Oklahoma Becomes Next State to Cut Planned Parenthood From Medicaid Program

Planned_ParenthoodOKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — Oklahoma has become the next state to cut the abortion giant Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, as officials revealed this week that its contract with Planned Parenthood will end in June.

As previously reported, last November, Gov. Mary Fallin sent a letter to the state’s Health Care Authority Board to call for an end to Planned Parenthood’s participation in the program due to fraud concerns.

“Research strongly suggests that Planned Parenthood and its Oklahoma and national affiliates regularly, whether intentionally or negligently, engage in a pattern of practices resulting in the overbilling of state Medicaid programs,” she wrote. “Numerous False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuits around the country have also alleged potential fraud by Planned Parenthood affiliates.”

Fallin noted that the October Program and Integrity Review surrounding Planned Parenthood affiliates in Oklahoma shows that “more than one in every seven bills submitted for payment … are inaccurately coded or insufficiently documented.” She advised that the state had paid over $300,000 within a two year period to the two Planned Parenthood locations in the state.

“These results are alarming,” Fallin opined. “These errors result in overbilling to the Oklahoma taxpayer.”

This week, Oklahoma Health Care Authority Chief Executive Officer Nico Gomez told reporters that Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma were notified in February that their contract would be cancelled.

“My decision in February was made based upon what I firmly believe to be the best interests of this agency going forward,” Gomez told the Associated Press.

  • Connect with Christian News

 

In her letter last November, Fallin noted that the move would not effect women’s health care in the state as there are only two Planned Parenthood facilities, but over a hundred women’s health providers in Oklahoma.

“There are only two Planned Parenthood affiliates in the state operating in about six metropolitan locations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa,” she wrote. “However, there are more than 120 other metropolitan and rural providers available … all of whom provide a broader spectrum of health care services than Planned Parenthood’s limited metropolitan locations.”

As previously reported, in its annual report released at the end of December, the national office of Planned Parenthood outlined that the organization performed 323,999 abortions nationwide during the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

As it has been in previous years, Planned Parenthood’s largest focus was sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), as it tested and/or treated over four million people for sexual ailments, with over 3.5 million tests and 32 thousand men and women being treated for ailments contracted through sexual activity.

Over 2.9 million people were provided with contraceptives or other forms of birth control in 2014—from temporary to permanent, including over 900 thousand emergency contraception kits. The figure is down from 3.5 million the year before, and 3.7 million in 2012.

Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms as it is not licensed to operate mammogram machines, and its annual report outlined that less than 700,000 women received services surrounding cancer screenings, equating to just seven percent of its services, while STD testing and contraceptives accounted for 76 percent of its services.

“Governor Fallin is right to recognize that taxpayer money should go to fund local community health centers, not to subsidize a scandal-ridden, billion-dollar abortion business,” Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek said in a statement.

“Oklahomans shouldn’t be forced to give their money to Planned Parenthood, which has a long track record of abusive and potentially fraudulent billing practices, not to mention that it has also been caught in authenticated undercover videos trafficking aborted babies’ body parts and has repeatedly failed to report the sexual abuse of girls,” she said. “That tax money should be redirected to trusted health care providers.”

“Our doors remain open for the people who choose Planned Parenthood for their health care, including patients covered by Medicaid,” Tamya Cox, an attorney for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said in a statement.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • DLCraig

    Feel good story of the day… Thank you, Oklahoma…

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Indeed, but nobody is getting dragged out into the street and shot.

  • Jalapeno

    More people ensuring that women have a harder time finding good birth control.

    Seems like a GREAT solution to the whole ‘I don’t like abortions’ thing.

    • Pererin

      It’s more a solution to the ‘babies getting brutally ripped to shreds and killed’ thing.

      • Jalapeno

        Do you think abortions will stop if PP stops being able to accept Medicaid money for services?

        • Pererin

          Not solely from that decision, but if this trend continued where each state one-by-one cuts the funding then America will be forced to have a proper discussion about the lives of unborn babies. God willing, this would drastically cut abortion rates across America and who knows, it may even effect Europe and Canada too. That is the hope.

          • Jalapeno

            I’m..just going to repeat a point that I feel is being missed.

            In the interest of preventing abortions…

            People are fighting to TAKE AWAY THEIR OPTIONS FOR GETTING BIRTH CONTROL.

          • Pererin

            Why is planned parenthood needed for birth control. It is freely accessible at any doctors.

          • Jalapeno

            No..it’s covered without copay with all insurances.

            Not all doctors take all insurances…in many areas PP is one of the few offices that will take Medicaid, and sometimes the only one that you can get in within a reasonable time frame.

          • Pererin

            If that is the case, then birth control would be needed to be made more available when the changes are made. Preventative measures are needed in the fight against abortion as well as preventing the actual action abortion. As long as the birth control method does not include any abortifacients of course.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s interesting that you advocate shutting down the clinics without even understanding what it entails.

          • Pererin

            I understand that every single day, hundreds of babies are killed. The sooner they are shut down the more lives saved. Birth control is important, but we must first turn off this running tap of abortion as soon as possible. This is all that matters for now.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes…you’re right.

            It makes perfect sense to blindly charge in to try to fix thing without considering the true consequences.

            It’s not like women get more abortions when they don’t have access to birth control…and it’s not like women never find a way to get an abortion without having access to someplace safe to do it.

            Women also don’t have any other needs..right? They don’t need a place that can help them get screenings, medications and other womens health services or anything.

          • Pererin

            You don’t seem to care that we are living in the midst of the worst holocaust that we have ever known, than we could ever imagine.. If your wrist has been slit and blood is gushing out, we must immediately address the dire problem leading to certain death. In, maybe a hundred years time when people look back at 2016 they will see a people who totally, willfully, ignored the abhorrent behaviour of ourselves today. We have allowed millions of our children to die, not just die, but suffer a brutal, cruel death. We will be seen as monsters. All you can think of is what happens when this holocaust is stopped? When this holocaust is stopped, it will be a milestone in human history. The day when the world stopped butchering it’s unborn by the million. It will be greater than the abolition of slavery by an infinite scale. That is what is at stake here.

          • Jalapeno

            .. Again, you’re literally advocating for something when you weren’t even aware of the consequences.

            I know.. I know..its fun to just get super emotional and not think about how things work in reality, but there’s a reason why many people who hate abortions fight so hard to keep them open.

          • Pererin

            You have the nerve to speak of consequences. Death by the millions. Look what’s happening around you, open your eyes. Why do you ignore the death of millions. Does it sound fun to you? Do you say that to the Jews who suffered in Nazi Germany, “don’t get so emotional, there is a reason why you were sent to those death camps after all”.
            I’m stunned!

          • Jalapeno

            You do know that many people try to prevent abortions by preventing the situation instead of letting women exercise their rights?

            Don’t kid yourself.

          • Pererin

            Of course they do. Prevention is good too. But do you believe that if we offered free birth control, on demand at every doctor in the country that abortion would stop?
            Take a look at what’s happening in the UK. The have had a National Health Service (NHS) since 1948 and every year there are 200,000 abortions, 600 a day! Doesn’t look like prevention alone is working. Making abortion illegal is the only way to stop the holocaust.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you think abortions would stop if women stopped having the ability to get legal ones?

            Heck..you said that they need to not cover abortifacients, but since no non-abortion providers ever had..I’m guessing you’re talking about things that could in theory cause a fertilized egg to be lost..so you’re considering those as lives lost, right?

            So..if a fertilized egg being lost is a life lost, and miscarriages are lives lost..how many extra lives do you think will be lost as unintended pregnancies inevitably increase? Did you know that up to 50% of pregnancies fail?

            What if..in the interest of preventing 1 abortion..you cause 10 more unplanned pregnancies that wouldn’t have occurred and cause 5 lives to be lost?

          • Pererin

            I don’t think they would stop totally but if abortion were made illegal tomorrow, the numbers would fall massively, instantly. 600 children saved from a cruel death each day in the UK alone.

            Now you’re being irrational. We are not responsible for failed pregnancies that we have no control over. God is in control of that and as a Christian I trust his actions.
            With abortions we are deliberately interfering with life. There is a massive difference. I don’t even think you are being serious.

          • Jalapeno

            I thought you cared about lives being lost?

            If you cause a situation that leads to a death, that’s okay with you?

          • Pererin

            How would preventing abortions cause death exactly? As I said, you are being irrational.

          • Jalapeno

            If you’re preventing the abortions by doing something that also causes unplanned pregnancies to increase…which increases the number of miscarriages, unsafe abortions, infant death and maternal death…

          • Pererin

            Apart from unsafe abortions, these are all natural occurrences. We can’t do anything to stop them. We can try our best but that is all we can do. Do you suggest we sterilize all female children at birth because having children will no doubt eventually lead to death of that child and that’s child’s child and so on? Again you are being irrational. Regarding unsafe abortions, of course these are sad and unwanted, but in order to save millions of children I would take that lesser tragedy.

            For some strange reason you seem to believe that saving fewer lives while murdering millions is better than saving millions of lives while striving not to kill anyone. Please explain this irrationality of yours.

          • Jalapeno

            So..causing a situation that leads to more unwanted pregnancies and more deaths is okay because you didn’t DIRECTLY cause the deaths?

            Remember..you’re actively fighting for this situation that leads to deaths. They would have not occurred if the woman had easier access to birth control.

          • Pererin

            For some reason, you think stopping abortions would cause more deaths?
            According to WHO, there are 40-50 million abortions every year world-wide. That’s 125,000 a day. I am fighting to save 125,000 people a day. You are fighting for the continuation of those numbers. By 2017, another 40-50 million people, brutally killed, and you support it. Not only do you support it, you are fighting for it.
            Instead of wanting to save these 40-50 million people each year from massacre, all you can do is dream up some irrational, unknowable, imaginery situations to try and justify them. Don’t you realise how sick that is?

          • Jalapeno

            I’m talking about reducing access to birth control causing deaths…

          • Pererin

            Again, shall we solve the problem altogether and sterilize every female child starting tomorrow resulting in zero child or mother death in the foreseeable future? Of course not, you are being irrational.

          • Jalapeno

            Are you claiming that causing a situation that leads to deaths isn’t a problem?

            If someone took away access to vaccines and people died as a result, would you consider them responsible for those deaths?

          • Pererin

            If those vaccines were made of the blood of millions of massacred children, of course not!

          • Jalapeno

            You’re ignoring the point.

            If someone caused someone to not have access to a vaccine and people died as a result..would you consider them responsible?

          • Pererin

            I answered you question correctly. Your question was a strawman. An attempt to create an inaccurate representation of the situation in order to get the response you need. The vaccines in question represent the lives of the millions of murdered children. They cannot be used to save the lives of others. It’s monsterous. .

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not a strawman and it’s not an analogy.

            It’s an application of your standards to a different situation.

            You say that if a death is indirectly caused and “natural”.. It’s okay, right?

          • Pererin

            I have always been referring to the abortion issue, and you know it. Face it, you are shamefully choosing to ignore a yearly 40-50 million holocaust to prop up you own pride and sinful delusions.

          • Jalapeno

            I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you understand that causing a situation that leads to death is effectively causing that death.

            So.. If, in the interest of preventing one death, you create a situation that causes five deaths… Is that okay?

          • Pererin

            Are we talking about abortion now?

          • Jalapeno

            Does it bother you having your ideals boiled down to the basics?

            It’s okay that those other deaths happen because those are NATURAL and because another death was prevented?

          • Pererin

            No bother at all. I just want to give an accurate response, I’m not interest in playing games. Either speak clearly and in context or I’m out.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not a game and it’s very clear and in context.

            You’re effectively saying that it’s okay to cause more deaths because the caused deaths would be natural and indirect.

            You’re saying that with the choice between :

            A) 1 safe abortion

            B) 5 miscarriages / unsafe abortions / maternal deaths / newborn deaths

            …You’d rather prevent the abortion.

          • Pererin

            No, I’m saying we must save 40-50 million people facing a certain, brutal death. We have no idea how many deaths will occur if any occur at all as a result of saving those lives facing certain death. These other deaths are speculative. The 1-5 sinario that you have concocted is purely imagery.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..it’s a hypothetical situation and i’m happily acknowledging that.

            If you had to choose..which one would you choose?

            After all..we do have certain statistics. Do I need to do the math on the liklihood of the deaths for you? We know that unplanned pregnancies go up when women lose access to clinics. We know that deaths come when unplanned pregnancies go up.

          • Pererin

            I would still have to say, no to the abortion. Whether we like it or not, an abortion involves directly, purposefully, brutally and cruely murdering a person. This would go against God’s law, thou shalt not kill. I can’t go any further than that. Any deaths after that are down to God’s providence. He is the creator and our Lord and has the right and ultimate authority over life and death.

          • Jalapeno

            So..it’s exactly as I said.

            You’ve decided that the deaths are okay as long as they aren’t DIRECTLY caused.

          • Pererin

            I’ve decided nothing. I am simply following God’s commandments. I’ve not said deaths are ok, death is the enemy caused by the fall of Eden. To obbey God’s law, thou shalt not kill, the only option is to preserve the life of the unborn child. The only option I have in this sinario without myself having blood on my hands and disobeying God is to save the child. After that God is the authority and I have no responsibility.

          • Jalapeno

            No..given the choice between one direct death and five indirect..youve decided that it’s an acceptable sacrifice.

            You should probably start being aware of the consequences of things before rushing in blindly.

            Be AWARE that more people could die because you’re focused so much on your emotions that you don’t even bother to get the facts.

          • Pererin

            I see, you refuse to acknowledge my reply because it doesn’t suit your beliefs. You have a sick mind. You seem to have no problem with murder. Do you acknowledge that?

          • Jalapeno

            No, because it’s not true.

          • Pererin

            Of course it’s true, how do explain it otherwise?

          • Jalapeno

            I am not okay with murder.

            Doesn’t it bother you that you can only make sense of things by intentionally misrepresenting other peoples views?

          • Pererin

            Well explain it for yourself. Why do you support the murder of 40-50 million children a year. These are murders and you have done nothing but attempt to justify it.

          • Jalapeno

            I guess you weren’t really picking up on what my point is, eh?

            You’re saying that you’re okay if 5 lives end in the interest of preventing one abortion.

            So…there’s nothing left to say. I find you morally reprehensible and I also find it adorable that you think that I’m going to bend over backwards to correct your misconceptions while you try to insult me.

          • Pererin

            I see, you refuse to explain yourself. I went along with your games. Even tried to explain why they were not realistic. Your hypothetical does not represent the situation discussed. I told you that. Your words are irrational. You can’t even explain your irrationality.

          • Jalapeno

            Of course the hypothetical isn’t an exact representation of the situation. It was another situation to apply your ideals to. The REAL situation involves you blindly trying to change things without even understanding the facts.

            Here’s a brief explanation for you though.

            I don’t consider abortion murder.

            See? Easy. Nice simple explanation…but it doesn’t fit in with your inaccurate ideas about other people viewpoints.

          • Pererin

            Of course you don’t consider abortion murder. That is obvious.
            Perhaps you don’t understand. Your apathy or even your willful ignorance doesn’t excuse the fact that 40-50 million people in the womb die every year as a result of our direct actions. We physically end their lives. Yes, they are alive. Do you even deny this fact too? This is not one of you pointless hypotheticals. This is real life. Children are dying and your apathy is truly disturbing. The facts are that they are children in the womb.
            I stand by what I said. We are witnessing a living holocaust and you are part of the problem. You will find out one day just how horrific a situation you have stood for. Again, how do you justify belief? You can’t hide behind a womb forever.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re saying I’m okay with murder…and I said I wasn’t. There’s your reason.

            I’m not apathetic at all though…I want to prevent as many abortions as possible. Weird, huh?

          • Pererin

            Extremely, weird because you seem to disagree with outlawing abortion do you not?
            Come on what’s your reason?

          • Jalapeno

            That’s how it works in your head? Either fight to make it illegal regardless of the consequences, or you’re okay with it?

          • Pererin

            I am not ok with killing children. That is what abortion is. If you are against stopping it, you are against stopping it. You can’t have it any other way. If you are happy for abortion to continue for the foreseeable future until for some reason people decide not have abortions or to if we find a fail proof form of contraception, you are not against abortion. How can you say you are against abort and the allow it to continue knowing the horrific consequences?

          • Jalapeno

            Many people don’t like abortion but understand that we cannot make it illegal.

            So.. You work on it through other means.

          • Pererin

            All the while, millions die. Why should the innocent suffer? How can you ignore their lives?

          • Jalapeno

            I’m not, but I’m also not ignoring people’s rights.

            That’s why I work for contraception, welfare, sex education and other things that reduce the abortion rate.

            You really need to learn to understand other people’s views.

          • Pererin

            What about the rights of the children? I realise that the law is upside down and a child wrongly had not rights is the womb, but this is obviously wrong and must also change. When human rights class we must look where death occurs. By a massive margin, the deaths happen to the children. The ones who cannot stand up for themselves.

          • Jalapeno

            I think that women need to have the right to control their body. Obviously you don’t, but.. As I said, you’re failing really hard at understanding other people’s views.

            I’m starting to think that it must be intentional.

          • Pererin

            Do you have no sense for preserving the lives of the innocent?
            What about the women in the womb? What about their rights?
            I forgot you deny them their rights.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you understand that someone can want something to stop but cares about how it’s stopped?

          • Pererin

            Not when death is involved. Death is final. Death doesn’t wait for us to find a way around it.

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah! Screw consequences! Screw the fact that it could cause more death! Screw people’s rights!

            It’s not like we let people die all the time in this country eh?

          • Pererin

            Two wrongs don’t make a right. We force ourselves on the baby first. You are acting like we are stuck with abortion and there is nothing we can do about it. All we need to do is stop. These consequences you speak of are only there because we acted first. We don’t have to act firsts. Can’t you see how backward your thinking is. Do you really believe there is nothing we can do to stop performing abortions? Can’t you see how we are infringing on the natural devoplment of a child? That’s when the consequences kick in. Instant death. Why do you ignore the first line of consequences if consequences are your worry?

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah..if we didnt allow abortions people would stop having unwanted pregnancies. Good luck with that.

            I thought that we have to do everything we can to prevent people from dying? Why aren’t we funding health care and forcing organ donations?

          • Pererin

            I realise that unwanted pregnancies would not stop. That isn’t the point. The point is, innocent lives are protected. As I have previously said. We are funding health care and I have never argued against health care that doesn’t involve us personally killing another life. What do you mean exactly by forcing organ donations?

          • Jalapeno

            “These consequences you speak of are only there because we acted first”

            Thats completely untrue though. The consequences are there because people have unwanted pregnancies.

            “What do you mean exactly by forcing organ donations?”

            I thought we had to do everything in our power if lives are being lost? People die all the time because other people dont donate organs to them. Should we force everyone to get on the bone marrow registry and mandate donation if they find a match?

          • Pererin

            No, if we left the unwanted pregnancy alone, as we should, then the circumstances following that would be the consequences of the sexual encounter which resulted in the pregnancy, not the lack of an abortion. Again, you are looking at things backward. People die because of the condition they develop, not because of a lack of blood. I’m not saying donation blood or organs is wrong. I think a a great thing to do because it saves many lives and it should be encouraged. But if you don’t donate, you are not responsible for people’s deaths. With abortion, we a directly responsible for the death of the baby in the womb. There is a great difference.

          • Jalapeno

            As I pointed out to you earlier…there are a LOT of deaths when pregnancies are involved.

            Oh wait. I forgot. THOSE deaths are okay.

            I’ll tell you what though.

            How about we start removing the fetus and let them die because they can’t keep themselves alive?

            Then…they won’t be responsible, nature will. That’s all thats important to you, right?

          • Pererin

            Those deaths are not ok. We are simply not responsible for them. We are however responsible for the death of an unborn child when performing an abortion.
            For some reason you believe that if we personally, physically remove the baby from the womb with our own two hands, that we aren’t killing the baby? I find that that very odd reasoning.
            If we were both up in the International Space Station and I threw you outside the station without a suit, no oxygen, obviously resulting in your death, I would be responsible for your death. Telling the judge it was your own fault you died, you couldn’t keep yourself alive, would not be a good defense.
            If you were in a hospital bed, fighting for your life with a machine helping you to breathe, and I came into your room and switched off the machine, I would be responsible for your death. Telling the judge it was your own fault, it’s nature, he couldn’t even keep himself alive, I would be put away for a long time.

          • Jalapeno

            People turn off life support all the time…

            Why isn’t that murder?

          • Pererin

            Against your will? You are being childish now.

          • Jalapeno

            Uhm..were you under the impression that we did everything in our power to keep people alive just because they wanted to stay alive?

            We don’t. People run out of resources all the time..they decide that they can’t continue to pay for life support so they take ACTIVE STEPS to end the life of someone else.

          • Pererin

            Against your will. It would be murder. Simple as that. I’m not playing your games.

          • Jalapeno

            So..if someone refuses to pay for your life support and pulls the plug…thats murder?

          • Pererin

            As I suspected, the mind of a 12 year old.

          • Jalapeno

            You said that it’s murder to take an active action that ends the life of another person.

            So..why isn’t it murder to refuse to pay for life support and pull the plug?

          • Pererin

            Nope, I didn’t actually, please go back and read it again.
            I said that if I pulled your life support, it would be murder. Which of course, it would be.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re right. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on logic, my mistake.

            So..why is it not murder to refuse to keep someone on life support? Don’t they have the right to be kept alive no matter what?

          • Pererin

            Sure you were. I believe you!
            Where are you going now? I haven’t said anything about keeping someone of life support. I was replying to your comment about the baby in the womb being removed against it’s will. For some unfathomable reason, you believe that purposefully removing someone from a life giving situation against their will is fine. I gave you two examples and now you have entered a wild goose chase about paying for life support.

          • Jalapeno

            People are removed from life support against their will. Not by randomly going up and shutting off the machines….they stop receiving the care that they want due to financial reasons.

            Why is that not murder?

          • Pererin

            This is hard work. Are you going to continue to ignore my analogy in favour of your twisted version?

          • Jalapeno

            I’m trying to ask why you’re unwilling to apply your logic to other situations.

            You seem to think that a fetus is entitled to being kept alive because they (theoretically) want to be kept alive.

            Why isnt’ everyone else entitled to be kept alive? Why do we let people stop life support?

          • Pererin

            Because not all situations are the same.

          • Jalapeno

            So..you want to say that a fetus is granted entitlements that no one else is..and a pregnant woman has less control over her body than anyone else?

            I thought you were trying to pretend that it was just an extension of how our laws work?

          • Pererin

            Well actually it’s the other was around. I want an unborn baby to have equal right of life as everyone else. At the moment the unborn baby is treated as subhuman, actually, not even subhuman, they are treated with the same care as an tumour.

          • Jalapeno

            No one else is entitled to be kept alive.

            So..do you want them to have equal rights? Then..they don’t either.

          • Pererin

            Of course they are. Hospitals are full of people being kept alive.

          • Jalapeno

            Did you miss the word “entitled”?

            What do you think happens when someone refuses to pay for continued care?

          • Pererin

            Are you telling me, honestly, that if a 5 year old child was in hospital, being kept alive, that doctors would turn off the machine that keeps the child breathing, knowing that the child will get better if the machine stayed on?

          • Jalapeno

            Let me go with a more simplistic scenario for you.

            What do you think happens if a type 1 diabetic needs insulin vials and can’t afford them? Do they get given the medication or do they just..hope that they don’t die from complications?

          • Pererin

            Let me go with the scenario that reflects what actually happens with abortion. i.e. The example I gave you. Actually, the real-life abortion situation is even more invasive than the example I gave, so my example is actually cutting you some slack.

          • Jalapeno

            So..you understand that people die because they cannot afford to be kept alive?

          • Pererin

            Not quite what I said in my reply was it. Try again without the distortion.

          • Jalapeno

            Okay then, try me.

            I applied your logic to a situation other than abortion, but now it suddenly doesn’t hold?

            What brilliant hypothetical did you come up with that I missed?

          • Pererin

            There were two, one space themed, the other one that you noticed but distorted to fit your beliefs.

          • Jalapeno

            How was it distorted?

          • Pererin

            You completely ignored the point I made, spiralling down a road about it being it being ok for me to just turn off your machine keeping you alive in hospital.

          • Jalapeno

            What point do you think you made?

          • Pererin

            I didn’t think I made a point, I made a point. You ignored it. I not going to spoon feed you, look back, it’s all there.

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah I didn’t see any actual points from you. What point did you think you made?

          • Bob Johnson

            Apparently, like Mother Teresa, Pererin believes to die in pain of malnutrition, malaria, blindness, etc. is better than to have never drawn breath.

          • Bob Johnson

            In 2013, 6.3 million children under the age of 5 years old died of malnutrition. Another 2.6 million stillbirths are attributed to the mother’s malnutrition. Another estimated 165 million children have stunted growth.
            Ending abortion will cause these numbers to raise. Probably drastically for both mothers and children. There are no simple answers, nor can we change one part of the problem with being ready to accept the consequences.

          • Pererin

            So you support the massacre of millions in order to prevent the possible course of nature. We have no right to take away the lives of anyone. You are words are monsterous. You are promoting the biggest holocaust ever seen.

          • Bob Johnson

            Unfortunately since government money is not used for abortions, these cuts will cause a harder time for birth control and prenatal education programs, thereby increasing the abortions which are privately funded. Planned Parenthood could indeed drop family planing services and become focused solely on abortions. There is also the potential problem that with more unplanned infants, that many will be surrendered under Safe Haven Laws and thus causing your proper discussion to go in unexpected directions.

          • Pererin

            As long as 40-50 million lives are saved per year. 125,000 a day. That is what matters. We live in desperate times.

          • Bob Johnson

            Where do you get 40-50 million lives? The 60 million number usually quoted is since Roe v Wade in 1973. (42 years ago). Currently, abortions run around 750,000 per year or about 2061 per day. Yes, it is way too many. However, your plan may well cause the number to go up rather than down.

          • Pererin

            From WHO. Please read through the discussion between myself and Jalepino

  • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

    Stay strong Oklahoma. To the moms Happy Mothers Day.

    • Josey

      Amen precious Lady of Christ, God bless you! And a HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY TO ALL MOMS!

  • Josey

    As far as social security taxes and taxes in general funding planned parent hood, it should b defunded, if it’s about women’s health, there are other ways to get their medical needs met, plenty of clinics who can help and general practitioners or Obgyns.

  • acontraryview

    And, like every other state that has tried this, Oklahoma will spend precious state tax dollars defending this in court and will lose. Nothing more than a publicity stunt pandering to their electorate in a bid to get reelected.