Just wanted to point out the gender dimension of the new budget. A lot has been made of the underlying class warfare in the Wisconsin Republican/Tea party lately. And while that is certainly a major impetus behind their Reverse-Robinhood policies, it’s easy to focus our anger and indignation on that, to the neglect of other important dimensions of what is going on. For example, there is the culture war element – Walker and his buddies are culturally reactionary and hold a fundamentalist and patriarchal view of the world. It’s worth noting that there is also covert gender warfare tucked into the new state budget. It’s a “pro-life” (read: anti-woman) agenda masquerading as fiscal conservatism. Vlogger NineteenPercent has this to say about it:
In the case of Wisconsin, cuts to Planned Parenthood funding are being portrayed, in part,
as a cost saving measure. But again….and I don’t mean to go buckwild with the logical
thinking here…..but Planned Parenthood prevented over 11,000 pregnancies in 2008,
which saved the state over 139 MILLION DOLLARS that WOULD HAVE been spent
on medical coverage for these would-be moms babies.
There’s lots more awesome if you watch the whole video here.
Also, check out the postcard from here. Greetings from Wisconsin: Strangling Worker’s Rights Like They’re Sassy She-Justices!
Patriotboy and I go way back. I remember his Yellow Elephant blog, which was all about Republicans itching for war but afraid to pay for it or to have their children fight in it. Also about Republicans smearing real soldiers who came out critical of the Iraq War. Ah, that was a blogging good time! He’s a genius, in a manly heterosexual way, of course.
Now, I’m no devout pro-lifer… but can anyone seriously say with a straight face that by barring funding for a free abortions you are infringing upon women’s rights? I mean… if the government won’t fund my purchase of a luxury car, is it infringing upon my right to cruise around town in style? Nope. It’s not.
I’d argue that a government that goes ahead and funds free abortions is smacking poor people across the face. Priorities, priorities…
Hasn’t the Hyde Amendment made it illegal for federal funds to be used for abortions?
Am I wrong on that?
I’m sorry to disabuse you, econ101, but it is and has been illegal for the government to fund abortions.
Cuts to Planned Parenthood make it more difficult for uninsured men (yes men) and women to access reproductive health care such as cancer screening as well as HIV and other STD screening. The benefits of such screening to the health of the community as well as the physical and emotional well being of individuals should be obvious to anyone who has had a high school health class.
Jeffrey is right the budget will increase unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, it could increase the number of abortions. Planned Parenthood specializes in
family planning. It educates women about methods of birth control and often supplies those methods.
I have come to believe that the conservative wing of the GOP has launched war on many fronts, among them a war on women. It seems obvious by this time, that at the very least the radical conservatives want to undo the sixties. Cultural Warriors still do not like the “sexual revolution” or even “women’s liberation.” These were made possible by the “pill” (birth control). I believe that is why Planned Parenthood has become a major target for budget cuts at the federal as well as state level.
The entirety of the Republican Party has come to forget the Hyde Amendment, their one shining hour in the last forty years on the issue of abortion. You are correct, Linda, that econ101 needs to take history101.
Yes. Planned Parenthood does not itself perform abortions. It just counsels people about it. I get that, but this is an officially asinine service. You would need to live under a rock to not understand birth control these days. Planned parenthood’s primary mission is pointless. You don’t want a baby? Take birth control, use a condom, or just don’t have sex. It is shockingly simple. I don’t think the government needs to fund their mission anymore… especially when MTV does a far better job of reaching the target demographic.
In terms of its medical services, I’m all for open clinic services, but let them get funding the old fashioned way… from a concerned public. If their services are really that useful, people will donate enough to cover their operating expenses. It works for everyone else. I don’t understand why Planned Parenthood is so helpless…
Also, with Obamacare recklessly screaming towards implementation, all these people will soon have access to cancer and STD screenings.
I don’t know how much more redundant an organization can be. I mean… then again we could always set up another silly taxpayer funded economic “think tank”…
Regardless… I guess all hope is lost, because with this logic one would deduce that the United States is at war with anything it doesn’t fund.
FInally… what genius determined that Planned Parenthood stopped over 11,000 pregnancies last year? I mean… are we to seriously believe that someone would only use contraceptives or seek an abortion after consulting Planned Parenthood? Personally… I’m betting people are smarter than that… That is one of the most loaded statistics I have ever had the pleasure of seeing on this blog.
Nothing in the statistic “Planned Parenthood prevented over 11,000 pregnancies” requires the assumption “someone would only use contraceptives or seek an abortion after consulting Planned Parenthood.”
So you are openly admitting that Planned Parenthood is pointless and that this 11,000 number is pure fantasy?
‘but Planned Parenthood prevented over 11,000 pregnancies in 2008,
which saved the state over 139 MILLION DOLLARS that WOULD HAVE been spent
on medical coverage for these would-be moms babies’
Problem solved, just cut the funding for medical care for the babies! We’re saving money all over the place, I tell ya. All you have to do is cover every possible base, cut funding for every avenue of assistance for low-income men and women (and their babies), and once they’re done dying in the streets they won’t reproduce like rabbits anymore.
Once we’ve established that only pretty lieutenant governors deserve life-saving medical care paid for by taxpayers, everything else will fall into place. And be maintained by careful manipulation of the voting population.
GOPs really do hate women with IQ’s over 80 that don’t look and think like Cupie dolls or church ladies. Prosser’s act is merely the tip of the iceburg.
This guy finds the GOP’s misogyny act beyond weak.
Jeffrey, I find it highly offensive that you think being pro-life means that one is anti-woman. So because I believe an unborn life should be protected (and yes, it is a life, modern science backs me up on that), that somehow means I am against women? Ludicrious! I guess being pro-choice then means that you are anti-child.
To Econ101, yes actually Planned Parenthood does provide abortion services. Therefore, they do not deserve public funds, even if those funds don’t supposedly directly go toward those services.
It is not just Jeff who feels that being rabidly pro-life is an anti-woman stance, but the vast majority of women think the same.
Do they get any respect from you? Then talk to the woman who is forced to give birth. Talk to the woman who is poor already and can’t face another mouth to feed. Forget Jeff. Talk with real compassion with the ones who matter on this subject.
I know what’s next, that someone will bring up the subject of adoption, claiming that so-called “pro-life” supporters are ready and willing to adopt. Ain’t true. But as the father of a hard-to-adopt child, I’ll let you address those questions to me.
Technically, I think that everyone is right about the abortion funding. With a little creative accounting, you can put your government funds over here and free up private funds over there. Technically, no federal funds can be spent on abortions, but its totally disingenuous to pretend that those federal funds don’t free up private resources for abortion activities.
The problem is that I don’t think the Hyde Amendment rules out funding an organization that helps perform abortions, it just stipulates that government funds can’t be spent on abortions. Loophole alert.
What you have described is not a loophole.
The intention of the Hyde Amendment is to prevent the use of federal funds for abortions. It is not the intention of the Hyde Amendment to prevent organizations from performing abortions.
Your point is irrelevant, I’m not arguing that the Hyde Amendment’s purpose was to prevent any organization from performing abortions.
I believe the Hyde Amendment’s intent was to force organizations to raise private funds to give away free abortion services. However, in my scenario, any virtual wall accounting trick renders this a silly exercise as federal funds allow private funds to be utilized for abortion services thereby implying that federal funds paid for performing abortions.