Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Planned Parenthood should not get tax dollars
Thank you to Sue Thayer, former Planned Parenthood manager from Storm Lake, who spoke publicly about her 17 years working inside Planned Parenthood, witnessing first hand how the organization was aggressively striving to increase abortion numbers. She said she voiced her concern about this and Planned Parenthood fired her. She spent this fall outside the same Planned Parenthood center, leading the 40 Days for Life campaign, praying for an end to abortion and for those with whom she worked inside the center.
Thayer knows that Planned Parenthood is not about preventing abortions, but quite the opposite, and taxpayers have been effectively subsidizing their murderous activity. We must protest to our elected representatives that we do not wish for our tax dollars to be allocated to Planned Parenthood.
Edna Brunkhorst
Waverly
We all have things we’d love to see our tax dollars NOT go toward, but the reality is that oftentimes some of those tax monies will help to fund things we as individuals may not approve of, yet serve the greater good in some way. Planned Parenthood is one of those things.
In addition to recognizing Planned Parenthood’s goal of increasing the number of abortions for the sake of profitability, Sue Thayer witnessed the organization’s disregard for the safety of their clients through the promotion of telemed abortions. The dangerous RU486 abortion drug is administered via videoconference and denies the client an in-person visit vwith a physician, as recommended by the FDA.
It’s clear that Planned Parenthood’s sights are set on reducing costs and overhead at the expense of their clients. Contrary to what Planned Parenthood says, it desires to increase the number of abortions. The organization continues to do this with the assistance of taxpayer funding, which allows their doors to remain open and to rake in the resultant mega profits. All other services that Planned Parenthood regularly touts that they provide are available through other agencies.
As attested to by former employees of Planned Parenthood, the people inside are well aware of the success of the 40 Days For Life campaigns: prayerful and peaceful vigils, standing in solidarity with the women and their unborn, as well as praying that the workers inside the abortion industry will have the courage and strength to walk away from it, as has happened and will continue to happen.
Joan, every drug has some risks. That’s a fact. That by no means makes RU486 any more risky than any other drug on the market.
People who benefit most from telemedicine (which has more uses than just abortion services by the way) are those who live in remote locations, with no easy access to a doctor of any kind, for whatever reason. That means a lot of people who are poor or disabled sometimes lack the transportation that would enable them to see a doctor in person, and for those people telemedicine can be a blessing. That you choose to focus on telemed aborftions only shows how shortsighted some people are on the subject.
There are no taxpayer dollars used to fund abortions, PERIOD, at planed parenthood. OTOH, planned parenthood provides numerous health care benefits to low income women who have no other option for needed care.
Now tell me, what is right about cutting funding to planned parenthood?
Ms. Brunkhorst, be honest with us. You just cannot stand the idea of people having sex just for the sheer joy of it, and you want to “punish” all misbehaving women with unplanned pregnancies.
Regarding the 40 Days For Life campaign, where folks like Edna and Sue bothered/harassed women and men seeking health care services at Planned Parenthood clinics, I can’t help but wonder how much good campaigns like this end up actually helping PP. A good friend of mine, when driving by PP and seeing a protesters outside, counts them, then goes in to said PP and donates a dollar for every one outside. I’m tempted to take up that practice myself.
Joe, flagged your comment as inappropriate after you referred to people you disagree with as “kooks” per the Gazette forum rules.
Reworded just for you, Ray:
Regarding the 40 Days For Life campaign, where folks like Edna and Sue bothered/harassed women and men seeking health care services at Planned Parenthood clinics, I can’t help but wonder how much good campaigns like this end up actually helping PP. A good friend of mine, when driving by PP and seeing a klatch of {people motivated by an irrational belief in following the commands and edicts of their invisible friend} outside, counts them, then goes in to said PP and donates a dollar for every {person motivated by an irrational belief in following the commands and edicts of their invisible friend} outside. I’m tempted to take up that practice myself (and toss in an extra buck in Ray’s honor).
You’re just ticked off, Ray, because admin edited one of YOUR posts which contained a denigrating noun which was modified by the adjective “progressive.”
Oh, and you can’t use the word “moonbats” anymore, either…
Sheesh Ray, I guess that means the next time you denigrate OWS protesters by calling them “clowns” or “idiots” we can flag YOUR post as well.
Have some cheese.
Hey Morris, Jeff, et.al….
My comment referring to OWS protestors as freaks was removed by the Gazette, most likely because of a complaint by someone here. Just following suit to make sure the Gazette and others adhere to their own standards.
But you all knew that…
Ray, you have no idea what we know. Every semester, I have to break some students of the habit of writing “Everybody knows…”
Brush up on your epistemology. Next on teh banned list is the noun “sheeple.”
I missed that comment, Ray. When did you refer to OWS folks as “freaks”, and, more importantly, why? What, exactly, makes them “freaks”? Is it merely because, as you accused me of, you disagree with them?
I didn’t refer to the anti-PP demonstrators as “kooks” simply because I disagree with them. I disagree with lots of folks on lots of issues, and yet I don’t feel the need to call them “kooks” due to difference of perspective. I referred to them as “kooks” because words have meanings and the word “kook” seems to apply to these folks. See, a kook is “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane” (ref: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kook ) Seems to me that someone who takes action against others based on what their invisible, imaginary friend tells them to do seems to fit the aforementioned definition. Were I to take action against others because FSM (or IPU, Russell’s Teapot, Zeus, etc.) told me to do so, I’d likely be encouraged – perhaps required – to take medication and receive therapy.
To call a policy or practice or belief “kooky” is one thing. To directly label individuals or agroup as “kooks” is clearly a denigrating personal attack and violates our rules of engagement.
Ray, I am offended by your referring to Jeff as “Jeff” but refer to Lori as “Morris” without including “Ms.” or “Mrs.”. While in military circles, referring to folks by their last name (with or without prefacing with rank) is the norm, out here in the civilian world such conduct is often considered derogatory. Had you been consistent in your practice, I would not suspect your conduct to be intentionally offensive. However, as you chose to treat two people differently with no apparent reason, I suspect otherwise. Consequently, I have flagged your comment as inappropriate per the forum rules of engagement.
I trust you will both understand and appreciate my doing so. Have a day.
Ray, if you want to flag each and every infraction of the ROEs, go right ahead, but announcing you’ve done so, as you did with Joe’s comment, only further violates the ROEs by drawing the conversation off-topic, as is evidenced here.
Flag the comment, say nothing about doing so, and move on. It’s that simple.
Joe…thought I would let you know I have flagged your comment for simply being petty. How I address other posters is MY decision. There is nothing in the ROE which states you need to address people a certain way.
FYI…Morris gets called by her last name occasionally because of her earlier insistence (before the ROE kicked in) on calling me a troll, for having the audacity to disagree with her line of thinking.
Worry about your own posting style and things will be peachy Joe.
Pointing out an ROE is never off-topic.
As I told Joe, worry about yourself and your own posting style, Morris, and things will be peachy with you as well.
“I missed that comment, Ray. When did you refer to OWS folks as “freaks”, and, more importantly, why? What, exactly, makes them “freaks”? Is it merely because, as you accused me of, you disagree with them?”
Nope. I can give you many examples if you wish, but this definition fits much of their behavior well:
to enter into or cause a period of irrational behavior or emotional instability, as under the influence of a drug: to be freaked out on LSD.
b. to lose or cause to lose emotional control from extreme excitement, shock, fear, joy, despair, etc.:
PS…if you have not seen irrational behavior at these rallies…you haven’t been paying attention.
Oops…sorry:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freak
“Pointing out an ROE is never off-topic.”
It’s off-topic when it leads to an off-topic discussion such as the one we’re having now Calef. It’s YOUR comment to Joe that started this whole tangent. Own it.
“As I told Joe, worry about yourself and your own posting style, Morris, and things will be peachy with you as well.”
You’ve been given that advice as well before Ray, have you really followed it? It seems not.
I find it curious that the moderators will remove “kooks” or “freaks” but will let Martin’s “lying ho’s” stand…
And Lori, you have the power to not post to my response. Works both ways…
Don’t throw out the stink bait in the first place Ray, and you remove all temptation.
Easy Peasy.
And that’s how I thought you would answer. So you are admitting that YOU are the one who is continuing off topic.
Huh…
“So you are admitting that YOU are the one who is continuing off topic.”
Nope. I usually takes at least two to have an off-topic conversation.
***It usually***
The comment that included “kooks” was edited, per the rules of engagement.
Indeed it was. I was notified of said edit as the revision was being posted. I did thank the editor for doing so.
I will work to focus more on the ideas presented and not the people presenting them.
May you all be Touched by His Noodly Appendage! RAmen.
I was one of those who prayed the Rosary at PP during the 40 days for life, and I assure you sir that when I was there, not one person that was praying harrassed or intimidated anyone. In fact, we were not even near the entrance. Name-calling of someone that is trying to prevent the destruction of innocent lives by prayer just shows your bigotry. Also, we had a young gentleman aproach us one day, interupting our prayer and telling us that he was going to go in right then, and write a check for $500 to PP because of us. He then returned to his vehicle, and drove away.
Dear Mr. Henry,
Thank you for helping Planned Parenthood raise needed funds to ensure women (and sometimes men) get appropriate reproductive and other health care in our great nation. Your sacrifice on behalf of the needy is appreciated.
“Thank you for helping Planned Parenthood raise needed funds to ensure women (and sometimes men) get appropriate reproductive and other health care in our great nation. Your sacrifice on behalf of the needy is appreciated.”
Translation: “Thanks Mr. Henry, for your assistance in helping people kill their children.”
Incorrect translation. Mr. Henry’s bead rattling and chanting to his invisible friend served to encourage a person to donate money to a health clinic. Nowhere did I say anything about killing children. Besides, even if Cedar Rapids Planned Parenthood provided abortion services (it doesn’t), that simply does not equate to people “killing their children”, regardless of what someone’s invisible friend may claim. {A hard-boiled egg is not a chicken dinner, even if the hen house had a randy rooster in residence}
So don’t donate to Planned Parenthood Ray, and let everyone else decide whether or not they choose to support PP.
Isn’t individual choice something conservatives champion?
If you read the comment correctly, I said he got into his car and drove away. Which means he was just blowing hot air. Does the fact that people are against abortion scare you or what. The truth is, that a fetus is a potential human being, and the destruction is killing. It is said that animals have more rights than the unborn.
So perhaps he drove away, then mailed a check or donated online. Perhaps the only hot air was coming from the bead rattlers chanting to their invisible/imaginary friend.
I’m not “scared” that some people are anti-abortion. I am, however, concerned when folks try to impose their particular superstitions on me and others.
I agree that a fetus is a *potential* human being. I also know that roughly 50 percent of all human fetuses are spontaneously aborted. I don’t consider abortion to be anywhere comperable to killing (not that killing ever really bothered the Catholic church, what with the Inqusitions and Crusades and Conquests and such).
Using weasle/peacock words such as “unborn” is mere spin and detracts from the argument, just as calling Jesus a zombie might be construed as spinning his purported rising from the dead. I’m sure we both agree that once a child is born, they are human. Where we differ is where the essence of being human actually begins.