Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 11yrs agoActive 5hrs ago2 here now

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health services in the United States and internationally. Each year federal and state governments provide the organization with $528 million in funding (40% of its annual budget). The majority of this funding comes from Medicaid which subsidizes reproductive healthcare for low-income women. In 2014, abortions accounted for 3% of the services they provided. The majority of the other services include screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections and providing contraception. Proponents of fundi…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

DMA:

State Senate District:

County:

Assembly District:

City:

Zipcode:

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@BBL3GFF
#1 Informed Voter

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@BBRFS4R
#1 Engaged Voter
@9ZKP8HQ
#2 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

22.6k Replies

 @9F5BMBCIndependent  from Washington D.C.  answered…3yrs3Y

I think funding Planned Parenthood is an overwhelmingly a good thing as long as it is not used for abortions, unless those abortions are needed because of life and death situations for the woman.

 @8QYFMTK from Ohio  answered…5yrs5Y

It depends on the scenario.

 @BDRR6BG from Pennsylvania  answered…3wks3W

Yes, they should continue with funding , but not nearly as much as what they give right now

 @9LQSQCDAmerican Solidarity from Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

No, Planned Parenthood is a organization with sordid past and currently engage in poor medical practices. They are hospitals that can perform all that Planned Parenthood can and more. If funding is needed, it should be going to hospitals and not Planned Parenthood.

 @9L97F24American Solidarity from New York  answered…2yrs2Y

We should have another solution to teach about pregnancy and parenting and I don't support birth control.

 @9HZ828FAmerican Solidarity from Oregon  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but be able to allow the same rules that were here before the abortion problems even took place.

 @7F2D886American Solidarity  from Florida  answered…3yrs3Y

Planned Parenthood helps with providing reproductive healthcare and decreasing the number of abortions. However, the government should stop giving public funds to Planned Parenthood if it continues to promote abortions and speak out on partisan causes. The federal government should fund programs rather than organizations.

 @BCN45PT from Pennsylvania  answered…2mos2MO

No, and repurpose the funds to be sent to pro-life and pro-family organizations for child support and care.

 @948G46M from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

Do not want to comment on this one.

 @redwood1 from Maryland  answered…4yrs4Y

Change the name, abortion should be a state thing. But, abortion should be allowed only if there’s a clear socioeconomic problem, rape, incest or to save a life. Otherwise make it difficult to get an abortion

 @8YBDDL2Progressive from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but I don't think abortions should just be done for everyone I think it is only necessary if it is dangerous for the mother.

 @8Y2FN2K from Arkansas  answered…5yrs5Y

Genocide is the solution while they're young of course.

 @8WZ9WHL from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, depending on the situation of the person.

 @8WX5YYJIndependent from Florida  answered…5yrs5Y

There should be a place where people can get safe abortions because people are gonna do it anyway

 @8VHYF87Socialistfrom Washington  answered…5yrs5Y

Only for certain people I mean those who deem the most derserving.

 @848VLCXAmerican Solidarity from Maryland  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and abolish Planned Parenthood as well

 @8SRP5TY from Utah  answered…5yrs5Y

Depends on whether the person wanted to have kids or not, they shouldn't be forced but if the person is agrees to planned parenthood then yes more funds.

 @8S7ZZL4 from Vermont  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, as long as funding is not used for abortion procedures: their services reach far beyond abortions and can save many lives through cancer screening, prenatal services, and adoption referrals.

 @8S7ZBZJ from Indiana  answered…5yrs5Y

No, continue support for Pregnancy screenings and female reproductive assistance

 @Uwu46from Guam  answered…5yrs5Y

No, the government should deal with sexual health itself

 @8RQKW7T from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

As long as funding is not used for abortion or contraception.

 @8RM62MVIndependent from California  answered…5yrs5Y

No, it should be a non-profit org funded by private donors.

 @8RG6KBP from California  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes as long abortion is only used for those women who were raped.

 @8RFHCJ8 from New York  answered…5yrs5Y

No, only in extreme cases of rape or other misconduct. The take no names policy of abortion creates an easy escape for sex traffickers to force abortions upon their enslaved workers.

 @8QWHS6WRepublican from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Planned Parenthood is an excellent organization, but it shouldn't be funded by the government. They're a private company, there is no reason for the government to fund them. If they go in the red, they can file for bankruptcy and receive funding that way. They shouldn't be treated different than any other company, public or private.

 @8QLRTXF from Illinois  answered…5yrs5Y

No, planned parenthood already makes enough profit to not need federal funding

 @8QKNXGL from Illinois  answered…5yrs5Y

No, planned parenthood already makes enough profit that it doesn’t need government funding

 @8QCD4BF from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

not my decision i'm not planning on having a kid young or ever needing to go their.

 @8PQCNN4Libertarian from Oregon  answered…6yrs6Y

wtf is planned parenthood

 @8P3JBY4American from Idaho  answered…6yrs6Y

Only cut back funding to help ease the economic strain

 @8NXGKL3 from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, and give funding for abortions and othereathods to reduce unwanted pregnancy

 @8NBF56G from New Hampshire  answered…6yrs6Y

If the mom doesn't want a kid and then it is her choice but if a man doesn't then he should be able to walk away without society shuning him.

 @8M5CFN9 from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

No, the government should not fund abortions but reallocate their funds to an abortion-free healthcare service for women

 @8LWTTW3 from Virginia  answered…6yrs6Y

The government does not fund planned parenthood. People use government funded Healthcare to pay for services at planned parenthood just as they wood t any other medical provider.

 @8JNZ3K8 from North Dakota  answered…6yrs6Y

this is a big NO!

 @8HK97NC from Virginia  answered…6yrs6Y

yes and no, everything happens for a reason

 @848VLCXAmerican Solidarity from Maryland  answered…6yrs6Y

No, and shut down Planned Parenthood as well

 @8C6FZFWAmerican Solidarity from Iowa  answered…6yrs6Y

No and kill every person involved with an abortion

 @9B264TK from North Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, as long as funding is not used for abortion procedures that will not cause the mother's death or from consensual intercourse.

 @9944J2C from Oregon  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, as long as they abort in cases of rape, incest, or other nonconsensual and non-humane cases of intercourse.

 @98WRLFN from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

yes, but only if the person receiving help shows proof of work and how much money there are wasting on the resources they need

 @98CXCXB from New Hampshire  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but the government would then need to either provide the non-abortive services PP provides, or find an alternative organization.

 @97PLMGNAmerican Solidarity from New Jersey  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations that perform abortions provide abortion counseling or referrals, advocate to decriminalize abortion, or expand abortion services

 @97GLQX3 from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

The government should not sanction or fund any abortion activities. With that said, I think a case could be made for funding their non-abortion services.

 @8GVMTVD from Minnesota  answered…6yrs6Y

No. Move abortions to private clinics and treat them similar to other treatments.

 @8GQWWCVDemocrat from California  answered…6yrs6Y

Should be used for cancer screening, prenatal, adoption referrals and abortion option for children raped/molested that became pregnant. I've had cases where a 9 yr old was molested by stepfather and got pregnant. What would you do if that was your child?

 @8JRRRT5 from Indiana  answered…6yrs6Y

No, there are other organizations which offer the services of Planned Parenthood without abortions.

 @8X4T67H from California  answered…5yrs5Y

no thats pretty gay bro ngl let the kid live their live, ******

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies