One mother complains and annual Kindergarten trip to see Santa cancelled

[EverCurious]

The schools up here forbid kids from bringing Valentines to class a few years ago... It's getting stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

You sure about that because everything I've read on PP says by law they cannot.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

-- will research more in a few, I have to do some things I've already put off too long heh

As a quick note, according to the magic ACA there should be no uninsured American's so insurance pays for it right?

PP says they don't use federal funds for abortions. However, if the federal money they receive allows them to do more things that non-federal money used to fund but can now be used for abortions, while the federal money they receive may not, on paper, go to abortions, the receiving of that federal money allows them to use non-federal money to do abortions they would otherwise not be able to do if they didn't receive the federal money. It's like your personal finances. You don't buy a car because you can't afford the payment due to other bills. From whatever source those other bills get paid freeing up money for you to finance a car. While the source providing the money may not have come to you to pay for the car, that source is the sole reason you now have more to buy it.

... so basically your argument is that they do abortions. That is absolutely not an argument that they are using federal funds for abortions, sorry.

My argument is that they couldn't do abortions to the level they do them if federal money was freeing up non federal money in order to do it. Apparently you missed the point.

Federal money is being used for abortions despite your claim it isn't. It may be on a small scale but it's used. Read the latest version of the Hyde Amendment. It explains when it can be used for abortions none of which are legitimate.

 

[EverCurious]

You sure about that because everything I've read on PP says by law they cannot.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

-- will research more in a few, I have to do some things I've already put off too long heh

As a quick note, according to the magic ACA there should be no uninsured American's so insurance pays for it right?

PP says they don't use federal funds for abortions. However, if the federal money they receive allows them to do more things that non-federal money used to fund but can now be used for abortions, while the federal money they receive may not, on paper, go to abortions, the receiving of that federal money allows them to use non-federal money to do abortions they would otherwise not be able to do if they didn't receive the federal money. It's like your personal finances. You don't buy a car because you can't afford the payment due to other bills. From whatever source those other bills get paid freeing up money for you to finance a car. While the source providing the money may not have come to you to pay for the car, that source is the sole reason you now have more to buy it.

... so basically your argument is that they do abortions. That is absolutely not an argument that they are using federal funds for abortions, sorry.

My argument is that they couldn't do abortions to the level they do them if federal money was freeing up non federal money in order to do it. Apparently you missed the point.

Federal money is being used for abortions despite your claim it isn't. It may be on a small scale but it's used. Read the latest version of the Hyde Amendment. It explains when it can be used for abortions none of which are legitimate.

And you are saying that a business cannot spend it's NON federal funds anyway it wishes simply because /you/ disagree with abortions.

You are treading on an infringement of business rights and as a business person I disagree with your entire premise.

 

[peach174]

no i am saying if one religion should only be practiced at home then apply that to all religions....simple solution to what seems to be a major problem for christians

It is not Christians who have a major problem with Christmas. It's the secularists and small minority who do.
If we did that then the Federal Holiday is gone.
Many Business would close because most rely on the Christmas Sales.
Schools would not have a December break.

 

[koshergrl]

You sure about that because everything I've read on PP says by law they cannot.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

-- will research more in a few, I have to do some things I've already put off too long heh

As a quick note, according to the magic ACA there should be no uninsured American's so insurance pays for it right?

PP says they don't use federal funds for abortions. However, if the federal money they receive allows them to do more things that non-federal money used to fund but can now be used for abortions, while the federal money they receive may not, on paper, go to abortions, the receiving of that federal money allows them to use non-federal money to do abortions they would otherwise not be able to do if they didn't receive the federal money. It's like your personal finances. You don't buy a car because you can't afford the payment due to other bills. From whatever source those other bills get paid freeing up money for you to finance a car. While the source providing the money may not have come to you to pay for the car, that source is the sole reason you now have more to buy it.

ppl has been busted time and again for accepting Fed money for services they don't provide. They do use Fed money to fund abortion.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The schools up here forbid kids from bringing Valentines to class a few years ago... It's getting stupid.

And it's usually one or two parents whining so all the kids suffer because some parent wants attention

 

[ogibillm]

Ahhhhhh, the fake 'war on christmas' continues to be hyped.

70% of the population is self described as 'christian' so apparently Americans wage war on themselves once a year at this time.

You know, the time when Jesus speaks of peace on Earth.

One lib complained and the spineless School administrators cancelled the trip for a classroom full of children.


This isn't American Christians waging war of themselves, this is Godless Liberals waging war on their fellow Citizens.

Sounds to me like the administrators bent over, grabbed their ankles, and took one.

sounds to me like they thought the walking field trip with kindergartners was a bad idea

 

[Conservative65]

You sure about that because everything I've read on PP says by law they cannot.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

-- will research more in a few, I have to do some things I've already put off too long heh

As a quick note, according to the magic ACA there should be no uninsured American's so insurance pays for it right?

PP says they don't use federal funds for abortions. However, if the federal money they receive allows them to do more things that non-federal money used to fund but can now be used for abortions, while the federal money they receive may not, on paper, go to abortions, the receiving of that federal money allows them to use non-federal money to do abortions they would otherwise not be able to do if they didn't receive the federal money. It's like your personal finances. You don't buy a car because you can't afford the payment due to other bills. From whatever source those other bills get paid freeing up money for you to finance a car. While the source providing the money may not have come to you to pay for the car, that source is the sole reason you now have more to buy it.

... so basically your argument is that they do abortions. That is absolutely not an argument that they are using federal funds for abortions, sorry.

My argument is that they couldn't do abortions to the level they do them if federal money was freeing up non federal money in order to do it. Apparently you missed the point.

Federal money is being used for abortions despite your claim it isn't. It may be on a small scale but it's used. Read the latest version of the Hyde Amendment. It explains when it can be used for abortions none of which are legitimate.

And you are saying that a business cannot spend it's NON federal funds anyway it wishes simply because /you/ disagree with abortions.

You are treading on an infringement of business rights and as a business person I disagree with your entire premise.

I'm saying that it wouldn't have the non federal funds to spend on abortions if federal funds didn't free them up. Without the federal funds, the non federal wouldn't be available. You sound like you need the Dave Ramsey to teach you something about finances.

 

[Conservative65]

Ahhhhhh, the fake 'war on christmas' continues to be hyped.

70% of the population is self described as 'christian' so apparently Americans wage war on themselves once a year at this time.

You know, the time when Jesus speaks of peace on Earth.

One lib complained and the spineless School administrators cancelled the trip for a classroom full of children.


This isn't American Christians waging war of themselves, this is Godless Liberals waging war on their fellow Citizens.

Sounds to me like the administrators bent over, grabbed their ankles, and took one.

sounds to me like they thought the walking field trip with kindergartners was a bad idea

I'd say it was the grabbing of the ankles to appease ONE whining bitch.

 

[peach174]

i was unaware that secular schools had a religious preference....

WHAT?
Who said that?

 

[EverCurious]

You sure about that because everything I've read on PP says by law they cannot.

Planned Parenthood’s 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) That’s about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.

However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Service’s website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The federal budget deal now bans Washington, D.C., from using its funds to pay for abortions.

-- will research more in a few, I have to do some things I've already put off too long heh

As a quick note, according to the magic ACA there should be no uninsured American's so insurance pays for it right?

PP says they don't use federal funds for abortions. However, if the federal money they receive allows them to do more things that non-federal money used to fund but can now be used for abortions, while the federal money they receive may not, on paper, go to abortions, the receiving of that federal money allows them to use non-federal money to do abortions they would otherwise not be able to do if they didn't receive the federal money. It's like your personal finances. You don't buy a car because you can't afford the payment due to other bills. From whatever source those other bills get paid freeing up money for you to finance a car. While the source providing the money may not have come to you to pay for the car, that source is the sole reason you now have more to buy it.

... so basically your argument is that they do abortions. That is absolutely not an argument that they are using federal funds for abortions, sorry.

My argument is that they couldn't do abortions to the level they do them if federal money was freeing up non federal money in order to do it. Apparently you missed the point.

Federal money is being used for abortions despite your claim it isn't. It may be on a small scale but it's used. Read the latest version of the Hyde Amendment. It explains when it can be used for abortions none of which are legitimate.

And you are saying that a business cannot spend it's NON federal funds anyway it wishes simply because /you/ disagree with abortions.

You are treading on an infringement of business rights and as a business person I disagree with your entire premise.

I'm saying that it wouldn't have the non federal funds to spend on abortions if federal funds didn't free them up. Without the federal funds, the non federal wouldn't be available. You sound like you need the Dave Ramsey to teach you something about finances.

By your argument then, we may impose restrictions upon the spending habits of anyone who receives welfare then? After all, they could not buy non-essentials if we did not pay for their essentials right? I am not keen on welfare recipients buying drugs, nor cigarettes, nor booze, nor hair weaves, or cable TV... Is that reasonable or no?

 

[Conservative65]

PP says they don't use federal funds for abortions. However, if the federal money they receive allows them to do more things that non-federal money used to fund but can now be used for abortions, while the federal money they receive may not, on paper, go to abortions, the receiving of that federal money allows them to use non-federal money to do abortions they would otherwise not be able to do if they didn't receive the federal money. It's like your personal finances. You don't buy a car because you can't afford the payment due to other bills. From whatever source those other bills get paid freeing up money for you to finance a car. While the source providing the money may not have come to you to pay for the car, that source is the sole reason you now have more to buy it.

... so basically your argument is that they do abortions. That is absolutely not an argument that they are using federal funds for abortions, sorry.

My argument is that they couldn't do abortions to the level they do them if federal money was freeing up non federal money in order to do it. Apparently you missed the point.

Federal money is being used for abortions despite your claim it isn't. It may be on a small scale but it's used. Read the latest version of the Hyde Amendment. It explains when it can be used for abortions none of which are legitimate.

And you are saying that a business cannot spend it's NON federal funds anyway it wishes simply because /you/ disagree with abortions.

You are treading on an infringement of business rights and as a business person I disagree with your entire premise.

I'm saying that it wouldn't have the non federal funds to spend on abortions if federal funds didn't free them up. Without the federal funds, the non federal wouldn't be available. You sound like you need the Dave Ramsey to teach you something about finances.

By your argument then, we may impose restrictions upon the spending habits of anyone who receives welfare then? After all, they could not buy non-essentials if we did not pay for their essentials right? I am not keen on welfare recipients buying drugs, nor cigarettes, nor booze, nor hair weaves, or cable TV... Is that reasonable or no?

We already do for those on welfare. Those on welfare should only be able to spend what they receive on things those forced to do the funding say. After all, it's not their money. If they don't like the restrictions, don't ask. If they do ask, STFU about being told what to do with something they wouldn't have if someone else that earned their own way wasn't mandated to provide to them.

Same concept with a woman's choice with her body. If a woman makes the choice with her body to have children she can't afford, why is it someone else's place, specifically those who she told to butt out of the choice, to do it for her? If she wants to have 10 kids, go for it as long as when she can't afford to support them the rest of us aren't forced to do it for her. She wants the choice, she gets the cost. If she can't afford it, it doesn't automatically default to someone else.

 

[Correll]

Ahhhhhh, the fake 'war on christmas' continues to be hyped.

70% of the population is self described as 'christian' so apparently Americans wage war on themselves once a year at this time.

You know, the time when Jesus speaks of peace on Earth.

One lib complained and the spineless School administrators cancelled the trip for a classroom full of children.


This isn't American Christians waging war of themselves, this is Godless Liberals waging war on their fellow Citizens.

I ignored you the first time, but you gotta keep at it. It is NOT liberals! It is Jerks! They come in all shapes and sizes.

I don't recall any examples of people whining about Christmas where the whiner was not a liberal.

 

[EverCurious]

We already do for those on welfare. Those on welfare should only be able to spend what they receive on things those forced to do the funding say. After all, it's not their money. If they don't like the restrictions, don't ask. If they do ask, STFU about being told what to do with something they wouldn't have if someone else that earned their own way wasn't mandated to provide to them.
Same concept with a woman's choice with her body. If a woman makes the choice with her body to have children she can't afford, why is it someone else's place, specifically those who she told to butt out of the choice, to do it for her? If she wants to have 10 kids, go for it as long as when she can't afford to support them the rest of us aren't forced to do it for her. She wants the choice, she gets the cost. If she can't afford it, it doesn't automatically default to someone else.

Interesting. Sources on where we limit non-welfare spending by welfare recipients requested.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Ahhhhhh, the fake 'war on christmas' continues to be hyped.

70% of the population is self described as 'christian' so apparently Americans wage war on themselves once a year at this time.

You know, the time when Jesus speaks of peace on Earth.

One lib complained and the spineless School administrators cancelled the trip for a classroom full of children.


This isn't American Christians waging war of themselves, this is Godless Liberals waging war on their fellow Citizens.

I ignored you the first time, but you gotta keep at it. It is NOT liberals! It is Jerks! They come in all shapes and sizes.

I don't recall any examples of people whining about Christmas where the whiner was not a liberal.

Anytime someone is whining you can almost rest assured it's a liberal. They have whining down to a science

 

[Correll]

okay will why should any be religion have to celebrate at home while another religion gets all the focus? why not have all this at home? all the holidays?

Because that religion is the vast majority of the student body and the staff.

Because it would be nonsense for the School to pretend that that isn't so.

 

[Correll]

no i am saying if one religion should only be practiced at home then apply that to all religions....simple solution to what seems to be a major problem for christians

It is not Christians who are having a problem here.

It is you godless libs.

 

[Correll]

i was unaware that secular schools had a religious preference....

Secular doesn't mean anti-religion.

No matter how much you libs want it to.

Christmas is a part of the culture of America, and having the school try to be a Christmas free zone would be pointless and counterproductive.

 

[Correll]

Ahhhhhh, the fake 'war on christmas' continues to be hyped.

70% of the population is self described as 'christian' so apparently Americans wage war on themselves once a year at this time.

You know, the time when Jesus speaks of peace on Earth.

One lib complained and the spineless School administrators cancelled the trip for a classroom full of children.


This isn't American Christians waging war of themselves, this is Godless Liberals waging war on their fellow Citizens.

Sounds to me like the administrators bent over, grabbed their ankles, and took one.

sounds to me like they thought the walking field trip with kindergartners was a bad idea

Bullshit. They thought offending libs was a bad idea. Because you never know when some asshole lib is going to literally make a federal case over something and bankrupt the school district while the libs' law bills are picked up by asshole libs Trusts and Organizations that go around looking for ways to screw up America.

 

[EverCurious]

Santa Clause in particular is entirely an American tradition. It's just a shame that little kids are getting jerked around by adults looking for something to be offended by... Why not think about the kido's? I don't care what religion you practice, kidos know about Santa and I really don't think most of them equate it to a religion :/ I certainly don't, and I'm an agnostic adult. Santa is about kidos to me, nothing more, nothing less.