Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 11yrs agoActive 2hrs ago

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

 @9F3YBPXPeace and Freedom from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

If being sexually assaulted or abused, not for people who just have kids to have them

 @9DRLKHLPeace and Freedom from South Dakota  answered…3yrs3Y

Only if it was actually planned because some people could be lying about not actually planning

 @95DVYG5Peace and Freedom from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, as long as people actually use if for their new child. They should be allowed to use it for abortions if they were raped though.

 @8T2Q8JRSocialist from Tennessee  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, especially abortions.

 @BDJZWVKSocialist from Nevada  answered…1mo1MO

The historical context of Planned Parenthood shows unfair and discriminatory treatment against patients of different demographics. The services planned parenthood provides are beneficial, but could be reformed into a new organization to prevent preexisting biases.

 @BDD4XCTSocialist from Utah  answered…1mo1MO

Yes but no at the same time

 @9ZFV8GYPeace and Freedom from Louisiana  answered…2yrs2Y

yes, but only allow certain people to abort not people who are using planned parent hood as birth control

 @9XXKM7YPeace and Freedom from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

government should help young parents but should have stricter regulations on abortions (rape, life or death) and oopsie baby is your problem

 @9XQBNR6Peace and Freedom from Texas  answered…2yrs2Y

Abortions should only paid for by the government in the event of health, rape, incest, and case by case scenario. If people are abusing it, they should be held accountable.

 @9XJ54BKGreen from California  answered…2yrs2Y

Abortion shouldn't be an option, but if someone's life is at risk then it should be done. Also instead of abortion you can have the baby and give it up for adoption.

 @9X9JDXBPeace and Freedom from Washington D.C.  answered…2yrs2Y

I do not support abortion unless it is under strict circumstances, and planned parenthood is more than just abortion services. I feel like they should be under a certain restriction for abortions but other than that Planned Parenthood is still a positive corporation.

 @9X6Q377Peace and Freedom from Nevada  answered…2yrs2Y

Should add limitations and not to used for a form of birth control. So it should not be funded because people with take advantage.

 @9X6CZ9TGreen from Oregon  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but they should not give as much money to the organization. 40% of their annual budget is too much.

 @9X5RTX4Peace and Freedom from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

I think parent hood is good and people should not do abortions because they kill children. You could still adopt kids though.

 @9WW8YDYSocialist from Washington  answered…2yrs2Y

No, as long as Planned Parenthood is using the funds to give puberty blockers and surgeries to minors.

 @9WK4CSVPeace and Freedom from Connecticut  answered…2yrs2Y

yes, as long as there are reasonable limitations put on the abortion side of planned parenthood. Not past a certain growth of the child as well as women can not come in and get as many abortions as they wish.

 @9VKCFJJPeace and Freedom from Illinois  answered…2yrs2Y

More education in the community on becoming a parent and more funding for sex education and iud’s and the pill and condoms.

 @9VFWKCMSocialist from California  answered…2yrs2Y

nationalize planned parenthood, having critical operations like abortions left up to private corporations leads to price gouging and 15 year old rape victims being forced to give birth

 @9VCVHFQPeace and Freedom from Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

No, the govt. should not provide 40% of our yearly funding when kids can use protection and not be dumb.

 @9TT4M36Green from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

Planned parenthood should only be used when the individual is 'planning' to have a child hence the name. If the program was utilized to get an abortion that would defeat the whole purpose.

 @9SPNT3CPeace and Freedomfrom Maine  answered…2yrs2Y

I think abortions should only be allowed when a woman gets raped and or any other serial assault happens as well as punishment for the person who did it. Other than that, if people don't want to get pregnant, then don't have unprotected sex.

 @9SGKVR7Peace and Freedom from West Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

i think abortion should only be used if a girl was taken advantege of or the birth could kill the mother but if you cant afford to feed kids dont get pregnant

 @9SF4Z52Peace and Freedom from Ohio  answered…2yrs2Y

Mostly, I wouldn't agree on abortions. Although, some people have way more responsibilities than anticipated. So, I definitely would stay neutral to this question.

 @9QTYZ3SPeace and Freedom from Iowa  answered…2yrs2Y

As long as the abortion is because of physical health, rape, incest. 2 months only should be allowed at most. Provide all other services which includes birth control.

 @9MD5BZ7Socialist from Michigan  answered…2yrs2Y

The government should fund Healthcare and planned parenthood provides many services that I consider healthcare

 @9M25TTXPeace and Freedom from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

I think that abortions are good, in cases of incest or rape/sexual assault. And in other cases of poor families that can't pay for a child.

 @9LTNGH5Peace and Freedom from California  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, as long as funding is not used for abortions unless the individual was sexually abused and got pregnant.

 @9LBPWQTSocialist from Texas  answered…2yrs2Y

The people should have the right to fund it themselves as the government could always take it away. self suffiency is key

 @9L22Q66Peace and Freedom from Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, as long as its used for people that were victims, or giving birth could endanger the mother or the child.

 @9KGMBJ2Green from Colorado  answered…2yrs2Y

We should create our own branch under the banner of health care because it is important to have a healthy and safe country.

 @9HVL6PYPeace and Freedom from West Virginia  answered…2yrs2Y

Unless an abortion is needed for a baby dead in the womb or has a deathly disease/illness I don't believe they should be funded.

 @9HVD4NNGreen from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

I, personally, do not support abortions. I don't think its right based on my religious outlook and morals that pertain to that. However, everyone has free will and a choice to decide what they would like to do with their body. I don't think that the government should continue its funding of the organization, it should be a non-profit or private organization of some sort. Adorations are not healthcare. An abortion is a choice.

 @9HND4T3Socialist from California  answered…3yrs3Y

That depends should it be classed as a social organisation if so yes if it is ruled independent then no.

 @9HH6VM2Green from North Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

Abortion is not ok, but there are certain reasons why it should be allowed, it should be a last resort option if the baby is not going to survive, not because a woman has to choice to do what she wants.

 @9HFCZG4Peace and Freedom from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

They should support people that are gonna have kids they shouldn't support anything that has to do with abortion.

 @9H55BLPGreen from Utah  answered…3yrs3Y

No, the government should have its own healthcare system and not rely on non-profit's that aren't directly connected to the government for any healthcare services

 @9H3R3D6Peace and Freedom from Maryland  answered…3yrs3Y

Generally no. That is another human life and a responsibility for the future parents. However, if it isn't the woman's choice to have a baby and if she is raped, then it should be allowed and absolutely supported by the government. Better if they send the baby to an adoption center.

 @9H2MPGWPeace and Freedom from Missouri  answered…3yrs3Y

i feel as if the government should continue to fund parent hood if its for things like sexual assualt not if the person was just being careless.

 @9GV23SQPeace and Freedom from Nevada  answered…3yrs3Y

if the government can give the money directly to the parents for only the use of clothing and food then i agree but until we can insure that greedy parents dont just use the money on themselves for fun then i think we should stop planned parenthood all together, im on the fence

 @9FTPVBVPeace and Freedom from New Hampshire  answered…3yrs3Y

people can make their own choices however it should not come from the tax payer. Planed parenthood should take donations.

 @9FPH82VGreen from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

No general view

 @9FLK3D7Greenfrom Maine  answered…3yrs3Y

No, Planned Parenthood (Or Any Organization That Resembles It) Should Be Completely Illegal

 @9FKQJS6Green from Wisconsin  answered…3yrs3Y

I don't really care as I'm too young to have an actual say in this

 @9FG5NZDSocialist from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

No, so people can't attack it any more trough the government instead it is , it's own private business

 @9F75LLVPeace and Freedom from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but in cases of abortion only for victims of rape (before 21 weeks) and in any cases of the woman's impending death.

 @9F2FWS9Peace and Freedom from Ohio  answered…3yrs3Y

Not really sure what they should do

 @9DZ3HT7Peace and Freedom from Indiana  answered…3yrs3Y

The government should continue to fund Planned Parenthood. It's a good thing to have as long as it is not used for abortions unless for emergency situations like rape, child neglecting, or domestic violence

 @9DYC25YPeace and Freedom from Michigan  answered…3yrs3Y

They should help unplanned parenthood

 @9DWRS3MSocialist from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

Replace these organizations with single-payer healthcare.

 @9DTKHVMPeace and Freedom from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

if its for the right reason

 @9DPYGF4Peace and Freedom  from Iowa  answered…3yrs3Y

In different situations, If a young girl was raped and has to have the child, they should help fund and help in ways that the young teen mom might be, but if it gets to a point where we are going negative, slow down the process.

 @9DNS567Socialist from Kansas  answered…3yrs3Y

They should as long as they can verify it is needed.

 @9DF8XNNPeace and Freedom from Missouri  answered…3yrs3Y

It depends on the situation that the person is in

 @9DBKHF8Green from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

No, it started as a way to erase minorities who are in financial turmoil, but I do think abortions are healthcare, so there should be government funding for that.

 @9D8BNLWSocialist from Arizona  answered…3yrs3Y

NO and planned parenthood should be abolished

 @9GFZ3N3Peace and Freedom from Iowa  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes. Something like $100? Because if planned parenthood was free, people would be popping out babies like crazy.

 @9FSN9RQGreen from Missouri  answered…3yrs3Y

It should fund services other than unnecessary abortion, but abortion for trauma victims, babies that won't survive, or other extenuating circumstances are okay.

 @9FPZYRFPeace and Freedom from Kansas  answered…3yrs3Y

yes and they should have ones for parents who are becoming parents because they might not have the support or help they need to provide for their baby

 @9CNLMD5Greenfrom Guam  answered…3yrs3Y

yes, the government should fund anyone who want to give birth to baby ,or not willing to have a baby

 @9CFSZY6Peace and Freedom from Nevada  answered…3yrs3Y

No, I believe we need to better educate and help our youth succeed and this can be done with our educational system. Other needed programs can be funded with charities and co-operative business organizations created.

 @9C9S3FTPeace and Freedom from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

yes, under some cases and depending on how many abortions the patient has already had.

 @9BKK6S5Peace and Freedom from Arizona  answered…3yrs3Y

if its used the correct way then yes

 @9BC2MS5Green from Hawaii  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and the abortions should still be funded unless these women are known to get pregnant and then have abortions multiple times

 @9BBPSLKPeace and Freedom from Florida  answered…3yrs3Y

its not really gonna do anything

 @9B7MCJNGreen from Colorado  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, and also contribute to funding abortion procedures

 @9B25TCKGreen from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

It depends on the stances

 @99RVRFTPeace and Freedom from California  answered…3yrs3Y

If you planed to be a parent you should be ready for a baby and should be prepared.

 @973TGKHPeace and Freedom from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

yes but a hole lot.

 @96Q5YN8Peace and Freedom from Kansas  answered…4yrs4Y

No, thats not fair however if people want this for their families then yes

 @96N6KGCGreen from Colorado  answered…4yrs4Y

I don’t really have a opinion on this I believe it’s circumstantial.

 @96MX7BMGreen from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

i don't understand what it means

 @96MX6LLPeace and Freedom from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

They should fund for new or better programs with similar uses without the black market involved.

 @96HDTVFPeace and Freedom from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

I think they should continue to fund planed parent hood, but not fund allowing women to have abortions. Unless it was a rape. Only if you were raped can you get an abortion and it be funded.

 @96H6QMTGreen from Oklahoma  answered…4yrs4Y

Since Roe v. Wade was struck down it doesn't make since for the federal government to fund an organization that now tackles a state issue.

 @96F8GR8Peace and Freedom from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

yes and teach sex ed at a younger age or at least the fundamentals of sexual abuse. if you do that then sexual abuse with children would drop drastically because the child would be able to recognize if and when they are in danger and prevent/ tell a trusted adult about it instead of going years without knowing what is going on. enough of this censorship bullsh**.

 @96C4CK5Peace and Freedom from Kansas  answered…4yrs4Y

No, becuase if the parents do not have money then why even want a kid.

 @964ZT3XPeace and Freedom from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

i think abortions should only be for people that get raped .

 @95XP525Socialist from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

The government should provide healthcare to everyone.

 @95RR5V5Greenfrom Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes also universal Healthcare is a must

 @95NYWS7Green from Kansas  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the parents should already know if they are able to afford to have the baby or not.

 @95N4R25Peace and Freedom from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

yeah if they bring abortions back.

 @94TNCN6Peace and Freedom from Colorado  answered…4yrs4Y

No, its the parents choice to get a abortion

 @94HFKY6Peace and Freedom from Kansas  answered…4yrs4Y

They should fund both planned and unplanned 'parenthood.

 @94HFB67Peace and Freedom from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

depends on what the parents want and need

 @94FQFVWSocialist from New Jersey  answered…4yrs4Y

yes, I loathe babies, slay queen.

 @94BCX8KPeace and Freedom from Nevada  answered…4yrs4Y

any parenthood should be funded

 @9494Y5ZSocialistfrom Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, and introduce parental licensing.

 @947MV2BSocialist from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

We need universal healthcare with a FDA managed womens health program instead of outsourcing medical care to capitalism

 @93T266XSocialist from Maryland  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, including funding abortions. Consider increasing funding to enable planned parenthood to provide sperm freezing and long term storage and reversible vasectomy procedures.

 @93PJ5KGSocialist from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

This is pointed. The Hyde Amendment, is already in place to block federal funding from going to abortion services.

 @93KMCQVSocialist from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

Planned Parenthood doesn’t receive federal funding

 @93FTWBNSocialist from Tennessee  answered…4yrs4Y

Universal health care would end need for private organizations providing health care.

 @935ZJR7Peace and Freedom from California  answered…4yrs4Y

I think we should keep Planned parenthood so in case there needs to be a abortion.

 @9326P25Green from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if proven to be capable parents

 @92VPRC7Socialist from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

I do not follow this issue

 @92P22S3Socialist from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only as part of a single-payer healthcare model that applies to all providers.

 @92HNX89Peace and Freedom from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, it is a good "service" and can help pregnant females with an Abortion for little to no cost.

 @rc12175964Socialist from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes but i also think the government should at least have them pay 15-25 dollar for ny extra curricular things for planned parent hood so their not just depending on the governement to learn responsibility but also have an option to help those we have absolutely no proof of income and cant afford it

 @929FN8LPeace and Freedom from Iowa  answered…4yrs4Y

the government shouldnt pay for someone elses mistake. mistakes happen but you can put the blame on anyone else but yourself

 @922LC6RPeace and Freedom from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

No, because as I see it the can fund for accidental parenthood. Them funding for planned parenthood seems like they are singling out the accidental's that can take a toll on the parents and the kids when they grow up.

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