Yaâ€™ donâ€™t say?
Iâ€™ve said it before, and Iâ€™ll say it again: funding for Planned Parenthood is not negotiable. Too many lives would be negatively impacted.
â€” Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) June 27, 2017
Of course Senator Gillibrand wants Planned Parenthood to stay funded, theyâ€™ve given her a BUNCH of money over the years ($7000 alone in 2012).
Wonder if she is one of the lives that would be â€˜negatively impactedâ€™?
"Too many lives would be negatively impacted." Um, abortion negatively impacts the lives of the unborn.
â€” Ken Vincent (@kennethv_123) June 27, 2017
Shhh. Narrative and stuff.
Yeah except they had 734,000 to donate to Ossoff, I'm pretty sure they can survive without government funding, i.e. Selling baby parts.
â€” Nixon (@NIXONsounds) June 27, 2017
Oh yeah, that. Planned Parenthood could give Ossoff nearly a million dollars, but for some reason we should still feel guilty for wanting them defunded. Really?
Guess someone like Gillibrand who is also on the receiving end of Planned Parenthood dollars doesnâ€™t quite get that.
Not really. Funding PP is a duplication of services tax wise since we have public clinics, and they do fundraisers. They don't need tax $.
â€” Juli Caldwell (@ImJuliCaldwell) June 27, 2017
But they might not be able to keep sending her money.
Yep. About 120 million negatively affected since Roe.
â€” Vince Gottalotta (@VinceGottalotta) June 27, 2017
Itâ€™s pathetic that she doesnâ€™t understand that funneling money to abortion mills negatively affects hundreds of thousands of little lives every year.
To change your comments display name, click here.