Ohio lawmakers consider family planning bill

State lawmakers moved forward Wednesday with a bill that would send Planned Parenthood to the back of the line for public family-planning money, even as crowds of chanting protesters lined the Statehouse halls to oppose the measure.
Associated Press
Nov 15, 2012

The Health and Aging Committee planned a vote later Wednesday on the bill, which would then go to the House floor. The Senate would take up the measure after Thanksgiving at the earliest.

Chairman Lynn Wachtmann, a Republican from Napoleon, said he expected the panel to support the measure.

Protesters in pink T-shirts chanted "Hear us now!" as they packed the hall outside the committee's meeting. Some were staffers of Planned Parenthood. Other protesters wore shirts reading "Women are Watching."

State Sen. Nina Turner, a Cleveland Democrat, said at a news conference on the bill that Republicans in the Statehouse were ignoring the message sent by women with last week's re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama.

"It is absolutely immoral and unconscionable what the GOP is doing," Turner said. "They have not learned their lesson. They are at it again, but it is our job to teach them."

She said Planned Parenthood provides needed preventive health care to low-income women that would be jeopardized by the bill.

Wachtmann said other quality providers of women's health care have sprung up around the state and the bill would give those centers a chance at government funds.

"We have the potential of a lot bigger offering to a lot more women," he said. "This thought that the way everything is today is the best way to do it is just such an archaic thought."

Republican Senate President Tom Niehaus said his caucus is mulling the bill, as well as what action — if any — to take on another measure that would ban most abortions after the first detectable heartbeat. The so-called heartbeat bill, which has cleared the House and is stalled in the Senate, was another target of the Statehouse protesters, many of them female, on Wednesday.

NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio director Kellie Copeland said if that bill passes, the protests in Columbus will only get bigger and louder.

Asked what message on women's issues he took away as a Republican from last week's presidential election, Niehaus left that to others.

"There are a lot of pundits talking about what the election meant. What I try to stay focused on is what's important to Ohio right now, and that's jobs," he said. "I mean, what are we doing to help make Ohio the right place for people to start companies, employ people, and how do they go about getting jobs? That's where I want to keep the focus in the Senate."

 

Comments

the office cat

@Verdict... 'Silent Scream' was debunked a decade ago as a 'manufactured' video. How dare you bring it up now except to declare war on children? Yeah, children. And in all your ramblings I haven't seen anything about all those embryos languishing in test tubes in some fertility clinic - children whose parents 'chose' to implant some and now have all they want and are leaving their 'snowbabies' to disintegrate. Until you address those 'citizens' and 'persons' you remain a hypocrit.

verdict

Debunked!? Says who? How can it be debunked when a former director of Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnsoon, made headlines when she told her story about how she decided to leave PP and join the Pro-Lifers when she watched a child (11 weeks in the womb), on the ultrasound, trying to escape the abortionist's instruments. This was a far more recent account.
Whatever helps you sleep, I guess. SMH.

By the way, why would you post a response about the silent scream thing under a comment that had nothing to do with it? Are you trying to distract from the overwhelming logic contained within the comment that you replied under?

verdict

Yes, I can understand it. It is not some great mystery. You are talking about a matter of comfort. Sorry, tho..we can't afford it.
And why would you ignore the fact that teh Obama Admin is threatening to cut 40 billion in Medicaid funding to Indiana if they defund PP? THEN those women won't even be able to afford those same services from their primary physician!

the office cat

@verdict. The Administration is not threatening to cut $40 billion in Medicaid funding to Indiana. Indiana always has known - as have other states - that there are stipulations to receiving said funding. They knew it five years ago when they decided to cut said funding for children with autism and similar conditions. Indiana has taken a radical right turn since Mitch Daniels (the new president of Purdue) took office.

verdict

So, how does that change the fact that, under Obama, everything I just said is still happening..regardless of who knew what and when.
Obama should step up and help those Indiana women if he claims to care.

My guess, he will not do so. Their preventative care will be held hostage because Obama is an abortion extremist. Most Americans do not even agree with his version of pro-choice. Partial-birth abortions, for instance.
Even some of his fellow Democrats were quoted as saying that his views are borderline infanticide.

verdict

Cue someone to flood the page with nonsensical and half-sensical rants to attempt to drown out the logic in all of my posts prior.
Oh, look..here's one now. It might even be entertaining, let's see.

the office cat

@Verdict. Keep it up! Us zygotes who were denied basic rights of identity, inheritance, knowledge, crucial medical information in adulthood - citizenship by natural-born - are on YOUR side. Let's declare an embryo with a beating heart a person with all the citizenship rights appended to such status.
And yes, a person with a beating heart could not be denied identity or inheritance just because Citizen X was being placed for adoption. Citizen X would be allowed to inherit wealth along with its siblings. Citizen X would be allowed to use its family name(s). Citizen X would have access to medical history not existant at adoption - onset of heart disease, mental disorders, dementia, birth defects, genetic cancers that appear later in life - in the interest of protecting Citizen X's right to life.
Illegal immigration no longer will be a problem - anchor babies now would be children conceived in the US. The 'natural born' clause for presidents in the Constitution would be void - and THERE WOULD BE NO MORE BIRTHERS! Citizen X would receive a "Certificate of Conception" or "Certificate of Heartbeat".

The only downside to all this? Any 'heartbeat citizen' being guaranteed right to life would, by law, be entitled to legal representation to assure the parents are providing properly AND to assure all citizenship right such as inheritance, etc.
Of course the government would be required to provide the legal representation as Citizen X will have to financial means.

the office cat

Cabdrivers favor this bill because it will mean a return to one of the most lucrative side ventures - clotheshanger abortions in back alleys. How many among Verdict and others remember the generations before Roe v. Wade? How many know a 'thalidomide baby'? "Personal responsibility"/ What's that? Not driving after drinking? Not wearing a helmet? Not blowing tobacco smoke in a confined area? Taking your hat off in church?

the office cat

Cabdrivers favor this bill because it will mean a return to one of the most lucrative side ventures - clotheshanger abortions in back alleys. How many among Verdict and others remember the generations before Roe v. Wade? How many know a 'thalidomide baby'? "Personal responsibility"/ What's that? Not driving after drinking? Not wearing a helmet? Not blowing tobacco smoke in a confined area? Taking your hat off in church?

reese

I for one remember things before Roe v. Wade. Abortions still existed...girls tried to self-abort babies, back alley abortions were the norm for poor or frightened girls, and those from wealthy families still had access to abortions. Or, young unmarried girls and women carried their babies to term and carried the shame of their situation around with the baby. I often see comments made about girls/women who have had children out of wedlock quite often on this website. I see comments about how wrong it is that the taxpayers have to pay for these children. Seems hypocritical to me to condemn women for having their babies and also condemn those who choose to have an abortion. It makes no sense to me.

But, many women prefer going to Planned Parenthood for preventative care, because of the lower cost, easier access, and the kind of care that they receive. Sometimes young women or men are not comfortable going to their primary care physician for the care that they can receive from Planned Parenthood. They should have that choice.

verdict

@Reese Again, I have never heard of any epidemic of back alley abortions. Perhaps in some cesspool such as various areas within NYC or LA (and the like), but..that would not qualify as "the norm" for America at large (not anywhere near it).
Either way, tho..it still would not be indicative of the results that a crackdown would achieve in the era of the present (a crackdown which could be announced a year in advance of implementation). It would be a different ballgame with the threat of murder charges (except in the case of rape or medical emergencies).

---Reese: "Seems hypocritical to me to condemn women for having their babies and also condemn those who choose to have an abortion."
---Verdict: I guess it WOULD seem that way when you are lumping them all into one group whom you refer to as people "who have their babies." You are missing the entire point..which is that they are only criticizing those men and women who engage in unprotected sex before they "have their house in order."

reese

Verdict, I don't know how old you are but Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, making abortion legal in all states. Prior to that, four states allowed abortions starting in 1970. It was illegal in Ohio and 45 other states. If a girl/woman lived in Ohio or one of the other states where abortion was still illegal, and she wanted to have an abortion,she either went to a back alley abortionist, tried a self-induced abortion or traveled to New York (the only state that allowed nonresidents to have abortions)if she could afford to do this and had a way to get there. I guess in the 60's, wealthy women could travel to England and get a legal, safe abortion. If a girl was in high school and became pregnant, she had to leave school and sometimes, when her family was too embarrassed, she would have to go to a home for unwed mothers until she had her baby. Lots of people had unprotected sex(and still do) and the forms of birth control back then were not as effective as they are today. It was not just in "some cesspool such as various areas within NYC or LA." You need to read up on the history of abortion in America. Per the Guttmacher Institute, "during the 1950's and 1960's the number of illegal abortions performed in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. Since abortion was illegal, the incidence is most likely underestimated. In 1930, 1/5 of all maternal deaths officially listed abortion as the cause of death. Abortion was illegal at this time.

Abortion was "Generally permitted at the nation's founding and for several decades thereafter, the procedure was made illegal under most circumstances in most states beginning in the mid-1800s. In the 1960s, states began reforming their strict antiabortion laws, so that when the Supreme Court made abortion legal nationwide, legal abortions were already available in 17 states under a range of circumstances beyond those necessary to save a woman's life." (Guttmacher Institute, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy March 2003, Volume 6, Number 1)

My point is, people will continue to have sexual relationships outside of marriage and before they "have their house in order." Sometimes they will not use protection, sometimes they will use protection that is not that effective, and sometimes they will not use protection correctly. The only 100% effective birth control method is abstenence.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood are comfortable, affordable, trusted, accessible places where folks can go where they will receive education and preventative services to help prevent unintended pregnancies.

verdict

Ahem. I hope you wrote that last paragraph BEFORE reading the final comment I made below (with the Live Action Films channel link to a SLEW of video footage showing the kind of things that go on at Planned Parenthood). If not, then I dunno what anyone can say to excuse you.
Planned Parenthood is "trusted?" No. Planned Parenthood should have NO trust, whatsoever..after everything that Live Action Films has exposed with VIDEO FOOTAGE.

You have to at LEAST admit that YOU would NEVER send any daughter of your own there without your supervision. I would hope not, anyway.

verdict

From Guttmacher's own website:
"The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development."
"The Center was originally housed within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)."

Can YOU say "conflict of interest?"
If I could find some newspaper reports about this epidemic of back alley abortions, I could take it seriously. I am not, however, ready to base my views on the claims of the Guttmacher Institute, which is a "semi-autonomous division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America."

Again, tho..it wouldn't matter even IF it were true. That was the 50's and 60's. The social scene is different now. Things are more advanced.
More and more younger people are being educated about what really goes on with abortion and are joining the Pro-Life movement. (The cover-ups, the medical misinformation about the procedure itself as well as the damage it can do to the mother in the short and long term..they are learning about this).

verdict

@Reese I feel like you don't really understand all that a "crackdown" would entail. Perhaps that is why you seem so overwhelmed and seem to feel that there is no hope of bringing back personal responsibility and sound family planning.
You almost sound opposed to it, tho. This confuses me since, at this point, I would think most would agree that a crackdown is needed if Planned Parenthood's "publicly stated goal" is ever to become a realistic goal for America again.

verdict

Consider the following before you decide if you would EVER send YOUR daughter (or any family member, for that matter) to a Planned Parenthood facility.

"Live Action Films" conducts a slew of undercover video camera operations at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country. They have exposed a number of things about Planned Parenthood that should clench the fist of any parent who has a daughter.
Undercover video footage of things that PP employees are involved in, that they support (aid, abet, enable), and have covered up..even things which they coerce kids into doing and things they coerce kids into keeping secret from their parents.
Live Action Films YouTube channel is at http://www.youtube.com/user/Live...

The above link goes to a table of contents (scroll down below the video screen) which categorizes their video uploads of their undercover camera ops into video playlists.
I recommend ALL of the playlists, but especially:
() "Mona Lisa Project" (videos including PP employee cover-up of pedophilia and other sex abuse)
() "Child Sex Trafficking Support Investigation" (self-explanatory)
() "Rose Acuna Project" (videos investigating PP medical misinformation)
() "Sex-Selection Abortion Investigation" (videos of PP employees encouraging abortion due to unwanted gender of the child)
() "Race Based Donations Investigation" (PP will target a specific race for your abortion donation funds to be used on, if you so desire)

Pages