Women need birth control because "they can't control their libido"

[JakeStarkey]

This is just spot on funny...chuckle (from the above Cooke article)

"No sooner had the word “libido” left Huckabee’s lips than all context, judgment, and verisimilitude were hastily defenestrated; Huckabee, who has not held public office since 2007, had been turned into the de facto spokesman for the entire Republican party; and the word had gone out across the Kingdom that there was a new monster at the gates."

...

"One feels the same sympathy for Huckabee as one does for the title character in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Refuting the crowd’s devoutly held belief that he is the Messiah, Brian is met with a pause, and then the parry that “only the true Messiah denies His divinity.” “What?” Brian asks in exasperation. “Well, what sort of chance does that give me?”"

Huck said it in the context of women and birth control, and that women who needed public birth control subsidies were "sluts" trying to avoid the consequences of their libido.

We Republicans want to win elections, and we wonder why we have not won the big ones in some time?

Huck, who I like (ID and all), will not be the GOP candidate in 2016.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're dodging, DT. You claim to be a proponent of hard facts, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are no hard facts available. We don't know how many abortions are performed...but we do know that Planned Parenthood has been caught time and again falsifying medical records, cooking books, and claiming to provide services they don't...

How then can you cling to the ridiculous "3 percent" figure as if it is above suspicion?

According to Guttmacher about 1.2 million abortions are performed annually and PP is not the sole provider.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Guttmacher also points out that PP was instrumental is avoiding abortions.

• In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[20]

So there is independent data which corroborates PP's claims. Furthermore as a public entity that receives federal funding PP will be required to submit their books for regular audits by approved auditors.

EDIT: Found the KPMG audited financials on their website.

http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/pdfs/FINAL%20PPFA%20FY13%20audited%20FS.pdf

 

[percysunshine]

This is just spot on funny...chuckle (from the above Cooke article)

"No sooner had the word “libido” left Huckabee’s lips than all context, judgment, and verisimilitude were hastily defenestrated; Huckabee, who has not held public office since 2007, had been turned into the de facto spokesman for the entire Republican party; and the word had gone out across the Kingdom that there was a new monster at the gates."

...

"One feels the same sympathy for Huckabee as one does for the title character in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Refuting the crowd’s devoutly held belief that he is the Messiah, Brian is met with a pause, and then the parry that “only the true Messiah denies His divinity.” “What?” Brian asks in exasperation. “Well, what sort of chance does that give me?”"

Huck said it in the context of women and birth control, and that women who needed public birth control subsidies were "sluts" trying to avoid the consequences of their libido.

We Republicans want to win elections, and we wonder why we have not won the big ones in some time?

Huck, who I like (ID and all), will not be the GOP candidate in 2016.

Did you read the entire NRO article that I linked?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're dodging, DT. You claim to be a proponent of hard facts, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are no hard facts available. We don't know how many abortions are performed...but we do know that Planned Parenthood has been caught time and again falsifying medical records, cooking books, and claiming to provide services they don't...

How then can you cling to the ridiculous "3 percent" figure as if it is above suspicion?

According to Guttmacher about 1.2 million abortions are performed annually and PP is not the sole provider.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Guttmacher also points out that PP was instrumental is avoiding abortions.

• In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[20]

So there is independent data which corroborates PP's claims. Furthermore as a public entity that receives federal funding PP will be required to submit their books for regular audits by approved auditors.

EDIT: Found the KPMG audited financials on their website.

http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/pdfs/FINAL%20PPFA%20FY13%20audited%20FS.pdf

That's another dodge. When you provide over 330,000+ abortions a year, you have essentially monopolized one fourth of that market. You can submit your books for audits too, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of the auditors turning a blind eye to fiscal malfeasance, Derideo.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

This is just spot on funny...chuckle (from the above Cooke article)

"No sooner had the word “libido” left Huckabee’s lips than all context, judgment, and verisimilitude were hastily defenestrated; Huckabee, who has not held public office since 2007, had been turned into the de facto spokesman for the entire Republican party; and the word had gone out across the Kingdom that there was a new monster at the gates."

...

"One feels the same sympathy for Huckabee as one does for the title character in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Refuting the crowd’s devoutly held belief that he is the Messiah, Brian is met with a pause, and then the parry that “only the true Messiah denies His divinity.” “What?” Brian asks in exasperation. “Well, what sort of chance does that give me?”"

Huck said it in the context of women and birth control, and that women who needed public birth control subsidies were "sluts" trying to avoid the consequences of their libido.

What pure crap.

His remarks were in the context of what the Democrat Party message to women is: That they're helpless and incapable of ponying up the pittance that it takes to pay for their own contraception, and need Uncle Sugar to give it to them for free.

And in the instance of progressive women, he is sadly correct.

We Republicans want to win elections, and we wonder why we have not won the big ones in some time?

If I have learned one thing about you, Jake, it is that you are not a republican.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're dodging, DT. You claim to be a proponent of hard facts, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are no hard facts available. We don't know how many abortions are performed...but we do know that Planned Parenthood has been caught time and again falsifying medical records, cooking books, and claiming to provide services they don't...

How then can you cling to the ridiculous "3 percent" figure as if it is above suspicion?

According to Guttmacher about 1.2 million abortions are performed annually and PP is not the sole provider.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Guttmacher also points out that PP was instrumental is avoiding abortions.

• In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[20]

So there is independent data which corroborates PP's claims. Furthermore as a public entity that receives federal funding PP will be required to submit their books for regular audits by approved auditors.

EDIT: Found the KPMG audited financials on their website.

http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/pdfs/FINAL%20PPFA%20FY13%20audited%20FS.pdf

That's another dodge. When you provide over 330,000+ abortions a year, you have essentially monopolized one fourth of that market. You can submit your books for audits too, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of the auditors turning a blind eye to fiscal malfeasance, Derideo.

So are you accusing KPMG of risking their reputation? In which case you need to make a credible case for them to do so. Arthur Anderson did it because they were making out like bandits on the contracting side with Enron. There is no such incentive with PP.

So please proceed to make your case as to why KPMG would be willing to risk jeopardizing their reputation, and the freedom of the executive partners, for a negligible account like PP. Please include in your reasoning exactly why the executive partners would be willing to defy Sarbannes-Oxley regulations and be willing to sacrifice their own personal fortunes and years of their lives behind bars.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And some facts on the Guttmacher institute...

1) It is not an independent nor an unbiased source of information and data. It is a proponent of abortion rights.

2) In 1968, the Guttmacher Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood. This precludes the possibility of it being an "independent" anything, Derideo.

3) Alan Frank Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood from 1962. He was a eugenicist, and signed the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973.

Can't say I trust the Guttmacher Institute, Derideo.

 

[Faun]

You're dodging, DT. You claim to be a proponent of hard facts, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are no hard facts available. We don't know how many abortions are performed...but we do know that Planned Parenthood has been caught time and again falsifying medical records, cooking books, and claiming to provide services they don't...

How then can you cling to the ridiculous "3 percent" figure as if it is above suspicion?

... then why are you making up claims that tax dollars are funding abortions?

 

[TemplarKormac]

According to Guttmacher about 1.2 million abortions are performed annually and PP is not the sole provider.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Guttmacher also points out that PP was instrumental is avoiding abortions.



So there is independent data which corroborates PP's claims. Furthermore as a public entity that receives federal funding PP will be required to submit their books for regular audits by approved auditors.

EDIT: Found the KPMG audited financials on their website.

http://plannedparenthoodrx.com/pdfs/FINAL%20PPFA%20FY13%20audited%20FS.pdf

That's another dodge. When you provide over 330,000+ abortions a year, you have essentially monopolized one fourth of that market. You can submit your books for audits too, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of the auditors turning a blind eye to fiscal malfeasance, Derideo.

So are you accusing KPMG of risking their reputation? In which case you need to make a credible case for them to do so. Arthur Anderson did it because they were making out like bandits on the contracting side with Enron. There is no such incentive with PP.

So please proceed to make your case as to why KPMG would be willing to risk jeopardizing their reputation, and the freedom of the executive partners, for a negligible account like PP. Please include in your reasoning exactly why the executive partners would be willing to defy Sarbannes-Oxley regulations and be willing to sacrifice their own personal fortunes and years of their lives behind bars.

Given that KPMG was sued and made to pay $125 million by Rite Aid on March 11, 2003 for misleading Rite Aid's shareholders, I believe such a proclivity exists for that to occur, yes. Four officers of the drugstore chain provided false financial statements for the sole purpose of driving up the price of Rite Aid's stock. KPMG audited those statements and found nothing wrong; which ultimately lead to a rise in the stock. That bit them in the backside.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

its right there in the report; 333, 964.

and as a side note, I would have though they'd do more than 28k pre-natal services...

What exactly is a "pre-natal" service done by Planned Parenthood?




A Handjob?

Pregnant (pre-natal) women go for regular checkups to ensure that the fetus is developing normally. This is when ultrasounds are performed.

This is when ultrasounds are performed with the consent of the woman, not forced upon her by the state against her will when she’s exercising her right to privacy; a procedure forced upon her by the state as most conservatives advocate.

This is why the republican claim that they ‘support’ the rights of women is correctly seen as a lie.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And some facts on the Guttmacher institute...

1) It is not an independent nor an unbiased source of information and data. It is a proponent of abortion rights.

2) In 1968, the Guttmacher Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood. This precludes the possibility of it being an "independent" anything, Derideo.

3) Alan Frank Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood from 1962. He was a eugenicist, and signed the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973.

Can't say I trust the Guttmacher Institute, Derideo.

So are you now saying that all of the quoted sources provided by the link are equally untrustworthy?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's another dodge. When you provide over 330,000+ abortions a year, you have essentially monopolized one fourth of that market. You can submit your books for audits too, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of the auditors turning a blind eye to fiscal malfeasance, Derideo.

So are you accusing KPMG of risking their reputation? In which case you need to make a credible case for them to do so. Arthur Anderson did it because they were making out like bandits on the contracting side with Enron. There is no such incentive with PP.

So please proceed to make your case as to why KPMG would be willing to risk jeopardizing their reputation, and the freedom of the executive partners, for a negligible account like PP. Please include in your reasoning exactly why the executive partners would be willing to defy Sarbannes-Oxley regulations and be willing to sacrifice their own personal fortunes and years of their lives behind bars.

Given that KPMG was sued and made to pay $125 million by Rite Aid on March 11, 2003 for misleading Rite Aid's shareholders, I believe such a proclivity exists for that to occur, yes. Four officers of the drugstore chain provided false financial statements for the sole purpose of driving up the price of Rite Aid's stock. KPMG audited those statements and found nothing wrong; which ultimately lead to a rise in the stock. That bit them in the backside.

You provided a financial incentive for KPMG to commit fraud that occurred prior to the implementation of Sarbannes-Oxley a decade ago.

PP is a non-profit that does not issue shares so that "incentive" is DOA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is just spot on funny...chuckle (from the above Cooke article)

"No sooner had the word “libido” left Huckabee’s lips than all context, judgment, and verisimilitude were hastily defenestrated; Huckabee, who has not held public office since 2007, had been turned into the de facto spokesman for the entire Republican party; and the word had gone out across the Kingdom that there was a new monster at the gates."

...

"One feels the same sympathy for Huckabee as one does for the title character in Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Refuting the crowd’s devoutly held belief that he is the Messiah, Brian is met with a pause, and then the parry that “only the true Messiah denies His divinity.” “What?” Brian asks in exasperation. “Well, what sort of chance does that give me?”"

Huck said it in the context of women and birth control, and that women who needed public birth control subsidies were "sluts" trying to avoid the consequences of their libido.

What pure crap.

His remarks were in the context of what the Democrat Party message to women is: That they're helpless and incapable of ponying up the pittance that it takes to pay for their own contraception, and need Uncle Sugar to give it to them for free.

And in the instance of progressive women, he is sadly correct.

We Republicans want to win elections, and we wonder why we have not won the big ones in some time?

If I have learned one thing about you, Jake, it is that you are not a republican.

Not your type of far right wing nut reactionary Republican, you bet.

I am mainstream GOP and we are moving you guys out of candidacies and policy making positions.

We can't with your type of crap.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So are you accusing KPMG of risking their reputation? In which case you need to make a credible case for them to do so. Arthur Anderson did it because they were making out like bandits on the contracting side with Enron. There is no such incentive with PP.

So please proceed to make your case as to why KPMG would be willing to risk jeopardizing their reputation, and the freedom of the executive partners, for a negligible account like PP. Please include in your reasoning exactly why the executive partners would be willing to defy Sarbannes-Oxley regulations and be willing to sacrifice their own personal fortunes and years of their lives behind bars.

Given that KPMG was sued and made to pay $125 million by Rite Aid on March 11, 2003 for misleading Rite Aid's shareholders, I believe such a proclivity exists for that to occur, yes. Four officers of the drugstore chain provided false financial statements for the sole purpose of driving up the price of Rite Aid's stock. KPMG audited those statements and found nothing wrong; which ultimately lead to a rise in the stock. That bit them in the backside.

You provided a financial incentive for KPMG to commit fraud that occurred prior to the implementation of Sarbannes-Oxley a decade ago.

PP is a non-profit that does not issue shares so that "incentive" is DOA.

I'm not finished. KPMG has a checkered past.

In 2004, it was sued by investors in Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV and made to pay $115 million stemming from the company's collapse in 2000.

In 2005, the United States Justice Department tagged them for committing Tax Shelter Fraud. They helped wealthy clients avoid over $2.5 billion in tax payments and admitting doing so. Eventually the charges were dropped after they agreed to pay $456 million in penalties and submit to a "deferred prosecution agreement."

They were sued by Fannie Mae in 2006 for making erroneous financial statements. In 2007, the German branch of KPMG was investigated for ignoring questionable payments made in the Siemens bribery case. In 2008 it was caught manipulating Xerox's earnings reports. Xerox shareholders sued and won, forcing KPMG to pay $80 million. Later that year, it failed to protect two of the Tremont Group's Rye Select Funds (totaling $2.37 billion) after it was found they were invested in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Lawsuits are still pending in that case (that is a colossal failure by KPMG Derideo).

There's also the failure by KPMG's Japanese affiliate to uncover fraud in the the Olympus case in 2010. Then last year, a former KPMG LLP partner in charge of KPMG's US Los Angeles-based Pacific Southwest audit practice, April Scott London, was embroiled in a scandal where she passed on stock tips to her friend Bryan Shaw, who ran a jewelry store, in exchange for a Rolex and $60,000. Shaw was charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, he agreed to pay $1.3 million in restitution as well. It led to KPMG resigning as an auditor for two companies.

It has a history of bad auditing practices, my friend, covering the better part of the previous decade and most of the current one.

 

[koshergrl]

And some facts on the Guttmacher institute...

1) It is not an independent nor an unbiased source of information and data. It is a proponent of abortion rights.

2) In 1968, the Guttmacher Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood. This precludes the possibility of it being an "independent" anything, Derideo.

3) Alan Frank Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood from 1962. He was a eugenicist, and signed the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973.

Can't say I trust the Guttmacher Institute, Derideo.

So are you now saying that all of the quoted sources provided by the link are equally untrustworthy?

YES. Now you're catching on. The CDC, Guttmacher's, PP...all are run by the same ideologues, who bounce between the three sister orgs.

 

[Trajan]

That makes my point. If ANY money goes to abortive service, it's illegal. Period. PP is breaking the law. Plain and simple.

No it doesn't. Per your link about 10 million health services were provided of which only 3% were abortions. 26% of the funding for those 10 million health services can from private donors which is over 8 times the amount needed to cover the abortion services.

Careful here, you are being logical with facts.

have you acknowledged that you were wrong and that they do indeed perform abortions and that there is NO way we know yes or no they don't with gov. $$ in that why there is not separate accounts per service etc. private inst. do it all the time, exactly what money from bucket a goes to service b and so forth, there is no reason not too. Unless you don't want to, and then why not?

here the key;

when threatened with a cut off of gov. funds they always say hey then we cannot provide basic services, (OTHER than abortion), ok, so how do they know that?


If PP claims they cannot get by without gov. funds then they should simply account properly for their use, I'd be fine with that, I am not against PP, just their inability to be transparent,

and temple and I posted those 'facts' btw.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And some facts on the Guttmacher institute...

1) It is not an independent nor an unbiased source of information and data. It is a proponent of abortion rights.

2) In 1968, the Guttmacher Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, a semi-autonomous division of Planned Parenthood. This precludes the possibility of it being an "independent" anything, Derideo.

3) Alan Frank Guttmacher was a former president of Planned Parenthood from 1962. He was a eugenicist, and signed the Humanist Manifesto II in 1973.

Can't say I trust the Guttmacher Institute, Derideo.

So are you now saying that all of the quoted sources provided by the link are equally untrustworthy?

I'm saying that the Guttmacher Institute is untrustworthy. That's it.

 

[BDBoop]

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No it doesn't. Per your link about 10 million health services were provided of which only 3% were abortions. 26% of the funding for those 10 million health services can from private donors which is over 8 times the amount needed to cover the abortion services.

Careful here, you are being logical with facts.

have you acknowledged that you were wrong and that they do indeed perform abortions and that there is NO way we know yes or no they don't with gov. $$ in that why there is not separate accounts per service etc. private inst. do it all the time, exactly what money from bucket a goes to service b and so forth, there is no reason not too. Unless you don't want to, and then why not?

here the key;

when threatened with a cut off of gov. funds they always say hey then we cannot provide basic services, (OTHER than abortion), ok, so how do they know that?


If PP claims they cannot get by without gov. funds then they should simply account properly for their use, I'd be fine with that, I am not against PP, just their inability to be transparent,

and temple and I posted those 'facts' btw.

It's certain that Churchill had folks like Jake in mind when he said this:

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

 

[DiamondDave]

Wrongwinger starting a thread on an out of context statement.. typical for the troll winger trying to trick people to the ignorant side of politics...