Republicans Offer 75 Amendments To Budget, Including One That Eliminates Planned Parenthood Funding
by Christine Stuart | May 2, 2011 7:34pm
(9) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Health Care, State Budget
Republican Senators filed 75 amendments on the state budget Monday before debate began at around 4 p.m. this afternoon. It’s unclear how many of them they planned to call, but one of those amendments so infuriated Democratic lawmakers that they held a press conference to address it.
The amendment filed by Sen. Len Suzio, R-Meriden, eliminated $1 million in state funding for Planned Parenthood. Its comes less than a month after the organization was fighting back Republican attacks at the national level.
Judy Tabar, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said without the money services will have to be reduced. She said the money is used to offset the cost of services for clients based on income. Currently the organization serves 63,000 patients each year and 90 percent of those services are preventative.
She said she is disappointed by the amendment, but she was also heartened by the response of Democratic lawmakers.
House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, said he’s disappointed Republicans are taking fiscal matters and interlacing their “extreme policy agenda” in the middle of a very serious discussion on the budget.
“When it gets into social policy it steps over the line,” Sharkey said. “We have very serious work to do.”
Sen. Ed Meyer, D-Guilford, said the lawmaker who wrote the amendment is out of step with the mainstream of the Republican Party. He pointed out Prescott Bush, the politician the annual Republican fundraiser is named after, served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947.
Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, called the amendment was a “waste of time.”
“We ought not to be doing stupid amendments like this,” Prague said.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said it was not a caucus amendment. Sources say Suzio was privately encouraged not to submit it, but any Senator can file an amendment on a bill.
Suzio said he can’t understand why the amendment caused such an overreaction. He said it represents 1/2000th of the budget and didn’t understand why it would create an uproar. He said it’s an issue that cuts across party lines and he doesn’t believe the state should be giving money to such a radical organization.
He suggested the money go to another community health care center that’s less controversial.
He said frankly he’s more interested in calling the amendment he drafted that forces the state to restructure its debt payments. He said restructuring debt won’t impact the social programs that Democratic lawmakers don’t want to cut.
More than three hours into the debate there haven’t been any amendments called by Republican lawmakers.
(9) Comments
posted by: ... | May 2, 2011 7:58pm
Looks like it will be a long night in the Capitol Building..
But as for Sen. Suzio: he must have been completely brain dead on the national budget issue, as Planned Parenthood had just gone through a gauntlet of debate and sometimes incivility from both sides of the aisle.
posted by: timelord | May 2, 2011 8:45pm
Of course we *should* cut Planned Parenthood’s government funding to $0. That has nothing to so with whether or not they offer abortion, it has to do with the fact that tax money should never be used to provide medical services. Tax-funded charity is immoral for ANY reason or type of service.
posted by: Bill$Ratepayer | May 3, 2011 7:37am
OK timelord, then you should be opposed to all the other susidies that other industries receive. These include payments for energy conservation programs, renewable energy (solar, fuel cell, electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, geothermal,) subsidies to the film/entertainment industry and all these economic development payouts and tax abatements offered to numerous businesses. These are all funded with tax money are paid by citizens through special taxes created on utility bils.
posted by: babscos | May 3, 2011 8:10am
If the people of Connecticut had a chance to vote whether their tax dollars should support the killing of innocent children in the womb their answer would be a resounding “NO!” Our representatives are to represent the will of the people. We are broke and it is unbelievable that the sacred cow of Planned Parenthood is untouchable. God help us all!
posted by: kathupson | May 3, 2011 8:53am
Anyone who takes Planned Parenthood’s public statements at face value needs to do their homework; they skew their statistics to make them appear to be an altruistic organization only concerned about what is best for women. Read “Unplanned” by Abby Johnson to get the real story about the largest abortion provider in the US. And thank goodness we have a few legislators with courage like Sen Suzio.
Re the budget as a whole; CT is a small state. People will avoid buying even more goods and services here, let alone moving out of the state completely. Talk about “brain dead”, how about our irresponsible governor and Democrat legislature!
posted by: Disgruntled | May 3, 2011 9:04am
Abortion.Gun laws.Prayer in schools.
Thoses are fresh ideas that will really get folks talking!
Way to go Republicans. You clearly are on the cutting edge.
posted by: enness | May 3, 2011 10:22am
Something here is stupid and a waste of time, but it isn’t this amendment—perhaps it is electing politicians who don’t recognize a serious problem (yes, it is a serious problem, and they way they are reacting indicates it is a lot more important than they care to admit) when they see one. If you think there is any way to fund PP without supporting the abortion industry, no matter what their slick accountants tell you, you are mistaken. As kathupson has asserted, they are a dishonest organization and there is absolutely no reason for them to have some perverse stranglehold on things like preventive health exams. Suzio is right on. It makes me want to tear my hair out that something can be so obvious and we can’t bleeping get it done.
