On Friday, the Republican heavy House of Representatives voted to pass an amendment removing federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The amendment, spearheaded by Representative Mike Pence was part of a larger piece of legislation cutting federal funding to a variety of programs, but potentially none as crucial as this one.
I’m going to be upfront with you, I think this amendment is a horrible and misguided idea and I want to take some time to tell you why. I hope that you’ll be patient and hear me out, even if you disagree. I’d love to know what you think about it and why.
Planned Parenthood is more than an abortion provider. Planned Parenthood provides testing for HIV and STDs and they do so without judgment and without questioning the people that walk through their doors. Planned Parenthood provides birth control, at reduced or no cost, to hundreds of thousands of people each year. And if you really want to end abortion, the first step has to be birth control that is affordable and is given with education on how to use it properly.
Planned Parenthood performs pap smears for cancer detection, they provide counseling for victims of sexual abuse and they provide education and support to pregnant teenagers and adults who may not be able to afford it otherwise. And yes, Planned Parenthood performs abortions. I’m guessing that many of you knew all that already.
What you may not know is that even before this amendment passed, Planned Parenthood was not allowed to use federal funds for abortions, despite the fact that abortions are legal in this country. Your tax dollars weren’t going to fund abortions even before this bill and this bill doesn’t have any impact on their ability to provide them.
So I am confused by why a group of predominantly upper class men in government have any valid reason to withdraw funding from this organization. Planned Parenthood does not need to be punished for anything, they have not broken laws. They do not need to be scrutinized simply because ONE of the things they provide is controversial. To judge and punish this organization only for it’s abortion services would be the same as judging and punishing Republican Congressman solely for their desire to continue giving funds to NASCAR during a period of huge government deficit.
The bottom line for me is that there are better ways to save money and this amendment isn’t really about that anyway. It’s a subversive way for republicans to legislate morality, which is not what this country is about and it is not something I’ll stand for in my government.
If we truly want to save money we need to increase taxes, we need to stop cutting jobs (or at least pretend to care when federal workers lose jobs) and we need to focus our efforts on things that are more important than a personal vendetta against an organization that does a lot of good but also happens to perform abortions.
While the chances of this bill making it through the Senate or past a presidential veto are slim at best, the fact that those in the government cannot see the good that Planned Parenthood does, or the services they provide to people in this country, terrifies me. That we cannot see past our differences to support something that saves lives, that provides care to pregnant teens, that helps prevent the spread of STDs and HIV, that attempts to diagnose cancers early, tells me that the problems we face in politics are monumental.
If we can’t see past our differences and support something as critical as the physical, emotional and reproductive health of the people in this country, our deficit will never go away. Because a deficit of care, a deficit of compassion and concern for the wellbeing of others, is more severe than any monetary deficit could ever be.
If you’re as outraged as I am, there are a few places you can turn to lend your support to Planned Parenthood. Contact your Representative, Senators, the President and Vice President or tweet your elected officials here and tell them that you do not support this amendment. You can also Stand with Planned Parenthood here.
Katie is a 28 year old Southern Californian, married to a doctor, racking up as much student debt as possible as a full-time graduate student in a health science. Her hobbies include abusing parentheses, baking complicated desserts that almost universally involve frosting and loving her two cats more than is socially acceptable. She’s currently balancing her first child and graduating from graduate school. So planning and timing are also things she excels at. You can read more from Katie on her blog, Overflowing Brain.
RIGHT ON!!
XOXO
does the gov’t give money to NASCAR? seriously?
Brazenly stolen from a reuters article, quoted in a blog somewhere:
The army shells out $7 million to rent space on the Sprint Cup car driven by Ryan Newman.
So…perhaps they don’t directly fund nascar…but certainly that money could be put to better use.
If that’s not directly funding NASCAR, what is? They are directly funding a driver of NASCAR, how is that indirect? But you’re absolutely correct. That money could go to MUCH better use. This makes me hate NASCAR all the more. That they CONDONE the Army advertising on their cars is just one more sign that they have no idea what direction is up. Maybe it’s all those left turns, it’s made them dizzy. And I’m sure there’s some kudos in it for the drivers, if they ever reinstated the draft they’d be exempt.
I believe that the armed forces should not be allowed to advertise ANYWHERE in the private sector. I don’t want to see a magazine, internet, tv, or newspaper ad. Don’t let them have billboards on private land. And keep the recruiters out of any and all schools. We need to stop glorifying military service. I’m all for serving our country, but until we stop making war for profit, we need to stop sending our men and women to their deaths for nothing.
Did I miss any sensitive topics there? No? Haha, ok, good. Stepping down from the soap box! Dangit, Heather, you got me all keyed up!
**bows**
at your service Erin.
I meant – the argument could be made…silly me. I don’t agree with nascar funding. But I was saying that it’s not like nascar’s all Hey Congress…I needs me a new tranny and some new slicks or a new steering wheel maybe we can turn the other way…or something.
Ok – I suck at nascar-talk.
the argument will be – but it’s ADVERTISING to gain more recruits. I’m not sure, because I didn’t read that far into it, but I believe it’s not very effective anyway.
SURPRISE! government at its best.
and you funnay. i like it when you’re keyed up.
Haha, no bowing, please!
And I totally know what you were saying. I know you weren’t defending either party. S’all good.
And I get that it’s advertising for more recruits, and you’re right, that IS the argument they use. My stance on it, of course, is that we don’t need to send more “recruits” to their deaths. But I’m HEAVILY anti-military for a lot of reasons. And please, internets, don’t misunderstand me, I support our TROOPS 100,000,bajillion percent… it’s the superior officers and government officials that send them into pointless battles that I despise. Just like any smart person should.
That’s right, I just self-served myself and said I was smart. You should agree, I AM smart! Mwaha!
And Heather, don’t you just LOVE government? We vote for them, stick ‘em in office, and they (mostly) just kind of run around like a kid left home without a babysitter. “OH! No one is watching me! I’ll just do every bad thing I’ve dreamed about while being in captivity! As long as no one sees me do it, I’ll have plausible deniability when the parents get home!!!!” Petulant b**tards.
And I rather liked your NASCAR talk. Beats the real thing, y’ask me.
well said
WOW. THANK YOU.
especially this:
“if you really want to end abortion, the first step has to be birth control that is affordable and is given with education on how to use it properly”
Ditto!
Exceptionally well said. Only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does involves abortions. So, 97% (!!!) of what they provide has nothing to do with pregnancy terminations. This legislation is outrageous.
Thanks so much for this post. It’s good to remind people about ALL the different services PP offers, not just the hot button services.
We need to look at the big picture, and you’ve painted it.
I fear for my daughters’ futures.
It scares me too that those in the government are so worried about their own personal (morally guided) agendas that funding would be cut to such an important program. I only hope that those in favor of this amendment can open their minds to the arguments against it.
I’m a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood (although I’m just going to say I vehemently disagree about how we can save money because I’m a big believer in cutting extraneous programs or increasing Federal oversight on waste/fraud/abuse – Medicare and Medicaid alone count for BILLIONS of dollars of fraud and abuse- but hey, a fight for another day) and it saddens me that so many people only equate it to abortions. I can’t tell you how many of my un or underinsured law school classmates got their yearly lady check up at PP becuase it was affordable on their meager student budget. Women who will (one day, hopefully) be helping to run our country and can give some of the others a stern talking to.
Good piece!
That’s an excellent point about WHO uses Planned Parenthood! Critics always make it sound like such undesirables use these services.
I went to college in a rural town where almost every, single girl there used PP for their regular gynecological care (not just for birth control). In a town that size, there simply weren’t other options! Years later, many of my colleagues in the non-profit sector continue to use PP, because, let’s face it, small businesses and many non-profits don’t provide health insurance nor pay workers enough to afford anything else.
As an organization on the front line of preventative care, like cervical cancer screening, the impact of losing Planned Parenthood will be devastating across the board for women’s health.
This is a healthcare issue. There should be no cutbacks when it comes to healthcare. Period.
I agree with Daisy.
As an adopted child, I think what should be focused on by those who are pro-life are programs designed to counsel women on ALL of their options. There is a program I volunteer with in my hometown that counsels women on all available options, and provides the same services as PP, but they are private and obviously not available everywhere. And in this day and age, a private organization rarely succeeds, even though this move has created a larger need. I agree that the other services PP offers are invaluable to many women and that value outweighs the abortion debate. This is about women’s health, not just the decision to keep a pregnancy.
Also, for what it is worth, I was with you until raising taxes, but that is my own personl opinion that we would be better off by cutting and reorganizing our current spending.
I can’t help but believe this was done for purely political reasons.
Pence wants to be considered as a serious contender for the Republican nomination next year, and this was his way to pander to right-wing voters. This bill will not likely get past the Senate and the president’s office. So then Pence can say, “Look, I *tried* to stop those evil baby killers. You need me in the highest office to finish the job.”
It doesn’t matter how many women could potentially be harmed in the process because that’s not the base that votes Republican.
Never mind the ramifications such a cut back would include.
Undetected and untreated cancers and STDs.
Cutting availability to affordable birth control means more back alley abortions, increased burden to our foster care system, higher rates of infant mortality and domestic abuse.
I could keep going for a very, VERY long time about how backwards this funding cut would be, especially in terms of it’s effect on the health care system that nobody seems to want any weight added to, because GUESS WHAT. The poor doesn’t have the monopoly on PP’s services. Think every uninsured woman, even those in college. You can’t take away people’s access to HEALTHCARE and at the same time, slash funding to the one institution who would care for them regardless of coverage.
Not to be overly dramatic, but it’s a death sentence.
It sickens me to think that any woman’s right to affordable care would be jeopardized by old men with daughters who, GUESS WHAT, probably use PP themselves.
SHAMEFUL.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Well said. And, it won’t just encourage back alley abortions and the medical horrors that come with them but it will encourage violence against women. The number one cause of death to a pregnant woman today is murder. However, those numbers have steadily decreased since abortion became legal and affordable. They would shoot right back up if less women had access to safe abortions. And, anyone that wants to say that a woman who kills her fetus deserves to die should sit back and think about all of the children that would leave without a mother and all of the people in your life that may have had to use these services in order to save their own lives.
This whole debate makes me furious because “someone” thinks that we can fix the budget by cutting women’s health!? OBVIOUSLY THIS MUST BE A MAN. The money in our budget is being sucked up by the military by the trillions so this cannot be a viable solution. I understand the need for homeland security but the vast amounts of fraud, waste and abuse happening in our federal sector is disgusting. Again, cutting funding for medical care, women’s health and disease prevention is NOT the way to fix the budget. I’m standing with Planned Parenthood.
I was reading, genuinely interested in your point of view, then you lost me at “predominately white men” Really? was that relevant?
Yes, it was relevant. I don’t believe that a group of upper class men can begin to understand the need for affordable care for women’s health. I think it’s incredibly relevant.
I wouldn’t want a group of rich women spearheading a campaign to get rid of low cost prostate cancer screening for the same reason. There are places where gender and social class matter. And I think when it comes to gender specific services, it’s perfectly reasonable to mention the disparity.
That said, you’re right that commenting that they were white was irrelevant. I can pick my adjectives better and I’ve updated the post to reflect that realization. Thanks for your input.
Katie,
I disagree that their being white is irrelevant. I think it can be. I think upper-class WHITE politicians, sometimes, can be ignorant to what’s needed in other ethnic groups and classes. I hate to separate by race, I truly do. But if you’re raised with access to everything, wanting for nothing, not having any adversity, as a lot of upper-class white men ARE, then heck YES, you are at least partially ignorant to the plight of anyone who is lower-income or non-white. There’s going to be some bias somewhere there. And while I agree that not everyone who uses PP is lower-income and non-white, therefore they aren’t the only ones losing out when this passes, those groups are a large percentage of those that use PP. I’m white. I was MIDDLE class growing up. I’m female. I know it didn’t HAVE to be said that they are white. But I think it holds quite a bit of relevance, if not all.
I agree with you that sometimes race is an important variable, but I’m not sure it is this time. Planned Parenthood provides services to many people of all races. I think it’s more their penises than their skin color/heritage that make them ill equipped to make this decision.
Haha, you’re right about that! Lack of a va-jay-jay definitely takes away their perspective…
Not only that, but they provide general well-women check ups, and tests/treatments for UTIs which could become fatal if not treated. They do so much, for so many women – and some of it is not even related to *sex*, let alone abortion.
Funny thing, when I think of PP, I don’t automatically think of their abortions. I usually think of all the girls I knew in college who went there to get their birth control, which they wouldn’t have been able to afford otherwise. Thank you for writing this, and while I don’t agree with all of it, it needed to be said!
(Also: BRAVO, commenters! It’s refreshing to see a topic such as this treated with maturity. On many other sites, this would have quickly dissolved into a virtual shouting match within the first three comments.)
Hello, I’m blogger from Indonesia. About my blogsite Smart ways to live well with info and tips from experts on weight loss, fitness, health, nutrition, recipes, anti-aging & diets. http://healthylifeandfitness.com and please add me as friend on Facebook with e-mail :us@healthylifeandfitness.com Thank you
I agree in theory. Where you lose me is “saving money by raising taxes”. Raising taxes… right now? Insanity. In-san-it-y. I’d like to see one person raise their hand to say that they can afford more taxes. And it can’t be put on the rich either. That’s not fair. From each according to their means, to each according to their need? – Marxist. Communism. And no, I’m not rich. Probably never will be, but I can see fair. And more tax? Now? For anyone? The worst thing. The worst.
So while I agree that Planned Parenthood is NOT the best place to cut funds, someone is going to be unhappy no matter what is cut. I would definitely prefer it come from somewhere else though. Like unemployment benefits or welfare. Because that won’t upset anyone.
Raising taxes is not the answer. All raising taxes does is: On business – cause more lay-offs and thereby cause more people who need to rely on socially funded programs such as planned parenthood. On citizens – cause more people to not be able to afford day to day items and thereby force them to rely more on socially funded programs. Another side effect on citizens – create an atmosphere of apathy toward success, because why bother trying to succeed financially at anything if the government keeps taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie?
Cutting frivolous spending (which I don’t think Planned Parenthood is… and while I don’t think welfare or unemployment benefits are either – that was completely tongue in cheek – both of those programs DO need a serious overhaul so that it’s not more profitable to be on welfare or unemployment than it is to work) is the only way to right the train. Raising taxes will simply derail it that much more.
I politely disagree. I know plenty of people who can afford a small increase in taxes. Did you know that taxes are the lowest they’ve been since the start of the Korean War? We have some wiggle room to increase them. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a huge portion of this country can afford to give more money, maybe not a lot, but definitely sum. I can, and if I was asked to, I would, without complaint because the problems we have with money in this country are bigger than the ones in my household.
I also think that we need to extricate ourselves from wars we don’t belong in, because those are sucking more money out of this country than any other expense. And I think that in a time like this, removing funding from unemployment is a really bad idea. It is the only thing allowing some people to have a roof over their heads and meals on their tables. Raising taxes for those who can pay makes much more sense to me than taking away livelihood from those who can’t.
Frivolous spending does need to be cut, I agree entirely, but getting rid of tax cuts for the absurdly rich seems like another pretty great way to help fix our deficit.
I am with you on the wars thing 100%. 100,000% even. And also this sending money all over the world stuff when we have so many problems right here at home.
And just to reiterate, the cutting unemployment benefits was completely tongue in cheek. I don’t think they should be cut. Or welfare, but I do believe those two systems need overhauled. Again, for the reason I said. It should not be more profitable to live off the system than it is to work. Ever.
And with your comment about the “absurdly rich”, someone along the way earned that money. Worked hard for that money and made good decisions with that money. Maybe not the generation that has it now, maybe not even the one before them. But somewhere along the line someone worked for that money and made good choices in regards to the handling of that money. Why should they have to pay more because of that? They’re rich and I’m not. Therefore they should pay more than me? It’s not their fault they’re rich. If anything, it’s my fault that I’m not. Rich people are rich for a reason. They’re wise with what they have. You raise their taxes or take away the tax cuts, they’ll pull back in other places… mainly in the free market. Who does that affect? Middle and low income employees whose jobs now get cut because the rich people aren’t putting as much of their disposable income into the marketplace. Most people are rich because they’re frugal. They’re not going to spend the same amount in the marketplace if they’re paying more in tax. Doing that is a formula to become un-rich.
I hate to disagree with you on anything really, cuz I loves ya and been reading you for quite some time on your own blog, but I think on this one we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
And just to clarify, I only disagree with you on the raising of taxes. I’m with you on Planned Parenthood not being one of the places where cuts are made.
Amy, you’re right about the rich. They (meaning MOST of them) have earned it, or their parents, etc, earned it. And no, they shouldn’t HAVE to pay a larger percentage just because they have more. However, that’s the way our society works. We can’t just keep letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. At some point, the rich will have ALL the money and not have to help ANYONE less fortunate out. Raising taxes SOMEwhat for the rich won’t break them or make them spend less. There is a happy medium, I believe.
And our society is built upon everyone donating to the pool and using that pool to help out whoever needs it. And you’re right, it should NOT be easier to live off the system than it is to contribute to it. We are sorely lacking in regulation in our country. It’s our biggest problem. EVERYTHING would be better with a little more regulation. And I’m not saying we need a Big Brother type of regulation, I mean we make everything public and we have more voting and we make this about the PEOPLE, not the GOVERNMENT, regulating things. Right now we choose who we put into office, and trust them to regulate things. What we NEED to do, is have more checks and balances within those offices in the form of voting. We need to get our butts into those ballot boxes more often. And not just locally, though that could stand to happen more often, too. Federally, as well. Also, make it mandatory to vote. You HAVE to get your social security number all set up if you’re a citizen. Why is it ok not to make voting a “have to”??? I say we have voting licenses. You have to pass a test to vote, and once you have it you have to vote every time, with no excuses save for medical reasons. Look, I haven’t worked out all the kinks yet, but I say it’ll work!
Yeah yeah, I’ve got all the answers. I know better than anyone who’s come before me. Jees, I sound like a republican.
At any rate, if you’re going to live in this country, you have to help support the COUNTRY equally. Just because you are a faster corn picker than the rest of the tribe doesn’t mean you should be able to keep it all to yourself. Distribute it equally until everyone has what they need, THEN you can keep the spoils. The Rich are rich cos they’re frugal? The rich are rich because most of them are HOARDERS!
I’m really sorry that I missed the tongue in cheekness of the unemployment thing. Blame it on school stress, my bad.
I don’t mean to be callous when I suggest taxing the absurdly wealthy. I don’t mean it as a punishment or suggest it because they aren’t entitled to their wealth. That’s not the case and it’s not just my extreme envy clouding my entire visual field. It’s just, I feel like if you have the ability to help, perhaps you should also have an obligation. I know most people don’t see eye-to-eye with me on this and I’m totally okay with it. I know that if I was in the absurdly wealthy pile, I would be giving all that I could to help. I read a letter from one of the super-wealthy families asking for Obama to not continue the tax breaks for them, so I guess I’m not the only one?
But that’s me, and I certainly don’t expect everyone to understand or agree with that. I’m okay disagreeing. And yes, there are other places the budget needs to be trimmed and reorganized, you are totally 100% right. I think discourse is great, I think disagreeing is perfectly okay and I appreciate you taking the time to clarify and defend your view. I won’t hold it against you.
This is why I think a flat tax is the answer. No matter what your income everyone pays the same X%. There’s no confusion then and it is fair.
A few things:
1) My favorite part of the CR (continuing resolution) that was passed this weekend were the number of earmarks in that thing. Chairman Rodgers (of the Budget committee) literally recommended cutting most everything save for a bunch of earmarked programs (pet projects for members of congress to brag about back home). For example education programs specifically for 350 people in the state of Alaska. If you go to budget.house.gov you can see the full list of amendments passed and the full list of cuts in the orginal CR.
2) The one good thing about a bicameral system is that while these cuts were made in the House. A bill still needs to be completed in the Senate and then reconciled back in the House. Congress is in recess for the week and will be back in DC next week where they will have about four days to do all of this before the March 4th deadline. All of that said, the Senate’s leadership has been adament that many of the cuts that the House made won’t fly with them. This is one of the things that might – I stress MIGHT – lead to government shutdown; that the House and Senate do not agree on the cuts. So let’s all hope that with enough pressure on the Senate federal funding of PP won’t be cut completely.
Exactly.
There is a reason we have our bicameral system and I think this amendment is the absolute best evidence of that in recent history. The senate is supposed to be the ice cube in the hot coffee that is the House of Representatives and I am hopeful that they will see how needed their voices of reason are at this time.
This is absolutely outrageous! It needs to be stopped.
If this goes through, it just makes us one step closer to back-alley abortions. It has to be stopeed. Because that is what they don’t understand, it will still happen, just not in a medically controlled and safe environment.
Thank you for bringing this to light! Forwarded on to every woman and man and teenager I know. I cross my fingers that they all sign the petition. Very well worded article!
It seems to me that they are trying to shut down any organization that has anything to do with abortion or something they hold to be immoral. It’s like PP is tainted because they ALSO perform abortions, regardless of the good they do. If they stopped doing abortions, do you think they’d try to take their funding away then? This is a trend with House Conservatives for centuries. And lest I be accused of sterotyping, yes, there are some conservatives that are for PP and are pro-choice. But they are few and far between and we KNOW who they are.
Damn straight. I wrote my senator as you suggested…. this sh*t has got to stop here and now. The rethuglicans are just downright bad.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This upsets me that they keep trying to use the deficit as a way to hide their morality bills. Planned Parenthood was the first place that I got birth control from because I was too afraid of my parents to go to the doctor for it. They do AIDS testing and STD testing and everything is calm and relaxed- no judgments. It would be terrible if this bill went through because it’s not going to stop abortions. As Brittany said above, it will lead to shady people performing abortions and more lives will be lost. Also, teen pregnancy, or even just unwanted pregnancies will rise, as well as with the added burden of taking care of these women and babies. It’s awful. And I’ve already signed the petition. So, again, thank you.
I actually wrote a a blog post about this over the weekend… and after having several really great emails with readers, I stand behind what I said in my post (basically everything you said above about the necessary services PP provides), but I have got to say I don’t completely agree with the post/comments.
First off – to preface: I 100% support abortion rights. They are absolute a right that no one should mess with.
I have personally used Planned Parenthood’s services when unemployed/uninsured. Planned Parenthood provides absolutely necessary services to people (not just women – planned parenthood has services for men too).
HOWEVER – I don’t have any major problems with reductions in funding to Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood NOT ONLY receives over 300 million annually in government assistance, they’re a tax exempt organization, AND they make a profit (I believe around 100 million dollars last year.)
Let’s say that again:
They’re a NONPROFIT organization, and they make a PROFIT.
HOW is it okay that a tax exempt charitable organization that gets over 1/3rd of their funding from the federal government and can solicit charitable donations can make a profit?
I personally don’t think it is.
Times are tough. Cuts have to be made.
And while I don’t support completely de-funding Planned Parenthood – I am absolutely okay with a reduction in funds they receive from the government.
This actually makes me sad. It truly hurts my soul that politicians think that women’s health isn’t important enough to keep it’s funding. As a few people have mentioned PP isn’t just about abortion, actually majority of the PP’s in my area don’t offer abortion, they DO offer BC, paps, STD and HIV checks and every other thing that has been mentioned. I used to go to PP for birth control when I was younger, lord knows how my life would’ve turned out without the BC. I now go there as an adult because I don’t have insurance, we can’t afford my husband’s insurance and make too much for medicaid, and have a history of cervical cancer so I need a pap every 6 months. I also completely agree with the fact that male politicians shouldn’t be allowed to decide the future of women’s health, especially of low to middle class women.
As for higher taxes, I can’t afford more taxes but there definitely people who can. Like I said we don’t have insurance because we can’t afford it from my husband’s company and we make too much for medicaid, so I don’t think that it should be taken from welfare and unemployment. The only way anyone could ever agree with that is if they have never been in a postion to have to use either program. Unemployment helped keep my family afloat the last 6 months of my pregnancy because no one would hire a noticably pregnant woman (which is a whole other issue within itself). Also I do receive food stamps and if we were to lose them my family wouldn’t eat, or we couldn’t pay our rent. We aren’t lazy good for nothing people, we both work and I attend school full time but we only cleared $32,000 for our 2010 AGI. I do agree with changing some of the rules of welfare, but it’s not as easy to live scott free on welfare as it used to be. You have a time limit on cash assistance and they make you participate in either GED or job search classes to keep the assistance. I do think that it is bullshit that people like us can’t get help with health insurance or have to worry about losing our foodstamps if, god forbid, my husband works a little over time because we are barely under the income limits.
Sorry I went off on bit of a tangent, both of these topics are something I feel strongly about. It’s like women are always going to be second class citizens, no matter our accomplishments.
And I just want to say, I know Heather and I got off-topic, but I love that one important topic can get two strangers having a dialogue about other important things. We need to talk more about important issues, no matter what starts it.
Thanks for having such an awesome forum for us to discuss things!!!
I understand your point and the logic behind it, but the less money you have, the larger percentage of it you spend on food and other necessities.
to put it another way, the more money you have the less of it (proportionally) you actually need.
Sarah
Comments on this entry are closed.