The issue I take with compromise is that in all cases the conservatives are the ones compromising their ideology in a train of ever left wing movement. Some of it is good. Most of it is bad.

The recent clear example is right here in this thread. It's about govt funded healthcare. does anyone realize how absolutely ludicrous this would have sounded in the late 1800s? Any pol advising this would have been derided as insane, to propose some kind of fed health financial benefit. SS? Another left socialist tool bore from the fruit of the depression(thanks again dems). Already mentioned the many, many social programs avail for low income and poverty class. Johnson's Great Society(what a boondoggle), etc. the US has moved left on almost all large programs for the past 100 years. So - what, more 'compromise' but - only for the right. Compromise to me cuts like this:

You have access to fed funded abortions(whether some admit it or not, the reality is that it's there) now. You will have the same access as before, but you will now have to undergo sterilization along with your abortion, because you can't keep it in your pants AND you can't provide for yourself or your child. Deal? This is compromise, I'm not taking anything the fedguv currently gives, but giving even more public service for no extra charge.

I take issue with that. It's just a premise, likely flawed, to justify why abortions are acceptable. That means that, at the federal level, everyone who is against abortions not only has to accept it, but has to accept that their tax dollars are being used to fund it. I understand there are laws on the books that say it's illegal, but that doesn't mean it's not happening anyway.

I've posted this before, but according to the liberal Brookings Institution, there are three simple rules that, if followed, will significantly reduce your chances at living in poverty. I would suggest that these three are probably better than providing a means to legal abortions (at the federal level) and trying to justify that it's a good way to reduce crime and poverty.

1. Graduate high school
2. Get a full time job
3. Don't have kids until you're married

That's it. Pretty simple.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

Yes, I'm aware, and don't disagree with a word of that. Quite logical, and a good plan to follow all around. Please note the highlighted part above.

How many disaffected inner-city, poverty stricken, low information type citizens will follow that? You think they pay attention when some old, rich, whitey(Bernie, Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer) tells the citizens? And so they hear it, and what if they don't take the advice? Alternatives?

Why should the federal government be paying for any of it?

There's a book that I can't recall right now that did an admirable job of equating interesting social constructs with their economic and/or financial outcome. It was a rather Quixotic look at the law of unintended consequence.

One part of the book dealt with the Roe v Wade decision, and how it changed the shape of the future criminal element. I don't know the exact discussion but what it boiled down to was this: Poor, disenfranchised people were more likely to seek free, or illegal abortions, and be struggling to afford them. Therefore, more cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement all around as unwanted babies were carried to term, and thrust into poverty in the next generation. Which leads to - greater crime. The change after Roe v Wade and the now more available abortions(PPH) allowed the poverty stricken to afford, and access abortions, thus reducing the cycle of poverty in general and the level of criminality in specific. Therefore - more abortions for poor disenfranchised women led to fewer poor families, and lowered crime.

My take was this is fine, as long as the barn is closed after the horse is - well, removed - so to speak. No more horses means no more horse-shit.

There is little to no equivalency between the toll road and ATC service.

Toll road provides: a suitable graded road surface for the transit of vehicles.
Public road provides: a suitable graded road surface for the transit of vehicles.

One might argue that the toll road provides faster, or more convenient modes, but the affect on safety between toll roads and public roads(of the same variety) is vanishingly small. Add a toll to a road/bridge and there would be almost no difference in transit safety.

Add a toll to an ATC service, like en-route IFR service and the safety results will be ginormous.

In the interest of compromise, I propose this: Add all the service fees to all parts of the ATC encounter you want. Reduce fuel taxes proportionally to compensate for the new income streams which more closely model the use case of the ATC service.

Fat. Chance.

tishhhh-bang!!
(rimshot)

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I pay a govt fee every time my CC goes in the slot on the fuel pump at an FBO. If we break it down further, the way I operate the FAA/ATC makes good money on my travel in the NAS. I NEVER call anyone. I visited SoCal a few weeks ago, and slipped into Cable for gas, up to Agua Dulce for parking, back out to Big Bear for another sip, and then on my way east. I made six unicom calls, and spent >$200 in gas there. Nice chunk of money for the ATC budget. You're welcome.

factcheck.org comes up with a 12% based on patients seen:

However, critics of the 3 percent figure note that an abortion isn’t equivalent to other individual services, such as giving out condoms or providing pregnancy tests.

On the other hand, if the number of abortions performed is divided by the total number of people served (2.7 million), that would mean roughly 12 percent of clients received an abortion. But that’s also assuming no person received more than one abortion.

— D’Angelo Gore

And - they come up with an interesting caveat; Assuming no person received more than one abortion is patently false. I personally know of a woman in Austin TX who has had three in the past 5 years at PPH. She is not an outlier.

According to PP's 2015 annual report, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report they get 41% of their operating revenue from "Government Health Services Reimbursements and Grants."  Most of what they do is testing for STDs (45%) and contraception (30%), other women's health services (14%), and cancer screening (7%)  Only 3% of their medical services are abortions.

I agree that government should not be paying for abortions.  I also question whether government should be paying for contraception.  However, a large part of what PP provides seems to be an important and useful service.  Can these services be done at one's family doctor?  Sure.  But more medical care for low income people with limited options has to be a good thing.

Alrighty, so they are only breaking the law 3% of the time. (not that I trust anything from their own annual report, but it is what you have, so...) As for their funding, we are paying 41% of their budget. Hmmmm, guess we're getting our money's worth if it includes limiting repro from the parasite class.