Who Needs Planned Parenthood??

[PoliticalChic]

Let's try and get the numbers right eh?

Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?

I must tell you that post #813, proving you a liar and a socialist was truly invigorating.

I love doing that.

Since you Leftists neither hesitate to lie, nor evince any shame in lying or being caught lying.....

....it turns out a win-win.


Don't ever change.



BTW......that chart is bogus.
Would you like me to prove that FactCheck is a left wing organization and defends both Obama and every leftist endeavor?

The chart is based off of the numbers PP publishes. Nothing bogus about it: Planned Parenthood 2013-2014 Annual Report

" based off of the numbers PP publishes."

My point exactly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many of the abortions at PP facilities are paid for out of the patient's pocket.

I would bet nearly all...

75% of PP's government funding comes from Medicaid. You cannot have an abortion and then file a federal claim to Medicaid to pay for it (with narrow exceptions under the Hyde Amendment).

Furthermore, last year PP did about 300,000 abortions and also received $390,000 in private donations. Even if every abortion was valued at a $1000 per, and even if PP used its funding sources for every one,

its private donations alone would cover more than that mythical, inflated cost number.

Half a billion dollars come from the federal government.....
....this is illegal and should be stopped.

There's nothing illegal about it at all. PP obeys the law, it doesn't chance, pun intended, a choice.

1. 
   ... the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.
   Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHyde_Amendment
   Wikipedia
   

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So....you are a liar, and a socialist.

QED

Since I'm a liberal not a socialist, you've kind of fucked yourself, as usual.

I simply love providing the education that government schools hide!


So....more:

1. Progressives saw WWI as an opportunity to change America and enforce collectivization. “In 1917, as Woodrow Wilson prepared to take the United States into the European war, the leading collectivist intellectuals of the day, John Dewey and Herbert Croly of The New Republic, beat the drums for American participation. …Dewey wrote that the progressive opponents of war were blind to the “immense impetus to reorganization afforded by this war.” He hoped they would work “to form ... the conditions and objects of our entrance.” In other words, they should exploit the opportunities war bestowed for collectivizing America. Croly was pithier: “The American nation needs the tonic of a serious moral adventure.” http://fff.org/freedom/fd0203c.asp
   1. “Once the war is on, the conviction spreads that individual thought is helpless, that the only way one can count is as a cog in the great wheel. There is no good holding back. We are told to dry our unnoticed and ineffective tears and plunge into the great work.” From a Randolph Bourne essay published in June 1917, “The War and the Intellectuals.”
   2. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” Taking liberties

So...you are a socialist, liar, and collectivist.


Need more?

You can lie all day long but that won't change a liberal into a socialist.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Let's try and get the numbers right eh?

Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?

I must tell you that post #813, proving you a liar and a socialist was truly invigorating.

I love doing that.

Since you Leftists neither hesitate to lie, nor evince any shame in lying or being caught lying.....

....it turns out a win-win.


Don't ever change.



BTW......that chart is bogus.
Would you like me to prove that FactCheck is a left wing organization and defends both Obama and every leftist endeavor?

The chart is based off of the numbers PP publishes. Nothing bogus about it: Planned Parenthood 2013-2014 Annual Report

" based off of the numbers PP publishes."

My point exactly.

If you don't trust their numbers I can't help you since I can't help those who are irrational...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Many of the abortions at PP facilities are paid for out of the patient's pocket.

I would bet nearly all...

75% of PP's government funding comes from Medicaid. You cannot have an abortion and then file a federal claim to Medicaid to pay for it (with narrow exceptions under the Hyde Amendment).

Furthermore, last year PP did about 300,000 abortions and also received $390,000 in private donations. Even if every abortion was valued at a $1000 per, and even if PP used its funding sources for every one,

its private donations alone would cover more than that mythical, inflated cost number.

Half a billion dollars come from the federal government.....
....this is illegal and should be stopped.

There's nothing illegal about it at all. PP obeys the law, it doesn't chance, pun intended, a choice.

1. 
   ... the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.
   Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHyde_Amendment
   Wikipedia

And they obey that, it's the law, so why are you having trouble understanding that?

 

[Redfish]

Under the law of the God of the Bible ( for all you 'Christian nation' types)

aren't women who have abortions murderers?

Forget the various laws of the land, and think only in terms of Christian principles...

...aren't women who have abortions murderers?

the doctor is the murderer, the woman is an accessory to murder.

Yesterday a woman was executed for getting her boyfriend to kill her husband. Presumably the death penalty should apply to women who hire someone to kill their 'baby', eh?

Explain that to PoliticalChic. She's confused.

If the baby was killed by its mother at age 2 what would the penalty be? This is your "what if" so you answer it.

 

[Redfish]

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD: OVER 333,000 BABIES ABORTED IN 2011"
Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 - Breitbart
Possibly it's time for your B12 shot.

Which is 1/3 of all the induced abortions here. BFD.

What percent of government funded abortions is it?
That is the focus of the thread.

Many of the abortions at PP facilities are paid for out of the patient's pocket.

and you know that how?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Under the law of the God of the Bible ( for all you 'Christian nation' types)

aren't women who have abortions murderers?

Forget the various laws of the land, and think only in terms of Christian principles...

...aren't women who have abortions murderers?

the doctor is the murderer, the woman is an accessory to murder.

Yesterday a woman was executed for getting her boyfriend to kill her husband. Presumably the death penalty should apply to women who hire someone to kill their 'baby', eh?

Explain that to PoliticalChic. She's confused.

If the baby was killed by its mother at age 2 what would the penalty be? This is your "what if" so you answer it.

At two, but not at two months still inside mommy, you have a person. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Coyote]

Damn it libs----------------answer my question.

What is the difference between killing a baby as it leaves its mother (partial birth abortion) and killing it at the age of 1 year?

GIVE ME AN ANSWER OR STFU AND ADMIT THAT YOU FAVOR INFANTICIDE IF THE KID IS A PROBLEM FOR YOU BEFOR OR AFTER BIRTH.

Huge difference, one that begins by understanding how the term "partial birth abortion" is misused and seperating spin from fact: 'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin

"...And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability."

The fetus is typically far too undeveloped to survive, it's not yet born ("...emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother...) and alternative measures are more dangerous for the mother. Infanticide is killing a child after birth, murdering an infant.

And from the source:
Activists on both sides of the issues see the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as pivotal to the larger debate. Abortion-rights backers say the ban is a first step toward trying to outlaw all abortions. Even some supporters of the ban say that if it is upheld, they could then move on to try to outlaw the far more common D&E procedure, whose description is nearly as unpleasant as that of the D&X.


The court could also use the law to address the "health" exception currently required for all abortion restrictions. Abortion foes say the current health exception upheld by the court is so broad — encompassing mental health problems as well as physical ones — that just about any abortion-procedure ban would have to be invalidated. But abortion-rights supporters say that without a health exception, women could be forced to carry to term fetuses with no chance at life, but whose birth could leave the pregnant women unable to carry a later pregnancy, or could exacerbate serious ailments such as diabetes.

total BS. premature babies survive every day. But like all libs, you dodged the question. If its ok to kill a "viable" baby before birth why is it not also ok to kill a "viable" baby 1 year after birth?

None under 22 weeks.

Second question. If a pregnant woman is killed (no matter how far along in the pregnancy) the killer is charged with two counts of murder. If a fetus is not a human being, why does our law call for two counts of murder?

Not necessarily - those laws are pretty narrowly defined.

 

[g5000]

Who Needs Planned Parenthood??

Octomom.

 

[Coyote]

Ah, so you support cutting off funding to Israel, got it...

Changing the subject?

So I win, huh?

No, I'm asking a counter question. Do you support stopping aid to Israel?

Someone drag you here?

If you voluntarily signed on to the thread, one would imagine you would be conversant with the topic.....this topic: Planned Parenthood funding.

I see you're avoiding the question. I understand why. You DO support aid to Israel, making you a hypocrite.

You can run but you can't hide.

Let's see if I can get you back on track:
...if you demand the right to destroy a human being...one that you voluntarily created

Not necessarily.

 

[Coyote]

Second question. If a pregnant woman is killed (no matter how far along in the pregnancy) the killer is charged with two counts of murder. If a fetus is not a human being, why does our law call for two counts of murder?

If I walk out to my car, pick up a rock and break my own window...nothing happens to me. Now you try and break my window with a rock and see what happens.

As the unborn baby isn't part of her body...and she doesn't own it as you own your windshield....

...what right does she have to kill the individual?

That seems to be greeted with a shrug by you Liberals/Democrats.

Yep, and not one of them has answered my question as to why its different to kill a baby a month before birth or to kill a baby at 1 year after birth.

Why can't they answer it? because even they realize that its the exact same thing-----murder.

It's been answered, as best as a deceptive question like yours can be. Few, if any, advocate elective abortions as late as 8 months and it is illegal in most places unless the mother's life is in danger.

 

[Coyote]

Under the law of the God of the Bible ( for all you 'Christian nation' types)

aren't women who have abortions murderers?

Forget the various laws of the land, and think only in terms of Christian principles...

...aren't women who have abortions murderers?

the doctor is the murderer, the woman is an accessory to murder.

If you hire someone to kill someone you are not an accessory. By law that is Contract Murder and you are just as guilty as the person you hire. Even just planning such a thing is attempted murder...

Yup...didn't they just recently execute a woman for just that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Under the law of the God of the Bible ( for all you 'Christian nation' types)

aren't women who have abortions murderers?

Forget the various laws of the land, and think only in terms of Christian principles...

...aren't women who have abortions murderers?

the doctor is the murderer, the woman is an accessory to murder.

If you hire someone to kill someone you are not an accessory. By law that is Contract Murder and you are just as guilty as the person you hire. Even just planning such a thing is attempted murder...

Yup...didn't they just recently execute a woman for just that?

Indeed they did: In US, murder masterminds are put to death while killers live - BBC News

 

[PoliticalChic]

Changing the subject?



o I win, huh?

No, I'm asking a counter question. Do you support stopping aid to Israel?

Someone drag you here?

If you voluntarily signed on to the thread, one would imagine you would be conversant with the topic.....this topic: Planned Parenthood funding.

I see you're avoiding the question. I understand why. You DO support aid to Israel, making you a hypocrite.

You can run but you can't hide.

Let's see if I can get you back on track:
...if you demand the right to destroy a human being...one that you voluntarily created

Not necessarily.

Necessarily.

'Voluntarily' is the operative term.

As shown earlier, 95.7% of all abortions in this country have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the mother's health.

95.7% of the slaughter is for the convenience of the woman who had a choice about creating that life.

Abortion is almost entirely based on 'hmmmm....I think I'll change my mind.'
Kind of like picking the color of one's drapes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, I'm asking a counter question. Do you support stopping aid to Israel?

Someone drag you here?

If you voluntarily signed on to the thread, one would imagine you would be conversant with the topic.....this topic: Planned Parenthood funding.

I see you're avoiding the question. I understand why. You DO support aid to Israel, making you a hypocrite.

You can run but you can't hide.

Let's see if I can get you back on track:
...if you demand the right to destroy a human being...one that you voluntarily created

Not necessarily.

Necessarily.

'Voluntarily' is the operative term.

As shown earlier, 95.7% of all abortions in this country have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the mother's health.

95.7% of the slaughter is for the convenience of the woman who had a choice about creating that life.

Abortion is almost entirely based on 'hmmmm....I think I'll change my mind.'
Kind of like picking the color of one's drapes.

They didn't change their mind, accidents happen.

And as I said, get the hell out of our way and we'll get the number of abortions down. We have the means and the technology, if you weren't blocking us all the damn time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Someone drag you here?

If you voluntarily signed on to the thread, one would imagine you would be conversant with the topic.....this topic: Planned Parenthood funding.

I see you're avoiding the question. I understand why. You DO support aid to Israel, making you a hypocrite.

You can run but you can't hide.

Let's see if I can get you back on track:
...if you demand the right to destroy a human being...one that you voluntarily created

Not necessarily.

Necessarily.

'Voluntarily' is the operative term.

As shown earlier, 95.7% of all abortions in this country have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the mother's health.

95.7% of the slaughter is for the convenience of the woman who had a choice about creating that life.

Abortion is almost entirely based on 'hmmmm....I think I'll change my mind.'
Kind of like picking the color of one's drapes.

They didn't change their mind, accidents happen.

And as I said, get the hell out of our way and we'll get the number of abortions down. We have the means and the technology, if you weren't blocking us all the damn time.

Slapping you down with truth seems to be a regular pattern....so let's continue:

".The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.”

Convenience, as in having your groceries delivered rather than having to walk across the street to pick them up.....this level of effort in deciding to execute the child you've created.



In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a.“Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing.The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries


b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%);that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


"They didn't change their mind, accidents happen."
Wrong again, huh?



We must reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.

 

[Coyote]

No, I'm asking a counter question. Do you support stopping aid to Israel?

Someone drag you here?

If you voluntarily signed on to the thread, one would imagine you would be conversant with the topic.....this topic: Planned Parenthood funding.

I see you're avoiding the question. I understand why. You DO support aid to Israel, making you a hypocrite.

You can run but you can't hide.

Let's see if I can get you back on track:
...if you demand the right to destroy a human being...one that you voluntarily created

Not necessarily.

Necessarily.

'Voluntarily' is the operative term.

As shown earlier, 95.7% of all abortions in this country have nothing to do with rape, incest, or the mother's health.

95.7% of the slaughter is for the convenience of the woman who had a choice about creating that life.

Abortion is almost entirely based on 'hmmmm....I think I'll change my mind.'
Kind of like picking the color of one's drapes.

Thanks for proving my point

The most common reasons women consider abortion are:

• Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.2
• Inability to support or care for a child.
• To end an unwanted pregnancy.
• To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
• Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
• Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.

That's not "voluntarily creating" something. Of course, you guys want to make access to birth control as difficult as possible.

Even then - voluntary or involuntary - it's her decision, not yours, unless you are stepping up to adopt a fetus.

 

[Redfish]

Second question. If a pregnant woman is killed (no matter how far along in the pregnancy) the killer is charged with two counts of murder. If a fetus is not a human being, why does our law call for two counts of murder?

If I walk out to my car, pick up a rock and break my own window...nothing happens to me. Now you try and break my window with a rock and see what happens.

As the unborn baby isn't part of her body...and she doesn't own it as you own your windshield....

...what right does she have to kill the individual?

That seems to be greeted with a shrug by you Liberals/Democrats.

Yep, and not one of them has answered my question as to why its different to kill a baby a month before birth or to kill a baby at 1 year after birth.

Why can't they answer it? because even they realize that its the exact same thing-----murder.

It's been answered, as best as a deceptive question like yours can be. Few, if any, advocate elective abortions as late as 8 months and it is illegal in most places unless the mother's life is in danger.

what exactly happens to the baby between 3 months and 8 months that changes the rules for you? Why is it not a person at 3 months but is one at 8 months?

 

[Coyote]

Second question. If a pregnant woman is killed (no matter how far along in the pregnancy) the killer is charged with two counts of murder. If a fetus is not a human being, why does our law call for two counts of murder?

If I walk out to my car, pick up a rock and break my own window...nothing happens to me. Now you try and break my window with a rock and see what happens.

As the unborn baby isn't part of her body...and she doesn't own it as you own your windshield....

...what right does she have to kill the individual?

That seems to be greeted with a shrug by you Liberals/Democrats.

Yep, and not one of them has answered my question as to why its different to kill a baby a month before birth or to kill a baby at 1 year after birth.

Why can't they answer it? because even they realize that its the exact same thing-----murder.

It's been answered, as best as a deceptive question like yours can be. Few, if any, advocate elective abortions as late as 8 months and it is illegal in most places unless the mother's life is in danger.

what exactly happens to the baby between 3 months and 8 months that changes the rules for you? Why is it not a person at 3 months but is one at 8 months?

It is not a person until it is born. The difference is viability of fetus vs rights of the woman.

If anti-choice people had their way, women would be charged for murder for taking the birth control pill (which would likely be prohibited), the morning after pill - all the way up to later abortions.