescott Bush's ties to the Nazis see:,12271,1312540,00.html

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

merrill, honey, is this really the thread where you wanted to post this? I know you get excited when you find things like this and want to share them but why not try posting them in a blog? The LJW provides one for you.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

cait, he didn't just find that link. merrill's posted that same text dozens of times before.

Cait McKnelly 5 years ago

Just to let ya know, snap, if I'm not mistaken, merrill is a "she".

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

As you are about so many things, I think you are mistaken about that. Not to get into outing or anything...

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

The word nazi did appear in other posts. Not only that it is revealing how closely tied this bogus repub party could be tied to the Nazi concept.

13Nate13 5 years ago

If you truly believe such nonsense then I won't blame you for hating us so much. If I thought liberals were all Nazi's I wouldn't like them very much either haha.

Armored_One 5 years ago

Nate, I have a few questions for you and I would like an honest answer, please. I have no desire to get involved with the fact throwing war you and cait are having, but it does give rise to the following questions:

Self determination is a prerequisite for conscious life, so why are you advocating the removal of that fundemental right for only one gender?

Do you support a ban on vasectomies as well? The fetus cannot just magically appear. It requires male sperm to show up, so to speak, and a vasectomy eliminates that possibility.

Assuming that human beings, eventually, will follow the path of any other living organism on this planet that has surpassed it's ability to sustain the 'herd', would you be in favor of "thinning the herd" to prevent starvation on a large scale?

13Nate13 5 years ago

"Self determination is a prerequisite for conscious life, so why are you advocating the removal of that fundemental right for only one gender?"

Your basically stating that someone has to be able say "I think I am, therefore I am" to be a person correct? I don't think many new born babies would live up to this standard. Correct if I'm misjudging your words though. Also, why does life have be conscious in order to be a alive? The baby might not know its alive but we do. Also, how am I removing the right of a woman to conscious life by saying she can't have an abortion that kills another life? The constitution talks about how every being is endowed with the right "to life, liberty, and happiness". They are in that order for a reason. The right to life always outweighs the right of the pursuit of happiness.

"Do you support a ban on vasectomies as well? The fetus cannot just magically appear. It requires male sperm to show up, so to speak, and a vasectomy eliminates that possibility."

A vasectomy doesn't kill a life. I believe life starts at conception meaning when sperm hits the egg. Modern science has only recently changed the definition of "conception" to mean life begins at implantation which is why the pill is supposedly not an abortificant when it makes the lining of the uterus thin so a fertilized egg cannot implant. I don't think there is any debate about Plan B, unless you have a problem with when life is defined.

"Assuming that human beings, eventually, will follow the path of any other living organism on this planet that has surpassed it's ability to sustain the 'herd', would you be in favor of "thinning the herd" to prevent starvation on a large scale?"

We are an intelligent species and can make informed decisions about whether it is smart to have a child or not. I think this decision can be left to the individual family and whether or not that family is capable of providing for another child. As a Catholic I promote NFP as the way to achieve this if there is good cause. Like I said before the right to life outweighs the right of the pursuit of happiness simply because without the right to life you can't have the other. Lets not make this into a debate about NFP though ;) I doubt we are going to agree on what I spelled out here, but you can at least see why I would take the stance I have taken with the beliefs I have, correct?

Also I have a lot more faith than you do in humanities ability to provide for itself ;) The great thing is we aren't like all the other species on this planet and were given gifts that give us a lot of advantages they don't have. As you should know people talked about the world being overpopulated in the 1900's as well, and that are food supply would never keep up with the rate at which were reproducing. Fortunately they were wrong and we have seen technology increase at rates far surpassing population growth, and the food supply went with it :)

katyaFTW 5 years ago

Statistically, carrying a child to term is a greater medical risk to the mother than terminating the pregnancy. In this country, we give women the right to decide whether or not they want to take that risk and continue supplying the unborn with nutrients and biological matter. It is established that individuals own their own bodies, and therefore control whether or not to give/donate/sell (i.e. blood plasma) their biological materials to another human being.

So I pose the question; If we mandate that a woman must undergo a medical risk (when there exists a lower-risk alternative such as medically induced abortion) to save and preserve the human life of the unborn child, THEN must we not also mandate that all eligible citizens be REQUIRED to undergo other risk-intensive medical procedures, such as organ donations, to save other human lives?

We do not even require that everyone be registered as an organ donor, let alone undergo a donation procedure, on the assumption that individuals own their bodies, so how is it remotely valid to require a woman to continue supplying her biological nutrients (at a greater personal risk) to a child that cannot survive independently when there is a safer alternative?

13Nate13 5 years ago

lol I see so your proposing that we allow women the right to choose to forgo a small medical risk at the expense of another person's life? None of your arguments make any sense once you agree that you have a human life from conception. I'm sorry no woman has the right to take the life of another child. The mother gets a 0.1% chance of death in the procedure and the baby has a 99.9% chance of death. That doesn't sound like justice to me...

13Nate13 5 years ago

Also I'm sure we can get a study done that will show that being a mother takes a couple years off their lives on average, therefore a woman should have the right to kill her children if she feels she is over stressed, which could take away from her life-span.

katyaFTW 4 years, 12 months ago

Pregnancy is not a "small medical risk."

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

I've never met anyone who was pro abortion. Pro choice is not pro abortion it is simply smart enough to realize that medical procedures/surgeries when necessary are best left performed by those trained to do so in the proper facilities.

Most people we know are pro choice/pro life and pro quality of life. Mothers by nature find it difficult to give up children no matter the circumstances therefore it's best if those decisions be left to the individuals involved. It's is time for the politicians to step aside and leave the practice of medical procedures to the medical profession.

Are politicians the moral giants of our time......hardly! These folks accept corrupt special interest money and take down economies by taking out financial institutions.

AND way too many are against providing comprehensive sex/parenting education that could prevent abortions.

Our children could learn to discuss openly:

  • Abortion
  • Birth Control
  • Body Image
  • Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)
  • Men's Sexual Health
  • Pregnancy
  • Relationships
  • Sex & Sexuality
  • Sexual Orientation & Gender * Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
  • Women's Health

13Nate13 5 years ago

All of your arguments are yet again based upon the fact that the baby is not a human life from conception. Otherwise you are arguing that a woman has the right to throw you in front of a bullet if it will give her a better chance at life.

Also nice list... Here is what the other clinics are providing...

Family planning
Screening for cancer & other diseases
Preventive services including prenatal & perinatal
Well child services
Primary care services
Diagnostic lab & radiology services
Emergency medical services
Pharmacy services

Planned Parenthood provides less services than the other health centers. You can find this on any of their websites.

Also are you saying you need a school or Planned Parenthood to educate your kids about sex? I didn't think you needed a college degree to teach your kid about sex...

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

What Planned Parenthood Actually Does

With Planned Parenthood being either the major obstacle to a budget deal or one of the major obstacles to a budget deal, it’s worth taking a minute explaining what they do — and what they don’t do.

As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities.

That’s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line. Planned Parenthood itself estimates it prevents more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and 220,000 abortions. It’s also worth noting that federal law already forbids Planned Parenthood from using the funds it receives from the government for abortions.

So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health. And if Planned Parenthood loses funding, what will mainly happen is that cancer screenings and contraception and STD testing will become less available to poorer people. Folks with more money, of course, have many other ways to receive all these services, and tend to get them elsewhere already.

The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money.

13Nate13 5 years ago

As stated before they provide Plan B and contraceptives that are abortificants as well and promote these things. It is a business and they advertise to bring in customers. 35% of their budget goes to pay for contraceptives which includes the two products above.

Its also interesting that 35% of their budget goes towards sexually transmitted diseases because there is a proven method of preventing these and it has to do with not having tons of sexual partners. We didn't have problems with STD's until people starting have 5+ different sexual partners. Aren't you a little pissed that your tax dollars are going to pay for people who are irresponsible? We have people who have sex and then are surprised when it makes a baby, they get an STD, or they feel used afterwards. All of this is incredibly predictable but they do it anyways.

tbaker 5 years ago

I've never met anyone who wasn't glad their Mother chose birth over abortion, although I have read some obituaries with approval.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.