Expose Planned Parenthood, Get a Felony

[IcebergSlim]

Nonsense. He was a monster and did not give medical care to poor women.

THAT is the real reason RWNJs hate PP - they provide health care to women who cannot afford expensive doctors.

Not one of you MEN have adopted unwanted babies. Not one of you has any business commenting on the issue of abortion. Its simply none of your business and the only reason you "care" is that you want to control women.

MYOB

Well considering women can't get drafted, does that mean they have no say when it comes to National Defense?

Do non-firefighters have no say when it comes to firefighting budgets?

My status as an american citizen allows my opinion and vote to count for anything I want it to, or that is up for debate or vote.

So take your "its none of your business" shit and cram it into your empty skull. (I didn't say cram it up your ass because you would probably enjoy that)

Men can't currently be drafted either, you fucking idiot...

If a draft is reimposed BET that women will be included.

If a draft is reimposed BET that women will be included.

Considering women dont' have to sign up for Selective Service, I highly doubt that

That has been under active review.

Been under 'active' review since the 70s.

I'm not overly worried about my granddaughter getting drafted...

can't say the same about my grandsons

Wrong....

Selective Service Systems > Registration > Women And Draft

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of January 2016, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.

 

[martybegan]

Awwwww. The rightie snowflakes are crying because some of their thugs got busted for their sleaze. Again. And this time, it's not in Texas, where a smirking corrupt Republican DA can disregard the grand jury and refuse to prosecute. It's in a low-corruption blue state, which means the criminals won't walk.

It was a given that the righties here would excuse any crime by a fellow righty. Their motto is "It's never a crime if a Republican does it." Their partisan hackery is complete, their devotion to TheParty total. Such good little Stalinists.

So you believe investigative journalism should be banned? That California can violate the 1st amendment just because in this case doing so helps a cause you like

What a fucking asshole you are.

You need to familiarize yourself with the legal aspects of patient information....

what does patient information have to do with this?

My bad....the violation involves the privacy rights of those who were recorded without their consent.

Try doing so at home....

The person is involved in a conversation with a 2nd party, and willingly so. That the 2nd party is there under false pretenses is irrelevant. Recording the conversation is a record that documents said conversation, which again involves 2 parties.

How is privacy involved, and more importantly, how does it override the right to a free press?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

All hospitals and all research facilities do this.

No laws were broken.

Why are RWNJs after the PP?

Because they serve poor women.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Awwwww. The rightie snowflakes are crying because some of their thugs got busted for their sleaze. Again. And this time, it's not in Texas, where a smirking corrupt Republican DA can disregard the grand jury and refuse to prosecute. It's in a low-corruption blue state, which means the criminals won't walk.

It was a given that the righties here would excuse any crime by a fellow righty. Their motto is "It's never a crime if a Republican does it." Their partisan hackery is complete, their devotion to TheParty total. Such good little Stalinists.

So you believe investigative journalism should be banned? That California can violate the 1st amendment just because in this case doing so helps a cause you like

What a fucking asshole you are.

Who said investigative journalism should be banned? At the same time, that doesn't give license to break the law.

The law in questions basically prevents undercover journalism from being recorded, thus putting a serious crimp in investigative journalism.

The law itself is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of press.

WTF?

How is the press Constitutionally free to violate individuals' Constitutional rights? And what limitations would you impose on the press? Should they be allowed to break into peoples' homes under the guise of investigations? Should they be allowed to physically assault people under the umbrella of investigation?

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public).


7 Rules for Recording Police

 

[mamooth]

Gosnell did not target minority women?

And he was a creation of the pro-life movement. Drive away all the good doctors, the hacks move in. Your policies created Gosnell, and the policies you want to push would create more Gosnells.

He's your boy. Own him, and be proud of Dr. Gosnell, the pro-life poster child. After all, if pro-lifers had their way, every abortion doctor would be a Dr. Gosnell.

 

[Auld Phart]

Well considering women can't get drafted, does that mean they have no say when it comes to National Defense?

Do non-firefighters have no say when it comes to firefighting budgets?

My status as an american citizen allows my opinion and vote to count for anything I want it to, or that is up for debate or vote.

So take your "its none of your business" shit and cram it into your empty skull. (I didn't say cram it up your ass because you would probably enjoy that)

Men can't currently be drafted either, you fucking idiot...

If a draft is reimposed BET that women will be included.

If a draft is reimposed BET that women will be included.

Considering women dont' have to sign up for Selective Service, I highly doubt that

That has been under active review.

Been under 'active' review since the 70s.

I'm not overly worried about my granddaughter getting drafted...

can't say the same about my grandsons

Wrong....

Selective Service Systems > Registration > Women And Draft

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of January 2016, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.

Bud, I said it has been under 'active' review since the 70s, and I spent 20 years in the service listening to rumors it was going to happen.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Awwwww. The rightie snowflakes are crying because some of their thugs got busted for their sleaze. Again. And this time, it's not in Texas, where a smirking corrupt Republican DA can disregard the grand jury and refuse to prosecute. It's in a low-corruption blue state, which means the criminals won't walk.

It was a given that the righties here would excuse any crime by a fellow righty. Their motto is "It's never a crime if a Republican does it." Their partisan hackery is complete, their devotion to TheParty total. Such good little Stalinists.

So you believe investigative journalism should be banned? That California can violate the 1st amendment just because in this case doing so helps a cause you like

What a fucking asshole you are.

You need to familiarize yourself with the legal aspects of patient information....

what does patient information have to do with this?

My bad....the violation involves the privacy rights of those who were recorded without their consent.

Try doing so at home....

The person is involved in a conversation with a 2nd party, and willingly so. That the 2nd party is there under false pretenses is irrelevant. Recording the conversation is a record that documents said conversation, which again involves 2 parties.

How is privacy involved, and more importantly, how does it override the right to a free press?

Free Press is not license to violate privacy laws....

Just ask Gawker.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Men can't currently be drafted either, you fucking idiot...

If a draft is reimposed BET that women will be included.

If a draft is reimposed BET that women will be included.

Considering women dont' have to sign up for Selective Service, I highly doubt that

That has been under active review.

Been under 'active' review since the 70s.

I'm not overly worried about my granddaughter getting drafted...

can't say the same about my grandsons

Wrong....

Selective Service Systems > Registration > Women And Draft

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of January 2016, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.

Bud, I said it has been under 'active' review since the 70s, and I spent 20 years in the service listening to rumors it was going to happen.

Who am I gonna believe, eh?

The debate over women in combat has raged for decades....the various institutional impediments have only recently been addressed...

 

[Auld Phart]

Considering women dont' have to sign up for Selective Service, I highly doubt that

That has been under active review.

Been under 'active' review since the 70s.

I'm not overly worried about my granddaughter getting drafted...

can't say the same about my grandsons

Wrong....

Selective Service Systems > Registration > Women And Draft

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of January 2016, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.

Bud, I said it has been under 'active' review since the 70s, and I spent 20 years in the service listening to rumors it was going to happen.

Who am I gonna believe, eh?

The debate over women in combat has raged for decades....the various institutional impediments have only recently been addressed...

The debate over women in combat has raged for decades....

Thank you for finally getting it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And the far right ^^^ fascists wail because they are caught yet again.

You do realize the ACLU has issues with "two party consent" wiretap laws, as they infringe on journalists ability to do investigative reporting, right?

Is the ACLU alt-right now?

ACLU was founded by Communists. They are communists, they're not going to say anything about this case.

Its just stunning to see how little RWNJs know about ACLU as well as how eager they are to trash the Constitution.

 

[Votto]

Gosnell did not target minority women?

And he was a creation of the pro-life movement. Drive away all the good doctors, the hacks move in. Your policies created Gosnell, and the policies you want to push would create more Gosnells.

He's your boy. Own him, and be proud of Dr. Gosnell, the pro-life poster child. After all, if pro-lifers had their way, every abortion doctor would be a Dr. Gosnell.

Wait...wut?

He was an abortion doctor. I'm against abortion

He violated health standards for which I support.

I know, let's use logic when we converse.

Deal?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Wrong.

No laws have been broken by PP. All hospitals and all research facilities do this.

The only reason RWNJs target PP is that they serve poor women.

 

[mamooth]

I know, let's use logic when we converse.

As you apparently believe that making something illegal or very difficult to get will remove the demand for it, I don't see you using any logic.

Your policies created Gosnell. You not admitting to it doesn't change that fact.

 

[IcebergSlim]

That has been under active review.

Been under 'active' review since the 70s.

I'm not overly worried about my granddaughter getting drafted...

can't say the same about my grandsons

Wrong....

Selective Service Systems > Registration > Women And Draft

Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”

As of January 2016, there has been NO decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.

Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.

Bud, I said it has been under 'active' review since the 70s, and I spent 20 years in the service listening to rumors it was going to happen.

Who am I gonna believe, eh?

The debate over women in combat has raged for decades....the various institutional impediments have only recently been addressed...

The debate over women in combat has raged for decades....

Thank you for finally getting it.

But that wasn't at issue....

Thanks for playing.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Gosnell did not target minority women?

And he was a creation of the pro-life movement. Drive away all the good doctors, the hacks move in. Your policies created Gosnell, and the policies you want to push would create more Gosnells.

He's your boy. Own him, and be proud of Dr. Gosnell, the pro-life poster child. After all, if pro-lifers had their way, every abortion doctor would be a Dr. Gosnell.

Wait...wut?

He was an abortion doctor. I'm against abortion

He violated health standards for which I support.

I know, let's use logic when we converse.

Deal?

I know, let's use logic when we converse.

Sure....do you believe making abortion illegal will end the practice?


He violated health standards for which I support.

Whatever.....

 

[Votto]

I know, let's use logic when we converse.

As you apparently believe that making something illegal or very difficult to get will remove the demand for it, I don't see you using any logic.

Your policies created Gosnell. You not admitting to it doesn't change that fact.

I never said that making it illegal will remove the demand for it. Murder is illegal and it continues as well.

YOUR policies of abortion at any time for any reason, even if it is a minor who can't take so much as an aspirin from a school nurse but can have an abortion without their parents consent, is what is to blame

You are an advocate and apologist for mass murder. Deal with it you little Nazi.

Gosnell should have been forced into back alleys to do abortions rather than posing as an actual legitimate health care provider.

He targeted poor women, which usually meant minorities, because they were less likely to defend themselves legally due to financial reasons or simply because they were ignorant of their rights.

YOU are an advocate of killing off black folk, which is why Planned Parenthood was created by Margaret Sanger.


"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with


social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most

successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro

population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if

it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

-- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255

Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith

Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in

Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth

Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

 

[martybegan]

So you believe investigative journalism should be banned? That California can violate the 1st amendment just because in this case doing so helps a cause you like

What a fucking asshole you are.

Who said investigative journalism should be banned? At the same time, that doesn't give license to break the law.

The law in questions basically prevents undercover journalism from being recorded, thus putting a serious crimp in investigative journalism.

The law itself is an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of press.

WTF?

How is the press Constitutionally free to violate individuals' Constitutional rights? And what limitations would you impose on the press? Should they be allowed to break into peoples' homes under the guise of investigations? Should they be allowed to physically assault people under the umbrella of investigation?

Argumentum ad absurdum, the first resort of the idiot.

The California law bans recording a person without their consent. This basically eliminates the ability of journalists to go undercover and record any interactions when they do a sting operation. How does a person have a right to not have their conversation recorded? It;s not like they are by themselves, there is another party involved, albeit under false pretenses, but again, that is the crux of undercover journalism.

You haven't answered the question of how an undercover journalist is supposed to function properly under a "2 person consent" recording law, and why that law is constitutional.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public).


7 Rules for Recording Police

None of those laws should apply to government actors, and all of them are unconstitutional because they restrict a free press.

 

[martybegan]

So you believe investigative journalism should be banned? That California can violate the 1st amendment just because in this case doing so helps a cause you like

What a fucking asshole you are.

You need to familiarize yourself with the legal aspects of patient information....

what does patient information have to do with this?

My bad....the violation involves the privacy rights of those who were recorded without their consent.

Try doing so at home....

The person is involved in a conversation with a 2nd party, and willingly so. That the 2nd party is there under false pretenses is irrelevant. Recording the conversation is a record that documents said conversation, which again involves 2 parties.

How is privacy involved, and more importantly, how does it override the right to a free press?

Free Press is not license to violate privacy laws....

Just ask Gawker.

So again, how are undercover journalists supposed to prove the results of their investigation?

 

[mamooth]

YOU are an advocate of killing off black folk, which is why Planned Parenthood was created by Margaret Sanger.

Lying about Sanger now, Votto? That's the last gasp of the desperate.

If you read that Sanger quote, she's saying that race-baiting political hacks would lie about her work, and steps should be taken to head that off. And here you are, lying about her work. Wise woman, that Sanger, the way she foresaw race-baiting political hacks like you lying about her work.

Sanger was regarded as a hero by DuBois, Bethune, MLK, and all the black leaders of the era. How do you explain that, little race-baiter? Were the black leaders in cahoots with her trying to exterminate blacks? Were they all stupid people fooled by that evil white woman? Please, give us your conspiracy theory that explains it. Go on, toss out all the race cards that you have.

Oh, if you'd like, go to the pro-liar websites and copy and paste their lists of faked Sanger quotes. I adore ripping those to shreds. Says a lot about a movement, when they fake quotes like that.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255

Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith
Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in
Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth
Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

 

[bodecea]

Planned Parenthood is one of the left's Holy Grails....it must be protected at all costs

Baby murdering Satanists

Yes; they need the human sacrifices to manifest their power; they revel in blood sacrifices.

Actually, that would be the catholic church and SassyIrishLass defends that too.

In point of fact, you have no evidence that either health care providers or medical researchers are "satanists" and saying they are just plain idiotic.

OTOH, we do have proof that once a baby is born, RWNJs kick them out of the way. We also have proof that its christians and churches who believe in satan.

You're past tiresome, a redundant parrot following me around squawking CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!! CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!

I suspect you're a Satanist...that and too stupid to live

Yep. Because the catholic church is evil.

What is shocking is that catholics are still making excuses and defending hiding their pedo priests. Worse is that people actually take their children to those very priests. That's tantamount to abuse. And its evil as well but of course, children are not fetuses so get no protection or car from the apologists.

Its not possible for me to be "a satanist". Only those who believe in the imaginary christian god can also believe in their imaginary devil. Educate yourself.

Most of them are pederasts actually, not pedo's. words mean things.

There is plenty of this crap going on in schools as well, but since it is mostly women doing the crimes, it is passed over.

Double standards much?

So....these women you speak of....they are not punished?