@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 9yrs agoActive 5 days ago

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health services in the United States and internationally. Each year federal and state governments provide the organization with $528 million in funding (40% of its annual budget). The majority of this funding comes from Medicaid which subsidizes reproductive healthcare for low-income women. In 2014, abortions accounted for 3% of the services they provided. The majority of the other services include screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections and providing contraception. Proponents of fundi…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings x  Miami-Dade (Florida)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@9ZKP8HQ
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 104k Miami-Dade voters.

67%
Yes
33%
No
57%
Yes
31%
No
7%
Yes, their services reach far beyond abortions and can save many lives through cancer screening, prenatal services, and adoption referrals
2%
No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations that perform abortions
3%
Yes, as long as funding is not used for abortion procedures
1%
No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 104k Miami-Dade voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 104k Miami-Dade voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Miami-Dade voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8L3RFKD from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

for the babies sake yes

 @5L6ZDKVfrom Arizona  answered…4yrs4Y

No. Planned parenthood is a racist eugenics organization that was created to eliminate all black people from the earth by legally murdering their babies.

 @4NDB6ZTfrom Minnesota  answered…4yrs4Y

If tax dollars go to abortion clinics, then the tax dollars allocated should be split with half going to abortion clinics, and half going to adoption agencies.

 @4NDJMDGfrom California  answered…4yrs4Y

No because of the selling of fetal body parts and the fact that the funding goes directly back to the Democratic Party.

 @4N9ZBRVfrom Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

No. The government should not be funding a private health care service.

 @4N8N3DXfrom Washington  answered…4yrs4Y

Planned Parenthood execs and docs that killed babies born alive after abortions should be charged with murder.

 @5DHYRSXfrom Maryland  answered…4yrs4Y

No, for the simple fact that they were known for the sterilization of women of color.

 @5CBHMRYfrom Kentucky  answered…4yrs4Y

No - there are other ways that people get funding for the cancer screening, prenatal services, etc... ever heard of Obamacare?? WIC?? Welfare?? Food Stamps??

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Planned Parenthood Funding” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Supreme Court will hear South Carolina bid to defund Planned Parenthood

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a long-running dispute in South Carolina over the state’s attempt to prevent the health care provider Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid health program.The technical legal issue is whether people eligible to use Medicaid, a program for low-income people administered by states, can sue in order to pick the qualified health care provider of their choice.Republican-led South Carolina has long sought to bar Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid because it provides abortions. The legal landscape in the state has changed since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. South Carolina now bans all abortions after six weeks — a threshold that makes the procedure increasingly rare.Planned Parenthood has facilities in Charleston and Columbia that now provide limited abortion care in line with the new ban as well as other health care services including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing.Julie Edwards, a patient who wanted to use Planned Parenthood to obtain contraception services, joined the group in suing the state following a decision in 2018 that found abortion clinics could not provide family planning services under Medicaid.The case has bounced around the courts since a district court judge ruled that the state could not bar Planned Parenthood from participating in the program.State officials are represented in the case by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom."Pro-life states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid," one of the group's lawyers, John Bursch, said in a statement

▲  43 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  1811 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 14hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1914 replies3 agree