Are Republicans stupid enough to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood ?

Tony Stark

Philosopher
Tony Stark
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
9,626
So Congress has until the end of the month to pass a bill funding the federal government. And since Congress is filled with nutjob ideologues, it is in question whether this will actually happen by the deadline. The biggest obstacle is because of lying propaganda about Planned Parenthood. Republicans want to cut off all federal funds to that organization (zero of which go to abortions by the way). Their "plan" to do this is to attach an amendment defunding PP on the next government funding bill.

Of course, everybody with a brain knows that their "plan" will fail because 1) there will be near (if not actual) unanimous opposition from Senate Democrats, 2) There is zero chance that Obama would sign such a bill.

So will Republicans see the futility of their position and surrender to Barack Obama before the government shuts down? Or will they shut the government down and then surrender to Barack Obama? I guess we will see. I am betting on the latter because I think that Republicans are exceptionally stupid.
 
If only abortion could be privatized with a profit motive. That would solve it.
 
Many of them certainly are willing to shut down the government over this. The question is how many of them are willing to do that and will they get the support they need to do so.
 
Yes.
Election season and this will appeal to some of their followers. Who care if others suffer?
 
Tony Stark said:
So will Republicans see the futility of their position and surrender to Barack Obama before the government shuts down? Or will they shut the government down and then surrender to Barack Obama? I guess we will see. I am betting on the latter because I think that Republicans are exceptionally stupid.
Click to expand...

Or (c), hope that enough people think that the problem lies with Obama and the Democratic party and gain some political headway that way.

Or (d), they are motivated by wanting to "do the right thing" and try to "stop the slaughter of innocents" regardless of the political cost to themselves.
 
The Don said:
Or (c), hope that enough people think that the problem lies with Obama and the Democratic party and gain some political headway that way.

Or (d), they are motivated by wanting to "do the right thing" and try to "stop the slaughter of innocents" regardless of the political cost to themselves.
Click to expand...

But if it is popular in their district at least among republican primary voters is their much political cost associated to it for them?
 
I honestly can't tell what's worse:
That they actually believe the "Planned Parenthood sells aborted babies"-crap.
or
That they don't believe it, but know their supporters do, so they pretend to as well in order to keep the cushy seat in the senate or house.
 
I thought Obama care was going to cover abortions? Isn't everybody on Obamacare?

But also, why is the gov funding a private organization any how? Do they fund AARP? the Salvation Army? GM? Chrysler?
 
KDLarsen said:
I honestly can't tell what's worse:
That they actually believe the "Planned Parenthood sells aborted babies"-crap.
or
That they don't believe it, but know their supporters do, so they pretend to as well in order to keep the cushy seat in the senate or house.
Click to expand...

Well, those in the audience were dumb enough to believe Carly's assertion that Planned Parenthood keeps fetus's alive so that the brains can be fresh........
 
casebro said:
I thought Obama care was going to cover abortions? Isn't everybody on Obamacare?

But also, why is the gov funding a private organization any how? Do they fund AARP? the Salvation Army? GM? Chrysler?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "fund". If Planned Parenthood is being paid to provide a service then how is it different than any other government supplier ?
 
There are at least few Republicans who are quite willing to shut down the government over the Planned Parenthood non-issue issue just to show everyone how terribly "shocked" they are over those terrible videos. After all, there are about 35 House Republicans who want a new Speaker of the House.

Hopefully, the slightly less stupid Republicans will keep these slightly more stupid Republicans from becoming even more stupid Republicans and thereby avoid another government shutdown.
 
The Don said:
Depends on what you mean by "fund". If Planned Parenthood is being paid to provide a service then how is it different than any other government supplier ?
Click to expand...

This has been something I can't get a clear answer on. How do they defund it? PP isnt getting grants not tied to services rendered. Are they saying medicare fee for service can't be used for fees from PP? Have we ever done anything like that before?
 
BobTheCoward said:
This has been something I can't get a clear answer on. How do they defund it? PP isnt getting grants not tied to services rendered. Are they saying medicare fee for service can't be used for fees from PP? Have we ever done anything like that before?
Click to expand...

And they refuse to do things like let them accept medicaid money.

"On Friday, Arkansas became the fifth state to try to cut off state money by ending its contract with Planned Parenthood for services to residents covered by Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor jointly run by states and the federal government. Arkansas follows Louisiana, Alabama, Utah and New Hampshire. The actions would not take effect until September, pending a period for appeal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/states-move-to-cut-funds-for-planned-parenthood.html?_r=0
 
I mean, if you're a True Believer on this, why wouldn't you shut down the government?

In fact if I take it all at face value, like the way Chris Christie was talking about it last night - why would I be engaged in parliamentary procedure at some future date to maybe get some legislation passed that will likely just get vetoed...

If I wanted to stop the for-profit harvesting of babies in a perpetual holocaust, shouldn't I be Doomsday Preppin' and founding my sleeper-cell in the Army of Light to end this Evil Once and For All?
 
Last edited:
I'll certainly say he had a good swagger and i think he was more effective than I was thinking he would be!

His appeals to "the people" kinda made me want to puke in my mouth a bit but its certainly a good technique for the rubes.
 
Anyway I imagine we're just in a new normal now aren't we?

Like we can't forget how 1994 must still be like, a huge boner-inducing thought for many in the GOP to consider - those heady Gingrich days right.

So the shutdown is just part of a new normal, like filibusters out the wazoo and eternally recurring votes to repeal obamacare.

Political procedure and culture is evolving - and now shutdowns are just kind of how one party wants to express itself, a ritual of sorts.

This time it's Planned Parenthood but whatever their Big Issue I imagine we will at least always have *talk* of potential shutdowns every year for the next decades, and most of the time we will have an imminent threat of one, and sometimes we will have actual shutdowns.

Maybe the real question is when do the Dems stop fighting the urge to threaten shutdown over their demands?

Guess we'll find out under a Republican president..;)
 
Last edited:
It is the Republican version of "I am going to hold everyone's breathe until we all turn blue!" I suspect that there are Republicans will actually try to do it (apparently with little memory of how well it has worked for their cause in the past), but I think that most are using this just as a threat.

Real indignation or politic showboating? My guess is a large majority are doing the latter, but some extremists are truly driven by the former. Look at Ben Carson- he previously worked with human fetal material and I am certain he understands how Planned Parenthood followed the rules, but now he is SHOCKED and when asked it is because he finally saw THE LIGHT! The light of the oval office.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
It is the Republican version of "I am going to hold everyone's breathe until we all turn blue!" I suspect that there are Republicans will actually try to do it (apparently with little memory of how well it has worked for their cause in the past)
Click to expand...

Well, holding your breath like that will mess up your brain and memory.
 
Yes but it *also* might give you a mini-high of pleasant dizziness and a headrush!
 
Giordano said:
It is the Republican version of "I am going to hold everyone's breathe until we all turn blue!" I suspect that there are Republicans will actually try to do it (apparently with little memory of how well it has worked for their cause in the past), but I think that most are using this just as a threat.
Click to expand...

It might not help their cause in terms of legislatively. But it could well do them well in terms of their popularity with the only people who's approval they need. Republican primary voters.
 
On the one hand, a few of them are that stupid.

On the other hand, most of them are not that stupid.

On the first hand again, enough of them might feign being that stupid if it will be enough to shake the spotlight off Trump's toupee. In a stellar case of self-inflicted Poe, I don't think anyone expected him to be as popular with Republican constituents as he's turned out to be.
 
I'm rather embarrassed that my own congressman (Tim Huelskamp, and no, I didn't vote for him and was even assisting with the campaign against him in my own way) has sort of been trying to take the lead on this issue. Here's the thing, Republicans: If you don't have the clout to get something you want done (and you don't in this case), then generally the best idea is to move on to something that you can do. Pouting over the fact that you can't get your way and shutting the government down is childish. The act of doing so actually helps your opponents politically.

I don't get it -- why are they even considering it? I don't think the last shutdown was even a popular move among those that vote solidly Republican. The tactic just plain doesn't work. It's also expensive -- yeah, the government doesn't have money to spend for a while, but it's sort of like when you refuse to pay your own bills -- it ends up costing you more, not less.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Republicans want to cut off all federal funds to that organization (zero of which go to abortions by the way).
Click to expand...

Money is fungible. Every dollar from the Federal government to subsidize non-abortion activities is another dollar freed up from another source to subsidize abortion. If their overall funding stream diminishes, PP will have to either cut back on abortion, or cut back on non-abortion activities. If they cut back on abortion, the government will have succeeded in their aim. If they cut back on other activities, it will bring some clarity about PP's real purpose and priorities, and the debate can proceed according to this new information.
 
theprestige said:
Money is fungible. Every dollar from the Federal government to subsidize non-abortion activities is another dollar freed up from another source to subsidize abortion. If their overall funding stream diminishes, PP will have to either cut back on abortion, or cut back on non-abortion activities. If they cut back on abortion, the government will have succeeded in their aim. If they cut back on other activities, it will bring some clarity about PP's real purpose and priorities, and the debate can proceed according to this new information.
Click to expand...

So Planned Parenthood only gets funding from the government?
 
theprestige said:
Money is fungible. Every dollar from the Federal government to subsidize non-abortion activities is another dollar freed up from another source to subsidize abortion. If their overall funding stream diminishes, PP will have to either cut back on abortion, or cut back on non-abortion activities. If they cut back on abortion, the government will have succeeded in their aim. If they cut back on other activities, it will bring some clarity about PP's real purpose and priorities, and the debate can proceed according to this new information.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can use the "money is fungible" argument for planned parenthood. That more appropriately describes grants or other cash transfers.

Here, we are talking about payments for specific services rendered. saying that supports abortion is like saying my purchase of cheese at a grocery store increases and supports their sales of magazines. That is an unheard use of the phrase fungible.
 
This is an issue that always amuses me. (Government shutdowns...not planned parenthood or abortion.)

If Congress passes a spending bill, and the President vetoes it, has Congress shut down the government?

The first "government shutdown" occurred when Ronald Reagan said he would veto any spending bill that spent money above the budget. The Democratic Congress passed such a bill, daring Reagan to veto it, and Reagan, much to their surprise, did.

I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan shut down the government at that point.

So, what might happen this time around is that the Republican Congress intends to pass a spending bill, but it won't include Planned Parenthood funding. At that point, Obama will veto the bill, shutting down the government. Will it be fair to say that the Republicans shut down the government?

I suppose it all plays out in the court of public opinion, but to my way of thinking, if the Congress passes a bill that would keep open the government, and the President vetoes it, it sounds to me like the President shut down the government.

There's sort of a hybrid case. Theoretically, the Congress could pass a spending bill, but it contains a completely unrelated bill attached to it. Maybe it outlaws wearing plaid pants or something, and the President vetoes that bill. In that case, it would be a case of Congress holding the government hostage for an unrelated bill. However, in the upcoming case, it would be a case of Congress saying, "Here are the things we want to spend money on." That seems reasonable. It's what Congress does. It's their job. Then, the President says, "Hold on a minute there, fellas. You can't spend that money unless you spend some more money on the things I want." If he feels strongly about it, then he has no choice but to veto the bill, even if it means shutting down the government, but I can't see it being Congress' fault.
 
Meadmaker said:
I suppose it all plays out in the court of public opinion, but to my way of thinking, if the Congress passes a bill that would keep open the government, and the President vetoes it, it sounds to me like the President shut down the government.
Click to expand...
I suppose if ones mind was simply and unsophisticated enough to not read beyond the headline, sure.
 
Meadmaker said:
This is an issue that always amuses me. (Government shutdowns...not planned parenthood or abortion.)

If Congress passes a spending bill, and the President vetoes it, has Congress shut down the government?

The first "government shutdown" occurred when Ronald Reagan said he would veto any spending bill that spent money above the budget. The Democratic Congress passed such a bill, daring Reagan to veto it, and Reagan, much to their surprise, did.

I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan shut down the government at that point.

So, what might happen this time around is that the Republican Congress intends to pass a spending bill, but it won't include Planned Parenthood funding. At that point, Obama will veto the bill, shutting down the government. Will it be fair to say that the Republicans shut down the government?

I suppose it all plays out in the court of public opinion, but to my way of thinking, if the Congress passes a bill that would keep open the government, and the President vetoes it, it sounds to me like the President shut down the government.

There's sort of a hybrid case. Theoretically, the Congress could pass a spending bill, but it contains a completely unrelated bill attached to it. Maybe it outlaws wearing plaid pants or something, and the President vetoes that bill. In that case, it would be a case of Congress holding the government hostage for an unrelated bill. However, in the upcoming case, it would be a case of Congress saying, "Here are the things we want to spend money on." That seems reasonable. It's what Congress does. It's their job. Then, the President says, "Hold on a minute there, fellas. You can't spend that money unless you spend some more money on the things I want." If he feels strongly about it, then he has no choice but to veto the bill, even if it means shutting down the government, but I can't see it being Congress' fault.
Click to expand...

I doubt such their hostage taking bill will even take hit the President's desk for him to veto.

This is no different than when those stupid scumbag shutdown the government over Obamacare. They couldn't do it via the normal legislative process, so they held the government hostage in an attempt to get their way. Of course it was their fault that the government shutdown and not that of their opponents for not giving
into the blatant hostage taking.
 
Last edited:
They're stupid enough to believe Planned Parenthood makes a profit selling fetal parts, there's a good chance they're stupid enough to shut the government down again despite the evidence they're harming themselves and the GOP more than Obama or the Democrats.

I don't think they can get over their bizarre beliefs that the world is outraged over PP or fetal tissue research.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They're stupid enough to believe Planned Parenthood makes a profit selling fetal parts, there's a good chance they're stupid enough to shut the government down again despite the evidence they're harming themselves and the GOP more than Obama or the Democrats.

I don't think they can get over their bizarre beliefs that the world is outraged over PP or fetal tissue research.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are outraged. Whether people want to keep funding abortions through Planned Parenthood or not seems to depend heavily on whether the respondents have seen the videos or not, according to polls. A lot of people support abortion in an abstract way but are very uncomfortable confronting the reality of it, particularly late term abortions where the baby is born whole and would have been able to survive outside the womb.

ETA: I think it should be made clear that I haven't seen any person, Republican or Democratic that actually wants to cut money going to women's health services, they just want to shift that money away from abortion providers to more generalized health care clinics.
 
Last edited:
Is planned parenthood still relevant? I thought Obamacare pays for abortion now and you can get it done at a clinic. How significant is Planned Parenthood in the abortion-access realm?
 
cmikes said:
, particularly late term abortions where the baby is born whole and would have been able to survive outside the womb.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really happen except in very rare circumstance where the fetus would not survive or the mother, or both. In other words, it's not reality that a late term, viable fetus is aborted unless a life is in very serious danger.

Also, Carly outright lied about seeing a video of a living fetus on a table being cut up for its brains.
 
marplots said:
Is planned parenthood still relevant? I thought Obamacare pays for abortion now and you can get it done at a clinic. How significant is Planned Parenthood in the abortion-access realm?
Click to expand...

Obamacare is insurance reform. It doesn't have its own hospitals. You take your insurance to Planned Parenthood centers. Especially when they're the only clinic in the area that performs abortions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom