Way to move the goalposts, Senator Brown.

[kelsa]

Maybe I've missed something here, but Title X funding does not go towards funding abortions. (http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html) Seriously.

So after calling and emailing Senator Scott Brown regarding Title X funding, I got back this email (and in no where near as timely a manner as Kerry and my area's House Rep, believe me, and my house rep actually sends LETTERS. SQUEE.),

Dear Kelly,

Thank you for contacting me about providing funding to family planning programs and services, including Planned Parenthood. I value your input and would like to take this opportunity to respond.

It is my belief that we can and should provide women with family planning services. This has the potential to not only reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, but also abortions. Ultimately, I believe that abortion is a very personal issue and the questions that it raises are ones that rest with a woman, her family and her physician. However, I am opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to provide or pay for abortions.

Since our nation faces record levels of debt and deficits, there are virtually no areas of the federal budget that are completely immune from reductions. Please know that I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put together a reasonable package of budget reductions that are in the best long term financial interests of the country. And whatever cuts are ultimately made, my goal is to make sure they are judicious and fairly applied.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views with me. When the Senate considers these matters, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at www.scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Scott P. Brown
United States Senator

I read this and scratched my head.

Didn't the email I sent clearly specify Title X? Didn't the email I sent through the ACLU also clearly state why Title X was important, and emphasize that since the funding didn't go towards abortions, why attack it? Didn't my phone call specifically mention Title X?

So, why am I getting a half assed response about not supporting federal funding going to abortions? Seriously, you made that clear during the healthcare bill discussions, (and I think you're an ass for it) but as every single one of my communications has specified, I am talking about Title X funding, funding that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION OR YOUR VIEWS ON IT.

I sent this email back:

Hi Senator Brown/Interns,

Websites from the government you're employed by actually say that Title X funding has nothing to do with abortions, like here: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html.

So I'm really confused as to this response: I've called and written expressing my support for Title X funding, which does not fund abortions. Your moral stance with abortion really has nothing to do with providing low income women and men with reproductive healthcare. I understand automatically generated emails, but this was a little much.

I hope you can find solidarity with Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins and put reproductive health care ahead of the political rhetoric around abortion, especially with regards to funds that are already specified to not go towards abortion services.

Thanks,
"Kelsa" (Real name is here in the email, of course)

Did I miss something? I realize Republicans want Title X destroyed so they can punish reproductive health care that also provides abortion services using seperate funding, but seriously, this email just smushed me over the edge. And since I still hate him for mortgaging the future of gay and lesbian military members for his precious tax cuts...*eyeroll*

But no, seriously, do they really think I'm dumb enough that this is a satisfactory answer? Like, if I contact you about apples and you talk about how much you hate pears, and say its totally on topic because apples and pears are on the same shelf at the market...okay, this analogy is going a little far, but seriously, Senator Brown? Srsly?

Oh, and that sneaky little mention of women, family, and physician? Scott Brown supported notification of husbands and parents for women seeking abortions. cute how he wiggles that right in there.

[Sonic#]

But if you turn your head and squint a little, a pear does look like an apple. And so it's very easy to talk against the provisions in Title X by talking about abortions though there's no inherent connection between them. Kind of like it was very easy to talk about the war in Iraq by talking about Osama bin Laden, though there was no connection between them.

It sounds pretty typical as a response to an issue. "ABORTION. Also, cuts may need to happen anywhere. Insincere pledge to think of you. Love and snuggles, Scott." I'd be annoyed too.

The person who reads it will likely not click through to the link. You could quote the statute directly:

Section 1008 of the Title X statute, 42 U.S.C. 300a-6, states: ``None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.''

I got it from here, which provides a pretty good summary of what they can and can't do regarding abortion: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/about/legislatio ... -2000.html

[spacefem]

it's cool that you wrote your senator, go you!

but anyway... these letters get read by staffers, who send back the appropriate stock response. It's almost a machine... did the letter mention "planned parenthood"? oh, she gets reply #4532.

It's apparently crap though. Keep us posted on this, I'm curious if you get a reply back to your follow-up.

[kelsa]

it's cool that you wrote your senator, go you!

but anyway... these letters get read by staffers, who send back the appropriate stock response. It's almost a machine... did the letter mention "planned parenthood"? oh, she gets reply #4532.

It's apparently crap though. Keep us posted on this, I'm curious if you get a reply back to your follow-up.

Oh yeah, they're sick of hearing from me. I get updates from Congress.org and call probably every two weeks or so. Less for my representative and Senator Kerry, since we're generally in agreement on things.

They need a better stock email for Title X. It feels really sneaky and is sadly typical of the current Republicans, this apple/pear squint that Sonic describes. : P

[Aum]

Clearly abortion rates are so high because of Title X funding. After all, the funding has the word "reproductive" and "parenthood" in it!

Kind of reminds me of:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[monk]

my favorite part of that bit is the first sentence.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!

It's true, the bear patrol is working exactly as charms do. Since charms also do nothing, Lisa really had no objection.

/back on the fruit topic.

I don't think it's that apple and pears look the same. They just happen to be sold by the same fruit market and the apple haters hate apples so much they would rather there be no fruit at all then have apples available anywhere. So Scott has to conform to the apple hater agenda or they wont fund him and the pears for sale are just a casualty.

If Planned Parenthood completely divorced the abortion part of it's clinics from the health service part they wouldn't be a target. But having the abortions.