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

 @9BVC5VQConstitution from Michigan  answered…3yrs3Y

No, they were founded on a racist ideology of decreasing the Black population, as well as killing unborn babies.

  @lemans3427 from California  commented…3yrs3Y

That is an interesting perspective. Could you provide any sources or facts to back up those claims? I would like to learn more about your point of view.

 @8HL3F27Constitution from Virginia  answered…6yrs6Y

No planned parenthood was started as a way to Kill Black kids legally, started by Democrats to keep control over their once owned slaves

 Deletedanswered…11mos11MO

NO... The government should not continue unrestricted funding to Planned Parenthood without fundamental moral, legal, and operational reform. Public funds must never support or enable the violation of deeply held moral convictions regarding the sanctity of life, yet must also provide compassionate care for underserved populations.

 @9YK7BCTConstitutionanswered…2yrs2Y

Planned Parenthood is good and should exist as a nonprofit, but not at the expense of my tax dollars. However, we should bail them out if they fail

 @9W52HJMConstitution from Kentucky  answered…2yrs2Y

They do provide other services that are useful but only in very extreme cases such as safety of the mother should abortions be performed

 @9TZVZCCConstitution from Oregon  answered…2yrs2Y

No, the only time that abortions should be performed are cases of rape, incest, or the mothers life is in danger. Otherwise that is murder of an innocent life.

 @9T7SHSFConstitution from New York  answered…2yrs2Y

Depends on the situation the person is in. I personallyhad a really bad experience with Planned parenthood.

 @9T2XBFQConstitution from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes. If it is used for abortion, it should only be used for rape cases, incest, and if it causes danger to the mother or baby.

 @9RRPPC6Constitution from Pennsylvania  answered…2yrs2Y

This is a state’s rights issue, as long as it is not federal funding, states may choose their use of funding.

 @9MK8GN8Constitution from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

No, the decision of having a child is on the parents by them being on birth control &/or wearing a condom.

 @9LXF9R6Constitution from Utah  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, because if funding is not given to abortion procedures except in instances of rape, harm to the mother or child, or incest.

 @9JYKLMDConstitution from North Carolina  answered…2yrs2Y

Mission to Mars Plan 9: We leave women in case they gain sentients. In the case that women become stronger than men, we've been learning how to become gay. Women often ask the question, why do men act Gay around their homies, some try and hide the truth. They say that it's because they are messing around, or it's for the memes, not me, I am here to reveal the truth.
Elon Musk is one of the ancient, along with our founder George Washington they had a plan with the 10 ancients to move to Mars in case women ever gained natural rights. We have found that in the Constitution our Fra…  Read more

 @9HZRW9DConstitution from Montana  answered…2yrs2Y

The government should be funding hospitals and free healthcare. They shouldn’t be giving money out for abortions they should be giving it out so we can be able to live after breaking a bone or catching a disease.

 @9DVZTD2Constitution from Virginia  answered…3yrs3Y

No. But I believe they should be legal... Just self-supporting amongst the camaraderie who support the cause.

 @9D7JRQSConstitution from California  answered…3yrs3Y

Panned Parenthood should be illeagle in the US

 @9CG3D9KConstitution from Texas  answered…3yrs3Y

No! Planned Parenthood offers no medical care for women, pregnant or not, and not care for their babies. Planned Parenthood only offers abortions of babies and hormones for people with gender dysphoria.

 @9CG3D9KConstitution from Texas  commented…3yrs3Y

No! Planned Parenthood offers no medical care for women, pregnant or not, and no care for their babies. Planned Parenthood only offers abortions of babies and hormones for people with gender dysphoria.

 @DemocraticDabblerfrom Michigan  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Actually, Planned Parenthood provides a range of vital healthcare services for women, including cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and contraceptive services. For example, in 2019, they performed over 1.5 million STI tests and provided birth control to nearly 1.4 million patients. With these services being critical for many women's health, do you think there's a better alternative to ensure access to these essential services if not through Planned Parenthood?

 @9FRXZ5HConstitution from California  answered…3yrs3Y

I think they should continue to found the organization and provide abortion as an option to women who don't want kids or have been a victims of rape should have the option to get abortions.

 @9FQNDHRConstitution from Ohio  answered…3yrs3Y

Planned Parenthood provides abortions across the nation, which is a states' right issue. States that want to maintain Planned Parenthood in their states must fund it themselves

 @9C4FFCPConstitution from North Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, as long as the government fund things like planned parenthood

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations that perform abortions

This is outside the role of gov't.

The role of gov't is to protect her citizens.

Gov't funded abortions are no different than the death penalty, but for the vulnerably innocent.

 @heatherdvdprincessConstitutionanswered…4yrs4Y

Yes. As long as funding is not used for abortions besides for rape, incest, and danger to the mother, and if it is for rape, it should not be after a certain amount of time.

 @93B8FGJConstitution from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

No, unless Planned Parenthood ceases all political campaign donations.

 @939ZGXHConstitution from Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, unless Planned Parenthood makes any political donations. If the government is funding the organization, they should not be permitted to use tax dollars to contribute to a partisan interests.

 @929G2FJConstitution from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

Planned parenthood should receive funding for all services with the exception of abortion.

 @8ZKKCV3Constitution from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes If there changes to be made of the orginzation

 @8ZG852TConstitution from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, if Planned Parenthood is used for educational purposes only. No medical services should be performed or provided.

 @8ZDJ95DConstitution from Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

No if they keep funding abortions

 @8Y2273TConstitution from California  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes because they don’t just give abortions the teach people about sex and also gives them stuff to have safe sex

 @3CYDXFMConstitutionfrom Missouri  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and the government should shut down any business providing it.

 @8WMHXY9Constitution from Washington  answered…5yrs5Y

Baby dady should be in same house

 @8VDFC2ZConstitution from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, the government should provide funds to services that don't support the killing of unborn children, so alternative programs that provide good and helpful services would be a better option

 @8VB7YCRConstitution from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

No. Non-essential/life-threstening medical procedures should be private pay.

 @8TT7QTRConstitution from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

No, the government should only fund hospitals, which should be the only organizations to perform abortions if the birth would critically injure the pregnant woman.

 @8SM4HJ7Constitution from Missouri  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and the government should not provide funding to any for-profit organizations

 @8SJ6W7CConstitution from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only do the ones that the person life is at risk of having their own baby they should have an adoption.

 @8S9LB62Constitution from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

No, And Planned Parenthood should be shut down

 @8RJWBG4Constitution from California  answered…5yrs5Y

Absolutely not, Abortion is a State issue and should be funded or not at that level.

 @8R236ZXConstitution from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

yes but decrease amount given

 @8Q2QBQBConstitution from Massachusetts  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes because if someone cant pay for an abortion and cant take care of a child its another person in this world to relu on taxpayers dollars to survive

 @8PCW843Constitution from Utah  answered…6yrs6Y

No, and shut it down completely

 @8NK6K6SConstitution from Colorado  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but the organization needs to be more transparent on what they are doing.

 @8MWS8QJConstitution from New Jersey  answered…6yrs6Y

No, unless private funding is not enough, and should be minimal.

 @8MVSLSKConstitution from California  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but reduce the funding it receives

 @8MSJ68XConstitution from Maryland  answered…6yrs6Y

I don't believe there should be abortions when the party made the choices that caused the pregnancy. If they are able to make the choices then they are willing to live with the consequences. The only time an abortion should be allowed is in the case of a sexual assault where it was not wanted.

 @8MP95X9Constitution from Florida  answered…6yrs6Y

Constitution does not grant such power to the national government. National government should not be involved in abortion at all

 @8MNSMNZConstitution from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

I currently do not care.

 @8K8MZ2VConstitution from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

No we could really use that money in other things if women want an abortion they can just do it themselves but taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for abortion clinics.

 @8JK94BRConstitution from Massachusetts  answered…6yrs6Y

yes except for abortion that are not rape or below the age of consent related.

 @8J8WMBKConstitution from North Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

Each State should decide to provide funding

 @8HT9LZ2Constitution from Montana  answered…6yrs6Y

No, abortion is a personal choice and should remain a choice for a woman however that does not warrant government aid.

 @8HRBNW3Constitution from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

There should be an option in which planned parenthood could be supported on its own. then an on to whether one consents to fund the abortion side of it.

 @8H89TKRConstitution from California  answered…6yrs6Y

I don’t have a stance on this

 @8FJB3Z2Constitution from Utah  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but only to continue its other services that actually help plan Parenthood. Abortion should never be government funded.

 @8F89K8FConstitution from New York  answered…6yrs6Y

It depends on the rules of the state

 @8CQFDYFConstitution from Massachusetts  answered…6yrs6Y

Abortion should be the choice of the parents

 @8C95YV7Constitution from Utah  answered…6yrs6Y

abortions of incest and rape or immediately puts maternal life in jeopardy

 @8C5TWMZConstitution from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

While I am in full support of planned parenthood, I don't think the government should be able to force people who don't support it to give them taxes to pay for it. Therefore I think it should be privatized and accept donations only, not be paid for by the government. Except in situations like rape victims and people who can't afford it who desperately need it.

 @9C2Z3CWConstitution from Indiana  answered…3yrs3Y

no if these dumbass kids get pregnant too early it's their own damn fault,the dad should get a job to provide while mom stays at home with the baby,if you are not married and are not ready for kids keep your legs closed.

 @9C2F9HBConstitution from Oregon  answered…3yrs3Y

No, and abortion should be abolished

 @9BSN96GConstitution from Iowa  answered…3yrs3Y

To put it simply, “let business be business, and let government be government”.

 @9B9J39SConstitution from Nevada  answered…3yrs3Y

Less funding to Planned Parenthood.

 @99WJ44YConstitution from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but the business should only be used to perform abortions that are necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest, after the sincere consideration of the mother herself. Any other case where the abortion is only being performed out of convenience because of the misuse of sexual relations outside of a responsible marriage should not be allowed

 @4V4VGHMConstitutionanswered…3yrs3Y

No, and not only should the government not give funds to any organizations that support abortion, any such organizations should be shut down.

 @98RDDXTConstitution from Utah  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only for extreme situations may require the use of professional discretion to judge the personal situation that requires the need for intercession.

 @98NMV3ZConstitution from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

I dont really know anything about this one.

 @98NF86LConstitution from Minnesota  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes and No, if you are a person that got raped then yes you should get the opportunity to get an aboriton, but if your older and married then no you should not qualified.

 @9872P59Constitution from Idaho  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, as long as the receivers really need the help.

 @97N3MQ7Constitution from California  answered…4yrs4Y

No and the program should be removed entirely for it’s true practices

 @9737BMYConstitution from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, however abortions should be privately funded.

 @96XVTJPConstitution from Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

if you believe you don't want the baby you should be able to deny giving birth

 @3CYDXFMConstitutionfrom Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and shut down all abortion facilities.

 @9694JB4Constitution from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and planed parent hood should be abolished

 @93KJJ9TConstitution from Wisconsin  answered…4yrs4Y

The government should fund PP but allow limited applications of the funds

 @8QPPM2NConstitution from Utah  answered…5yrs5Y

No, defund all healthcare.

 @8LD66G2Constitution from Missouri  answered…6yrs6Y

Local government

 @8GT9PVVConstitution from North Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

No abortions past first 2 months of being pregnant, but keep all the good stuff they do.

 @8GJ5NZ7Constitution from Colorado  answered…6yrs6Y

No, funding should stop for all organizations. Also, the government should ban abortions.

 @8FPTNYNConstitution from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes as long as the aid only can go toward contraceptives, and research related to cancer and re-homing of children needing adopted.None of the federal funding should go toward abortions.

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