Monthly Match: Planned Parenthood

The House is planning to vote today on a bill that will repeal Obamacare.

Included in that bill is a provision that would prohibit Medicaid from paying for services from Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is an organization dedicated to women’s reproductive health and more broadly women’s healthcare.

It does fantastic work and provides treatment for women who cannot get it otherwise.

Our monthly match efforts are designed to combat the efforts in Washington to undo things that are near and dear to us.

And Planned Parenthood and low cost/free women’s reproductive health care is one of those things.

So today, we are launching a $30k match offer for Planned Parenthood.

Amy, Susan, Joanne, Brad, Albert and I will collectively match $30k of donations made to Planned Parenthood.

Our match offer will end when we reach $30k of collective donations or Friday night at midnight pacific time (May 5th).

Here is how the monthly match works

  1. Go to our match offer page and click the big Donate button
  2. Select any amount (min is $10) and click the big Donate button again
  3. Enter your payment credentials and click the big Donate button again
  4. Click the big Tweet Your Donation button
  5. Once you have done all of that your donation will automatically be matched
  6. If you don’t have Twitter, forward your email receipt to [email protected]

I hope you will join us in supporting Planned Parenthood on this difficult day for all who care about women’s reproductive health and women’s health more broadly.

#hacking healthcare#policy#Politics

Comments (Archived):

  1. falicon

    btw – these monthly match campaigns, along with your post about Token, was part of what gave me the idea for the Token Together hack. If it wasn’t on the TestNet, I would jump in on this one with you there too… 🙂

    1. fredwilson

      i love it

  2. Mike Zamansky

    A former student turned dear friend just had his first child. For the bris, he asked that in lieu of gifts guests donate to their favorite charity and suggested planned parenthood.I told Devorah that we should wait on our donation in case you all decided to match PP this month!!!

    1. fredwilson


      1. Mike Zamansky

        Thanks really go to you (and Amy, Susan, Joanne, Brad and Albert) for putting up the match and keeping these causes front and center each month.

        1. marcoliver

          Really like it.

          1. marcoliver


        2. awaldstein

          I agree completely on this. Their leadership means a lot.

    2. ShanaC

      mazel tov

  3. awaldstein

    I’m in.Yours and Gotham Gals and the rest of the matching team’s leadership on this is a big deal and I thank you.This one pushes a ton of buttons for me.

    1. fredwilson

      me too

    2. DJL

      Just curious – are you aware of the founder Margaret Sanger and her history regarding population control and racism?

  4. Jess Bachman

    Republican logic:”Abortions are bad. Contraception is also bad. Pregnancy should cost 435% more.” ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    1. JLM

      .It is hard to suggest abortions aren’t bad for all involved. It is particularly tough on the fetus.As to the issue of contraception, it is not Republicans who object. They do not even have a dog in the fight.It is religious groups whose beliefs are offended by the requirement to support a practice which is anathema to their doctrine.This was addressed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which conflicts with Obamacare. Credit to the Obama administration, they don’t want to require nuns to provide contraceptives to their employees and tried to craft a solution.Unfortunately, their solution required the nuns, et al, to notify the Feds of their unwillingness to provide contraception to which the nuns objected as it made them an active participant in the process (a view I personally find a little tight).In Zubik v Burwell (a compilation of seven different appeals from four different appellate districts) SCOTUS — playing 8 man ball with Scalia dead and Gorsuch not yet suited up — punted and sent it back to the administration, saying, “Can’t y’all figure this out?”In fact, the Obama admin never really cared whether nuns provided contraception. It is not a Republican value. It is a nun value with Obama admin support.Your utterance is a perfect example of lazy thinking which perpetuates stereotypes and prevents persons of goodwill from working through problems. It is sloganeering and both sides are guilty of it.The Obama admin handled themselves in an admirable matter as to their sensitivity to the nuns and the law.This will get worked out.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Jess Bachman

        Republicans are the religeious right’s and evangelicals representive in Congress. No shortage of dogs in this fight. C’mon.As for religious groups being offtended… ok.. well, my hypocracy meter just exploded so let me see if I can get some replacement parts and we can tackle that subject.

        1. JLM

          .You may be missing something rather fundamental, this is not really a Dem v Rep issue.The Obama admin agreed the nuns were right. Again, the Obama admin said the nuns were right and in conformance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.BTW, the RFRA was introduced in the House by Congressman Schumer and in the Senate by Sen Teddy Kennedy in 1993. Hardly members of the religious right, no?The controversy was over how to make the fix, not whether the nuns were right.The Obama admin proposed something the nuns didn’t like because it required them to be part of the fix. The SCOTUS — again with 8 members — sent it back to the Executive Branch to re-design the fix.It is really not a politically charged issue.You are spewing unfounded nonsense. Where is the hypocrisy? Both the Obama admin and the nuns agreed. It was all about the fix.The SCOTUS got that.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. Jess Bachman

            I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.

        2. awaldstein

          Agree with you 100%. It is actually that simple.

        3. JamesHRH

          Identity politics is, by far, the biggest plague upon the Republic.And, any plague that allows people to stop thinking and roll with confirmation biases ( and confirmation bias is agnostic ) will do serious damage.Got a nice friend on FB who is commenting, positively, on what amounts to a Hit List of Republican Representatives who voted For the ACHA.Attitude drives Altitude…..and everyone has their nose in the dirt.

      2. ShanaC

        I will say this again.I like the fact that I am alive.I am ok with the fact that my mother may have had an abortion to have me, or my brother, because she an extreme unicornuate uterus.Quoting a case study from pubmed:A unicornuate uterus with rudimentary horn is often associated with ectopic pregnancies and with rupture of the rudimentary horn and, although it is unclear whether or not to remove the rudimentary horn before conception or early in pregnancy, its resection decidedly improves obstetrical outcomes.Even when a resection of the rudimentary horn is performed, patients with a unicornuate uterus present a higher risk of obstetrical complications, such as first trimester abortion, second trimester abortion, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm delivery and intrauterine fetal demise, and only a few obstetrical risks can be reduced by a particular pregnancy follow up and specific interventions.My parents are VERY religious centerist orthodox jewish people. I believe I was conceived in Jerusalem, specifically, after my mother had put a kvittle (a prayer note) into the Western Wall begging for a child. She also around the same time had gone to the Lubavich Rebbe before he died for a blessing for children (and when she was pregnant with my brother, I went to visit him too as part of a thank you visit)Every branch of Judaism has a totally different stance about abortion, although application of when and under what circumstances is usually a very individualized discussion between a woman and her rabbinic authority. Generally, the LESS LIBERAL rulings follow Maimonidies, (the doctor) (Mishnah Torah The Laws of Murder 1:9)… It is a negative commandment that one should not protect the life of a rodef (pursuer). For this reason, the sages ruled that in the case of a pregnant woman in a dangerous labor, it is permissible to dismember the fetus in her womb – whether with a drug or by hand because it is like a rodef pursuing her to kill her. However, once his head has emerged one may not touch him, as we do not set aside one nefesh [soul] for another, and this is the natural way of the world.(From Moses to Moses, there isn’t anyone like Moses, aka Maimonides…)And that is before I get into somewhere like Hawai’i or parts of California and Jizo…___So, To be crystal clear 1) Exactly how is this Religious Freedom Restoration Act dealing with different religious beliefs about abortion (and even how personhood works, I could go into a wholy separate argument about that) If a very religious orthodox Jewish person works for a very Christian organization, whose religious freedom takes priority? How does this work without violating the establishment clause? How should a Buddhist who owns an LLC or C corp (let’s pretend it is Steve Jobs…with a tinier closely held company, not apple), treat a technically unaligned Evangelical Baptist employee who is nominally theologically associated with Bob Jones University.2) What is the place of the state to regulate or not regulate personhood. If there is a place, what is the precise limit that the state should provide and why is that the limit – and be careful that your definition doesn’t violate the establishment clause unless there is a strong, scientifically and philosophically backed justification for it. IE: Don’t say “The moment of conception” unless you’re also willing to go out on a limb and say “and HeLa cells/cell line are also a person, and should be given rights as a person” because you might be forced into some funny positions that don’t hold up well with the establishment clause driving a secular philosophical point and science.3) Vis a Vis personhood: Going back to Maimonides and unpacking a tiny bit of it for a second: Maimonides doesn’t give babies/fetuses full soulhood/personhood until the head emerges, linguistically speaking. Even still, he hedges. He calls the fetus a rodef. A rodef is a pursuer, a full on person you see chasing after another to rob them, badly hurt them, and/or kill the person being pursued. It is a positive commandment in Jewish law to kill the pursuer, because the pursued is about to suffer great harm and death if you don’t – with the caveat that if you make a mistake, you could face the severe punishment yourself for accidentally killing someone in misjudgment. (very doctor-like of him). This allows women to have an independent body of their own, with rights to health, from the fetus pre-birth.However, it is clear, not everyone sees the world this way, or at least sees the mother;/child as independent enough beings during pregnancy – or alternatively, due to the way they are defining human and personhood, aren’t taking the seriousness of the mother as also having that definition that she fully deserves.So, a thought experiment, to make sure I fully understand your position:A pregnant woman is rushed to the hospital – she’s dying from internal blood loss, and her pregnancy just needs to last a little longer to be in the safer zone of micopremie. You know that as a doctor, beyond internally repairing her organs, her best shot at life is an abortion. You also know it is technically possible to keep her body going, despite the blood lose, for the little longer needed for a c-section micropremie, but if you go this route, the woman will definitely die. You need to get permission from the family, and they will be looking to you for medical guidance, including ethical guidance, for this extraordinarily difficult choice.Whose life is more privileged and why? How does your decision line up with your definition of personhood?(fyi, that is something that can happen, due the extraordinariness of life support technology)

        1. JLM

          .”I like the fact that I am alive.”Those of us who oppose abortion, only want more people to be able to say that. You are an excellent advertisement for life. How about if one were as brilliant as say, Fred Wilson? Not a very outrageous objective?As the Religious Freedom Reformation Act clearly states, it requires an individual to assert an objection.Corporations don’t have religions.The RFRA was a Democrat initiative, sponsored in the House by then Congressman Chuck Schumer and in the Senate by Sen Teddy Kennedy. It is quite good on the situation.As to your extreme examples, the individual herself and the normal procession of decision making provides more than adequate guidance.When there is a legal document and it is of record and available, the wishes of the patient are known and complied with. This happens all the time in eldercare situations.It is not really a cutting edge issue. [That may be very bad pun.]I think you are trying to conflate a faux decision making crisis with the decision itself.Even the decision itself is not a crisis. The law is what the law is.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. ShanaC

            1) You totally sidestepped my point on why I am alive.I’m alive because abortions are legal. It is highly probable, although never confirmed to me, that my mother had an abortion before having me or having my brother. Given the amount of religious drama for my birth, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this was the case.Here’s the really dirty question you need to talk about, are you ethically ok enough with me being alive to also be ok with my mother possibly having an abortion (or multiple, for all I know)?2) You sidestepped parts of the religious question.The whole point was to ask which religious point of view should be privileged vis a vis abortion in this country, given the first amendment, or should the government stay out of it. It is important because not every religion or nonreligion has the same definition on when fetus becomes fully human, and the establishment clause can’t choose a definition privileging some over another without a really good reason.Realistically, Hobby Lobby V Burwell is going to be revisited as soon as 2 different kinds of super-religious get into conflict about how they disagree with the world. It may not even have to be through a birth control or abortion discussion – just pushing how a closely held company views and treats religion onto its employees could be enough.3)I’m the only one of my 20-30 something friends (including my fiance…) who actually has those documents ready, including the ones who have had children. Ha..some eldercare…I’m disappointed you ignored the ethical consideration at play with my thought experiment. It was meant to clarify what you consider personhood enough, especially considering someone is going to die, people are unconscious, and there are no guarantees with either choice for the qualities that make it easy to say “that person is a person.” It is one of those questions designed to get you thinking about bodily autonomy, who has the right to it, especially when there is a very unknown future at play. I was hoping that you wouldn’t sidestep (again) but rather treat all the issues seriouslyAt least, it would mean a lot in terms of respecting the intellectual honesty at play if you would fully define outside of Christian terms why you see the world the way you do vis a vis abortion and some kinds of birth control,. Because I can’t tell if you believe what you believe because of your republican party affiliation, the fact that you grew up catholic and its stance, an important philosopher or policymaker you read, or what?

          2. JLM

            .I don’t see the world outside of a Christian view. It is part of my DNA and I don’t want to see it any other way. I made that choice a long time ago.Faith is not something one “has.” Puts on like a cloak. It is something one lives.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          3. ShanaC

            Jeff, what one wants to do or see versus what one has to do or see are two very different things.My mother has said the exact same thing, in various types of phrasing, to both me and my brother numerous times, except the word was “Jew” or “Jewish.”1) When either of us was orthodox, that didn’t stop MASSIVE disagreements (some of which are still internally occurring) about theological matters.2) That also didn’t stop either of us from no longer being orthodox, or me from becoming an medium atheist who meditates regularly with a western zen temple and likes gemara, and my brother being a really hard atheist.Even if you are living as Protestant-Christian or a Catholic-Christian, there are plenty of people who are in your faith community who you will have strong theological differences with. And that’s ok, this is how theology progresses.The bigger problem is in Medicine and in Government what is the place of theology?I would assume that you’d be extraordinarily angry if your advanced directives included a DNR – which was summarily ignored in a Jewish Hospital due to their ethics committee being run by very ultra-orthodox rabbis.* Said ethics committee regularly overrule what doctors recommend as the best medical-ethical choice, as well as advanced directives that aren’t put in place in time/regularly reminded about. You’re not Jewish. Why does its rule apply to you over your express directives and your religious beliefs? Even if you were Jewish, ultra-orthodox Jewish people are a minority of Jewish people – so again, why would this hospital’s rules apply to vast majority of people who walk in the door looking for treatment, the vast majority of its doctors, etc, since it has an ethical rule set that can be in direct conflict with many people’s beliefs?So you sue the hospital. They are a closely held nonprofit, and doing what they do because of what some ultra-orthodox Jewish people believe are important parts of required charity. How should the state treat the hospital?_____For the record,1) Ignoring DNRs is now lawsuit worthy –… – and it is a huge ethics issue of its own2) No, I’m not making up the Jewish issue about the DNR – that’s actually the reason behind why I have documents and my friends don’t.3) Reality, Jewish Hospitals in the US don’t do this because of inter-denominal issues (usually, all denominations, making up multiple synagogues per denomination, in a given geographic area, establish and support the hospital, at least at the start), which means that Jewish law + medical ethics questions for a specific person are redirected back to a specific hyperlocal rabbi in a specific synagogue within a given geographic area as appropriate, lest the hospital not have funding.This means strong theological differences are papered over by being localized or ignored for people who aren’t jewish.However, if this hospital did exist, it isn’t clear legally why it is doing anything really wrong because of it having theological directives unless you think there are places in life you don’t want other people’s religion and religious beliefs placed on you.4) If this hospital and surrounding organizations existed, should the people who support them get the state to legally enforce their beliefs about DNRs?___Therein is the question. You live a faithful life, so do many others in a different faith, and there are many people who are atheists that live highly ethical lives and weigh decisions carefully. Who’s belief system gets precedence in a hospital? Who gets to make a decision?Even if you truly believe that you need to save souls and convert people to your form of Christianity, is when someone is making a medical decision, being an abortion or a DNR, is it is the right time to go try to spread the Word? Is this even the right way to be heard, or are you just making people angry that you don’t understand their world and why they think and believe the way they do? Furthermore, when you ask for the state to be involved in accepting your definition of life (and death), based on your understanding of Christianity – what does this say to people of other faiths living faithfully.As a reminder: There would be no Christianity without Ioudaismos. – Texts from the period of Ioudaismos shows a lot of different practices, some of which became Christianity, some of which became Judaism, and some of which died (thankfully, I am not sure I would want the Sicarii becoming a religion too). Rome ran the area we now know as Israel, and definitely privileged some beliefs more than others because of what understood of theology. This was a disaster where millions died. And while discussing medical ethics and religion isn’t going to cause a war, the Bar Kochba revolt (and the zillions of wars of the reformation.. the crusades…) should healthily caution someone trying to get the state involved with privileging and promulgating certain religious beliefs over others.Live with faith – just know when to not push the state to preach your faith on your behalf.

    2. DJL

      Liberal Logic: We support women’s right to choose and be equal, but we also support Muslims that practice genital mutilation and consider women to be dogs. Hmmm.

      1. Jess Bachman

        Female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Please direct me to the pro-FGM congressmen and I will act accordingly.

        1. DJL

          It’s the entire Democrat Party – take your pick.The American left bends over backward to defend Islam at every turn. A “religion of peace” and all the rest. They go crazy when we want to vet immigrants from mostly-Islamic countries, when all of these counties actively support Sharia Law. But the same American left claims to be the champion of women’s rights. Surely you can see the hypocrisy in those two positions?

          1. fredwilson

            That’s ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous

          2. jason wright

            you must acknowledge that the US is in a difficult position vis a vis its relationship with a country like Saudi Arabia, a place where women are last class citizens (a legal status little better than that of a..camel). you take all the economic upside of the deal and shrug your shoulders at the uncomfortable social realities. not glorious.

          3. Simon Edhouse

            Saudi Arabia is one of the worst muslim countries as far as human rights go.. But guess why it maintains it’s reactionary cruel and authoritarian treatment of women and minorities? Answer: It is supported 100% by US Governments, Democrat or Republican. Without that support, it would have been been challenged and forced to change by outside forces.

          4. creative group

            DJL:”when all of these countries actively support Sharia Law”.You just proved your not smarter than a fifth grader.Sharia law would actually upend the Monarchs and Kingdom platform in the countries you erroneous cited. The evangelical right rhetoric.Get off the 700 Club infomercials. Gheez!One of the two headed monsters on this blog who openly push fake news.All evangelical rhetoric in all forms or religions usually get in the way of facts.

          5. DJL

            Dickhead alert. Fred’s blog rule: “Criticize ideas, not people””one of the two-headed monsters””not smarter than a fifth grader”When Liberals are losing an argument, they resort to name calling. Seriously, why can’t you guys just stick to issues?

          6. creative group

            DJL:We are proud Independents and the only Dickheads are yourself and the band of fools who actually think your lies and misinformation pushed as opinions verses talking points for the Rightwing nuts will go unanswered.We attack liars. Discontinue the demagoguery and Captain Obvious will not highlight your transgressions.Reviewing several of your replies to our various posts you agreed with it wasn’t liberal then. But if we highlight your nonsense we become liberals.#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

          7. creative group

            Fred:One correction to your response to DJL.Utterly and completely pushing fake information. The platform that won the POTUS office.

          8. DJL

            So you don’t have a counter argument? Dismissing something as ridiculous is not a counter argument. Leftist hero Bill Mahar points this hypocrisy out all the time

          9. kidmercury

            the burden of proof is always on those who make a non-negative claim.

          10. Simon Edhouse

            Fred.. the schisms in US political discourse are worse than I can ever remember, its frightening. So, it was brave to feature your campaign here, but all credit to you. By the way, are you familar with the theories of George Lakoff?… He has some very interesting ideas about why Trump was successful last November. He believes the Democrats have to move away from empirical arguments to more ‘values based’ politics. Because this is what most people respond to. ~ Lord knows that there are many ‘values based’ themes that might resonate widley in the electorate, like fairness, justice etc.

          11. cavepainting

            Dude, you are drinking some one else’s kool-aid and saying stuff that you truly have no idea about.I grew up in India with 200m Muslims. My best friend in middle and high school was a Muslim. The majority of Muslims in the world and the US are just like any of us wanting peaceful and happy lives.All religions have their extreme fringe movements. The best way to fight it is to not make it a war between religions. That confers the legitimacy the extremists so desperately seek.

          12. DJL

            One of my best friends just returned from Saudi Arabia. They still have public executions on Friday. They sell their children as slaves in a mall. That is the entire country – not a fringe. India is much different – and does not practice Sharia as a policy.There is a religious war going on – Islam versus Christians and Jews. And the American left against Christianity. You just don’t know it is going on because you are living in the Liberal echo-chamber. It’s okay, that’s why we are here.

          13. Simon Edhouse

            Saudi Arabia gets away with this because it is backed by the USA.. and also, by the way, India is a majority Hindu Country.. There are many moderate Muslim countries. Your statements are ill informed, inflamatory and bigoted.

          14. DJL

            FYI – I was responding to someone (above) who used India as an example of a Muslim country. And I never once said there were not moderate Muslim countries. My statement above is based on facts. If you find the facts of life in Saudi Arabia as offensive and bigoted, I can’t help much with that.

          15. ShanaC

            I don’t think you don’t know enough about Christianity nor Judaism to make that statement. You’re the type to accidentally say Congregationalists are not Christian while not realizing that the person that James Dobson from Focus on Family ok’ed as Trump’s evangelical witness (Paula White) believes in the Arian Hersey without understanding what it is.Meanwhile, I’m not even christian and I understand that that’s a really BIG deal reaching back to the First Council of Nicaea and the nature of Nicene is the thing. Most Congregationalists, like most people in mainline churches, are liberal. But they believe in the Nicene Creed, even if they are not biblical literalists, nor conservative. Most of the types who associate with Focus on Family are much more likely to be biblical literatists and conservative, but they may be accidentally promoting Christian heresies supposedly stamped out by the Councils of Nicaea.Take your pick. if there is a war, what does it have to do with being Christian, if the people promoting it can’t keep their theological ducks in a row.(though I would have been way more entertained if James Dobson accidentally signed off on a witnessing that recreated Psilanthropism. Would have made for some interesting discussions on all sort of jewish and christian theological matters that haven’t been discussed in ~1500 years)

          16. DJL

            Point taken. I give you lots of credit. You are one of the few people here who put in a thoughtful counter-argument without name calling or just dismissal.Every controversial issue of our time has points on either side. To me it is very immature to just dismiss the other side outright without at least considering some of the data.

          17. creative group

            ShanaC:notice you countered his baseless lie and he deferred to only saying you didn’t resort to name calling. The Modus Operandi of the False and Fake information promoters. Lie, lie some more and go to another subject without addressing the lies they promote.Shameful! If we continue to be the only ones calling them out we will.The Progressives on the blog shouldn’t have waited this long and a Independent shouldn’t find a need to address it.#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

          18. Simon Edhouse

            Very ill informed.. Malaysia and Indonesia are Muslim countries and follow the Islamic faith, but do not apply Sharia Law.. Neither does Turkey, Pakistan, Mosambique, Niger or Guinea among others.

      2. ShanaC

        Specifically which legal school of Islam is this.Last I checked FGM is illegal in the US – in fact a doctor in Michigan just got jailed for it less than 2 months ago

        1. creative group

          ShanaC:There is no school of Islam that support FGM it is cultural. There is no citing in the Quran or Sunnah (Way or Practice of Muhammad) any Right wing zealot can produce.http://www.fgmnationalgroup

      3. creative group

        DJL:you are not smarter than a fifth grader.Genital Mutilation has nothing to so with Islam. That is a cultural practice that Muslims in certain countries practice. (Sub Saharan Africa being the central culprit) There are two different cultural reasoning used. To preserve a girls virginity before marriage and puberty rights.Get off the 700 Club.The FGM isn’t mentioned in the Quran or the Sunnah (Practice of Muhammad). We realize you can’t produce the evidence even if you attempted to promote another lie.Stop the lying misinformation. The FGM origin is just assumed starting in Egypt to Rome. No firm historical foundation for the origin claim. Many cultures practiced it. The Romans were not Muslim.Educate yourself. Stop with knowingly disseminating lies!http://www.fgmnationalgroup…#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

        1. DJL

          Please stop replying to my posts. All you do is insult, with a sprinkling of random incoherent rants. You should be punted from this forum.

  5. Mike Svatek

    If anyone here has a yellow “equal” sign on your car, stop for a moment and think… the message being spread in this post is that the lives of children are not equal to the rest of us. I graduated from Berkeley, I lived in SF, and I spend a lot of time in NY. I’m a tech entrepreneur. I’m like this audience in many respects. Further, I am all for women’s choice — they choose whether to have sex and then whether to use protection. Past that, it’s criminal and reprehensible to take the life of another for someone’s convenience. It is not cool, progressive, or democratic to eliminate life.There are ethical ways to achieve contraception that don’t harm the lives of others. Throwing money at a life-taking organization is both archaic, barbaric, and it does not respect the innovative nature of this audience who, I’m sure, could figure out a better way to achieve the outcome you seek which I presume is easy access to contraception. That, I believe, is progressive. How about that for a challenge?

    1. ABC

      Women should have bodily autonomy. End of story.

      1. DJL

        Last time I checked, they do. Unless, of course they are Muslims following Sharia Law. Then mutilation is par for the course.

      2. Mike Svatek

        What a woman wants to do with her body is her choice provided that her decision does not infringe on the rights of others. The key issue at hand is that women DO NOT have autonomy over others’ bodies. The DNA in the womb does not match hers and therefore is a different human in every sense.

    2. DJL

      That is a pretty large step for a person that fits a prototype Liberal profile. How refreshing! I have no idea how the media has convinced people that abortion = women’s rights and that supporting PP is an essential element of being progressive. Per my post above, Catholic Charities provided 100x the benefit to women’s health across the world.

    3. lonnylot

      What’s your take on the death penalty?

      1. Mike Svatek

        My first-principles belief is that every life has value. This is why I am committed to the protection of life even at the inconvenience of the mother. Therefore it follows that I am also against the death penalty because I believe that person’s life, whether they have committed a murderous act or otherwise, still has value and it is up to us societally to help that person maximize the value of their remaining years. To terminate that person’s life would be the waste of human potential and sets the moral bar too low — that we as a people have the implied authority to terminate one another. Yes, it may inconvenience some to allow that person to live, but someone’s life, whether unborn or on death row, is more precious than another’s convenience.

        1. SFG

          Scott Peterson is on death row. Why? Because he was convicted of taking the life of his unborn child, not just his wife’s life.The killing of the unborn triggered a more severe sentence.So in a very clear fashion, our criminal justice laws reflect the value of an unborn human life.If you believe that the unborn life inside the womb is a human being, then abortion is wrong. No wiggle room.The only way for abortion to be not wrong is to argue that the fetus is non-human. Which is pretty hard to do by my eye, but I do understand that many don’t see it that way.

    4. ShanaC

      And if your contraception fails?BTW, if a condom breaks, the morning after pill only works ~85% if you are at the peak point in your cycle – some women will get pregnant even if they did everything right because that is how probability works. Given a large enough group of women, there will be someone who had an abortion for exactly this reason.2nd: Am I allowed to smash plates of HeLa cells? (ignoring costs)Henrietta Lacks definitely was a person, and her cancer cells are a cell line being used for research to this day. They live in petri dishes. They have human dna. They grow forever. They need to be fed and taken care of, and can be infected with the common cold, just like you and me. Is it immoral to brake plates fill of HeLa cells?…Life is a complex thing. Especially when you really mean “what is human” – and haven’t really defined it.

    5. Simon Edhouse

      The GOP doesn’t care about “Children” as is abundantly clear by TrumpCare.. They don’t care about ‘Life’ after life has been born. What they want to do is impose Government control over women’s bodies by Government mandate.

  6. Tom Labus

    Thanks Fred for this continuing effort for sanity.I looked up the tax bill of 1964 (which this “health bill” really is). LBJ got a bi partisan bill to reduce individual tax rates but also did spending programs that included Medicare.. We’ve gone down a very strange path.

  7. JLM

    .You don’t quite have the facts right. Not that facts should ever get in the way of a good rant.Medicaid is a program which is currently available to persons who earn up to 138% of the Federal poverty line. Anyone who meets that criteria gets it. You have to apply for it and you can apply for it through the healthcare exchanges. It is administered by the several states.Federal funding of abortion has been forbidden since 1977 by the Hyde Amendment, which was an amendment attached to that year’s Medicaid bill. It passed judicial muster in a series of Supreme Court cases with the 1980 Harris v McCrae SCOTUS decision which upheld its constitutionality being the most recent.The Hyde Amendment has primarily been batted around as to its exceptions, not its constitutionality. There was a single exception then and now there are three. Rape, incest, health of the mother. To be clear, Federal funds CAN be used for any of these three exceptions.Planned Parenthood performs about one third of the abortions in the US. It is an abortion mill based on volume. This is simple data, not a moral judgment. Since 1973’s Roe v Wade more than 50,000,000 abortions have been performed in the US.No Medicare money has EVER been able to be used for abortion at Planned Parenthood. Nothing in the current Republican bill changes this. Nothing.What the Republican bill is is a “tinkering about the edges” approach to a long term goal of repealing and replacing Obamacare. The Republicans don’t have the 60 votes in the Senate to win a cloture vote (the limitation of the debate and thus the ability to “call the question”).The Republicans and the President can say they are “repealing & replacing” but that is not accurate. They are playing with the details which can be considered under a budget resolution action only.What they are doing is using a “resolution” strategy which is able to be used for financial matters and which only requires a simple 51 vote majority.They can likely lower the cloture vote bar — as they did with SCOTUS nomination confirmation with Justice Neal Gorsuch. Nobody is talking about that and it is not as easy.Under Obamacare, more than 10MM folks were added to the Medicare rolls. This was the vast majority of the increase in coverage. Much of the purported success of Obamacare was Medicaid and Medicare growth. This and the normal aging of the population which provides anyone 65+ with Medicare coverage.Medicaid = poor people.Medicare = old people.What is happening is the bill will change the criteria for coverage under Medicare and impact some of those 10MM folks who were added to the Medicaid rolls. This will eliminate Medicaid coverage and those whose Medicaid coverage is eliminated will have to find coverage elsewhere. Just like someone who is at 139% of the Federal poverty line.This is a different path on the same healthcare exchange.States have different approaches to Medicaid. Ohio, Republican Gov Kasich, dramatically increased its Medicaid program and if you are a poor person in Ohio, nothing changes for you.There is NO prohibition as to where anyone can use their Medicaid policy/coverage. Some doctors will no take Medicaid patients or Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates are lower than “normal” coverage. My former doctor would not take new Medicare patients, but would allow existing patients to morph into Medicare coverage. His entire clinic closed down when Obamacare became the deal.Again, there is no change in how a Medicaid patient would interface with Planned Parenthood for any of their non-abortion services. One never could get a Federally funded abortion — Hyde Amendment — so that hasn’t changed either.What is changing is who is eligible for Medicaid. It is always in constant flux as the Federal poverty line is a dynamic number. BTW, the change doesn’t occur until 2020.There is much talk about the mischief the Republicans and Pres Trump have visited upon Planned Parenthood. Total baloney.In fact the CR (continuing resolution) passed earlier this week and signed by President Trump makes NO CHANGES to any Planned Parenthood grants or funding. On that score, the Republicans blinked.I applaud the private funding of Planned Parenthood and I applaud Fred, et al, seeking to fund it. PP should always have been privately funded.Just know what the facts are so you can make an informed decision. Right this instant, PP is under no funding pressure either from the CR or the proposed health care resolution act.And, now you know.BTW, the Republicans are no closer to a workable solution than Obamacare ever was. It is all silly. Note that the US Congress does not intend to apply the program to themselves. That’s really all one needs to know.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. Jake Baker

      JLM — you’re a very thoughtful guy who clearly puts time into being informed. Do you have any examples/articles describing what you believe a workable healthcare solution would look like?

      1. JLM

        .The very first thing we need to do is strengthen the elements within our society which do not need help.We had about 85% of Americans covered by the employee sponsored plans. We screwed them by punishing the best plans calling them “Cadillac” plans.I was running a public company then and provided health, vision, dental, life, and wellness. Paying with deductible dollars.Follow the money — the company got a deduction while the employee got a huge non-taxable benefit.Obamacare’s making this a Cadillac plan meant it was no longer tax deductible to the company. The penalty for not providing any coverage was first $750/per employee annually. Later, it dropped.The plan cost $3600 per employee annually.If the employee lost his plan, then he had to pay for a new plan with his own AFTER TAX dollars.A terrible resolution.There are a ton of folks working for gov’t, the military, and in union jobs who were not impacted.So, my first focus would be on reinvigorating employer plans. I could go on forever.In retrospect, it would have been much more cost effective to have created risk pools for pre-existing conditions and to have expanded Medicaid to take care of everyone else.To fix a squeaky hinge, we dismantled the house and tried to rebuild it.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. DJL

          I guess we are both back! hard to pass up a spirited discussion.

          1. JLM

            .Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. There are a lot of targets out there.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        2. ShanaC

          Why is it associated with an employer though?

          1. JLM

            .The history of healthcare benefits is not very complicated. It was an outgrowth from the “company town” approach wherein a major employer (think logging and lumber company) provided work, wages, housing, services including the “company store.”From a modern financial perspective, it is a huge financial benefit when done well — deductible to the employer, not income to the employee. Best of all worlds.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. ShanaC

            that’s historical. That doesn’t really answer an economic why.It is frankly bizarre and makes companies and individuals less competitive.

    2. Richard

      You are not exactly correct on Medicare / Medicaid as Medicaid kicks in to cover skilled nursing stays.Healthcare can be easily solved1) For preexisting illness, fed gov pays the the difference in premiums but has right to recapture costs after death (gov already does this (before you die!) with skilled nursing facilities.2) for end of life care, insurance companies have the right to recapture 50% of cost of care in last 6 months of life for all policy holders and pass on savings to lower premiums (insurance co’s gross profits are regulars at 15%)Note: original ACA had skilled nursing coverage but it was removed as not even the the fake accounting methods of the ACA could pay for it.#make long term care insurance tax deductable!! And remove 2nd home mortgage tax deduction.

      1. JLM

        .I am NEVER “exactly correct” on anything, but I do my homework.Not sure what the issue of skilled nursing stays has to do with the Medicare v Planned Parenthood misinformation campaign, but I’m willing to learn.Your two suggestions are fine.The big opportunity is to break down all barriers to competition, lower the actual cost of treatment, get rid of all pharmaceutical extraordinary expenses (I buy my meds from Canada Drug Center for 23% of US prices from the same manufacturers), and tort reform.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

        1. Richard

          I was being kind. It’s a pretty big omission.The point is let’s stop the charade around abortion, it’s legal, it’s necessary and it’s a healthcare procedure.Let’s get to the real issue of healthcare.

          1. JLM

            .I was trying to be polite, but it escapes me completely WTF skilled nursing stays has to do with the discussion.I was responding to PP and Medicaid, not discussing everything that Medicaid covers.As to abortion, there is room for more than one opinion than yours.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          2. Richard

            WTF? What I dont get why you aren’t curious about WTF you are ignorant to. You start off your op ed telling telling Fred that he doesn’t have his facts strait. You set the table.

          3. JLM

            .Maybe it’s a reading comp problem? Let me try one more time. Skilled home nursing stays has nothing to do with the discussion. Are you getting that?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          4. Richard

            Let me try one last time, take sometime to link the two. Stay curious! It will do you good. You’ll thank me later.

          5. JamesHRH

            Rich, seems a bit much not to connect the dots when its a fair request.

    3. sigmaalgebra

      Once again, for news, JLM, this time at AVC, beats all of the MSM, Breitbart, Hannity, Coulter, Rush, Ingraham, etc.

    4. fredwilson

      So what exactly did I have wrong in my post?If you want to write a blog post please do it on your blog not mineI thought you were gone from hereI am sorry to realize I was wrong

      1. awaldstein

        Fred, just want you to know that I’m with you on this.Who needs this crap really?

        1. JamesHRH

          What is it that is objectionable?Tone is reasonable, content seems well researched and on point.Its not like you are forced to read specific comments.

          1. awaldstein

            I disagree.I don’t need this trolling officious shit. Build a blog and a community and invite them in.Fred will do what he does.As I expressed yesterday in my comments to JLM, I have no room for this crap in the communities i choose to frequent.

          2. JamesHRH

            I am kind of worn out for the week, so I am sitting at my desk and thinking, ‘Ok, I will cruise back to look at yesterday’s comments.”Here’s what I see:- JLM returns and is JLM- he’s commenting a lot, which may or may not be an issue- certainly, a lot of regulars over comment, both in length & frequency- JLM is asked about Trump and deflects, with a comment or two that states his well known ‘results matter’ ethos- I see you come with a legacy PoV about how everything is politics w JLM, which seems completely unfounded- I personally have never thought JLM was looking to convert anyone @ AVC, just argue the case for Trump policies not being the spawn of the Devil Incarnate- I see JLM deflect your commentsAnd, to be honest Arnold, I see you use the word ‘I’ about 6 times when talking about your online life. I come for this, I use AVC for this, etc.That’s nice for you, but maybe that’s why this community is dying a slow death and why a host of regulars are pleased with JLM’s return: he’s engaged in the community and not a net taker from it.FWIW.

          3. JLM

            .Let’s review the bidding, shall we.This is Fred Wilson’s blog and he gets to make the rules and he can change them as he sees fit. Anyone who doesn’t like them can argue their case, if so inclined, or find an alternative form of entertainment.If he holds the arena as open to all forms of thought, then there is a price, an Emperor’s new clothes kind of price, to find out that is not really true. Still, it’s Fred’s deal.Everyone says they like hearing truth spoken to power until they are the power and they don’t like the truth. Happens.Arnold is a good guy, but he is still grievously wounded since his candidate didn’t win and he does not intend to accept the outcome. Give him his due, he’s been consistent. The US is filled with a lot of folks with a similar view.When you are disappointed at an outcome, you begin to scapegoat. Look to HRC who blames Comey, the Russians — anybody other than herself. The Russians kept her from campaigning in Wisconsin, apparently. Axelrod jerks her up short, but what does he know? He only beat her once and got his guy elected twice, eh?When you scapegoat, you blame the other guy even if they won.Amongst the thin thin skinned illuminati, there is no dose of anything Trump — not a tenth of a thimbleful — which is palatable and one’s sin with them is not that you might consider the reality of things and embrace it, but that you don’t worship in the same church, the same pew, and pray the same prayer to the same God. It is about the idealogy, not the facts.In civilized dialogue, folks unleash ideas which wrestle with other ideas. The guy with the best ideas, the best research, the best reasoning, the best communication style is likely to persuade some folks. Not always, sometimes.Getting your ideas beat up or letting them get a good workout sends you home with better ideas and a better understanding of the world. Makes you stronger and it’s always cheaper to rent experience than to buy it.If you cannot let loose of your ideas and shove them into the wrestling arena, then you decide to avoid ideas, the competition amongst ideas, and rely upon your own biases and look to confirm them and when you cannot, you repeat them louder and more often.You seek the company of kindred brethren.When I built the first 50-story building I ever built, I remember looking into the 120′ deep hole and saying to myself, “This is the fucking varsity.”I wanted to play on the varsity. I had to learn how to play at that level.Ideas are the same. If you want to improve your ideas, they have to wrestle with varsity level ideas, not echo chamber ideas. When everyone agrees with you, you learn nothing. When you test and defend your ideas with facts, you and the ideas become stronger.That’s all there really is to it. Do you want to learn and are you willing to let your ideas wrestle at a varsity level or do you need the comfort of the echo chamber to protect your dainty skin?Tell your ideas, “Cowboy the fuck up, ideas.”JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          4. awaldstein

            Morning.i disagree with your logic but each of us has their own understandably.I am just one individual of many and only one point of view which though honestly surprising to me you find distasteful or even odder polarizing.The community as a group which you seem to say you represent in some way and moreso Fred ultimately decides what is what.I see the broader avc community as healthy and a strong connection to the world of ideas and a conduit to many friends and customers. I consider it a wonder and hopeful anomaly in the world.Have a great weekend.

          5. JamesHRH

            This response doesn’t make sense to me.Logic isn’t subjective ( I actually took logic classes to get my Math degree). I get that not all of us run on logic, but, in the end, all of us will run on reality.In other online interactions, I have had to resort to saying to people:- I am a Trump Objectivist, not a supporter- I’d appreciate it and understand it if you would just post that you hate his fucking guts (there is a lot not to like)I have had those people threaten to end friendships (dating to college experiences in the late ’80’s) because I refused to join in the hysterical (he’s HItler!) and to refute the obvious self soothing delusions (he’s an imbecile! he’s a racist! he’s going to destroy the republic and become Erdogan).I don’t appreciate the passive / aggressive ‘say your represent’ swipe. I don’t play identity politics and you can’t make me feel bad by saying I am not in the club or my club is lame. I represent myself here and no one else.What’s that even supposed to mean?Identity politics is an excuse to turn off your brain and group people into a handy, hateful shorthand.Its a scourge.I’m known here, I like it here and I regularly reference IRL people to ‘making great connections on this finance blog out of NYC’. I’ve met people from here IRL (substantial outcome, given my locations).But I have liked it less in the last 12 months or so.Perhaps, this to will pass.Or, perhaps, these friendships will pass.

          6. DJL

            Apparently this is Andy’s blog and anyone who disagrees with him is not welcome. I’m not sure I have ever heard a more self-centered comment regarding online discussions. “I have no room for this crap in the communities i choose to frequent.” Unbelievable.

          7. ShanaC

            maybe, I’ve been concerned about new blood

          8. JamesHRH

            There is a faction of zealotry in the new blood – that is not JLM or JLM quality but likes to think they are at that level – that is Goofy.I think JLM deserves a mild rebuke for his November victory laps. He was a bit hard to take.But, the overall response of liberals to Trump’s victory is astounding and JLM nails it: ‘everyone says they like hearing truth spoken to power until they are the power.’That is as succinct a declaration of my general disappointment in liberal friend and colleagues as I have found. And I am disappointed in the people who are, or who perceive themselves to be, in power, here @ AVC.This, also from JLM, is a deep truth: ‘If he (Fred) holds the arena as open to all forms of thought, then there is a price, an Emperor’s new clothes kind of price, to find out that is not really true. Still, it’s Fred’s deal.”I said back in November that Fred should close the AVC shop, if he is not up for the fractious nature of honest debate. I stand by that statement, but also realize that: a) Fred built AVC b) Fred’s pretty much checked out of AVC c) Its Fred’s deal.But the Grade 5 ‘take my puck and go home BS’ is disappointing, to say the least.

        2. DJL

          “Crap” is anything you don’t agree with. We have been through all of this before. Just make the blog rule this: “Only Liberals who agree with Fred are allowed” Then we can all go home.Seriously, all you guys can do is (1) call names, (2) label things as “false news”, and (3) vote to kick people off. How lame is that.

      2. JamesHRH

        You make a good point. I don’t think there are any errors in your post.And, that’s a substantial post.But, I don’t think its time to pick up your puck and say Nobody Plays Until He Goes Home.

      3. kidmercury

        lol damn that’s harsh

    5. DJL

      JLM – Your post (while a bit long) is factually correct. Some avid AVC readers are completely incapable of having an intellectual argument about politics without resorting to name-calling. It is waste of time.

      1. creative group

        If you and cohort don’t like the direction of the blog go create your own (cohort has one with limited traction) or go to one that actually invites misinformation, lies and opinions pushed as facts. Not understanding you and cohort reasoning for the push in Alternative facts, talking points and opinions as factual.When you base your posts on facts and not talking points there is no argument. When you attempt to argue a point based upon Trumpism you will get push back which you cite as an intellectual argument which is asinine.You call actually describing what you and cohort are attempting with talking points desiminated as facts name calling. It is just describing the act you are engaging which is falsehoods. Every blog post you submit isn’t a lie or false it is when you are on the other side a idealogocal differences when there is a push back. Now just recall the Progressives during the 2016 Presidential election didn’t question the talking points, falsehoods and lies on idealogical differences. We are the only ones who loudly asked why they were not confronting it. Now they some how got up the pluck, hardihood and intrepidity to challenge you and cohort and now you are taken aback. Should have been challenged when those transgressions were occurring.#UNEQUIVOCALLYUNAPOLOGETICALLYINDEPENDENT

        1. DJL

          I have no problem with the direction of this blog. What I do have a problem with is people who have to result to personal attacks (like you do here and many of your other posts.) Fred tried to clearly establish this after the Trump election. But sadly many cannot seem to follow the rules. And apparently if you are Liberal that then rules don’t apply to you.If you don’t like our comments, then just move on. I am not going to be bullied off the blog because of people like you.

    6. ShanaC

      for the sake of discussion, let’s pretend I accept what you say as true1) Are they performing 1/3 of abortions because there aren’t other providers in a given area, and if there were more providers who felt comfortable giving abortions, that number would go down? (some abortion providers in parts of the US have been issued death threats, so I could understand if a doctor would not want to set up an ob/gyn practice that also offers abortions without the PP name for their own safety)2) Is the fear level that is creating that 1/3 prevent PP from fulfilling the other parts of its mission in parts of the country.Basically, how does this play out regionally – is somewhere like Whole Women’s Health McAllen Texas basically only doing abortions because there are no other choices in the surrounding area, whereas Planned Parenthood – Margaret Sanger center NYC spends very little of its time doing abortions because in NYC there are choices – and if so, what does that say about the idea of “abortion mill” and accessibility to all sorts of family planning care in general (since, generally speaking, Planned Parenthood doesn’t actually love giving abortions, they just believe they should in order to offer comprehensive women’s healthcare and family planning to everyone)

  8. LE

    Not to trivialize the good work that PP does, but will mention that when I was dating there was a PP location near one of my old offices that I used to visit to pickup ‘vaginal condoms’. [1] Depending on who was working there I used to either be charged $2 each or often given them for free. I always got strange looks when I went in there. Perhaps because I was the only guy who would ask for them. Most people don’t even know they exist or that PP has them. CVS/RiteAid stopped selling long ago. Not that I’ve checked lately.My wife also worked for PP when she got out of college. (Will give a donation obviously).[1] I highly recommend these. https://www.plannedparentho…… https://uploads.disquscdn.c

  9. sigmaalgebra

    Yes, PP is a sad story. IIRC Priebus tried to tell the rest of the Republicans just to “shut up” about PP, abortion, etc.Why? Because the whole PP issue just gets a tiny fraction of the population, nearly all some variety of Republicans, all up on their hind legs screaming, maybe definitely voting and voting Republican, all for no good reason: No one will outlaw abortion. E.g., in his confirmation hearings Judge Gorsuch went on and on, mentioned a 500+ page door stopper book he’d written or co-authored about SCOTUS precedents, etc., then carefully explained that Roe v Wade was just such a precedent.Priebus tried to get abortion the heck OUT of the election. He failed. Instead, each side talks about abortion their own way and, thus, gets a little more voter turnout for their side. Along with this nonsense is lots of scare headlines, propaganda, distorted news, darned little objective, adult level information, lots of newsies and politicians trying to grab people as usual, that is, by the heart, the gut, and below the belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears., on and on, big example of why politics is dirty business, in this case, especially dirty business.As men, as a society, we’re supposed to protect women. They are supposed to have a good husband for their bed before they have a baby in their womb. When that order fails, which sometimes it does, which is not nearly new, it’s a sad situation. Some compassion is needed. Instead, we get lots of screaming, sometimes rusty coat hangers, dumpsters used as cribs, etc. A wicker basket left anonymously on the front steps of a convent was a better solution.Priebus was right: We should just shut up about abortion.If some Right to Life people don’t want an abortion, fine with me — no one is asking them to have an abortion. And it is sweet that their lives are so nice that one of the top subjects they get to scream about is poor women having abortions.If the right to life people want to slow the rate of abortions for others, then get so heavily and effectively involved at least 9 months earlier.

  10. mplsvbhvr

    Great cause – donated!

  11. DJL

    This is perfect. Planned Parenthood should not be funded by the government. It should be self-funded via private donations from people who support aggressive abortion. Planned Parenthood is not about “women’s health” – it is an abortion machine that was founded by a racist (Margaret Sanger) who advocated abortion to stop blacks and other “unfits” from having children.http://www.washingtontimes….Planned Parenthood has many issues – not the least of which was the selling baby parts videos. Counselors are prohibited from showing images of the baby, or discussing the emotional ramifications of abortion. If you want to fund women’s health – fund Catholic Charities who provide women’s health services around the world to millions of women.https://catholiccharitiesus

    1. sigmaalgebra

      Here are five things super tough to change: Death. Taxes. Some women don’t want their babies. Abortion is ugly. Abortions will happen.Middle class and wealthy women like the psychological comfort of living in a culture that respects all human life. So do I. Nice. Sweet. So, those women don’t want to have abortions — of COURSE not.So, for their personal psychological comfort, societal morality, or whatever, those women, and some men, want to tell a lot of poor women not to have abortions. Ugly. Better: Go to the poor areas and do the necessary work in social work, education, economics, morality, culture, etc. to eliminate the poverty, etc. that results in those women desperately wanting abortions.Gee, financially comfortable, delicate, sensitive, highly moral snowflakes use their money and political power to try to be more culturally comfortable by forcing poor women to have babies they very much don’t want.Maybe the only thing Hillary ever said I could agree with was that “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”Gorgeous “sex symbol” Jane Russell in Gentlemen Prefer Blonds never had children — as a teenager she had a botched abortion. Did I mention, abortions are ugly.Of COURSE abortions are ugly. Poverty is ugly. War is ugly. The lying MSM is ugly. Lots of things are ugly.

  12. Megan

    Thanks Fred, Amy, Susan, Joanne, Brad and Albert! I am a regular PP contributor but you inspired me to give a bit more (who isn’t a sucker for a match?!).Another powerful organization, based right in your neighborhood is RHAP (Reproductive Health Access Project). They are focused on enabling primary care docs to provide reproductive care as an integrated part of a primary care practice. (You can’t picket every doctor’s office in America. Plus, a patient might be there for the flu or maybe something else, etc.) RHAP organizes more than 1,300 primary care clinicians in 44 states and Washington, D.C., connecting clinicians to training opportunities and engaging them in local and national advocacy.

  13. Kevin Hill

    Donated!There is an odd sort of irony in the fact that this is exactly why people like Paul Ryan are ok with removing this funding. They see it as the role of civil society…

    1. DJL

      I don’t think that is accurate. The comment in Fred’s post “It provides treatment for women who cannot get it otherwise” is false – unless you are specifically talking about abortion. So you are ending government-sponsored abortions. Paul Ryan and many millions more agree. (The notion that defunding PP is somehow hurting women’s health is complete media-generated fantasy. Its sad to see educated people buy into this.) If there are so many people that support PP – and late term abortions – they should have no problems raising private money. So I support what Fred is doing. Just don’t use my hard-earned money killing babies.

      1. Kevin Hill

        Wait what? You don’t believe in supply and demand curves? Sorry but basic economic thinking is more than a ‘media generated fantasy’

  14. jason wright

    in the interests of transparency (two days in a row here)…are you intentionally not using the word ‘abortion’ in your post?

  15. Hiyito Patada

    White men voted to make rape and domestic violence a pre-existing condition. But Congress’ health care will remain the best in the country. That tells you all you need to know about this evil turd.

  16. jason wright

    Malthus, anyone?

  17. jason wright

    is Planned Parenthood as divisive an organisation in the minds of Americans as the NRA seems to be?

  18. Donna Brewington White

    My family would have have to pay over $30K per year for a plan that provides that level of coverage. Although, admittedly a surgery would cost more.