Should the US taxpayers de-fund Planned Parenthood?
922034
I agree with everything you said. I for one think this government should not pay to murder innocent babies in their mother's wombs. I resent that my tax dollars have to go for that.\n\nPlanned Parenthood is the biggest multimillion dollar abortion industry all over the world. Why do you think they lobby all the time to keep abortion legal? If you didn't guess, the answer is MONEY! They would kill, deceive, lie, and cheat to make sure their money machine never breaks down.\n\nI have known girls who found themselves pregnant and went unsuspectingly to Planned Parenthood thinking they would get counseled on all their options. No way!  Planned Parenthood preys on young women who are desperate and make sure that they think Abortion is their only choice. They are not informed about the option of adoption so that their child can have a chance to live the life they were given by God when they were conceived. They are not informed of all of the real dangers that abortion poses on their bodies and psyches and the long term emotional toll it usually takes on young girls. They are lied to and told that the child inside of them is nothing more than a blob of inconsequential tissue and that they should be happy to get rid of it. They are deceived into believing that they could never make it in life if they do not abort their baby. They are encouraged keep being sexually active. Of course, so that they will keep coming back for the abortions. IT IS MONEY THAT DRIVES THEM and NOT concern for women who do not want to be pregnant for whatever reason. This is all fact. \n\nI hope everyone checks out your website www.aclj.org.
839458
No. I want the government to spend less in other areas in order to pay for these projects. Too much money is spent on meaningless pork. Too much money is wasted in fraud, waste and abuse. The government needs to do what most families have to do, namely tighten its belt and live within its budget.
750508
if prostituion ws made legal would they get tax back on condoms?
228522
You don't pay for anybodies children now, let alone your own, are you an Alcoholic? I think you should invoke the Anti-Abortion Law, so they can have even more children and be homeless. Support tax cuts for the rich so they can stay homeless, like Katrina. Vote to outsource American jobs to Communist China, while borrowing trillions of American dollars from Communists. So quit bitching about the results of your polices "DUMB-AZZZ"
138563
I assume youre talking about the neil boortz book. If so, then yes, his idea "in theory" works out great. With the prebates to cover the necessities of life, and only being charged a tax for what you pay for.. however we will never get to see it in practice. I can't see any govt, republican or democrat controlled knowingly reducing the amount of money they get from their people. If it does go in play, numermous programs will need to be cut b/c we won't have the money to run them. \n\nLean republican.
777187
Good question.  The tax code should cover maternity costs but 'unborn children' may be stretching it a bit.  In fact, if the government wanted to lower medical costs, it should include more medical deductions AND tax credits.
879592
Wow! I'm amazed by the bias and misunderstanding evidenced in the answers so far. . . I have lived in a country with "socialized medicine" (Denmark) so I know something about it.  To answer the question, I believe that the U.S. may now be the only western country without a national socialized health-care system.  \n\nAs some mentioned here, in socialized medicine, taxes or other federal and state revenues would pay for our individual medical costs.  But to assume that this would automatically be a big hardship for the taxpayer shows a misunderstanding of the way such a system works and the options in the set-up that we would need to consider.  \n\nThere are many ways to pay for socialized health care, and they don't always involve raised taxes.  For one example, consider this: right now, our tax dollars are wasted to an enormous degree on the pet projects of various legislators - projects that most of us do not know about and wouldn't care to be paying for!  I would like to see some of this "pork-barrel" spending done away with (and I believe that we are moving in that direction as people educate themselves about it and demand change) - that would go a long way toward funding things like a national health-care system.  Other forms of government waste exist also, where funds would be better spent on insuring all our citizens.\n\nThe biggest thing that would worry me personally about such a system, and that may be much of the reason why we don't yet have it in the U.S., is that its establishment would necessarily require some level of federal-level regulation.  Americans (myself included) have a traditional distaste for too much government control on the federal level.  \n\nBut in this case, federal regulation and the meddling that would come with it,  may be a necessary evil that we need to consider - because the alternative is to keep going along the path we are on, in which with every year we see fewer employers able to insure employees, the costs of individually-purchased policies grow more outlandish, and the numbers of uninsured citizens increase by thousands.\n\nI think that it is telling that we are the last free-world, western, civilized nation to NOT be insuring ALL its citizens.  In America, we believe that citizens have a birth right to some things - like education and social security.  I believe we need to start believing as a nation that everyone has a right to be treated when they are ill without it bankrupting them.  It's really a right to LIVE.  It seems elementary that we would want to keep all our citizens healthy, not just the wealthy and lucky.  Something is going to have to give, and soon. \n\nMac at ASKEW\nhttp://askew.blogharbor.com
712122
See SunsetSam above. Bush already slashed the funding a long time ago. He never intended to fund what he calls "goofy" people and evangelical "freaks". He already had what he wanted.\n\nSo though the bush-league did dole out billions it did not go to charities of any sort, "faith" based or otherwise.
1169723
~I thought the question was dumb until I read busball's answer.  Whatever happened to getting your sex education in the back alley?  At least the information there was informed and valid.\nEver heard of planned parenthood?  Doctors?  Parents?  \nI would give you the real dope on this issue, but giving dope to a dope is not a good thing.\n\nI deal with kids who think they know how their bodies work everyday and I am truly sick of the ignorance out there.  How can people be so naive, or just plain stupid, with all the legitimate information out there.  Oh, yes, they go to YaHoo Answers instead of asking someone who might actually have some knowledge on the subject.  So, when you get knocked up, who is going to raise and support the kid?  Me and the rest of the taxpayers?  Again?
747403
This is a fiscal Titanic and something should be done.  First, raise taxes on the rich.  Second, cut spending, like on Abstinence Preaching and other right-wing social engineering schemes.  Third, sell the Bush and Cheney families into slavery.
847911
I'm going with wise.  It would be too costly to put the tax & spend liberals back in charge!
851240
I suppose they think it's acceptable because if the government is going to pay them for having babies, why not?  Of course, I do believe that it's unfair to lay all the blame at the women's feet.  No one forces the men not to wear condoms.  It takes two to make a baby and both should be held responsible.\n\nI think that, instead of rewarding people who have all of these illegitimate children, the government should penalize them.  I know that sounds harsh, but the system is being taken advantage of.  I think that people who have no children or one child should be rewarded with a larger tax refund each year. People with two children should get nothing more, but nothing taken away and people with three or more children should be taxed more.  (Of course, if a law like this were passed, I'd say that people who already have three or more should be grandfathered in and be viewed as people who have two children.)
1025092
Congress is very special interest driven. If we had a flat tax, no special interest would bother to talk to them, let alone buy them lunch, vacations, campaign donations, etc. Most of the tax code is about how some don't have to pay. Biggest problem is that too many people just go along with it. They vote against gay marriage and abortion, but they aren't aware enough to protect their financial interests.\n\n"Baaaaaaa!" - the call of the average tax payer\n\nIf you don't like the idea of gay marriage or abortion, don't marry a gay or get an abortion. Do keep a hand on you wallet. Try to see through political smoke screens. See the movie "Wag the Dog" as just one example.\n\ndisclaimer: I'm not "for" gay marriage or abortion. I just use those as examples of how stuff that's not in our interest gets voted for. I do not endorse either party.
590050
Yes.\n\nI would pay.\n\nAfter all, we are already spending 131.7 billion annually on the rights they don't deserve. We could reduce that to 0 if they were gone
122332
No, we pay taxes to the government.
839232
I'd recommend that they disband the IRS - put all the tax collection in the hands of state tax boards that would send the state's portion of the federal budget to run only Constitutional federal programs while keeping the rest of the money in the state where collected.  This would prevent the middle man of sending money to Washington just to have it come back to the states - talk about waste.  This would put the responsibility of programs in the states which would allow the programs to be tailored to local needs.  This would also create more jobs in the local economy by putting the previous federal programs in the various state.  Just a thought.
425126
The government is unfortunately less inclined towards preventing problems, such as overpopulation, and more inclined towards fixing current ones, such as providing food for the ten children in a family.  I definitely hear what you're saying though, and I think a tax benefit should be given as incentive for not having children.  Talk to your congressman.  Unfortunately, though, I doubt you'll make any progress on this problem under the current administration.