Scott Brown is the quintessential RINO
A liberal who decided to run as a conservative so he could be elected,and once in governs just like all the rest of the Libs-ass backwards!
Scott Brown Says We Can't De-Fund Planned Parenthood: Are You With Him or Against Him?
SodaHead Politics
2011/03/24 22:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
121 votes
|
|
39% | |||
|
174 votes
|
|
55% | |||
|
19 votes
|
|
6% | |||
Republicans rejoiced in 2010 when Scott Brown pulled off an upset in traditionally liberal Massachusetts and took the seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy. They praised his bootstraps story of rising up from a difficult childhood that included abuse into a career in modeling followed by a quick rise in politics.
And then … Brown made the cardinal sin of a Republican senator and announced this week that he opposes GOP efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
According to the pro-life site LifeNews.com, Brown released a “carefully-worded” statement on Tuesday that it said was “either designed to deliberately confuse organizations following the de-funding debate in Congress or masterfully tiptoeing around a delicate issue.”
Brown’s statement was interpreted by many pro-life groups as a shift in Brown’s position on de-funding Planned Parenthood, which he recently supported though his vote for the House-passed long-term Continuing Resolution containing the Pence Amendment, which would remove all taxpayer-funded support for PP.
“I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts,” Brown said. “However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
LifeNews later reported that it remained unclear if Brown’s statement referred to just the PP de-funding or if he was referring to the entire House bill, which would wipe out all funding for the Title X family planning program, which doesn’t pay for abortions, but provides aid for family planning and reproductive health.
The confusion angered many in the pro-life community and the website suggested that either Brown’s office was simply confused about the two proposals, or that the senator “deliberately issued a statement that the media would interpret as a comment on Planned Parenthood, while pro-lifers would see it as merely a statement on Title X.”
Brown has never claimed to be a pro-life candidate and he’s the third Senate Republican (joining Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) to publicly oppose the PP de-funding proposal.
Are you with Scott Brown or against him on the PP bill?
And then … Brown made the cardinal sin of a Republican senator and announced this week that he opposes GOP efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
According to the pro-life site LifeNews.com, Brown released a “carefully-worded” statement on Tuesday that it said was “either designed to deliberately confuse organizations following the de-funding debate in Congress or masterfully tiptoeing around a delicate issue.”
Brown’s statement was interpreted by many pro-life groups as a shift in Brown’s position on de-funding Planned Parenthood, which he recently supported though his vote for the House-passed long-term Continuing Resolution containing the Pence Amendment, which would remove all taxpayer-funded support for PP.
“I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts,” Brown said. “However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
LifeNews later reported that it remained unclear if Brown’s statement referred to just the PP de-funding or if he was referring to the entire House bill, which would wipe out all funding for the Title X family planning program, which doesn’t pay for abortions, but provides aid for family planning and reproductive health.
The confusion angered many in the pro-life community and the website suggested that either Brown’s office was simply confused about the two proposals, or that the senator “deliberately issued a statement that the media would interpret as a comment on Planned Parenthood, while pro-lifers would see it as merely a statement on Title X.”
Brown has never claimed to be a pro-life candidate and he’s the third Senate Republican (joining Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) to publicly oppose the PP de-funding proposal.
Are you with Scott Brown or against him on the PP bill?
Top Opinion
-
Stratweenie57 2011/03/24 22:34:01
People who are opposed to abortion love to talk about "babies" and "innocent life" as if there were no woman involved. But there is. There is an autonomous, breathing, thinking, feeling woman involved and if she's facing an unplanned pregnancy, she needs help. The cost of gestating and giving birth to a baby starts out around $16,000 and quickly skyrockets if any complications arise, including the need for a c-section. Without health insurance, that needs to be paid out-of-pocket. Additionally, women can and do lose their jobs and their homes when they become pregnant.
Raising a child can cost $300,000+ and adoption isn't always a viable alternative - first of all, it requires the woman to spend nine months pregnant and risk her life giving birth, and second, unless that baby is healthy and white, s/he's probably not getting adopted. Millions of kids grow up in foster care. The problem isn't that people don't want to adopt, it's that they want to adopt infants - healthy, white infants. They don't want a blac...
People who are opposed to abortion love to talk about "babies" and "innocent life" as if there were no woman involved. But there is. There is an autonomous, breathing, thinking, feeling woman involved and if she's facing an unplanned pregnancy, she needs help. The cost of gestating and giving birth to a baby starts out around $16,000 and quickly skyrockets if any complications arise, including the need for a c-section. Without health insurance, that needs to be paid out-of-pocket. Additionally, women can and do lose their jobs and their homes when they become pregnant.
Raising a child can cost $300,000+ and adoption isn't always a viable alternative - first of all, it requires the woman to spend nine months pregnant and risk her life giving birth, and second, unless that baby is healthy and white, s/he's probably not getting adopted. Millions of kids grow up in foster care. The problem isn't that people don't want to adopt, it's that they want to adopt infants - healthy, white infants. They don't want a black five-year-old with AIDS. In in my opinion, the adoption system should be revamped so it is easier to adopt and easier for women to choose to put their unplanned babies up for adoption.
95 percent of abortions occur before the 10th week of gestation. What does an abortion like that look like? I'll show you: http://www.abortionaccess.inf...
I want to reduce the need for abortion in America, but defunding Planned Parenthood and making it impossible for women to access low-cost birth control and medical care - including prenatal care - isn't going to reduce abortion. It's going to make the need for it go up.
I do agree with you that this is the anti-abortionist's ultimate goal. It's about saving innocent life, but only second to making sure that women don't have casual sex. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to remind people that sex is powerful - sex leads to procreation, and we need to be careful with that power. Unfortunately, the onus of that power lies almost entirely with women, which I think is why women have spent centuries being subjugated and even murdered for their sexuality. That's why we piss and moan about women being sluts and degenerates and baby-killers, but rarely try to tell our sons to rein in their sex lives. Makes me very sad.
Far from clueless!! If you had a shred of self respect and any moral compass what so ever, you would understand.
Unfortunately, you are probably sucking off some Government program as it is, and don't want to lose your "benny's".
These politicians have put you over $14 trillion in debt! Wasn't this liar Brown elected to do something about this debt? Isn't it time to take back control of your country?!!! How much more are you willing to take? What a herd you have become! You are 300 million who allow a measly 536 treasonous politicians to control you and steal from you? How have you become such a flock?
While I hated to see a republican assume Ted Kennedy's seat after he died, Scott Brown has turned out to be a moderate and has not voted strictly along party lines, he knows his constituency apparently and represents them accordingly.
With apologies to Joyce Kilmer, author of Trees
I thought that I would never see
A program sacred as P.P.
A program that Barack will back
Against the GOP attack.
A program Biden will defend
Against the budget cutting trend.
A program for which Nancy fights
Beneath the flag of women's rights.
A program for which Harry Reid
Would shutter government indeed.
When deficits begin to squeeze
We see their true priorities.
While other programs come and go
This sacred cow must stay just so.
thebardofmurdock.blogspot.com
Wow- they would actually have to take a pay cut and cut down on governmental controls
In the 1980's/70's the crime rate lowered drastically in almost every major city in America. That is because 25 years earlier abortion became legal. They found that the crime rate in people 25 or under drastically lowered while the crime rate in those 25 or above didn't decrease at all. Read Freakonomics it's really cool.
But anyways, yeah, Planned Parenthood is perfectly fine, cutting that would be stupid.