Discussion: Planned Parenthood

You know that PP's abortion services are only 3% of what they do? The other 97% is counseling, contraceptives... you know, services and products that prevent pregnancy and abortions overall?

Please look at the facts. That's all you conservatives see it as, an "abortion clinic" or "baby-killer clinic" when it's not. PP provides a full range of women's reproductive health services and if they can't provide a service a woman is looking for, they can make referrals.

I'm a man, and preventing women from exercising their constitutional rights is the worse thing we can do. It's none of my business, and it's none of yours. So please take your nose out of my bedroom and everyone else's.

IF a human being is dying...then it is my business. The public has interest in protecting human life.

The point of contention with Planned Parenthood is that if they want to receive any federal funding at all, they should be held accountable for public opinion. If pro-abortion movement were serious about "taking nose out of other people's bedroom"...they'd be in favor of allowing abortion clinics to only receive private funding. That way people who utilize abortion services can say they made a private decision and are not accountable to any legislature or agency. The fact that they want our tax dollars to subsidize their industry shows they're not sincere about "live and let live" . You want me to keep my nose out...but you want my wallet right there at the action.
 
The truth is Komen ****ed itself by becoming a political organization and a lot of people will stop supporting them now because they have shown themselves to be an extreme right wing organization.

Does SentinelMind think that men should pay for their Viagra? Because Viagra is covered and none of the ultra religious folk like himself ever complains about that.

Viagra shouldn't be covered if Birth Control shouldn't be. That would be a consistant opinion and any thing less than that just shows that the anti birth control people are really only concerned with controlling women and think that men should be able to do whatever they want to.

Maybe women and many other men don't want to pay for your freakin Viagra or other male enhancement pills.

If god wanted you to get-it-up he you wouldn't have to take a little blue pill from that evil atheist science thingy.

First off, let's take a deep breath and relax. :whatever:

Second, I personally think health insurance funding of birth control, viagra, and unneccessary medical services defeats the point behind insurance (since they're not catastrophic services you're actively trying to avoid where you're spreading risk among many people) and creates entitlement and skyrocketing insurance premiums.

Nonetheless, I'm ok with funding those services if an institution wants to do it...assuming no human being is killed in the process.

I don't really like PPACA placing all sorts of mandates of who has to buy insurance and what the insurance must cover and all this and that. I think people should be left to make their own decisions. If a religious university doesn't want to fund contraception...fine..let them do that, it's still a free country right? Oh, I forgot..the only freedom is the right to terminate your pregnancy. :o
 
After talking with some people...I guess I can kind of see the problem with this. It does violate seperation of church and state. But then...when has Obama ever cared about trampling the constitution...
When did Bush ever care about trampling on the constitution? Oh I forgot, only the half-black Dem Pres can be called out for doing something wrong.

The Patriot act, which Obama wrongly still keeps in place and has wrongly expanded, was started under Bush jr. and I didn't hear a peep out of conservatives. I'm against the Patriot act no matter who is President, what about you?

I personally don't have a problem with this decision but I'm not uber passionate about it either.
 
Last edited:
When did Bush ever care about trampling on the constitution? Oh I forgot, only the half-black Dem Pres can be called out for doing something wrong.

The Patriot act, which Obama wrongly still keeps in place and has wrongly expanded, was started under Bush jr. and I didn't hear a peep out of conservatives. I'm against the Patriot act no matter who is President, what about you?

I personally don't have a problem with this decision but I'm not uber passionate about it either.

I don't support any president or side. I sure don't support any president who steps on the constitution either.

This country is a mess.
 
I see this as a push for Obama. It definitely alienates a lot of middle America voters, but I doubt the people who would vote based on this would have ever voted for him to begin with. Conversely, the people who will vote for him based on this probably would have anyway. I don't see it affecting independents much, unless they were already pissed off about government spending and see this as the straw that breaks the camel's back.
 
Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide mammograms. Why do they need any federal funding...oh right I forgot...
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=6384

If you actually read the official PP services pamphlet, they don't offer mammograms, but they offer breast exams, pap exams, HPV vaccinations and so forth.

And I'd wish you stop implying that our federal tax dollars was directly funding abortion, since it's not. (As I've said, there is a law preventing that -- Google it.) Well over half of PP services is STD testing/treatment, cancer screening/prevention and contraceptives.

Please read more sources than using biased ones like EWTN...
 
If you actually read the official PP services pamphlet, they don't offer mammograms, but they offer breast exams, pap exams, HPV vaccinations and so forth.

And I'd wish you stop implying that our federal tax dollars was directly funding abortion, since it's not. (As I've said, there is a law preventing that -- Google it.) Well over half of PP services is STD testing/treatment, cancer screening/prevention and contraceptives.

Please read more sources than using biased ones like EWTN...

Lol really? That's your argument?
 
Lol really? That's your argument?

Lol, how about you actually contribute to the thread for once?

Title X specifically is a family-planning program, signed by Nixon, that allocates federal funds for contraceptives, health exams, safe-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling. By law, none of the federal funds are to be used for abortions. The abortion funding comes from private donors, not the government.

So SentinelMind and ShaDynasty, you need to open your minds up a little.
 
Lol, how about you actually contribute to the thread for once?

Title X specifically is a family-planning program, signed by Nixon, that allocates federal funds for contraceptives, health exams, safe-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling. By law, none of the federal funds are to be used for abortions. The abortion funding comes from private donors, not the government.

So SentinelMind and ShaDynasty, you need to open your minds up a little.

I have?

And your argument is just because there is a law in place to prevent it, it doesn't happen. Which is ridiculous.
 
Even if federal dollars are not used to fund abortion directly, they still are helping to fund abortion. Planned Parenthood is an organization that funds abortions. I do not think that that fact is in dispute.

If PP receives 1 million dollars per year from federal funding (just to use a simplistic number, I know it is a lot more), then that is 1 million dollars more that they have, can put toward breast cancer screening (for example) and then can take the money saved and put that toward family planning procedures such as abortion. In other words, because of the federal funding, they can just move money around (put the federal money in their breast cancer funding and budget the 1 million dollars saved by that into the abortion funds).

Whether the money given by the federal government is directly used to fund abortion is moot. Giving money to an organization that funds abortion, does help them fund abortion as it gives them revenue which they would not otherwise have, which allows them to use other revenues for abortion procedures.

Now I'm not taking a stance on this one way or another. I am just pointing out that it is silly to argue that funding an organization that performs abortions, does not help them pay for abortions. Directly or indirectly, it does.
 
I have?

And your argument is just because there is a law in place to prevent it, it doesn't happen. Which is ridiculous.

Weren't you arguing for voter ID laws so that fraud won't happen?

And Matt. Your example would be like a husband and wife using his check to pay the car and saying her check funded it. While, you're right, her check made it possible for his to pay the car she still did not make the car payment. So, they are still not using federal dollars to pay for abortions.
 
Weren't you arguing for voter ID laws so that fraud won't happen?

And Matt. Your example would be like a husband and wife using his check to pay the car and saying her check funded it. While, you're right, her check made it possible for his to pay the car she still did not make the car payment. So, they are still not using federal dollars to pay for abortions.


You are playing semantics. It is silly to say, "federal funding doesn't pay for abortion!!!!!!!!!!!........federal funding just makes abortions possible.
 
Weren't you arguing for voter ID laws so that fraud won't happen?

And Matt. Your example would be like a husband and wife using his check to pay the car and saying her check funded it. While, you're right, her check made it possible for his to pay the car she still did not make the car payment. So, they are still not using federal dollars to pay for abortions.

No? Never on this thread nor any other thread on this site?

Good try though.
 
If I want to buy a car for 10,000 dollars and someone gives me 20,000 dollars and says "don't use this 20,000 dollars to pay for the car," it doesn't really matter. Because the fact that i have that 20,000 dollars, even if not a cent is used for the car, makes me capable of buying that car, as I am 20,000 dollars richer. So, Hotwire, your argument fails to make sense.
 
If I want to buy a car for 10,000 dollars and someone gives me 20,000 dollars and says "don't use this 20,000 dollars to pay for the car," it doesn't really matter. Because the fact that i have that 20,000 dollars, even if not a cent is used for the car, makes me capable of buying that car, as I am 20,000 dollars richer. So, Hotwire, your argument fails to make sense.
Then it would apply to any company that gets a federal subsidy that is earmarked for certain expenditures.
 
No, Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts

Yesterday, an eight-minute “undercover” video surfaced purporting to show Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services talking about selling the body parts of aborted human fetuses for the non-profit’s financial gain. Which would be shocking, certainly—if any of it were true.

In the video, Planned Parenthood Senior Director Deborah Nucatola says some pretty graphic and seemingly disturbing things about tissue donation:

A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they’re looking for specific nodes... Some people want lower extremities too, which, that’s simple. I mean, that’s easy.​

She then goes on to talk about what sounds like Planned Parenthood’s monetary reward:

Every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.”​

Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the people behind the video’s release from going to great lengths to try to paint Planned Parenthood as operating outside the law. According to The Center for Medical Progress’s accompanying release, “The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its ‘Human Capital’ series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.”

While Planned Parenthood notes that the group is “a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers.” (For what it’s worth, the Center for Medical Progress did finally release the full video, though its claims remain just as flawed.)

The video itself opens with a short clip of former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt that is edited to give the appearance of condemning the recorded conversation that follows. But the 20/20 segment on which Feldt appears is actually an investigation into abuses made by private sector “tissue and organ procurement companies.” And Feldt even went on to later affirm that “Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and are deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women.”

In other words, this is a case of words being taken grossly out of context. Planned Parenthood is doing nothing even remotely shady here, nor are they doing something they haven’t publicly discussed before on multiple occasions. The real question now, though, is who’s behind this whole campaign in the first place.

The video, which had supposedly been held onto for a year before being released earlier this morning, was put out by The Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.” Oddly enough, 10 of the the 11 total tweets made by the group’s Twitter account are from today, while the only two posts on its website seem to be about the Planned Parenthood video. And just like its Twitter account, the group’s Facebook page is only a few months old.

However, cached Google results reveal that way back in May of 2013, there were quite a few more posts on the group’s website. Trying to click on any of them now, though, brings you to this:

1341150708524237231.png


We do at least know that this is not the same group as the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Medical Progress, which has made sure to put up the following banner on its landing page in light of the recent drama.

1341150708583700655.png


It’s also worth noting that that Center for Medical Progress (which is part of a larger conservative think tank) has received quite a bit of Koch brother funding. So even Koch Brothers affiliates are trying to keep themselves the hell away from whatever it is this group is actually up to.

But Bobby Jindal sure isn’t! He’s taken the deeply flawed (not to mention false) attack and run with it, issuing an order for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals to investigate Planned Parenthood. Despite no indication in the video itself that it had any relation to Louisiana in the first place.

But according to The Times-Picayune, “Jindal said he was ordering an investigation in part because Planned Parenthood is planning to open a clinic in New Orleans.” A clinic that, now, won’t be able to open at all thanks to Jindal’s order including the suspension of any new licenses. How convenient.

Update 6:46pm:

According to Snopes, the man currently being credited as the “leader” of the Center for Medical Progress, David Daleiden, is directly linked to James O’Keefe—otherwise known as the right-wing zealot behind the heavily edited and profoundly misleading videos that instigated the ACORN controversy back in 2009.

According to a 2009 Claremont Conservativearticle (written by none other than everyone’s favorite alleged floor-pooper and conservative blogger Chuck Johnson):

James O’Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden’s. O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law.​

Whether James O’Keefe is involved this time remains to be seen, but considering the journalism school laughingstock’s history, it certainly wouldn’t be a surprise.

http://gawker.com/no-planned-parenthood-is-not-selling-aborted-fetal-bod-1717823538

So no story here except another psychotic hate group trying to deny woman's rights. Donated fetal tissue is one of the main sources for stem cell research and that is something I fully support. Now personally I would never abort my child but I support the right for any woman to chose what fits her best
 
No, Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts



http://gawker.com/no-planned-parenthood-is-not-selling-aborted-fetal-bod-1717823538

So no story here except another psychotic hate group trying to deny woman's rights. Donated fetal tissue is one of the main sources for stem cell research and that is something I fully support. Now personally I would never abort my child but I support the right for any woman to chose what fits her best

I just love how the Republicans are jumping all over this with lies. By the way they talk you would almost assume what PP did was illegal and they profiting off of this but both cases are wrong. Rumor has it that the Republicans going to use this as an issue for the next dept ceiling so that should be fun.

While I get why they go after PP because they pander to social conservatives I am surprised there isn't any fiscal conservatives who come out in support of PP given that any dollar PP spends saves the Federal government 3.75 times that amount within a year(call me funny but that is a great deal), and that is not counting the long term cash they save
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"