If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Interesting that you think being against PP automatically makes someone anti-choice. That's like saying someone is a misogynist for being against the latest crop of radfems. You can tolerate, and even endorse, a generality without being onboard with a specific ideology or practice.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
How significant? It's more excess income than what they get in block grants.
I'm ok with slowly removing Title X grants (for non-partisan reasons, should they be found), but ****ing with medicaid reimbursement is obvious douchebaggery.
Second, more than 80 percent of the money Planned Parenthood gets from the federal government is Medicaid reimbursement. It isn’t assigned to Planned Parenthood up front. It’s paid as compensation to clinics for services they’ve delivered to people covered by Medicaid. If those people choose other doctors or clinics, Planned Parenthood doesn’t get paid.
Several members of the committee, including the chairman, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, noted with disapproval that Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion services—pap tests, breast exams, prenatal care—had declined in recent years.
Richards tried to explain the declines. Pap tests, she said, were down because new federal guidelines say they’re not necessary every year. At some clinics, birth control visits declined because women can now get six-month prescriptions or long-acting reversible contraceptives. Several members of the committee chastised Planned Parenthood for not offering mammograms. Richards replied that her clinics, like general practitioners, do preliminary breast exams but refer women to specialists for mammograms.
At no point did the Republicans recognize that excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, as they’ve proposed in a bill that just passed the House, would exacerbate these trends. If Medicaid doesn’t reimburse Planned Parenthood for Pap tests and breast exams, Planned Parenthood is that much less likely to offer them.
Lummis challenged Richards to explain why abortions comprised “over 86 percent of your nongovernment revenue.” Richards patiently explained that the statistic was a truism: If Medicaid covers almost every health service except abortion, then almost all of Planned Parenthood’s “nongovernment revenue” will come from abortions.
Another committee member, Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas, expressed the same worry about federal funds: “Even though not directly spent, they help facilitate [abortion], and that's one of the reasons I support defunding.”
That’s a legitimate concern. But if you defund Planned Parenthood on this basis, then what you’re really saying is that no organization that performs abortions can receive public funds. In theory, every dollar is fungible. No matter how carefully you separate the accounting, aid to Israel can help it build settlements in the West Bank, and tax breaks for churches can free up their other funds to support antigay conversion therapy. To prevent that kind of shuffling, you’d have to bar the government from paying for anything.
I'm ok with slowly removing Title X grants (for non-partisan reasons, should they be found), but ****ing with medicaid reimbursement is obvious douchebaggery.
I agree. Messing with Medicaid will just **** people over. It would also be illegal without rewriting Medicaid. IIUC, the SCOTUS has declared Medicaid, as written, allows you to choose any provider who will accept the reimbursement.
P.S. In case you missed it, my figures might be off. Using a 75/25 split between Medicaid and Title X puts the Title X grant at a few million over excess revenue. The Slate article quotes 80/20, which would make my original assertion correct.
Interesting that you think being against PP automatically makes someone anti-choice. That's like saying someone is a misogynist for being against the latest crop of radfems. You can tolerate, and even endorse, a generality without being onboard with a specific ideology or practice.
I feel comfortable assuming that 99% or so of people who are against PP are anti-choice. I can't think why else anyone would be so easily swayed against them by those videos that were shot, edited, manipulated and are now being pushed by the staunchest anti-choicers around.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I feel comfortable assuming that 99% or so of people who are against PP are anti-choice. I can't think why else anyone would be so easily swayed against them by those videos that were shot, edited, manipulated and are now being pushed by the staunchest anti-choicers around.
I don't believe that number, 99%, is realistic.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Considering that's what they're allowed to do by law in three states, I'd find it worrying if she did deny it
You've never railed against something being done, even if it's technically legal in a certain jurisdiction?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
99% rarely is though you aren't offering much in the way of reasons why pro-choicers might be against PP.
The number isn't really that important. We all know this whole thing is just another step in the fight to erode women rights to have abortions and the people behind it either don't care about the rest of the health implications or they consider any hinderance to the availability of birth control a bonus either due to conservatism and silly notions about trying to prevent promiscuity or because Catholicism.
Elizabeth Warren is right in what she said about, I just hope she's right that it won't work.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
99% rarely is though you aren't offering much in the way of reasons why pro-choicers might be against PP.
Because "rendering" a fetus pre-mortus (to purportedly preserve the integrity of their organs) is ghoulish and vile. It's not like I haven't said that at least a half dozen times in this thread already, man.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Was discussing the ethics of not using the lethal injection.
The person I was discussing it with mentioned he was aware of a substitute procedure where they... well, basically go in and perform a decapitation.
As I said, gruesome, but more ethically sound than doing nothing, and I'm willing to cut PP slack for not wanting to make that a talking point.
If they do it properly, and I have no reason to think they don't, I'm willing to back off from this complaint. Again, very gruesome... but also close to instantaneous.
Was discussing the ethics of not using the lethal injection.
The person I was discussing it with mentioned he was aware of a substitute procedure where they... well, basically go in and perform a decapitation.
As I said, gruesome, but more ethically sound than doing nothing, and I'm willing to cut PP slack for not wanting to make that a talking point.
If they do it properly, and I have no reason to think they don't, I'm willing to back off from this complaint. Again, very gruesome... but also close to instantaneous.
I think that's worlds better than just ripping them limb-from-limb while they're alive.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Finding out what % of procedures go to organ donation would be some interesting perspective.
I think it's fair to assume PP wants them all done that way. At least for ones where the fetus is developed enough to warrant it.
That said, I doubt it's because they make anything resembling profit off of it. If you can ethically perform the euthanization, i.e. quickly and relatively painlessly, I think it's ethically questionable not to do it. The abortion is happening either way, why not make use?
I imagine the outfits they sell to make donations as well, and that could get into questionable territory, but I personally don't think that's a hill worth trying to plant my flag on. Others may disagree, and are welcome to.
The Chinese have been harvisting the organs of prisoners for quite some time.
Read an interesting short story where overcoming transplant rejection leads to a situation where misdemeanors get the death penalty as a means of keeping up the organ supply.
That said, I doubt it's because they make anything resembling profit off of it. If you can ethically perform the euthanization, i.e. quickly and relatively painlessly, I think it's ethically questionable not to do it.
Yeah well, in a country where there was a brouhaha about embryonic stem cells, I wouldn't be surprised if that view was in the minority.
I think it's fair to assume PP wants them all done that way. At least for ones where the fetus is developed enough to warrant it.
Sure, maybe. But the point is, depending on the % of patients that authorize its use, this could be about a small % of a small % of PP's activities.
(Not to downplay any medical or legal violations, where the people should be dealt with appropriately. But in regards to the wholesale deconstruction of PP)
Sure, maybe. But the point is, depending on the % of patients that authorize its use, this could be about a small % of a small % of PP's activities.
(Not to downplay any medical or legal violations, where the people should be dealt with appropriately. But in regards to the wholesale deconstruction of PP)
From the standpoint of ethics, I'd say it's irrelevant. There's no ethical difference between arguing for it, and succeeding in the argument, nor does a failure to convince let the arguer off the hook.
That said, I doubt it's because they make anything resembling profit off of it.
The profitability of it is a red herring.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Say what you want about the guillotine, but it was substantially more humane than the electric chair.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Agreed, a short drop with a fast break. They said you could tell if the executioner in Kansas City was hungover (and feeling particularly "ornery"), just by where he placed the knot.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
From the standpoint of ethics, I'd say it's irrelevant. There's no ethical difference between arguing for it, and succeeding in the argument, nor does a failure to convince let the arguer off the hook.
I don't think I properly grasp what you're arguing in this post.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that the GOP's investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds hasn't turned up anything.
"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.
Responding to a furor over undercover videos, Planned Parenthood says it will maintain programs at some of its clinics that make fetal tissue available for research, but will no longer accept any sort of payment to cover the costs of those programs.
Odds someone uses this statement to say they admit they were getting paid illegally...
WASHINGTON, D.C., October 12, 2014 (LifeSiteNews) – A candidate for Speaker of the House says he never declared Planned Parenthood innocent of illegally harvesting and selling the body parts of babies it aborts.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, had previously said his committee's investigation had found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood – but only in one of numerous areas currently under investigation.
"Please be careful using" my comments, Rep. Chaffetz admonished Democrats on his panel, several of whom had cited him as saying the abortion giant had done nothing wrong or illegal, despite what undercover videos appear to show.
Chaffetz said he has been taken out of context.
"The hearing that we conducted in [the] Oversight [committee] was about the finances of Planned Parenthood," he said. "We didn't get into the content of what they do. We didn't get into the content of the video. We didn't get into their practices that they do. We didn't get into the fetal body tissue issues."
"We were very narrowly focused on the finances. The point we were making is that Planned Parenthood had revenue of $127 million more than their expenses," said Chaffetz, who noted that the allegedly politically neutral non-profit sends money overseas and sends money to its campaign arm -- the latter of which funds almost exclusively Democratic candidates.
Chaffez said "I didn't find any" wrongdoing as to how Planned Parenthood spent its considerable money.
"It's a bit of a stretch to say that I have done some conclusive investigation on all the actions of Planned Parenthood," Chaffetz told House Democrats.
Here is what we do know. Planned Parenthood is harvesting the organs and tissues of aborted babies and money received for said organs and tissues.
What we don't know is: were the "reimbursements" received in excess of "costs incurred"? PP won't say and their book keeping would make Al Capone proud.
Did abortionists alter procedures in order harvest usable organs and tissue? The videos indicate they do. Do they provide "intact cases" as descibed in the videos? We will know once the remaining videos are released to the public. The judge who issued the restraining order has ordered the embargoed videos be supplied to the relevant committees. Those include the videos taken at the National Abortion Federation conference.
Is it an industry wide practice? Again, we'll find out once the remaining videos are released.
An interesting development. Bear in mind that this is a Republican DA involved ...
A Harris County grand jury investigating allegations that a Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston illegally sold the tissue of aborted fetuses has cleared the organization of wrongdoing and instead indicted two anti-abortion activists behind the undercover videos that sparked the probe.
Secret videographers David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were both indicted on charges of tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. Daleiden received an additional misdemeanor indictment under the law prohibiting the purchase and sale of human organs.
Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson announced the surprising indictments Monday after a two-month investigation.
"We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast," said Anderson, a Republican. "As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case."
The probe began after the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group run by Daleiden, released footage of the Houston clinic as part of a series of videos showing Planned Parenthood officials casually discussing the methods and costs of preserving fetal tissue for scientific research. That prompted allegations that the organization was profiting off of tissue -- an allegation that was never proven -- and sparked calls for an investigation from Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and others.
The Center for Medical Progress did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.
Abbott's office noted in a statement that Paxton and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission still are investigating the videos.
"Nothing about today's announcement in Harris County impacts the state's ongoing investigation," Abbott said. "The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue."
Paxton's office declined comment, as did the health commission.
A spokeswoman for the Houston branch of Planned Parenthood said the news made the organization feel "vindicated."
"It's great news because it demonstrates what we have said from the very beginning, which is that Planned Parenthood is following every rule and regulation, and that these people came into our buildings under the guise of health when their true intentions were to spread lies," said the spokeswoman, Rochelle Tafolla. "We're glad that these extremists have been indicted for breaking the law."
The national organization of Planned Parenthood had said in a letter to Congress that Daleiden was involved in secretly recording staff and patients at least 65 times over the last eight years.
The organization alleged that Daleiden and others used aliases, obtained fake government I.D.s, and formed a fake tissue procurement company in an effort to gain access to private areas and record private conversations to be deceptively edited to create a false impression.
The second indictment for Daleiden suggests that the grand jury found that he went too far in trying to get Planned Parenthood to admit to selling tissue. The crime, a class A misdemeanor is committed if a person intentionally offers to buy or offers to sell a human organ, including fetal tissue. If convicted, the maximum punishment is a year in jail.
This is going to get ugly for PP. ADF will subpoena the PP officials in the videos and put them on the stand. The choice will be perjury or take the 5th. CMP may have a problem with regards to the CA DL's.
Haha. "CMP got indicted for filming PP? Sounds like bad news for PP."
As an aside, I'm somewhat curious how the can be indicted for trying to procure fetal organs. Presumably, their attempt was not sincere, but investigatory. Then again, maybe the same would happen if they were trying to procure something else like drugs. No idea what the kind of protections are available for ordinary citizens who perform actions that could be considered either whistleblowing or entrapment. Though IIRC, PIs work within a fairly grey area.
“Today, we renew our call to Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and District Attorney Devon Anderson to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate Planned Parenthood,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who also serves on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress, which released videotaped evidence against Planned Parenthood. “There are too many questions about the independence of the Harris County District Attorney’s office with a Planned Parenthood board member on hand and given the failure of a previous grand jury under Anderson to indict a Houston abortion provider despite ample photographic evidence and eye-witness testimony of late-term babies being born alive and intentionally killed. The public needs to be assured that an impartial investigation will be conducted on the facts and not on a personal political agenda.”
Anderson oversaw a previous abortion-related grand jury investigation of Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen after Operation Rescue released evidence in the form of photos and witness testimony that babies were being born alive during abortions and intentionally killed by twisting their necks.
This case garnered publicity in the wake of the conviction of Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell on three counts of First Degree Murder for intentionally killing babies born alive during abortions in a similar fashion.
That grand jury failed to return a “true bill” that would have led to Karpen’s prosecution. Operation Rescue has reason to believe that the grand jury did not have access to all the evidence, and that Anderson’s close personal relationship with Karpen’s attorney, Chip Lewis, may have contributed to the failure of the grand jury to indict Karpen.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Planned Parenthood attorney Josh Schaffer said a prosecutor told him the grand jury never even voted on possible criminal charges against the nation's largest abortion provider.
Top