Defund Planned Parenthood?

[Immanuel]

ummmmmm, where did you get the money in your rest of your budget? From people DONATING their own money to planned parenthood, so NO you did not use federal money.

It is all slight of hand sweet heart. I was going to provide the testing one way or another out of my budget. Now you generously give me a million dollars. That means that I now have another million dollars and can provide another million dollars worth of abortions.

By the way, in this case, PP, much of the other funding also comes from the government in other grants.

Immie

And most of your arguement is nothing but semantics.

Well, at least I can spell argument and know what semantics means.

It is not semantics. It is "creative accounting" and I doubt you have much of an idea what that means either.

Immie

 

[blu]

Don't you think the article is lacking in pertinent information immie and that it did such, PURPOSELY....otherwise they would have linked to their info and analysis imo?

look at the "newspaper" it is from and then you know your answer

 

[pans trogladyta]

Well, at least I can spell argument and know what semantics means.

It is not semantics. It is "creative accounting" and I doubt you have much of an idea what that means either.

Immie

O, the english nazi arguement. I can spell better then you! This is not english class I do not lose points for errors. By the way your rebuttal still sounds like semantics.

 

[pans trogladyta]

As a side note, since abortion is part of the topic, studies show that access to quality, affordable post-natal care, has a strong downward effect on abortion numbers. Also the better educated a women is the more likely she will put off pregnancy until she is ready for children. Access to proper contraception is also a factor.

 

[uscitizen]

All we need is more babies to fix all our problems.

 

[Immanuel]

Well, at least I can spell argument and know what semantics means.

It is not semantics. It is "creative accounting" and I doubt you have much of an idea what that means either.

Immie

O, the english nazi arguement. I can spell better then you! This is not english class I do not lose points for errors. By the way your rebuttal still sounds like semantics.

No, not a NAZI, just giving you a hard time, because you felt it so necessary to attack me when you know absolutely nothing about me or my beliefs. Hell, if you had even read all of this thread you would see more about my point of view than you obviously have seen to date.

I might suggest though that you find a dictionary... go to dictionary.com even and look up semantics.

Immie

 

[pans trogladyta]

No, not a NAZI, just giving you a hard time, because you felt it so necessary to attack me when you know absolutely nothing about me or my beliefs.

There's a difference? What attack? I didn't say a word about your beliefs, only that I thought you were argueing semantics. If you call that an attack you definitely haven't been on these boards very long.

Hell, if you had even read all of this thread you would see more about my point of view than you obviously have seen to date.

I might suggest though that you find a dictionary... go to dictionary.com even and look up semantics.

Immie

I believe I have used the word properly, and you have given me no reson to think otherwise.

 

[Ravi]

All we need is more babies to fix all our problems.

Unless they're brown, of course.

 

[Immanuel]

No, not a NAZI, just giving you a hard time, because you felt it so necessary to attack me when you know absolutely nothing about me or my beliefs.

There's a difference? What attack? I didn't say a word about your beliefs, only that I thought you were argueing semantics. If you call that an attack you definitely haven't been on these boards very long.

Hell, if you had even read all of this thread you would see more about my point of view than you obviously have seen to date.

I might suggest though that you find a dictionary... go to dictionary.com even and look up semantics.

Immie

I believe I have used the word properly, and you have given me no reson to think otherwise.

Haven't been on these boards long? Hahahaha, have you bothered to look at how long I have been on this board? This is about the fourth or fifth board I have been on and only the latest. Been around for ten years or so and Care4all has been a dear friend of mine since right after finding my way onto these madhouses.

If you want to discuss the subject of the thread, I'd love to and love to get to know you a little better newbie.

In the meantime, I'll wait for you to actually discuss the topic and for me to have something to say to you about it. I did see that while I was making my last post, you made a comment. Since I don't disagree with it and have nothing to argue about it, don't feel like I am ignoring you in regards to that post.

By the way, welcome to USMB, I'm the resident pain in the ass, just ask Care4all. Please forgive my gruff response to your first post.

Immie

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is reprehensible to oppose abortion and to oppose universal preventative healthcare! I don't like abortion, but I also don't like to see kids raised in poverty who are unable to benefit from the level of healthcare available in the United States.
As I posted, those who oppose abortion based on a moral positon, and support politically those who would deny women free healthcare education, free contraception, free pre-natal care and free post-natal well baby checks are reprehensible.
There is much more I might add to the debate on abortion, but true believers don't really want to consider the consequences of a total ban.

 

[Immanuel]

It is reprehensible to oppose abortion and to oppose universal preventative healthcare! I don't like abortion, but I also don't like to see kids raised in poverty who are unable to benefit from the level of healthcare available in the United States.
As I posted, those who oppose abortion based on a moral positon, and support politically those who would deny women free healthcare education, free contraception, free pre-natal care and free post-natal well baby checks are reprehensible.
There is much more I might add to the debate on abortion, but true believers don't really want to consider the consequences of a total ban.

A ban would do nothing to reduce the number of abortions. Rather it would drive it underground, make it less safe (if safe is the correct word) and more than likely lead to more deaths. Not only the death of the fetus, but the deaths of many scared young ladies.

If we all would (or could?) toss the politicians out of the picture in this debate, we might actually get somewhere to solving the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

Suffice it to say that if I thought banning abortion would do any good at all, I would still be for the idea. I do not believe that an outright ban would accomplish the goal of fewer abortions and thus would prefer we worked out the issue by other means.

Immie

 

[Luissa]

NO they should not be defunded, mostly because they provide more birth control and STD tests than they do abortions.

 

[Immanuel]

NO they should not be defunded, mostly because they provide more birth control and STD tests than they do abortions.

Not fair!

When they issue birth control packs, there are thirty pills to a package so you must be counting each pill as birth control and giving BC right there a 30:1 advantage. IUD's of course would be a 1:1 ratio.

Now, in all seriousness, I'd like to see your source for that statement and how you come up with that information rather than to just take your word for it.

Immie

 

[Luissa]

NO they should not be defunded, mostly because they provide more birth control and STD tests than they do abortions.

Not fair!

When they issue birth control packs, there are thirty pills to a package so you must be counting each pill as birth control and giving BC right there a 30:1 advantage. IUD's of course would be a 1:1 ratio.

Now, in all seriousness, I'd like to see your source for that statement and how you come up with that information rather than to just take your word for it.

Immie

Well giving the fact I have gone to Planned Parenthood many times, and have seen the regular waiting room, and the waiting room for women recieving abortions on multiple occasions. Plus there is the whole fact at most Planned Parenthoods they don't perform abortions every day of the week, but are open five days a week it is somewhat easy to figure out.

But here ya go!

Planned Parenthood describes itself as "the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider." In 2007, contraception constituted 36% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 31%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 11%, and approximately 3% of total procedures involved surgical and medical abortions.[6] Planned Parenthood affiliates performed 305,310 medical and surgical abortions in 2007, up from 289,750 in 2006.[7]
Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Immanuel]

NO they should not be defunded, mostly because they provide more birth control and STD tests than they do abortions.

Not fair!

When they issue birth control packs, there are thirty pills to a package so you must be counting each pill as birth control and giving BC right there a 30:1 advantage. IUD's of course would be a 1:1 ratio.

Now, in all seriousness, I'd like to see your source for that statement and how you come up with that information rather than to just take your word for it.

Immie

Well giving the fact I have gone to Planned Parenthood many times, and have seen the regular waiting room, and the waiting room for women recieving abortions on multiple occasions. Plus there is the whole fact at most Planned Parenthoods they don't perform abortions every day of the week, but are open five days a week it is somewhat easy to figure out.

But here ya go!

Planned Parenthood describes itself as "the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider." In 2007, contraception constituted 36% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 31%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 11%, and approximately 3% of total procedures involved surgical and medical abortions.[6] Planned Parenthood affiliates performed 305,310 medical and surgical abortions in 2007, up from 289,750 in 2006.[7]
Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) Did you notice the wink? I was just having fun with you. See the ratios I used. 30:1? Come on, if you didn't realize I was just having fun...

Okay, back to the seriousness, so, do you think that those percentages are numbers of people served or income provided by those services?

My guess is that it is number of individuals served based on the fact that so much of their income comes from grants and donations, one would hope that the number of individuals served with abortions would be a small percentage. After all, we don't want PP and the government promoting abortions now do we?

Immie

 

[Coyote]

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood and similar organizations raises more questions than it answers about the nation's largest abortion chain.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America's (PPFA) audits show the organization spent just $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs, but the abortion behemoth's own annual reports show that it took in $2.3 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.

That's not pocket change. Why the discrepancy?

The report (the first of its kind since 2002) was released in response to a request from 31 U.S. senators and representatives and in an atmosphere increasingly hostile to abortion. Not surprisingly. then, its findings are fueling an escalating outcry to defund Planned Parenthood.

DILLER: Planned Parenthood's missing millions - Washington Times

Anyone surprised?

Given the toxic partisan atmosphere, I'm not surprised one bit that they are now targeting PP after ACORN.

Is there merit? Based on that alone, I'd say "no".

 

[chanel]

Really? I happen to support the goals of PP, as they market themselves. However as Ravi astutely noted, it sounds a lot like the scam at Acorn. That's a lot of mssing moolah. They need oversight or they will have to survive on contributions by their biggest supporters like other non profits. Govt cheese is getting stinky.

 

[Coyote]

Really? I happen to support the goals of PP, as they market themselves. However as Ravi astutely noted, it sounds a lot like the scam at Acorn. That's a lot of mssing moolah. They need oversight or they will have to survive on contributions by their biggest supporters like other non profits. Govt cheese is getting stinky.

Oversight - I don't necessarily have a problem with except oversight tends to get involved in more than money, but what the group does.

Thing is - as the dust settles....what did ACORN actually do wrong?

 

[Modbert]

Gee, now the same people who got ACORN defunded (despite the fact there was never any convictions against them) are now trying to do the same against PP.

I know someone who is a convicted criminal though, James O'Keefe, who plea bargained himself out of a longer sentence by handing over the original ACORN tapes. Turns out they were severely edited, but then again, those same people trying to defund these groups weren't interested in the truth in the first place.

 

[Coyote]

Gee, now the same people who got ACORN defunded (despite the fact there was never any convictions against them) are now trying to do the same against PP.

I know someone who is a convicted criminal though, James O'Keefe, who plea bargained himself out of a longer sentence by handing over the original ACORN tapes. Turns out they were severely edited, but then again, those same people trying to defund these groups weren't interested in the truth in the first place.

That is suspiciously what it sounds like to me....


Interesting about the editing - do you have a link on that? Notice that it wasn't in the news much....makes you wonder about this horrible leftwing media bias.