Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court stays out of Planned Parenthood funding case

Comments

Return To Article
  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Could Republicans just worry about their own bodies, and let everyone else worry about theirs? You are supposed to be the party of personal freedom. Forcing a woman to have a child she does not want does not scream of "freedom"

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    May 28, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    If you take OUR money then we all have an interest.

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    May 29, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    mcclark,
    people paying taxes for planned parenthood makes it their business. And, if a woman doesnt want a child, probably shouldn't have unprotected sex. If she can't afford to have protected sex, then she shouldn't do it in the first place or get a job and pay for it. People wonder why our society is crumbling.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 29, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    "Planned Parenthood warned that the law would deny more than 9,000 women access to other important health care services such as breast cancer screenings, birth control and prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases"

    Total and complete lie - but that is what we expect from PP.

    PP could still provide that access under the law; the state woiuld not have to pay for it.

    Women could also access that care at other providers.

    McClark,
    the unborn cannot do anything to protect their bodies; that is why responsible people have an interest in protecting them.

    I wonder if you ask the same question of the nanny staters who want to proscribe certain foods or drink sizes, and require helmet laws, seat belt laws, etc? Those apply to adults who supposedly can make their own choices, unlike the unborn