Found it on Facebook — Planned Parenthood’s attack on Paul Ryan

With the election nearing, the Facebook frenzy is accelerating.  I got this from a Facebook acquaintance:

Lots of food for thought, there:

Ryan voted to end funding for Planned Parenthood.  Ryan’s vote is completely in line with Romney’s insistence that a broke U.S. government should repeatedly ask itself “Is this program worth going into debt to the Chinese?”

This is an especially good question, when it’s unclear why Planned Parenthood gets special funding status.  If we’re saying women’s health care (including or not including) abortion is of transcendent importance, then we should just put aside a pot of money and let all health care programs apply by proving that they provide the best women’s health care for the least money.  Alternative, we should give women vouchers entitling them to special services that are unique to women.

Of course, once we stop assuming that Planned Parenthood is automatically entitled to funds, and start questioning the services it provides and the benefits citizens receive, we’d better start giving men vouchers for services that are unique to men.  For example, the feds could pay for women’s pap smears, breast exams, and well-baby checkups, and pay for men’s prostate exams, Viagra, and heart disease prevention and treatment (since men die from heart disease in proportionately greater numbers than women).  Indeed, since men routinely die earlier than women do (sorry guys), men should get special longevity treatments, or they should get cash payments for those years that they die sooner, thereby saving the government money.  And really, if we’re going to break it down this way, by looking at both need and savings, we’d better have special vouchers for African-American men who, sadly, have significantly greater health risks than their white or Asian counterparts.  They should get both bigger vouchers and a cash discount for being virtuous enough to die before they cost the government too much  money.  (And wasn’t it the Progressives who want bat bleep crazy when they learned that a cigarette company argued that smoking is really a benefit for socialized medicine because people die sooner, rather than being a lasting burden on the system?)

This is so confusing.  I have a really good idea:  How about the government stops funding special interests and starts promoting a competitive market for quality health care?

He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade with no exceptions for rape or incest.  All thinking people want to overturn Roe v. Wade because it is a terrible malformation of American law.  There is no right to abortion under the Constitution.  There is also no federal ban on abortion under the Constitution.  Abortion is not a federal issue.  It’s a state issue.  Roe v. Wade should be overturned, with the abortion question then being returned to the various States.  They will do what they will, and each state, by looking at the others’ experiments regarding abortion, will be able to decide what is the best policy, either generally or specifically (i.e., for a given state’s finances or morals).

The Ryan budget plan would dismantle Medicaid.  How often will Ryan have to repeat that Medicaid will be there for those who have vested or who are near vesting?  Don’t answer — that’s a hypothetical question.  I know that no Progressive will ever believe him or the laws he’s proposed.  And how often will Ryan have to repeat that Medicaid will continue to be there for those younger people who want it, but that the government will facilitate market-based insurance for those who don’t?  Yup.  That’s another hypothetical.  [UPDATE:  Me being dyslexic and confusing Medicare and Medicaid.  Sorry.  Medicaid is a state program which is going to get royally reamed under Obama.  He’s giving short-term benefits now and then transferring the entire burden to the various states, many of which are currently looking for ways to run and hide.  I suspect that the Ryan budget plan can’t be worse than the current situation, but I have to run now, and cannot confirm that belief.  Anyone want to volunteer information?]

He co-sponsored an extreme and dangerous “personhood” bill.  Here’s what Ryan’s co-sponsored bill states in relevant part:

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

“Extreme and dangerous”?  Really?  What the bill states is a biological truth.  The real question isn’t when life begins, it’s when each citizen has the power to end another person’s life.  For the most part, we all agree that, once someone is born, a fellow citizen cannot arbitrarily and without government due process, terminate that born person’s life.  The question is whether an individual can act to terminate a pre-born person’s life and, if so, when.  As long as Roe v. Wade exists, does it matter that Congress symbolically affirms that government entities have the right to protect life on their soil?  No, because  Roe v. Wade gives the faux-constitutional final word to the woman.  And if Roe v. Wade is overturned, all that the bill does is say what the Constitution already implies, which is that the individual states have the power to make such laws.  So I ask again — “Extreme and dangerous”?  Really?  Symbolic, maybe; but practically meaningless.

He has repeatedly tried to repeal the “Affordable Care Act,” which banned insurance companies from charging women more than men.  Okay, in item one, above, Planned Parenthood implicitly conceded that women’s healthcare is more expensive than men’s, which is why the government (in Planned Parenthood’s view) should subsidize it.  So Planned Parenthood is either saying legal businesses should operate at a loss, or that they should arbitrarily increase men’s insurance rates to subsidize women’s.  In that vein, I think Congress should also pass a law saying that teenage drivers shouldn’t pay any more for car insurance than a 40-year-old woman.  Never mind the statistics showing which driver is more likely to cost the insurance company money.

But while I’m talking about laws, if Planned Parenthood’s only concern about ObamaCare is those “equal” insurance rates, why not repeal ObamaCare, which is a 2,700 page monstrosity that adds an enormous amount to America’s debt load and has seen substantial cost increases for currently insured Americans, and in its place enact a very simple bill?  The new bill could say “Women must be charged precisely the same for health insurance as men.  Insurance companies may achieve this goal by raising men’s rates or lowering women’s, whichever they prefer.  There.  That was easy.

If we’re looking for serious government subsidies, I think the federal government should create a subsidy for reason-challenged Progressives.  It could fund emergency six-week long classes on Socratic-based logic and reasoning.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    How I long for the heady days when abc and Zachriel came here daily to school us troglodytes on the wonders of heavy taxation and deficit spending. Abc’s masterful exposition on the physics of elevating oneself into prosperity by plunging deeply into debt still brings shudders to my uncomprehending brain.
    Good times, good times.

  • Spartacus

    Martel, your ability to find humor in the arguments of fools is a gift I wish I shared.  I once listened to a tirade by one of my cousins on how “Oregon is so stupid because they only have an income tax!  Washington is so stupid because they only have a sales tax!  California is enlightened because they have both, so they get enough revenue!”  That was shortly before Gray Davis was recalled, and I haven’t spoken to her since.  (Note: I’ve heard rumors that CA’s fiscal situation isn’t going so well.)
    You know, even Vladimir Putin had the sense to slash Russian tax rates down from 90-something percent to a flat 13%, and watched government revenue skyrocket.  It’s sad that we as a country are to the left of an ex-KGB guy.

  • BrianE

    I think Medicaid is welfare and Medicare is a plan we pay into during our working years.

    Currently the federal government provides about 57% of the cost of Medicaid with the states picking up the rest. I think some of the rancor surrounding Medicaid is increased federal government mandates to provide coverage, potentially leaving the states on the hook to provide the funding. In the case of ACA, the federal government will pick up the tab for a few years for increased Medicaid funding, but eventually the funding would fall on the states.

    Ryan’s proposal for Medicare was to provide vouchers allowing the individual to shop for plans based on their needs, similar to the Medicare supplement plans. The liberal objections is that healthy people could get cheaper insurance, leaving higher risk people at, well, risk.

    It would be nice if I received some sort of premium reduction for taking care of my body and being in some sort of relative health, given my age.

    We’re always better relying on God’s grace though, since I might drop dead tomorrow, in spite of my best efforts to stay healthy. 

  • Bookworm

    Ah, thank you.  That was dyslexic of me.  I’ll edit that argument.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Ah, Hammer, I too miss the heady days of jousting with the ABCs and Zachriels of the world. If only you had not left them whimpering fetal-like in their own bodily fluids. Thus spake Martel! 

  • Gringo

    Charles Martel
    How I long for the heady days when abc and Zachriel came here daily to school us troglodytes… Good times, good times.
    But not enough to have them back, I suspect. If you really miss the Z-Team, you can look at this thread at Maggie’s Farm. I spar with the Z-Team perhaps once every month or two when I can quickly nail them on some idiocy. I have no desire to waste my time on an open-ended discussion.
    I Know This Book By Bookwormroom Mom Is Good: Maggie’s Farm plugs Book’s book.

  • Ymarsakar

    We have seen As, Bs, Cs, Zs, and now Ps. The Left will never give up their religious faith in their utopia. 

  • Mike Devx

    I’m concerned about the personhood bill and therefore I’ve got some questions.

    Let me summarize the three parts of it first:
    (1A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and
    (1B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization[…] at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
    (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings[…]

     Let’s put aside the question of whether the bill is “meaningless” or not.  Let’s assume that:
    1. This bill is passed and survives constitutional challenge
    2. Then Roe v Wade is overturned

    One second after fertilization, the zygote/fertilized cell immediately has all the full rights of a human being, and this right is *paramount* and is the “most fundamental* right.

    Opening Questions:
    What does that mean for incest?  
    What does that mean for rape?
     What does that mean concerning the health of the mother, vis a vis pregnancy endangering her health for any known medical reason?

    If someone commits incest, can you murder them?  No.  But if a zygote has full human rights immediately – and we’re talking the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION here, wouldn’t that now be classified as murder?  Perhaps the words used in the bill do not equate to murder; if so, I’d like to clearly understand why, so I could clearly explain to others.

    Whatever applies to incest would also apply to rape, as it relates to the fertilized cell resulting from rape.

    The health of the mother clearly would take a back seat to the murder of a fertilized cell – again, if the legal intent of the wording as it appears to read, is clear.

    Next question: What does this mean for the morning after pill

    I will note that I’ve read the following: The fastest sperm can get to a fallopian tube is about 30 minutes, meaning that the quickest conception could occur following sex is in the half-hour range

    Clearly, a morning-after pill terminates the life of a fertilized egg.  Again the legal terminology needs to be clear; a naive reading of the bill means the morning after pill becomes illegal.

    Next question: Reckless endangerment and manslaughter
    Manslaughter applies to an accidental death that should have been avoided.  Suppose I am at fault in a car accident and a woman, driving the other vehicle, is fine, but she miscarries the next day, and her doctor determines that she miscarried due to the accident.  Even if the miscarriage occurs the day after fertilization, but the standards of “full human rights”, couldn’t I be charged with manslaughter?

    As for reckless endangerment, a woman can engage in any number of activities during the first month or two of the pregnancy that would put first the zygote, and then the developing fetus, at risk.  Jog a marathon the day after having sex?  Any strenuous activity?  Does it matter that she doesn’t even know if fertilization has occurred?  These activities are known to increase risk to the fertilized egg.    There are many other categories of behavior as well that would apply, to include dancing, drinking, smoking, etc. 

    In sum: There is absolutely no possible way I would vote to deny the women I love in my life the right to have an abortion (within reasonable time limits) due to rape, or to a threat to her life due to the pregnancy.

    I am also a 100% advocate of the morning after pill. 

    And I have lots of concerns about the questions surrounding reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

    It may simply come down to the fact that the legal definition surrounding many of these terms is not what it would appear to be to me, the naive reader.  But I’d like to know that for sure.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Debate Edition()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations |

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Debate Edition | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations — 10.17.12 Edition()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: » Blog Archive » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Debate Edition()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog()

  • Pingback: Watcher Council Nominations! | Independent Sentinel()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels Nominations Out for Post Debate Edition | Maggie's Notebook()

  • Pingback: Debating the Undebatable |()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Second Presidential Debate Edition – Was Obama Wearing an Ear Piece? | askmarion()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Wonderful Watcher’s Council Words()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: Watcher Council Winners! Independent Sentinel Wins First Place But It’s Really About Benghazi! | Independent Sentinel()

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels — 08.19.12 Winners()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results |

  • Pingback: » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners – 10/19/12()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council results for October 19, 2012()

  • rau9

    I’ve been looking into this issue, and have some concerns about the stats being bandied about on EC – emergency contraception.

  • Pingback: Thirteen Days Until. . . |()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()