- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Trump Defunds Planned Parenthood Abortions
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:03 am
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:03 am
Scalise Tweet
According to the article Steve Scalise tweeted Trump changed the Fed Regs so that Planned Parenthood is required to financially separate their abortion services from other healthcare/birth control.
According to the article Steve Scalise tweeted Trump changed the Fed Regs so that Planned Parenthood is required to financially separate their abortion services from other healthcare/birth control.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:06 am to Wednesday
Does the Hyde Amendment not already require this?
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:08 am to Wednesday
That’s gonna piss off the baby killers.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:08 am to Wednesday
Somehow the left will spin this to say that Trump unconstitutionally made abortion illegal when the fact is all it does is keep us from paying for them.
This post was edited on 2/23/19 at 10:27 am
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
Not sure.
I just found it odd that I haven’t seen this discussed here.
I think the Hyde Amendment just prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions. But I dont think it required separation of the entries. So PP could essentially subsidize their abortions with the money it received for other services. This way, there have to be 2 entities or accounts so the $$ only goes to the no abortions one.
I just found it odd that I haven’t seen this discussed here.
I think the Hyde Amendment just prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions. But I dont think it required separation of the entries. So PP could essentially subsidize their abortions with the money it received for other services. This way, there have to be 2 entities or accounts so the $$ only goes to the no abortions one.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:11 am to Wednesday
quote:
I think the Hyde Amendment just prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions. But I dont think it required separation of the entries. So PP could essentially subsidize their abortions with the money it received for other services. This way, there have to be 2 entities or accounts so the $$ only goes to the no abortions one.
They will just find a new way to lie about it.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
Hyde amendment has been under attack. Perhaps trump is going to push for it to be made permanent law. Dems like Kaine, who used to support the amendment have recently come out against it. I’m amazed the changed their stance.
This also requires different accounting, right?
This also requires different accounting, right?
This post was edited on 2/23/19 at 10:13 am
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:13 am to Wednesday
Oh boy.
This is gonna be fun.
This is gonna be fun.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:16 am to Wednesday
quote:as I understand it, the governmental funding for entities such as Planned Parenthood tends to pay toward all of the physical plant, overhead, staff salaries, etcetra.. The fees for the actual abortion procedure seem basically to be set “at direct cost,“ or something near it ... given that salaries and other costs are funded elsewhere.
I think the Hyde Amendment just prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions. But I dont think it required separation of the entries. So PP could essentially subsidize their abortions with the money it received for other services. This way, there have to be 2 entities or accounts so the $$ only goes to the no abortions one.
It seems like a work-around versus the Hyde Amendment, but a legal one.
This post was edited on 2/23/19 at 10:17 am
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Does the Hyde Amendment not already require this?
No.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It seems like a work-around versus the Hyde Amendment, but a legal one.
Not for long
This post was edited on 2/23/19 at 10:17 am
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:17 am to BBONDS25
Not only separate accounting but separate locations (per article)
quote:
Under the new directive, which will take effect in 60 days, organizations receiving Title X funding have 120 days to financially separate their family planning and abortion operations and one year to physically separate their family planning and abortion operations.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:18 am to Wednesday
Meh, I get the symbolism of this move, but I don't support it.
Again, let the Progressives abort themselves. I'll gladly pay taxes toward that effort.
Again, let the Progressives abort themselves. I'll gladly pay taxes toward that effort.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:20 am to Wednesday
quote:
So PP could essentially subsidize their abortions with the money it received for other services.
Like selling baby parts for Lamborghini's?
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:21 am to Wednesday
quote:I suspect that the separate accounting already exists internally. This will just make it available to the public.
Under the new directive, which will take effect in 60 days, organizations receiving Title X funding have 120 days to financially separate their family planning and abortion operations and one year to physically separate their family planning and abortion operations.
I do wonder whether a regulatory requirement for separate facilities would have any direct statutory authorization. Anyone know?
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:23 am to OnTheGeaux
quote:And another thread with a reasonable, substantive discussion is derailed with emotional hyperbole.
selling baby parts for Lamborghini's? (sic, Lamborghinis)
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I suspect that the separate accounting already exists internally. This will just make it available to the public
It's a con.
quote:
I do wonder whether a regulatory requirement for separate facilities would have any direct statutory authorization. Anyone know
The only clean way to separate finances and ensure govt funding is not used for abortion is to separate facilities, administration, and staff.
Otherwise you need a complicated direct and indirect cost allocation method that would be abused to achieve the outcome desired rather than ensure the directive.
Sophisticated corporations with talented people have immense trouble with allocations and price transfers, there's no way the type of loon that would work for planned parenthood could do it.
Posted on 2/23/19 at 10:31 am to Turbeauxdog
I think that most informed people understand that abortion services are something of a loss-leader for Planned Parenthood and that a requirement for separate physical facilities would undermine that.
That is completely separate from my inquiry as to whether there is any statutory authorization for a regulation requiring separate physical facilities.
The fact that a given reg would accomplish something you like DOES NOT mean that such reg is authorized by statute.
That is completely separate from my inquiry as to whether there is any statutory authorization for a regulation requiring separate physical facilities.
The fact that a given reg would accomplish something you like DOES NOT mean that such reg is authorized by statute.
This post was edited on 2/23/19 at 10:35 am
Popular
Back to top


16








