For Now, Planned Parenthood in Women's Health Program
One day after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to side with Texas and overturn a temporary injunction that allowed Planned Parenthood clinics to remain in the Women's Health Program, a spokeswoman for a Planned Parenthood provider said that the affiliates involved in the program are "still in the WHP."
Planned Parenthood had filed a lawsuit in order to stay in the Women's Health Program. Tuesday's court ruling overturned the injunction, pending a district court hearing in the fall.
"This situation is developing, and we are exploring all of our options," Planned Parenthood Gulf ...
Comments (4)
Adele Roberson
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/women/report/2012/08/21/29492/mitt-romney-bad-for-women/
Be smart...... remember - a woman voting Republican is like a deer in the forest signing a petition to extend the hunting season.
Adele Roberson
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2012/08/01/11985/5-things-you-should-know-about-religion-and-contraception/
Important information for women.
Cliff McSparran via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Just watched my DVRd Rachel Maddow Show. I think the Texas Tribune has a rising star with Ms Tan.
Michael Compton
Re Cliff's comment: Perhaps, but I don't think she did herself any favors by adopting a slightly smug expression and stating 'I don't think it's appropriate for me to correct you at this time' (paraphrasing). Rachel Maddow is famously accurate with her facts. Her audience expects it, and are pleased when corrections are made. Any time RM introduces a story prior to interviewing a guest, she gives that guest the opportunity to correct any factual errors in that introduction. By smiling and implying that Rachel's introduction was factually incorrect, Tan seemed to be saying 'Your report contained factual errors, but I am not going to correct them (despite the fact that you provided me with the opportunity to do so). Viewers will have to wonder whether I refused to correct these alleged errors out of concern for time constraints, or because I have some sort of ideological opposition to Maddow's reporting and am refusing to do so because I prefer the basic facts be framed from my own political/religious perspective'. --- Yes, that's a mouthful, lol, but really: When you imply someone with a record like RM's has made a factual error in her reporting but refuse to elaborate, you naturally inspire a lot of speculation. Rachel Maddow sincerely cares about accuracy. While I was previously unfamiliar with Ms. Tan's reporting, I assume that is true in her case as well. By implying there were errors without saying what those errors were, she denies RM the opportunity to respond to Tan's interpretation of the facts. Rachel gave Ms. Tan that opportunity; why didn't Ms. Tan do the same? The interests of both parties, as well as those of their audience, would have been well served by a more forthcoming response to RM's responsible offer of air time for the purpose of clarifying the basic facts of the story. It's impossible to assign credit for journalistic integrity when a person refuses to back up their assertions.