Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (36) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Cinci Steve

    Cinci Steve GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions anyway? Those that are upset should write a personal check to Planned Parenthood. You can even designate how many abortions you’d like to pay for.

  2. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Where are taxpayers paying for abortions? Or is this another ‘not meant to be factual’ accusations?

  3. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 4 years ago

    Not even pretending to knowledge.
    How many times has this one been done? Out of fingers.
    The toon is correct, it is women’s programs other than abortion that are taking the hit.
    Why the fear of women?

  4. Rottiluv

    Rottiluv GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @Cinci Steve

    Because Planed Parenthood does more than just abortions? They even cover men’s sexual health, but hey, why should the poor get health care, they should just get cervical/testicular cancer, die and reduce the surplus population.

  5. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago

    @Cinci Steve

    Look up the Hyde Amendment on the net. It specifically forbids such federal health programs for the poor (Medicaid specifically) from paying for abortions. The only exceptions are where the health of the potential mother would be directly endangered, or in the case of rape or incest (and most ultra conservatives here and elsewhere declare that to be a minor part of abortions).

    And planned parenthood can only recommend an abortion, it does not actively perform the procedure itself. Abortions themselves must be performed at specific medical clinics, and payed for either by private funding or funding from the state, NOT the federal government!

    Am I being clear enough?

  6. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    @Cinci Steve

    Why should taxpayers and employee medical benefits pay for viagra, cialis, and other such drugs men use to increase their virility and enable them to impregnate a woman. Should unmarried men be banned from purchasing such drugs? If our legislators and the catholic church(who resents paying for contraception) feel so strongly about women and pregnancy, should they not also resist helping men be able to impregnate a woman? Should viagra only be provided to married men whose wives are past menopause or who are actively trying to conceive a child?
    Planned Parenthood does not use federal funds to provide abortions, those funds, on paper, are completely and verifiably seperate from mammograms, pelvic exams, and many other services provided to the poor and underinsured. The argument from conservatives is, if Planned Parenthood received NO money from the government, PP would have to either reduce the number of abortions they provide or reduce the number of non abortion services they provide.
    Now that the elections are over, the talk about job creation is dying down as everyone takes familiar positions on the social issues.
    It’s similar to the argument for big oil. If our tax dollars quit being given to oil companies as subsidies, we are effectively raising taxes on the oil companies. Subsidizing wind, solar, and alternative fuel industries struggling to be born is wrong- like giving birth control or abortions to women, but giving billions in tax subsidies to established, international oil conglomerates is good – like giving viagra and testosterone treatments to men for the PURPOSE of increasing their sexual drive.
    If men can’t impregnate women, then there is no need for abortion or birth control. Women will still need mammograms, pelvic exams, etc, and an organization like Planned Parenthood to provide them, especially in the absence of available health care.
    This is an “impossible” issue. The possible we should do today, the difficult we should do in the next few weeks/months, the impossible we should do after we do everything else.

  7. Ketira shena Pretarasedrin

    Ketira shena Pretarasedrin said, almost 4 years ago

    @C Downs: You should write your congressperson & tell them what you said in that last paragraph. Just remember to bludgeon it in until s/he/they get the message. ; )
    @Stipple – why? Maybe some of them remember WW2, when we Women kept the country running by being in construction, in factories, and so forth while the men were off fighting Hitler. Either that or they just found out that we Women do have brains after all and can actually carry on in that Circus we call Congress.

  8. ivison.bedard

    ivison.bedard said, almost 4 years ago


    Do you even read policies before you say they don’t exist? Or perhaps your are one of those Entitlement Education Graduates that still can’t read. Or your so lazy that you assume all truth is broadcast on MSN so you can watch it instead?

  9. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 4 years ago

    How is it that when a group of people decide that using public funds to kill unborn children is wrong that they are targeting “women’s health programs”?

    According to Wiki: “Planned Parenthood is the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services, including cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and abortion. Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA’s total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served”

    It’s a good program and needs funding. There are times that abortion would be the “right” thing to do. Being male it isn’t my call. Still, even the founder did not think abortion was the correct approach.

    (again from Wiki)As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”83 Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.8485 In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.86 Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals

    Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote, “while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”109

    in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger noted that her opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: “[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.”111 And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that “no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.”112

    So I’m conservative. I do NOT want my tax dollars going to kill the unborn. But then, I don’t want my tax dollars going to fund war either.

  10. josefw

    josefw said, almost 4 years ago

    Give it a rest…

    With regard to war, international and constitutional laws are clear. Under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, only Congress may declare war, not the president. That, in fact, last happened on December 8, 1941 after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. As a result, all subsequent US wars have been illegal, including Obama’s against Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya.

  11. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 4 years ago

    Here’s an interesting statistic: since 1991 (when Roe v. Wade turned 18), violent crime in the US has seen a steep decline. Probably because there are fewer unwanted and/or impoverished children growing up where crime and poverty are ways of life.

    Side note: Germany and the Netherlands have incredibly lax abortion regulations, yet have incredible low rates. Why? They actually support parents and children. Republicans want to both ban abortion AND cut any financial assistance to parents and children. Do you really want to bring back the crime rates of the 70s and 80s?

  12. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 4 years ago

    You know why, I know why.
    The folks actually doing the opposing? It is a bit fuzzy in there, but they are sure something is off if logic is used. Sex is evil you know.

  13. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago

    I had a friend back when I was young — a young woman whose father was a Catholic MD — this was in the day when (in Canada) a woman could get an abortion if a doctor said it was essential for her physical or mental health, but not otherwise. So my friend got pregnant (I had nothing to do with it, by the way) and she went to her Dad for advice. He said, well, of course, we’re Catholic, so I can’t do anything to help you, but here’s the name of a Protestant colleague of mine, book an appointment with him. She did, and she had the abortion. But Dad had nothing to do with it, no, of course not.

  14. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago


    And excellent (if somewhat lengthy) Post from one of the more balanced and thinking conservatives on these boards. Thank You, and Well Done!!

  15. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago


    Sorry Josefw, but we are not at present at war with the “governments” of any of those countries. You could include Iraq in that category however, even though the government of Saddam was run by a dictator/thug like him, it was still the official government of Iraq.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (21).