Try the political quiz

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

No

Conversation thread

The following is a 3 message exchange between 4 users

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Social Issues?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Counter Argument?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

 @9F8SXMS  from Minnesota  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Top Disagreement

Planned parenthood provides much more than abortions. They can offer tests, screenings, checkups, std tests etc.

 @9FDPJ2Q  from Illinois  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Planned Parenthood has recently been spending record high amounts of money on their abortion programs. This has increased the sale of abortions and therefore killing more unborn. Yes, they offer many other good programs

 @LobbySamanthaRepublican from Indiana  disagreed…3yrs3Y

I understand the weight of your concerns, truly I do. It's important to remember though that only about 3% of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services. The vast majority of their funds go towards preventive measures like contraceptives and cancer screenings. Just imagine all the lives that could be saved with early detection of cancers. Isn't prevention of unwanted pregnancies a step towards reducing the number of abortions? What are your thoughts on focusing more on preventive measures?

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @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