Mitt Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 14, 2012 at 10:28 am
After Koman's disastrous decision and the resultant outpouring of support for Planned Parenthood, one would imagine an otherwise intelligent person would have learned a lesson. The lesson? Don't stand (or sit, on fairly large bottoms) with misogynists like Rush Limbaugh.
Nope, not a savvy politician like Mitt Romney:
"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."
He was for Planned Parenthood before he was against it, much like his positions on every other issue. If he were to become president, rating his progress would be fascinating - on every issue, he can say he fulfilled a promise, or others can say he broke a promise on the very same issue by looking at his flip, or at his flop.
One wonders how Mitt Romney expects to be president without women voting for him.
I'm beginning to abhor the man, prancing around the South in jeans claiming to love grits and droppin' his g's, trying to hide his silver spoon country club roots. Claiming to detest the elites, when in fact he is the ELITIST one in the room.
Posted by war on women, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 11:04 am
The Republicans are trying to revoke the last 50 years of women's rights progress. They are quickly becoming the party of old white men. I don't understand how they think a strategy like that can win elections.
Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I'm not a big fan of Mitt myself. Will vote for Obama in the fall.
However, I think you have mis-characterized Romney's statement and taken it for just a sound byte.
He was discussing Federal funding of PP, not the existence of the organization itself.
More on point, He was stating that before he is willing to take on more Fedral debt and "taking loans from China", he would would want to stop *funding* what he felt were non-essential budget line items. In that statement he gave "Obama Care" and "Planned Parenthood" as examples of where he would cut Federal funding.
He did not say he would get rid of or eliminate Planned Parenthood the organization. This was also reiterated by his staff.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 14, 2012 at 2:01 pm
""taking loans from China", he would would want to stop *funding* what he felt were non-essential budget line items. "
Odd he wouldn't give other examples of funding he would cut to reduce our loans from China.
Such as the Bush tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. Governor Romney wants us to keep borrowing from China to keep his tax rate at 13%. In fact, he wants to borrow more from China so he can further cut taxes for billionaires.
Much more important than reproductive health services and intelligent family planning.
Posted by Shawn, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
Women who do not want to get pregnant know how to accomplish it, just don't have sex. During the Great Depression the birth rate fell precipitously, because women (and men) did not want to be burdened by large families. The rythym method and abstinence works, as long as there is self control.
Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 2:15 pm
I'm just saying that your original statement, "Mitt Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood" is a mis-statement if you are only basing your claim on the very recent sound byte - without adding full-context to the question and answer given.
If you have other quotes to support your statement, fine with me.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm
"Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. "
That's the quote from the link I gave.
"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."
Tell me how his wanting to get rid of PP is taken out of context or fabricated, please. Please read the article and statements.
He said it. It's on tape. An organization that provides health care and basic preventative services, such a an annual pap smear, to millions of low income women. Governor Romney wants to git rid of it at the same time he proposes further lowering his tax rate below the actual 13% he paid on $40 million in income.
Poor women versus tax cuts for billionaires. Mitt Romney has made his choice.
Posted by Pretty Bad, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2012 at 12:51 am
I don't think you can let Mitt off easily on this, saying he was just listing programs that would have to be de-funded. He picks it out specifically to buttress his anti-abortion position and pander to social conservatives. The savings on cutting federal funding for family planning (not just Planned Parenthood) amounts to $300M on a $1.2 trillion (with a "t") deficit, or 0.025% (source: Romney's budget plan) - so the only reason to call it out is to pander to the social conservative base (which doesn't believe him anyway).
I personally admire Mitt generally as a person and a businessman. But his willingness to say *anything* to get elected is disturbing. This is another striking example of that problem.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:56 am
Romney: "Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. "
PC Mom: "Didn't think Romney would say anything that stupid."
"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." Here's the link again Web Link
He said it. He intends to be the federal version of those state politicians that want to run Planned Parenthood out of town - look at Kansas as an example. Web Link
This is part of the war - there's a reason Doonesbury got pulled from a bunch of papers this week. Read the strips for the week at Web Link
"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." From the folks that brought you the phrase "trans-vaginal probes".
It's a war. Trans-vaginal probes. Restricting women's access to healthcare and intelligent family planning. Not a single GOP leader condemning Rush Limbaugh's hate speech. The list goes on.
Try and tell me he didn't say it.
"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 6:41 am
I will vote for anyone wanting to lower our tax support ( or borrowed money support) of programs that are by nature private. Birth control, abortions, child care payments, housing payments, etc are not the function of DC..these areas are the function of private individuals to care for.
Or do you all really want to just take from anyone to pay for anyone else's decisions? If that is the case, why not just take everything from everyone, and redistribute it to everyone else? Why not just "from each what he can, to each what he "needs"? You DO realize what you are wishing for, don't you?
Let's get back to each person caring for himself and his/her family. Otherwise, why not vote for any politician promising a car in every garage?
As for Romney: anyone but any Dem gets my vote, esp. ABO. Anyone for decreasing federal "support" and control over my life gets my vote.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 6:47 am
Dorothy: I don't want to pay for other people's "health care", children, housing, cars, food, and I don't want others to pay for mine..I want each of us to work and care for ourselves. I am a woman, I want to be treated as an adult, not a child. Republicans are not at "war" against women, we are at "war" against infantalizing adults, male and female, in our nation. If you wish to pay for others, feel free to donate your money to any organization you wish, but stop trying to force everyone else to pay for your dreams.
As for Limbaugh: where was your outrage when Maher called Palin the "C" word? And a long list of other appalling statements about women by other democrats. Your outrage is selective. Limbaugh went over the top, AND I would join you in outrage if you were at all consistent.
By the way, keep your eyes open..here comes the manipulation of thought again in the form of Dems in the Senate adding all kinds of riders that have nothing to do with violence against women to the Violence Against Women Act for its usual renewal time, in order to force a fight and make it look like Repubs are against stopping violence against women. Don't you ever get tired of being manipulated?
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Thank you for your response, delighted you have chosen to engage in discussion.
I have no use for today's vulgar and uncouth 'comedians'. If politicians condemned every vulgar remark made by today's comedians they'd never have time to fundraise.
Mr Limbaugh stands out in that he has continually been honored by Republicans, from Ronald Reagan, both Presidents Bush, the current Speaker of the House, conservative movement icons from Pat Buchanan on down and countless members of the House and Senate, including House proclamations. I am unaware of any honors for Mr Maher such as President Bush inviting Mr Limbaugh to stay at the White House, being called the voice of the conservative movement by President Reagan, House proclamations, etc..
Would you like examples of Republican honors and statement of support for Mr Limbaugh over the last couple decades?
Given their support over that time, one wonders why there has not been vociferous condemnation by the three current leaders of the Republican Party - the Speaker of the House and one of the presumptive leaders, our next GOP nominee, either Governor Romney or Senator Santorum. The Speaker called use of the word "s***" and the request for sex videos merely "inappropriate." The Governor uttered something on the order of "not words I would have chosen". A church mouse has more spine.
It appears the leaders of the Republican Party have no ability to stand up to Mr Limbaugh.
As to your statement: "I would join you in outrage if you were at all consistent." I'm perplexed. I have not defended the vulgar comedian, yet you seem uninterested in speaking out against the filth of Mr Limbaugh without your conditions being met. One would imagine the honorable ideal to be speaking out against filth and hate speech without condition.
Quite perplexed, but I don't understand today's generation with newfangled linguistic contraptions such as the 'nonapology apology' so perhaps honor or outrage being conditional is the new norm.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 5:36 pm
I heard all 3 days of comments by Limbaugh on Fluke. I actually understood his point, poorly made via his usual hyperbolic manner, but nonetheless valid, that when one is paid for the perk of having sex, be it by money, food,housing or paid birth control, one is not of the caliber of woman I would wish to raise my daughters to be. Like I said, he went over the top, but I don't join in the false "outrage" I have been hearing. Maher gave 1 million bucks to Obama's PAC, for example, yet nobody has suggested Obama give it back in outrage over Maher's comments.
Frankly, I am appalled in general by the lack of civility to any of us in our discourse, but particularly by our elected officials. When Obama called a private citizen a "jackass", ( whether or not for a good reason, referring to Kanye West), I found it appalling and indicative of the state of our country when the POTUS can use such language about a private person, let alone any one elected. With "entertainers" calling conservative women and men all kinds of horrid names, and calling it comedy, I have been in an outrage for the last 20 years. With a prior president abusing his power of office for sex with an intern, with not a peep from anyone from media to NOW,I was in an outrage. My outrage is outrun. I am tired of the selective outrage.
As for Limbaugh, he went over the top. But I am not outraged. Anyone actually listening to him would have understood the point he was trying to make, but frankly he went too far and it was not good. But outrage? No, I am not there.
I recommend "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce for a good read on the political correctness that has overtaken our society. Or, "The Death of Right and Wrong" by the same ( or both books!)She was one of the first reads of mine which helped me to see I was not going crazy. I was a Democrat, staunch liberal in the old fashioned "live and let live" sense, much like she was, not the new sense of "take over everyone else's lives". Tammy was also, ran NOW in LA during the OJ trials, and is gay. Yet she, too, started smelling something fishy in the 90s, and realizing something was very, very wrong with the Democrat/Left wing in our country.
I suspect you may enjoy her books, as you strike me as someone who is thoughtful.
Posted by VoxPop, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Perspective, would you also say "...that when one is paid for the perk of having sex, be it by money, food, housing or paid birth control, one is not of the caliber of woman I would wish to raise my daughters to be..." about men who get prescriptions for erectile dysfunction?
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:14 am
First you said: "I would join you in outrage if you were at all consistent."
Now you say: "But I am not outraged."
Thank you. I didn't feel I could be more perplexed from your original comments, but you have indeed raised that bar for me.
The man proclaimed by many as the leading conservative voice (per President Reagan, etc..) addressing a college student's testimony to congress, called her the most vile names and requested a sex video. Apparently, his current well documented pharmaceutical regimen for ED and his fourth wife are not adequate to his needs, he must insult and degrade the very flower of America - young women getting an education to make solid contribution to our society and country.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 5:58 am
VoxPop: I don't care if anyone gets prescriptions for anything, including viagra..I do care if I am forced to buy insurance to cover every prescription there is, or as is coming in the very near future, pay taxes for everyone else's desires, including sexual.
I did not like viagra or implants becoming part of Medicare, I find it appalling..I don't like the direction we are headed at all.
We each should be allowed to buy the insurance that covers what we wish to cover. Me, I just want to be able to buy catastrophic insurance, but this is no longer allowed, so I am stuck with $550/month insurance payments to get covered my basic catastrophic concerns. In the meantime, it also covers chiropractic, organ transplants,and a long list of "insured medical procedures" that I have no desire to pay for. It is just getting worse.
Let's go back to letting us buy the insurance we want, not the insurance that is mandated. This would drop our insurance rates significantly, equivalent to letting us buy a Ford Focus instead of forcing us to choose between a Jaguar or no car at all.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:04 am
Dorothy: Again, I suggest you actually listen to Rush Limbaugh's full comments to try to understand his point. Succinctly put, if someone else must pay for the sexual behavior and consequences of a person, what does that make the person? Like I said, it was over the top to make the point, but I am not outraged. It was not gratuitous, it was on topic, and it was illustrative of the point.
So no, I still am not outraged. It is not the way I would have made the point, but look what it did...it made the point to those who have ears.
BTW, this "young woman" was 30 years old, and specifically chose a Catholic institution to study Law in so that she could be part of trying to force religious institutions to provide "care" that is against their religious freedom. She also thought we were dumb enough to believe there are any students dumb enough at Georgetown to decide against birth control "because it is too expensive"...like a baby is cheaper than birth control? If this is the caliber of "education" Georgetown is producing, I have no problem helping to lift their caliber a it.
Posted by Dorothy, a resident of Woodside, on Mar 20, 2012 at 9:31 am
Ms Perspective: "We each should be allowed to buy the insurance that covers what we wish to cover."
Thank you. You, I and Ms Fluke should have that right. A vast majority of Americans want insurance plans that cover contraception and insurers prefer to provide that as it keeps their costs down.
But really, how does your buying a policy that includes contraception, or not, effect me? Ms Fluke seeks the institution's insurance plan to cover contraception. It doesn't effect your costs on your plan whether you are with that insurer or not.
To help ease your worries, I must tell you I have listened to about three minutes of tape covering Mr Limbaugh's comments. Isn't that enough for the man to make his point, however barbaric and vulgar - must I listen to more of his vulgarities to satisfy you? In three minutes he called her vulgar names, suggested terrible things about her character (which surprisingly you obliquely reference and apparently agree with) and asked for a sex video.
First you were outraged, then had qualified outrage, now you are not outraged. Most recently, you are "still" not outraged.
Lastly, your conclusion: "...like a baby is cheaper than birth control?" Yes dear, that's exactly why plans with contraception are less expensive than those without.