DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Planned Parenthood and the Sale of Fetal Body Parts

The government doesn't fund or subsidize abortions.

Not wanting a $15/hour minimum wage is not even close to "want the government to be responsible for ensuring single mothers get less than a living wage"... how exactly do I want the government responsible to ensure that?

And it's funny.. because I bet that almost everybody on here who trumpets the need for progressive issues... parents much more like a conservative.

Let's see...

The school isn't responsible for your learning, they provide the opportunity but you have to provide the effort...

It's up to you to acquire the education or the skills to get a good job, you can't rely on others to take care of you....

Life isn't fair, some have more, some have less, be happy with who you are and make the most out of yourself....

The fact that you are (black, short, fat, ugly, Latino, gay, whatever) doesn't matter, your success is up to you and you can succeed if you work hard and make good choices....

If you are lucky enough to be successful, reach back voluntarily and help others through charity...

I don't care what Johnny's parents do, Johnny is not my kid, I'm only responsible for YOU....

You will have to live with the choices you make.....

This is largely how we treat our own kids, but we try to make exceptions for everybody else.. why is that?

Ah its refreshing to have you back and commenting on things Voleur

Just as a reminder to people...giving up a child for adoption is still an option.

Personally to me. I don't care. Stop telling me I should care about things or forcing me to pay for things I don't care about.

Don't like abortions / Planned Parenthood? Shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Don't like the drug war? Shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
Don't like wars over seas? Shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

If the people advocating things were the only people funding them, we'd see a shocking amount of people less interested in their positions. If they couldn't force everyone else to pay for things, especially all our children and grandchildren (process that shame America....), we'd see a shockingly smaller government.

“The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”
–Thomas Jefferson

“This is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family, even though tiny, powerless and unwanted”
–Henry Hyde

“It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.”
–Gandhi

"A quotation is a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself, always a laborious business"
-AA Milne

Just calling in some witnesses to the discussion.

“The fight for the right to life is not the cause of a special few, but the cause of every man, woman and child who cares not only about his or her own family, but the whole family of man.”
–Dr. Mildred Jefferson

“This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.” -- Gandhi

Couldn't you just post the link to the site you keep copying and pasting these from? It would save time and space.

“The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot."
-Michael Altshuler

My reply wasn't intended to identify you as an extremist radical conservative, but they're the ones who are responsible for demanding the government force women who have conceived to breed and bare the responsibility.

I think there's been a gathering of this issue into the category of personal irresponsibility and an unwillingness to support someone's bad choices.

It's these same bad people and bad choice makers who end up working for less than livable wages. I'm not sure if you're saying the government controls wages and prices or if you were being sarcastic, for every dollar of support through communistic, "central planning" spent to help poor women there's ten spent to support the companies that refuse to pay them.

Ending abortion is a social problem, not merely an issue of personal responsibility. To end the need for abortions we have to care of people. It saves more than it costs in the long run.

Rock if millions of people were killing there 3 to 6 month old babies would you refer to that as a social problem.

For Planned Parenthood abortion stats, ‘3 percent’ and ’94 percent’ are both misleading


Washington Post Fact Checker


“Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.”

–Planned Parenthood, fact sheet on Web site

“In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.”

–Susan B. Anthony List, fact sheet on Web site


Three percent or 94 percent? Are abortions just a small portion of the array of Planned Parenthood’s services, as advocates of abortion rights say? Or is Planned Parenthood mainly an abortion provider that masquerades as a reproductive health organization, as opponents of abortion rights say?

It depends on the measure you use to make your case. Both figures are being paraded around as controversy over Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue donations continues. The Fact Checker obviously takes no stance on abortion rights, fetal tissue donations or defunding Planned Parenthood.

Let’s decode these dueling abortion statistics.


The Facts


First, here is a breakdown of Planned Parenthood’s “services,” defined as a “discrete clinical interaction.”


(Planned Parenthood 2013-14 annual report)
According to the 2013-14 annual report, Planned Parenthood’s affiliated clinics provided 10.6 million services for 2.7 million clients in 2013. “Other women’s health services” are pregnancy tests and “prenatal services,” which are described as “care you receive from a health care provider, such as a doctor or midwife, during pregnancy.” These services may take place at a Planned Parenthood clinic, or may be referred out to another provider. “Contraception” includes emergency contraception kits, vasectomies and female sterilization procedures. “Other services” includes adoption referrals and family practice services for men and women.

Out of the 10.6 million services, 327,653 of them were abortion procedures — which leads us to the Planned Parenthood figure.


Planned Parenthood’s ‘three percent’


When all services are counted equally, abortion procedures do account for 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s total services.

But there are obvious differences between these services. For example, a first trimester abortion can cost up to $1,500, according to the Planned Parenthood Web site. Yet an emergency contraceptive pill costs around $45 and a urine pregnancy test costs around $10 at a pharmacy. An abortion is a different type of procedure than a vasectomy, or testing for sexually transmitted infections or diseases, or a vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), and so forth.

While each service is listed separately, many clients received multiple services. A woman may get a pregnancy test, birth control and a pap smear, but she would be counted three times, once for each service, in the annual report.

Those who oppose abortion rights have criticized this definition, saying the 3 percent figure misleads the public. In a recent New York Post op-ed, National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote a series of analogies to argue that the 3 percent figure “is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business:”

Such cracked reasoning could be used to obscure the purpose of any organization.

The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business.

Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood want to use its health services as leverage to preserve its abortions, as if you can’t get one without the other.

Of course, this is nonsense.

Slate’s Rachael Larimore, the left-leaning online magazine’s conservative senior editor, called this the “most meaningless abortion statistic ever.”


Susan B. Anthony List’s ‘94 percent’


SBA List, which opposes abortion rights, arrives at its 94 percent figure by comparing abortions to two other categories of services that are provided to pregnant patients — or “pregnancy services.”

Recall the earlier breakdown of Planned Parenthood’s services. SBA List compares abortions to the number of prenatal services (18,684) and adoption referrals to other agencies (1,880). Using this measure, abortions do account for 94 percent of the combined three categories.

But Planned Parenthood does not provide the number of pregnant clients it has in a year, or what services they received. So pregnant women may have come to the clinic to receive a service other than (or in addition to) an abortion, prenatal care or adoption referral — the only three services counted in SBA List’s criteria. SBA List also does not include 1.13 million pregnancy tests, a portion of which may be given to a pregnant woman.

Multiple prenatal services may be offered to one woman, so the prenatal services number may not compare directly to the number of adoption procedures (assuming one abortion per woman). The 2013 report does not identify the number of prenatal clients, but Planned Parenthood numbers from 2009 give us an idea of how these numbers can differ. Planned Parenthood reported 7,021 prenatal clients in 2009, but also reported in its 2010 annual report that it provided 40,489 prenatal services in 2009.

Planned Parenthood clinics also refer pregnant patients to outside providers for prenatal services. A spokeswoman recently told PolitiFact that the organization does not record the number of such referrals. (However, Planned Parenthood made this information public long ago. Annual report figures from 1996 and 1997 show the number and type of procedures that were referred out in those years.)

Knowing the full number of referrals for various pregnancy-related services would give a fuller picture. For example, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains partners with a midwifery practice for its Prenatal Plus Program, assigning case managers to help pregnant women with parenting classes, counselors and a registered dietician. Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan connects pregnant women with community resources for a variety of pregnancy-related services.


Other measures


Advocates on both sides have used other measures in an effort to portray a more representative figure of adoption services as a share of total services. But all face limitations, as Planned Parenthood — a non-profit — does not have to release financial information beyond its legal requirements.

Some, including SBA List, have attempted to quantify how much of Planned Parenthood’s clinic revenues comprise revenues from abortions. Typically, this calculation is made by taking the number of abortions, multiplying them by the average cost of abortions advertised by Planned Parenthood clinics, and dividing the figure by the organization’s total non-government health services revenue.

The main Planned Parenthood Web site says first-trimester abortions can cost up to $1,500. Some affiliate clinic Web sites provide a range of costs: a Western Pennsylvania clinic lists $390 to $1,090 for abortions, and first trimester abortion is priced at $515 in Arizona.

Non-government health services revenues refer to money collected for health care services, such as abortions, that are not covered by government programs. (The largest source of revenue for Planned Parenthood is government funding, but federal funds can’t be used for abortions. Planned Parenthood does not separate its federal and state funds in its annual report.)

Using this calculation, advocates and opponents of abortion rights have calculated somewhere between 15 percent and 37 percent of the organization’s annual non-government health services revenue comes from abortion services. Depending on which price you use, you can even get up to 55 percent. But this type of math is speculative and has limitations. For one, it does not take into account sliding payment scales for patients or reflect costs absorbed by insurance.

Another way to calculate is by the number of total patients. Recall Planned Parenthood health centers saw 2.7 million patients (men and women) in 2013. If the 327,653 abortion procedures were given to individual patients, patients who received abortions would account for 12 percent of total patients.

There were 4.6 million clinical visits in 2013. If each woman who received an abortion visited the clinic only once for the procedure, abortions comprised 7 percent of visits that year. If each woman visited twice (a Q&A on the Web site says women need to schedule a follow-up appointment after an abortion), abortions comprised 14 percent of visits. But there is no way of knowing an accurate figure beyond the 7 percent.

Neither organization provided an on-the-record statement about their methodology to The Fact Checker.


The Pinocchio Test


The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is.

The 94 percent figure that Susan B. Anthony List uses also is misleading, comparing abortion services to two other types of services that pregnant women receive through Planned Parenthood. But we don’t know how many pregnant women Planned Parenthood serves every year or how many they refer to private providers for prenatal care, because the organization does not report that information.

With limited data, there is no accurate way to measure how much of Planned Parenthood’s activities comprise abortions. Both sides are using meaningless and incomplete comparisons to make their argument, and the public should wary of both figures. Thus, both receive Three Pinocchios.

While Planned Parenthood has no legal obligation to make its data more public, it is unfortunate that the public has limited access to data about the organization. Planned Parenthood could end the speculation–and Pinocchios–by providing a more transparent breakdown of its clients, referrals and sources of revenues.

Three Pinocchios

I think you have nailed the problem. It should be about not forcing anyone, including those who oppose abortion to do anything. You have placed the responsibility on those who oppose abortion rather than on the pregnant woman and the abortion provider.



I believe you are correct here. It is more than just irresponsibility and bad choices. It is should the government be responsible.


I believe you have again identified a problem and came to an incorrect solution. Many people make bad choices and the consequences are lower wages. Governments try to control wages by subsidizing the workers with welfare and other social services that those who can afford them pay for themselves. It is not some noble cause the government is enacting. It is a selfish and self serving act it is taking. People become dependent upon government assistance and will never act to remove it. That empowers the government to take even more actions. Businesses are perfectly fine acting to reduce labor costs. That is a legitimate function of a business. However, when the government can regulate and disrupt commerce, it can create a corrupt system not unlike the Nazi economy of the 1930's. In order to do business, you must do business with me says the government. So what do businesses do? They do business with the government. The overreach by the government is the problem not the businesses.


I am not against abortions on some moral grounds. I oppose abortion on the grounds that the government by providing funding for abortions violates it's purpose to defend the liberties of it's citizens. The argument that it costs more in the long run if we do not care for those with irresponsible behaviors is fallacious. The cost is only a burden when it is imposed on society by the government. It is not a cost to me until it is forced upon me.

[/quote]

All this talk of Living Wages and Dollars and cents over Human Life is disgusting.

Stop the slaughter first, handle the money later.

Again, the government does not fund or subsidize abortions.

Jack,

Government does fund and support abortion. Any money sent to an abortion provider is supporting and funding abortion. I believe that the government should not be in the reproductive service industry in any fashion. I am against giving government funded contraceptives and I am against the government giving any reproductive services to anyone. It is not the business of the government to do so. I am NOT against reproductive services being provided to women or men. I am against the government being involved. If Planned Parenthood cannot exist without government financial support, it cannot then claim that it is a service the citizens need.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Because current U.S. policy states that federal funds don't go towards it. There was a time when certain funding was granted for cases of rape, incest and risk of death, but in recent years its been geared more towards a hands off federal approach, with individual states making that decision. There are currently 17 state governments that do fund abortions. Four have done it through votes, and the rest have been interpreted by the states respective Supreme Courts. I fail to see how it is a violation of citizens' collective liberties any more than state funds going to a casino or building a new stadium. We all have things we wish weren't funded by our state governments. The beauty of our system is that it's possible to enact change, especially on a state level. We have the liberty to attempt to enact change through several avenues.

Jack, any funds from the Federal government given to any provider of abortions supports abortion. States are not restricted as the Federal government is. There is no Federal need for abortions, contraception, gynecologist appointments, etc. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, you could make a case for or against state involvement into contraception, abortion, etc., that is a different story all together.

Your talk about enacting change is taking place now. States are revolting against the Federal government. States have come out now to ban government funding for Planned Parenthood. The Federal government policy is that the states will be in violation of Federal law by doing so. The 10th Amendment is violated by the Federal law. So, if the Federal government claims that any state defunding of Planned Parenthood is against Federal law, the Federal government is defacto funding abortion through Planned Parenthood.

The entire argument that it is against Federal policy to have a hands off policy towards abortion is a farce. The Federal government includes the Congress, Executive, and Judicial branches. Can you honestly claim that Congress takes a hands off approach to abortion when it passes legislation to fund Planned Parenthood? You do not want to make the claim that the Executive branch policy is hands off do you? The President has made it clear he supports Planned Parenthood. The Courts are not hands off. The Roe v. Wade decision itself is evidence of this. If the court policy was hands off, there would be no Roe v. Wade decision. Any claim that denying funding to Planned Parenthood is a violation of Women's Rights can not be a laissez-faire policy.

The federal government gives Planned Parenthood $500 million a year, PP performs abortions.

By that logic, I can set up a camp for ISIS, give them a place to live and feed them.. but as long as I don't buy them guns I'm not supporting terrorism.

Or, say you have a friend that is a drug user. You absolutely will not fund or subsidize his drug use. You won't buy him heroin. But, you make his house payment for him.

What's that do? Frees up his mortgage payment for him to spend elsewhere.

Sure, you could go down that logical rabbit hole with any number of things. Defense funding could be tied to providing pornography and condoms for troops. But in the instance of Planned Parenthood specifically, the best course of action would be to look at their pricing model in comparison with other entities that don't receive federal subsidy. If you look at things like contraceptives and STD screening, the cost of using PP versus other services shows a considerable difference (due to government subsidy). Abortion services at PP price out roughly the same (in some areas higher) than other providers who receive no federal funding. So while you can certainly make the argument using the above logic, the math doesn't exactly back it up.

The Government enables abortions, but that doesn't mean it pays for them. Major difference.

Jack, nothing about PP is cheaper. If I subsidize a service. I do not make it cheaper. I make it more affordable for the end user. That is NOT, I repeat NOT the role of government. If I am unwilling to pay for an abortion for my daughter, what logic is there to compel me to pay for my neighbor's daughter to have an abortion? The fact of how much something costs or the usefulness it has in society is a straw man argument. The cost can be debated both in finances and social costs. The usefulness of services can be challenged again on moral and social grounds. It is not a good argument to say that it is better to have the government subsidize abortions than to not have the government subsidize them because they preform other services that are more expensive elsewhere if not subsidized. If you support government subsidies to Planned Parenthood, you cannot then logically deny subsidies to any other social service regardless of what it is. We should then subsidize local drug dealers, local corner stores, lottery tickets, bars etc.... They all serve a social service. Why stop at abortion clinics? It is absurd to equate abortion with drug dealers, lottery tickets, bars etc... I know but what other social services would you accept subsidies for? The role of the government should be curtained not expanded. It is offensive to think that my liberties are secondary to someone's reproductive healthcare. I am NOT my brother or sister's keeper. I do not want to be. I cannot accept your premise that I should be their keeper.

When I speak of liberties, I mean financial, moral, legal, any form of liberty I have. I should not be forced to associate with organizations I do not wish to associate. My reasons for my disassociation is not the concern of the government. I want to be left to live my life, care for my family, enjoy my leisure time without having to answer to some government lackey who cares nothing about me or my family. He/she cares nothing about those unfortunate souls, the downtrodden, the needy. He/she cares only about the ability to compel another citizen to bend to their will. It is tyranny if not on a grand scale, on a smaller scale.

j/c...

This could have gone in the Presidential thread, but this seemed as equally appropriate.

Carson: No apologies for using fetal tissue research

By David Jackson 6 hours ago

GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson has a strong following among conservatives.

Presidential candidate and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson has done research on fetal tissue from aborted fetuses, despite his criticism of the practice that has been at the center of a dispute over Planned Parenthood.

“Perhaps Dr. Carson feels that only his work delivered the goods and all other researchers have produced inconsequential work,” writes Dr. Jen Gunter in her blog, citing a paper signed by Carson and others describing research using “human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.”

Gunter added: “Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue? Convenient I suppose if you are a Presidential hopeful and want to use your doctor credentials to get prime Fox and Brietbart space and there is a fetal-tissue-for-research issue.”

Carson, who supports eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood because it supplies fetal tissue, has said that medical research does not require aborted fetuses. He recently told Fox News that the benefits of fetal tissue have been “over-promised” but “very much under-delivered.”

In her article, Gunter quoted Carson as saying: “At 17 weeks, you’ve got a nice little nose and little fingers and hands and the heart’s beating. It can respond to environmental stimulus. How can you believe that that’s just a[n] irrelevant mass of cells? That’s what they want you to believe, when in fact it is a human being.”

In an interview with The Washington Post, Carson said the obligations of medical research are different:

“Bear this in mind about pathologists. Regardless of what their ideology is, when they receive tissue, they prepare the tissue. They label it. They mark how it got there. Regardless of whether it’s from a fetus or someone who’s 150 years old, they bank them in tissue blocks. Other people doing comparative research need to have a basis. When pathologists receive specimen, their job is to prepare the specimen. They have no job opining on where the tissue came from.”

He added: “My primary responsibility in that research was when I operated on people and obtained the tissue … This has everything to do with how it’s acquired. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.”

Article

Hard to argue against that. . .

Here we go again. You are antiabortion, but you have no qualms about babies dying as a result of drone strikes or military action on our part. Cause that's what our Lord and savior advocated. Oops, didn't mean to bring religion into it, honestly.

ROTFLMFAO if you really believe that I got some great beach front property Kansas to sell you.

The government's involvement in funding abortions is minimal. The Hyde amendment was passed immediately after Roe v Wade gave women the legal right to abortions within the first trimester and eliminated government funding of abortions. The pro-life opposition to abortions is based on shaming and name calling of specific people, namely women. The opposition consistently refuses to allow pro-active resources for women, and poor women in particular, to avoid unwanted pregnancies and they have pressured elected representatives on state levels to significantly eliminate access to legal abortions and the same activists happily wave flags for killing people in other countries, often calling for the nuking of countries. These opposing opinions and attitudes of the so-called pro-lifers(?) violate any credibility to their claim of wanting to save babies and shows that this cult of the so-called religious demand that our government seize the responsibility for oppressing women and the needy.

When considering government spending on the taking of lives it's easy to argue that our over spending on defense is unnecessary, immoral and has caused an incredibly simple means for the taking of lives with no conscience, yet pro-lifers(?) have no qualms in the murdering of, completely developed beyond the fetus, lives of foreigners. Our funding of unjustifiable defense resources and killing of innocents is intertwined with the success of our economy. If we cut spending on the ridiculous boondoggles corporations have designed to earn blood money our economy takes a beating.

Where are the pro-lifers on this issue???????
_______________

Legislating for allowing and justifying companies and corporations to pay a significantly lower minimum wage than past minimum wages is equally immoral and is hurtful to our economy. The same pro-life(?) politicians who campaign against living wages, welfare and pro-active resources for preventing unwanted pregnancies gleefully pass legislation for corporate welfare that completely over-shadows any spending on social welfare and is in unconscionable violation of capitalistic ideals. Giving a corporation welfare money only serves the corporation to become lazy and dependent on our taxes and shows this radical group's obvious acceptance of our government grabbing the responsibility to spend precious funds to improve corporate profits.
_______________

The obvious agenda of the extremist radical conservative theocracy/plutocracy is a penny wise pound foolish disregard for proactive policies that would lower the need for the abortions they claim they want to stop and much of the social welfare funds we currently spend on the lives they demand should be born. Their far end agenda is designed to punish women and the poor and to make rich corporations richer. They use faux religious doctrine, political double speak, name calling and shaming as a means to win public support for their selfish ideals that resemble the goals of the Spanish inquisitions more than the goals of our American society and our founding fathers. They're VERY happy to utilize the same government to achieve these goals that they campaign for limiting it's influence.

The representatives of the radical right have become lazy and dependent on the corporations that have become lazy and dependent on the representatives who they have paid to minimize support for women and the needy in order to minimize their need to pull themselves up by their own gold plated boot-straps.

A superb example of the complete lack of credibility of the lunatic fringe.

Ben Carson Was Confronted With His Histo...Makes No Sense.

GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson is struggling to explain what makes Planned Parenthood’s facilitation of fetal tissue donation different than his own brain research, which has also relied on samples from aborted fetuses.

Carson, a former neurosurgeon, used 17-week-old fetal tissue samples in a 1992 study seeking to better understand the development of the brain. That revelation, which was published on Dr. Jen Gunter’s blog on Wednesday night, is leading reporters to question why the GOP candidate called fetal tissue research “disturbing” in the wake of several inflammatory videos depicting Planned Parenthood employees collecting biological material from aborted fetuses.

After a right-wing group first published footage suggesting Planned Parenthood was “selling aborted baby parts,” Carson strongly condemned the organization. He told Fox News that the scientific benefits of fetal research have been “overpromised” and “under-delivered.” He also said that 17-week-old fetuses are human beings, saying, “How can you believe that that’s just an irrelevant mass of cells?”

On Thursday, Carson defended himself to the Washington Post, suggesting that his 1992 study was based on a different “intent” than Planned Parenthood’s work.

“You have to look at the intent,” Carson said. “To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.”

Carson told the Washington Post that fetal tissue research is not immoral and should not be banned. He said that he believes Planned Parenthood should be defunded, but he declined to specify whether the group should end its collection of fetal tissue donations.

Instead, he pivoted to his belief that Planned Parenthood’s founder wanted to eradicate African Americans, a characterization that historians dispute. “I may not be completely objective about Planned Parenthood, because I know how they started with Margaret Sanger who believed in eugenics,” Carson said.

Medical experts say that fetal tissue samples help them study the development of the human body in order to create better treatments for degenerative diseases, like Alzheimer’s. Material from aborted fetuses was also instrumental in the development of major vaccines. This week, writing in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, one bioethicist argues that it’s immoral to stand in the way of fetal tissue research because that opposition undermines scientific developments that could save lives.

Gee, perhaps if they kill enough kids and harvest their parts they will develop a supplement You can take with breakfast that makes you live 10 years longer.

Many people I know had spinal surgery to implant a cadaver bone, big diff from killing some guy to harvest his bones.
Stop the Slaughter.

j/c

A general question to anyone, regarding the defunding initiative:


What possible good can come from eliminating a social service agency that does 97% of its work in non-controversial ways?

I truly hate this 'all or nuttin'/'throw the baby out with the bathwater' approach to policy.

Most people I know conduct their lives in a much more temperate, considered manner. If there is a problem at work or in the home, they generally try to surgically fix what's "bad" without trash-canning the entire setup.

A whole lot of women (and some men) in this country rely on this service for so much more than abortions. The raw numbers suggest that many (if not most) of them have benefited from PP without EVER undergoing an abortion procedure (which, by the way, is NOT subsidized by Fed dollars).

So- again I ask: how does hamstringing (or completely closing down) a service like this make America better?

I am not against funding Women's Health care.

PP has been caught doing the unthinkable so maybe they should be cut off. There are other Women's health care places to pick up the slack if PP goes under.. Also, maybe a new one will open.

Planned Parenthood has been caught and filmed killing kids and harvesting their parts. They say it is with the Woman's permission but a new video has just come out showing they will reach over and harvest dead kids parts without permission because they need them to fill the quota.

I can't think of anything in History to compare this Culture of Death too. Is this how we want to be remembered? Will they be digging up our graves in the future like they are doing with Confederate Generals and their families today? Are we the slave owners of our generation?

We already know what happens when states pull funding from PP:

http://m.mic.com/articles/123459/jeb-bus...-women-s-health

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-defunded-planned-parenthood-congress-learn/story?id=32807130

Spoiler - it's not good as women (as well as men) lose access to healthcare providers.

With Obamacare shoved down our throats, is this even still an issue? Everyone is covered now, so everyone can find a provider. Nobody needs bargain or subsidized providers.