Access to contraceptives is a service though. Abortion necessarily is going to be more expensive than barrier contraceptives.

Not disageeing, just pointing out that saying "abortions only account for 3% of their services" is an attempt to minimize what they're actually in business for: providing abortions.

I think that's a slanted perspective due to anti-abortion sentiments. Planned Parenthood's mission is to provide accessible, comprehensive reproductive healthcare to people, and that includes abortion. It isn't, however, what they're "in business" for.

That single service accounting for over half of all their business by dollars while the myriad other services combined can't even touch those numbers is pretty textbook for what they're actually in business for.

I get that, but it doesn't change the core of my statement. Whether its 1 or 300k if they rely on federal funding to keep the doors open in general that funding is enabling the abortion services.

That doesn't make sense to me though since you're comparing things that cost so drastically different. It also doesn't make sense why they would provide services that directly reduce the incidence rate of abortion, and that they would want to see the incidence rate go down. If they were "in business" for abortion they'd be promoting abstinence-only education and not provide contraceptives.



It's not paying for them.

The service doesn't exist without the funding since they rely on that funding to even keep the doors open and provide more than abortions.

I'm not advocating banning abortion just saying we should not be subsidizing the availability of it.

You can offer abortions and get no federal funds. You can offer ALL of the other services and get the funds.

I do have to say, in my business if we earned half our money off of a thing we only spend 3% of our time on we'd be in THAT business. and with the amount of time i'm on D2jsp, that's about accurate.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 20 2019 08:36pm

It seeks to effectively ban abortion though. People currently have a legal right to abortion and this is merely the executive branch attempting to circumvent the judicial branch.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Aug 20 2019 08:38pm

How so? Maybe I'm confused. Is this part of the Alabama court case? I only see de funding here. PP can still provide abortions and other services.