do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?

I'd have to agree with bea, this is probably more due to the mass amount of publicity its getting. What happens when the news cycle's ADHD finds something new to freak out about? Or even if planned parenthood is able to keep itself funded purely by donations do other charities suffer?

500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.

>> ^gwiz665:

500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.


Private donations account for 1/4 of operating revenue. Government spending is was/is 1/3ed. (all according to wiki). Which means that private donations accounted for 370% more than government spending would of accounted for, up from government spending 120% more than private donations prior. >> ^peggedbea:

do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?


Publicity and people who care account for the spending surge no doubt. I would imagine the total spending will drop to levels lower than they were previously in time. But I don't mind this so much, I am pro choice mind you, but to FORCE someone to pay for something they down right believe is murder is pretty outrageous. It will be up to those who truly believe in the cause to take up financial arms, as it should be. There are organisations that aren't publicized via media and do very well for themselves and sponcers...like every church in america.

This funding change also may force PP to be more dithered and less national, which might force it to be less monolithic and more regional in its ways and policies. This could bring both good and bad, only time will tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_dream

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_dream


Huh? Is it a pipe dream to imagine that AA already takes in over 100 million in private donations? I don't understand the objection.

1,440,000 counter-arguments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

1,440,000 counter-arguments.


There isn't infinite money, so that isn't a counter argument as much as a statement of the nature of the world. Government is involved in many of those same charities that are currently "lacking of funds" as well. Government money doesn't make it less the case that there are limited resources.

@GeeSussFreeK, to some of these people this is a bipartisanship argument. If tomorrow their party told them charities are the duty of the people and not government, they'd be singing your praises.

But when's the last time you heard a Democrat say anything is the duty of the people not the government?

@blankfist

That's a shame, really. I would of though examples like this would of shown how flawed the government do-gooding can be in the affairs of morality. One could, and rightly, question why the government funds abortion at all when, like DT pointed out, children's leukemia is always struggling for more support? Why is it MORE morally correct to help women abort proto-human matter and not children who's bones are decomposing in their living, breathing, fully human bodies? It is an unanswerable question because it strikes at the core of all your own personal beliefs. It would be very hard to convey it rationally.

In as much as it now laments its controversial status via the context federal funding, for awhile, it also benefited. It is hard to gain enough political capital to expect addition funding for children's leukemia, rotting children's bones just isn't sexy enough for a political person to care about...caring != votes in that case. As such, it is exceeding hard to get federal funding for things that don't have a lot of political pressure behind it. Which means federal good-will has to go through 2 filters, first it has to garner enough popular support to warrant a politic-o to care, then it has to make it around the politic-o circuit and get some place positive. I have had the pleasure of being involved with charities from time to time, and it much easier to get support directly from people then to influence how they vote and try to get funding via that context.

Plus, funding is only half the battle, it is the actual fighting part. The REAL battle, the battle the wins the war, is about awareness. If you aren't fighting the awareness battle, you will lose in time. Funding is about staying alive in the minds of those who's support you need. The awareness runs for breast cancer have to be the finest example of this idea done well. When your money is delegated by some third party politic-o, you can rest assured that your money will only be spent on things that buy him the most votes. Which is a shame, really, because there are tons of good causes out there that don't buy votes.

The best solution is to be as connected to your local charity organizations as you can. If we want a world worth living in, each person must live the role, not try and vote it into reality, that simply wont do.

I'm preaching to the choir though.

Why not just say you don't like government funded programs from the start, rather than pretending to care with the half-assed, poorly reasoned conclusions you've draw from the story above?

>> ^blankfist:

geesusfreek to some of these people this is a bipartisanship argument. If tomorrow their party told them charities are the duty of the people and not government, they'd be singing your praises.
But when's the last time you heard a Democrat say anything is the duty of the people not the government?

^What's the duty of the people vs. the duty of government? Is funding charities the role of government or people?

We need to be able downvote Sift Talks. Or adopt a /. moderating system. But I'm not sure if this would be -1 dumb or -1 troll.

except that 97% of the services pp offers are not abortion services. the idea that pp is some massive abortion franchise is pure myth. its main function is to provide low cost birth control, breast exams, pap smears, std tests and education. i don't know the people who think those things are murder.

furthermore, i'm down right against war and an aggressive foreign policy and believe these things to be murder but no one is defunding any of that and using my moral outrage as cover.

also, churches use fear and religious devotion and obligatory methods to secure their funding. it's called tithing and it was ordered by god in the bible somewhere, you can't compare the funding of other organizations to churches. god didn't mandate you to give 10% of your income to fund various social causes, unfortunately.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.

Private donations account for 1/4 of operating revenue. Government spending is was/is 1/3ed. (all according to wiki). Which means that private donations accounted for 370% more than government spending would of accounted for, up from government spending 120% more than private donations prior. >> ^peggedbea:
do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?

Publicity and people who care account for the spending surge no doubt. I would imagine the total spending will drop to levels lower than they were previously in time. But I don't mind this so much, I am pro choice mind you, but to FORCE someone to pay for something they down right believe is murder is pretty outrageous. It will be up to those who truly believe in the cause to take up financial arms, as it should be. There are organisations that aren't publicized via media and do very well for themselves and sponcers...like every church in america.
This funding change also may force PP to be more dithered and less national, which might force it to be less monolithic and more regional in its ways and policies. This could bring both good and bad, only time will tell.

-1 dumb for a person smart enough to know better.

Look bf, we have two angles on this issue, each of which have benefits and drawbacks.

You support an extreme version of capitalism that removes all barriers to trade, providing complete liberty to business people, but it comes at a cost. The downside of this kind of extreme capitalism is unemployment, low wages, income inequality, poverty, exploitation of labor, environmental destruction, small business hardships, etc. If you are going to embrace free markets, you need to disabuse yourself of the illusion that they are beneficial to all people, or even most people. They aren't. As capitalism grows more extreme in this country, you see all of the negative symptoms I've mentioned above manifest and intensify. You see the exact same thing in other countries where free market reforms are put in place - similarly against the will of the populace.

I support capitalism, but think there should be protections put in place to reduce capitalist related misery (unemployment, low wages, income inequality, poverty, exploitation of labor, pollution, small business harships). If I were to say that adding these protections would increase executive salaries and corporate bottom lines, I'd be just as dishonest as you claiming that removing these protections would increase economic liberty among the lower and middle classes. They don't.

I don't think you are dumb, but you sure do suffer from confirmation bias when it comes to your own belief system. Part of the problem is that you write off anything short of a completely free market as unrelated to your belief system. And, because there will never be a completely free market, there will always be room for you to avoid taking responsibility for negative effects of deregulation, privatization, austerity and other individual aspects of your belief system.

I could do the same. I could claim that there has never been a pure democracy and therefore you cannot judge existing partial democracies. I could tell you that the USSR diverged greatly from the principles of socialism and communism and therefore can't be used as negative examples of socialism. If I did either of these things, you'd object, and you'd be right to object, because results are ultimately more important intentions. It's in this spirit that I object not to your belief in free market principles, but to the pie in the sky, unicorns and rainbows that you promise will accompany these principals - this post being a perfect example.

To answer your question, it is the government's duty to try and minimize the negative effects of its economic system. Planned parenthood fits well within this duty.

I was just looking up some of those numbers, and that is about spot on, about 2.7% to abortions and
nearly all other services are just sexual system related...not that I ever supposed that they were a huge abortions machine. And while even if those numbers are 5 or so percent off, it doesn't really matter to the person who is apposed to abortions all together. It would be akin to a husband saying to his wife, of all the women I have met, I didn't cheat on you with 98% of them...it is that small percent that matters when morality is concerned. Certainly, though, as far as a health organisation goes, I have nothing against PP.

Personally, I think you should use the logic that war is murder, and you are against murder in an effort to diswage your congressman against acts of war. I would tend to agree with this position, most of the wars haven't really been fought to save ourselves from torment as of late, more like cause torment. It doesn't have to be "cover" if it is true. And this truth is completely subjective, hard to test the legitimacy of peoples claims beyond face value...it's all so damned tangled in personal backgrounds.

I think you are being rather disingenuous as the the totality of church go'ers on donations. While I know fire and brimstone churches exists, I have had the pleasure of not ever attending one, ever. I am no longer a Christian myself, but when I was, I gave out of the compassion that I knew it was going to be used for something good, instead of a cheeseburger for myself. That raised up in me a charitable heart in myself furthering my commitments to those in need. I was fortunate enough to be able to support the blood and fire food hand outs, the Sam's battered women shelter, and several others. Giving is a mindset more than a command. And in that, goodness is only going to success if we take an active role in it. A fraction of our taxes will never be enough. Giving has to be a lifestyle, it won't work otherwise.



>> ^peggedbea:

except that 97% of the services pp offers are not abortion services. the idea that pp is some massive abortion franchise is pure myth. its main function is to provide low cost birth control, breast exams, pap smears, std tests and education. i don't know the people who think those things are murder.
furthermore, i'm down right against war and an aggressive foreign policy and believe these things to be murder but no one is defunding any of that and using my moral outrage as cover.
also, churches use fear and religious devotion and obligatory methods to secure their funding. it's called tithing and it was ordered by god in the bible somewhere, you can't compare the funding of other organizations to churches. god didn't mandate you to give 10% of your income to fund various social causes, unfortunately.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.

Private donations account for 1/4 of operating revenue. Government spending is was/is 1/3ed. (all according to wiki). Which means that private donations accounted for 370% more than government spending would of accounted for, up from government spending 120% more than private donations prior. >> ^peggedbea:
do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?

Publicity and people who care account for the spending surge no doubt. I would imagine the total spending will drop to levels lower than they were previously in time. But I don't mind this so much, I am pro choice mind you, but to FORCE someone to pay for something they down right believe is murder is pretty outrageous. It will be up to those who truly believe in the cause to take up financial arms, as it should be. There are organisations that aren't publicized via media and do very well for themselves and sponcers...like every church in america.
This funding change also may force PP to be more dithered and less national, which might force it to be less monolithic and more regional in its ways and policies. This could bring both good and bad, only time will tell.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To answer your question, it is the government's duty to try and minimize the negative effects of its economic system. Planned parenthood fits well within this duty.


That's not answering my question. What is the people's duty then? What should be left to the people and what should be left to the government?

Also, dft, it's not that I support capitalism any different than you do. I'm just more of an agorist while you seem to want to live in this muddied middle ground between socialism and capitalism. A place nonexistent without the use of force and coercion to get everyone to play along by your rules of central planning.

There's a reason why Marxists despised social democrats. It's because they've confused the message of socialism and bastardized it. It's also why the national socialists tried to wipe the social democrats out, because they're a threat to their designs for national central planning.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To answer your question, it is the government's duty to try and minimize the negative effects of its economic system. Planned parenthood fits well within this duty.

That's not answering my question. What is the people's duty then? What should be left to the people and what should be left to the government?


The people should be the government. That's the whole point.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To answer your question, it is the government's duty to try and minimize the negative effects of its economic system. Planned parenthood fits well within this duty.

That's not answering my question. What is the people's duty then? What should be left to the people and what should be left to the government?

The people should be the government. That's the whole point.


But are they? When's the last time you saw a mechanic or farmer become president and not a lawyer or millionaire?

Argoist? What the fuck is an argoist? You kill me with all the categories you try to define yourself with: libertarian, capitalist, anarcho capitalist, minarchist, minarcho capitalist, volutaryist, individualist, argoist or whatever the flavor of the weak happens to be.

For a rugged individualist, you are quite the joiner. I propose you be a blankfist.. ist. It has a nice ring to it, and it's nice and ambiguous, giving you plenty of room to define yourself.. by yourself. Of all your faults, being easily definable is not one of them. Fuck those labels.

Anyway, RyjKyj couldn't be more right. The people should be the government and the government should do what's best for the people. But are they? Of course not. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Compassion over greed. Empathy over fear. Brotherhood/Sisterhood over selfishness. Love over money. Community over commerce. Chomsky over Friedman. Radiohead over Coldplay. Democracy over statism. Democracy over corporatism.

Off topic, but issy and I are watching Glee on Netflix, and it started off great, but man did it go off the rails around episode 10. We are at episode 13 and I'm ready to shut it off for good. Does it ever regain its footing? Is there any reason for us to stick it out?

^Pretty funny.

I like quotes. Do you like quotes? I do. Here's one I have on my profile. Oh, and it's one from Thoreau, so I get super "lame" points for that!

"I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." -Henry David Thoreau

I like it because it's honest. The process is gradual, but the best option is a government that doesn't govern. We keep moving toward the best. The one that gives us more individual liberty and less politics. Less partisan. More trust for your neighbor as old traditions fade. And more blowjobs for everyone! YAY! When's the last time you had a really good sloppy blowjob? Man, I love blowjobs. But I like quotes.

But you know what? Thoreau walked the walk. He lived in a mother-fucking shack in the mother-fucking Walden woods. He wasn't capitalist or materialist and he didn't live in close proximity to Beverly Hills. You want liberty? Put down the iPad and get you some REAL liberty... Thoreau style... in the woods. I've been in that shack. It's tiny. No room for a plasma. No wireless. Not even a toilet as I remember. There's an image to go with that quote, eh?

Not sure if you're mocking Thoreau or me. Either way, his words are still true. And I've told you time and time again, I'd give up capitalism in a heartbeat if there was a better system. There isn't one. Yet. And that's what that quote is putting across, that we keep moving toward something better. And if the end goal is a government that doesn't govern at all, then that's what we move toward. Less until no more.

I'm not mocking Thoreau, I'm saying he lived a very different life than you, a life in nature where he truly didn't need government. The fact that you need to attach partisan economics to your view of liberty tells me that you don't get liberty like Thoreau gets liberty. I'm sure he'd cringe hearing you use his words to justify petty politics, materialism and property rights.

Snikt! Snikt! The claws come out on the pussycat.

Those aren't claws, Mr. Sensitive. I've given you claws maybe twice at the most since we first met.

Give HDT a couple months in a large metropolitan city in close proximity to tens of thousands of fellow human beings and I bet his view of government would become more complex.

You seem to affix this superiority somehow to metropolitan areas versus less urbanized areas. Smells a bit like arrogance. Elitism. Like a sheltered kid who's always lived under the wing of California's warm upper-middle class. Someone who champions the working class, but speaks like the bourgeois.

You are projecting. I'm not saying that high density metropolitan areas are superior, I'm saying that when people live in such close proximity to one another, it requires organization and management for it to function. If you live on Walden pond, not so much. Thoreau's concept of liberty was one of genuine self-reliance, not your shallow, materialist, David Koch reboot.

Like most other conservatives, you confuse wealth with self reliance. Money doesn't make you more self reliant. It makes you less self reliant. By its very definition, money relies on the existence of others for it to have value in the first place - A million dollars will buy you nothing in the wilderness.

Usually, the more money you have, the less self reliant you become, and in terminal stages of wealth, you regress to an infantile state, requiring maids, cooks, butlers, chauffeurs and other types of personal assistants to take care of you. Look at Donald Trump on the news if you want to see the infantilization caused by late stage wealthyness. The wealthy are not able or willing to do anything for themselves.

I'd respect your political views on liberty more if they were more like Thoreau's - and less concerned with materialism, greed, bling and property rights. As I've said before, the fact that you feel the need to graft radical Friedmanite conservatism to your concept of liberty tells me that you understand nothing of liberty. I wish HDT were alive and here on videosift to set you straight, but he would probably not own a laptop or have an internet connection.

Go spend a month in the wilderness with nothing but a bowie knife and a loin cloth, and you'd come back with a very different concept of liberty.

>> ^blankfist:

Like a sheltered kid who's always lived under the wing of California's warm upper-middle class. Someone who champions the working class, but speaks like the bourgeois.

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?

Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.

Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

The area Thoreau talks about in "Walden" was two miles down the railroad tracks from his mother's house. His sister brought him a basket of food every week.

You, like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and other conservatives, make the mistake of thinking your concept of liberty is objective. It isn't. And, until you understand this, you will always be at its mercy.

Can't you see the problem with defining narrow and partisan political beliefs as the perfect embodiment of liberty? Perfection is beyond the need for criticism. By believing free markets are the perfect embodiment of liberty, it prevents you from being able to judge them critically, much like the religious are not able to judge the Bible critically because of the perceived perfection of God. This, I believe, is why you get shut down so often in our conversations. This is why you have to resort to insults, jokes, silence or changing the subject when I go beyond your framework of understanding. This is why you have that long list of unanswered questions, because you can't comprehend how anyone could criticize liberty or freedom. If I disagree, I must hate liberty - where have I heard that before?

Free markets aren't liberty, brother. They provide a certain amount of freedom to those with means, but it comes at a cost of freedom to those without. I've made this point (the subjectivity of your concept of liberty) so many times and you never address it. Care to give it a go? It would probably be easier to just call me stupid again.


>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to think you're not an idiot. But then you say things like this and how do you expect me to look at you?
Obviously you've read zero of anything I've written on here gauging by the way you try to describe me or my politics. You're head is so filled with your party's nonsense that your understanding of liberty is not an understanding at all. It's a rehearsed diatribe.
Oh and for the record it's agorist not argoist.

@blankfist

You have some nerve quoting Thoreau here. The difference between you and Thoreau is that he actually put his philosophical viewpoints into action. If you really believed half of the tripe you talk, you'd be driving without a license plate until you were thrown in jail (Thoreau was jailed for not paying taxes and stayed their until R.W. Emerson bailed him out, something Thoreau hated btw).

So the 18th is rapidly approaching. I've paid my taxes, but then again I, at least in some part, believe in the democratic political system. I wonder if you have the balls to skip out on your tax dues to back up your bulllllllllllllllshit, or if you're, as your page suggests, just trolling through your whole life with ideas you don't have the fortitude to turn into action.

(you're a pussy)
-JJ

I post one Thoreau quote and the statists go apeshit. I love it.

$10 bucks says you found that quote on some website rather than coming to it on your own.

Thoreau was an anarchist. That makes statists sad.

>> ^blankfist:

I post one Thoreau quote and the statists go apeshit. I love it.


That's what I thought. You're just as bad as the alcoholic welfare deadbeats who mock education and spit out 10 kids. They're all action and no philosophy, and you're all philosophy and no action.

@JiggaJonson, lol. What? Not sure what you expect me to do. I pay taxes and use the services I'm forced to pay for. Is that not what I should be doing? Are you expecting me to be in the streets with Molotov Cocktails and a black handkerchief wrapped around my face?

Thoreau was an anarchist and you statists that adore him can't reconcile that. He believed mankind should be constantly transitioning toward a better government, i.e., no government. Sorry if that tickles your cognitive dissonance.

It's so cute that you think you are a real anarchist. Your David Koch inspired 'anarchism' is pretty far from the real deal. You are less Emma Goldman, more Goldman-Sachs. You should become a legit anarchist and leave all the free market corporatism behind.

Statist idiot. Doesn't understand basic definitions.

Love the rebellious image of anarchism but not interested in giving up property rights, class privilege and your sense of entitlement? Well don’t let these gross contradictions hold you back one day longer.

Koch Industries, the makers of Brawny™ Towels and Third World Misery™, is proud to announce NEW and IMPROVED: CAPITALIST ANARCHISM™.

CAPITALIST ANARCHISM™requires no protesting, no book learning and no understanding of politics or economics beyond the information we provide through our media subsidiaries, like The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation and ReasonTV (Hosted by everyone’s favorite TV funnyman, Drew Carey) .

Be sure to try our other sponsored product lines, such as THE TEA PARTY™ and THE AMERICAN LIBERTARIAN PARTY™ .

@blankfist

First off, you're not forced to pay for anything. That's the whole point behind 'Walden' and Thoreau's philosophy (durrrr). Secondly, it doesn't bother me that Thoreau was an anarchist, it bothers me that his idea is nearly impossible to implement on a mass scale. I mean it sounds great and all, but it has about zero practicality in my opinion.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a very different idea of what he means and how it could be done. Correct me if im wrong here but you, YOU, are the one who is bashing the "statists" and promoting an, in your words, anarchist. You're telling me "Hey, Thoreau says you should have a government that doesn't govern, he was an anarchist and that's the way we all should be!!!" Then I say, well shit why not follow through on any of those ideas if you believe in them so much? And you say WHOA I'm FORCED to pay taxes. No you're not. Go fucking live in the woods and stop bothering people.

Or at least, stop bothering people and do something productive like fight for social change with your obviously capable mind. Instead of promoting an idea that is going to go nowhere. "Wait my idea's not going nowhere!!?!?!"-you -- Then stop paying taxes.

Sartre's story, The Wall, does a good job of illustrating the idea that we always, ALWAYS, have a choice. If you really believe you don't have a choice then you're more hypocritical than I thought you were.

@blankfist ^quotefail there double down to make sure my @ worked

Socratic dialogue:

Blanfisticles: People donate more to causes that are threatened, therefore we must eliminate all funding for causes in order to increase their revenues!

Dystopianysus: Uhh, dude, you're nuts, tax cuts don't increase revenues cutting government funding to a program won't increase its revenue.

Blankfisticles: Whose responsibility is it to give to charitable causes, government, or people?

Dystopianysus: You're changing the subject.

Blankfisticles: So?

Dystopianysus: *sigh* Very well. I say it's everyone's responsibility to look out for other people, and that's why I don't see why setting up a society-wide arrangement like government funding for charitable programs bothers you.

Blankfist: You're an idiot. And a statist. And Thoreau was an anarchist, and as we all know he's an infallible person who you're a moron for not listening to. And no, I don't plan on living in a shack in the middle of nowhere, are you crazy too?

Blankfisticles: Shut up, id. What I mean to say is that helping people should come from the free and voluntary choices of individuals. No one should be forced to do anything not of their choosing.

Dystopianysus: And what if an insufficient number of people donate to charity, and it results in mass suffering? What then?

Blankfist: That won't happen.

Blankfisticles: I said SHUT UP, id. Excuse me, I mean to say that I would give all I had, and get on a soapbox to shout and yell to encourage others to give all they could to help the massive suffering, but I would never once put the threat of force on anyone.

Dystopianysus: But isn't it the duty of all people to help those in need?

Blankfisticles: Yes, but they shouldn't be forced to live up to that duty.

Dystopianysus: How is that a duty then? It's not a duty if you can choose not to live up to it without any consequences.

Blankfist: Still, you just shouldn't. Because.

Blankfisticles: People own themselves, and also own their lives, therefore people own the product of the labor they spend time on, and it should never be taken away from them just like your arm shouldn't be taken away from them. To say otherwise is to say that you can enslave another man, and you disagree with slavery don't you?

Dystopianysus: So what you're saying is that while you say it's our moral duty as individuals to help those in need, you're going to refuse to voluntarily agree to a social contract that formalizes that duty into a legal requirement to contribute money to charitable causes?

Blankfisticles: Pretty much.

NetRunner von Freud: Blankfisticles, have you ever considered the possibility that your affinity for these anti-tax philosophies is being driven by your more basic impulses, and that you just use them as post-hoc justifications for things you wanted to do anyways?

Blankfist: *gay

NetRunner von Freud: Sigh.

hehehe...

@NetRunner

Hear hear!!! Someone buy that man a fucking drink!

On the subject of citizens paying for abortion: so it's okay to spend trillions of tax dollars on actually killing people, but god forbid a few dollars go to the safety and wellbeing of women with unintended/unwanted pregnancies? WTF America???