WashPost Spin on Komen Defunding Planned Parenthood: 'Women's Groups Feud'
"Women's groups feud over abortion."
That's how Washington Post headline editors titled a brief AP story regarding the Susan G. Komen cancer charity opting to end its relationship with Planned Parenthood. The four-paragraph AP item appeared in the February 1 page A3 national news digest.
"The result is a bitter rift, linked to the national abortion debate, between two organizations that have assisted millions of women," the AP lamented.
Of course, the Komen for the Cure charity is dedicated to fighting a major killer of American women, while roughly half of Planned Parenthood's abortion carnage is unborn baby girls.
How's that for moral equivalency by the liberal media?
The Komen grants "went to at least 19 Planned Parenthood affiliates for breast cancer screening and related services," the AP item noted, failing to mention that Planned Parenthood merely refers women for mammograms, which, can, of course, be quite costly without insurance.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Komen's
Submitted by rusino on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 2:21pm.
No matter the reason I am glad to see Komen's is disassociated with PP. Planned Paranthood has been culpable in the killing of hundreds of thousands of pre-born HUMAN BEINGS!
Most supporters of abortion would be horrified at thought of drowning a litter of unwanted puppies or kittens. They turn a blindeye to the killing of the 'unwanted' of their own species.
YES!
Submitted by KO on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 6:32pm.
I was thinking about this last night after an email from a family member excoriating the Republican's because, "...they want to get rid of the rights of half of this country!" (in reference to abortion). I think this is BS. I refuse to accept the narrative from the modern day eugenics crowd that this discussion is about a "woman's right to choose". The discussion is about ABORTION - a horrific medical procedure that ends in the taking of a human life - a right to choose has nothing to do with it. I don't have a "right" to choose to do any number of awful, destructive acts that affect others and abortion is no different.
Agreed. Every time I see that
Submitted by Soldat44 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 2:38pm.
Agreed.
Every time I see that animal cruelty tv commercial with Sarah McLachlan and her 'Angel' song playing in the background I get ill. She will take the money and royalties for animals but is one of the biggest proponents of pre-natal murder in the U.S..
First-class hypocrite.
God Bless.
The end is near for PP
Submitted by mmilesll on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 2:58pm.
Komen is playing it smart, they know that things are going to change big time in November and PP will finally be exposed. Komen doesn't want to be any part of that.
Spin Spin Spin
Submitted by kevtheweb on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 3:00pm.
I dont really see how anyone can argue about the Komen Foundation decision. Everyone on the MSM is going to say how now thousands will not have access to breast cancer screening.
What do they think Komen is going to do with the $$$ money now? Just hold on to it?
They are obviously going to give that money to another organization that offers the services and isnt involved in abortion.
No loss for those seeking breast cancer scans.
I have given money to Komen.
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 3:22pm.
I have given money to Komen. I even recommended it because it was a NASCAR Charity. If I had known that about PP I never would have given or recommended it. Besides people give to Komen because they thought it was going to breast cancer research. Boy were we all fooled. They will never get another dime from me. If they can give to PP then it seems they are not doing what they are supposed to do or they have plenty of bucks.
Wow, Planned Parenthood
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:26pm.
Wow, Planned Parenthood really is to conservatives what Halliburton is to the left. Just a ready-made punching bag upon which to project all the infuriating ideological ills of the world.
The vast majority of PP's services involve contraception - you know, those things that prevent unwanted pregnancy before abortion even needs to become an option - and pap smears. Both pretty important.
Also, they do pretty brisk business in STD screening and treatment, including HIV. Furthermore, they treat men as well as women in this area.
Percentage of PP patients in a given year who end up getting an abortion: ~3-5
Percentage of American women who have availed themselves of PP's various resources at least once: 20
But of course, these very straightforward facts and figures that, to any thinking person, would demonstrate that PP operates in the service of women's health, and that that includes a proportionately very small number of abortions (which, like it or not, women have as much of a legal right to have as you do to own a gun), are surely going to be suspect here, seeing as they came from a variety of mainstream media sources and not from some clueless old fart pulling made-up statistics out of thin air.
Hee's baaaaccckkk
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:29pm.
It's good you're able to ignore PP helping underage girls protect their pedophiles boyfriend's. It's so refreshing that someone on the left is able to disregard the lives of young girls in defense of killing the unborn.
You go Rupert.
You act as though Planned
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:51pm.
You act as though Planned Parenthood has roving foot soldiers who drag pregnant women off the street to be subjected to forced abortions. It's not like the individual pregnant woman makes a decision and PP then provides a service for which there's a demand or anything.
As for your pedophile boyfriend remark...well, weirdly I can't find a single source, other than hysterical anti-choice websites, that indicates that that is or ever has been a regular pattern or procedure among PP clinics. Most likely, they're too busy administering gynecological services, prescribing contraceptives, and testing for STDs to be active pedophile enablers outside of some extremely unfortunate incidents. Saying that those incidents invalidate all of the good that they do is like saying that the vomit-worthy Abu Ghraib incidents are proof that we never should have invaded Iraq. Which, of course, would be utter nonsense.
Yes, I will go...go write my quarterly donation check to PP for 3x the usual amount, and check in with my sister-in-law, who has worked for PP for 13 years, to see how much mouth-frothing hate mail she got this week.
Woah there boy, make stuff up much?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:59pm.
I can't find a thing I wrote about women being dragged off to have abortions. However, I will say the babies are dragged (sucked) out of the womb where they are being nurtured.
So it's o.k. that PP has supported the hiding of pedophiles with young girls as long as you can't find it as a "pattern". Let me clue you in, most criminal behavior is hidden.
Go write your check, I'll triple my prayers.
As for your sister in law, boo hoo.
"I can't find a thing I wrote
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:19pm.
"I can't find a thing I wrote about women being dragged off to have abortions."
That's why I prefaced my comment with "You act as if..." Because you, and most anti-PP folks, write these things as though PP is responsible for the existence of abortions, rather than providing a legal service for which there is a demand, and which is, like it or not, related to women's reproductive health.
"However, I will say the babies are dragged (sucked) out of the womb where they are being nurtured."
Yes, that's how it works. But again, the owner of the womb is the one who's made the decision for it to happen.
"So it's o.k. that PP has supported the hiding of pedophiles with young girls as long as you can't find it as a "pattern". Let me clue you in, most criminal behavior is hidden."
No, it's not "okay" that those incidents happened. But as I said, there is no rational reason to point to those isolated incidents and say that that discredits the entire organization's existence and all that they do. See my Abu Ghraib/Iraq analogy. Need another? Great, I'll use an organization that I find repulsive while still acknowledging its legal/constitutional right to exist: Suppose over the course of the year, 3 or 4 dealers at gun shows sponsored by the NRA were caught selling weapons to minors. Is the entirety of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment For Which It Stands culpable?
Most criminal behavior is hidden? Oh okay, great. So now we can just claim that isolated incidents are indicative of much larger, more sinister trends without a shred of evidence? Great! Which right-wing organization should I attack first with this newfound impunity for evidence or source citation?
I wasn't asking for your sympathy for my brother's wife. She mostly laughs about how the majority of said hate-mail was clearly penned by sub-literates.
Rupert, 1) I wouldn't doubt
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:59am.
Rupert,
1) I wouldn't doubt it for a second that your imaginary sister-in-law who supposedly works for PP wrote herself hate emails and then cries to everyone else of how evil those anti-abortion people are.
2) Slave holders use the same logic as you. Since it was their slave whom they owned, they could do with him/her what ever they wanted. Nice of you to promote the owning of another human being. You would have been a great advocate for Slavery.
A baby can survive outside of the mother's womb as young as 21 weeks. Just a few years ago no baby could survive outside of the womb who was not 28 weeks or older. Thus, science is proving that the baby does NOT belong to the mother. I can guarantee you that as science improves, babies will be able to survive outside of the womb at younger and younger weeks.
3) No evidence? You won't believe anything that paints, with facts, the murdering industry that you support in a bad light. Sadly, you are the tool that NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc loves to use and abuse.
4) It is a fact that across the board, Planned Parenthood offices have been caught covering up for pedophile boyfriends. Undercover investigations have proven this. That you choose to ignore them because they don't fit your personal held beliefs is something else. One thing Liberals can't stand are facts. Why do you think PP is spending millions in a public relations campaign attempting to improve their image?
Planned Parenthood has also been caught lying about their mammogram services, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ&feature=player_embedded
But shoot, since it is not the NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, DailyKos, Huffinton Post, or any other LIberal source which you worship, you will refuse to believe it. You will refuse to believe the words of the Planned Parenthood workers.
Hey, but keep on telling everyone how you don't mind the fact that a human being can own another one. The baby is not part of the mother nor part of the womb. And yes, there are human beings outside of the womb who can't survive without another human being supporting them physically, money wise, medically, etc. Are these individuals part of the human being who is taking care of them? Does the human being supporting them have the right to murder them? Using your house of horrors logic, yes.
Rupert, I had no idea you
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 5:15pm.
Rupert, I had no idea you were a slaveholder. Man, the things you learn...
Inaccurate conclusion
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 5:39pm.
Behavior not demonstrated. Life form lacks inductive/deductive capability.
Oh I thought we were taking
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 6:09pm.
Oh I thought we were taking huge leaps in logic after the slavery line in the previous post. Was I mistaken?
Balby, Huge leaps in logic?
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 6:34pm.
Balby,
Huge leaps in logic? Correctly pointing out that slave owners use the same arguments AND logic that pro-abortionist use today is a huge leap in logic? Only you Balby, only you.
Here is another one that will also have you claiming "huge leaps in logic". Nazis used the same arguments and logic to justify the mass murder of other human beings as pro-abortionist use today to justify the mass murder of who pro-abortionist consider to be inferior humans or non-humans.
Balby, balby.... LOL
Balboa, Care to point out
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 6:03pm.
Balboa,
Care to point out where I said Rupert was/is a slaveholder? Nice of you to once again prove that you can't read nor comprehend.
Let me help you Rocky.
Never said Rupert was a slave owner. What I did say is that his pro-abortion arguments are the same ones used by slave owners to justify slavery.
But nice of you to once again prove why you are a Liberal, intelligence is far from your forte, Rocky. You have received too many punches to the head, Balby.
WHOA Rupert. Politfact is not health services research.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:27pm.
Legitimate health services research, in terms of unit measurement, is not done on simple service counts. Those simple service counts grossly inflate the number of actual services performed because some of them are delivered simultaneously in the same patient. Example: a physician visit combining lab draws, an imaging procedure (x-ray) and echocardiogram = one patient and at least four services performed. The numbers are also not adjusted for patients who come in just for the abortion procedure after knowing they are already pregnant perhaps by other means, such as an over the counter pregnancy test or confirmation from another physician. The 3-5% figure you cite based on Politifact's analysis is NOT adjusted appropriately for the patient volume nor is it adjusted for cases where they referred an abortion to another facility as many PP clinics do not offer those services. Some are simply physician's offices focusing on contraception and STDs. And in many cases, the figures concerning STD screenings are also inflated, as they frequently count a single lab draw for syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and HIV as four separate services despite a single procedure.
A lay person would not know how these health services studies have to be digested and appropriately adjusted based on presenting primary complaint or presenting primary reason for seeking care.
Whoa, DrSam! If you follow
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:31pm.
Whoa, DrSam! If you follow the link to Politifact and note where I placed the link in the context of my post, you'll see that that link was meant simply to remind NBers of a certain AZ senator who, though he surely should have known better, decided simply to invent a ridiculously inaccurate statistic about PP's breakdown of services.
So please take your patronizing "lay person" talk elsewhere. Especially because it doesn't address the issue. For instance, a woman who goes to PP solely for an abortion, having obtained treatments and diagnoses through non-PP resources, needs to be adjusted for what, statistically? If we're talking about a breakdown of the services PP provides, those at-home products or interactions with her PCP are irrelevant. I'm a bit unclear on your point about the blood draw, ECG, and imaging; do we agree that those SHOULD be documented as separate procedures?
You used that site and quoted statistics from it.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:54pm.
That makes it a reference that you used to justify your position. I am simply stating that Politifact is not a health services research organization, and the figures they quote from Planned Parenthood are nothing but raw services counts which have to be adjusted for actual patient volume. The "3-5%" quote that you used from Politifact directly implied that only three to five percent of the patients they see get an abortion they provide, which may or may not be true. If they sub-contract those services to another clinic, it would not show up on their service counts because only actual services performed would be counted. The total number of abortions attributable to their services would have to be adjusted upwards because the procedure would have emanated from a referral they provided. The accreditation and licensure standards for health providers clearly state they are ultimately responsible for their referrals as well as the services they performed. Accordingly, we don't have a fully accurate account of how many abortions were truly attributable to Planned Parenthood based on the services they provided plus the number of abortion procedures they referred out to contracted providers. I also pointed out that we do not know how many patients came in simply for an abortion procedure with that as the presenting complaint/reason for visit. That is important because the statistics of care delivery are what is used to fund medical care. A lay person would not know that.
As for addressing the issue, you said John Kyl was pulling statistics out of thin air. In essence, so was Politifact because I see no evidence that it reviewed that data with an academic health services researcher to verify the actual attributable services rendered. This makes the evidence you cited as to his assertions essentially no more than hearsay.
A pregnancy test is not an at-home interaction, as there is no health care professional involved unless the woman using the test presents somewhere asking for care. Interactions with her PCP are NOT irrelevant either--the PCP would still be responsible overall for the care he or she recommended. A referral to a specialist or another provider which does not meet the PCP or patient expectations is reportable to the appropriate medical quality organization. A lay person would not know that.
If you understood what health services research is, and how it is used to measure actual patient care delivery statistics, that would be one thing. However, you clearly misunderstood what the academic area is and what it does. Health services research is the basis for just about every form of guideline, protocol and medical quality standards in existence. Again, a lay person would not know that.
Yes, you would count separate services provided but you would also adjust the figures for patient volume for proper analysis of the actual care units provided. A count of eight labs from one draw is not eight services, it is one lab draw. I only used that as an example of how medical statistics are often misunderstood or misconstrued.
If you feel patronized, that is your problem. I would expect a humanities academic to be a bit more thick-skinned given that he is out of his chosen academic field of endeavor.
Indeed, my link was badly
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:14am.
Indeed, my link was badly placed, since it provided its own unsubstantiated statistics on abortion rates. My intention there was only to remind readers of John Kyl's nonsense. My mistake.
And while I appreciate the time you took to clarify your point, I disagree about the relevance issue regarding PP's statistics. One does not need a referral from a PCP or anyone else to receive services from PP. I will admit that PP has a vested interest in misrepresenting downward the number of abortions they perform/outsource, but demanding the adjustments that you're talking about here doesn't line up with the reality of how PP works.
Rupert, So, the pro-murder
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:01am.
Rupert,
So, the pro-murder of babies organization that your pretend sister-in-law works for misrepresents the amount of abortions it performs per year. You admit it, yet you defend such an organization.
If this was the NRA, you would be going crazy and screaming railing against the NRA.
Nice to know that your pretend family members works, by your own admissions, for an organization that lies to the public in order to look good.
38 unborn babies
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:42pm.
Are destroyed by planned parenthood EVERY HOUR.
And a lot of those services that you are referencing are also necessary when killing an innocent baby.
Next is that abortion services are a huge revenue source for PP. They performed 329,455 abortions in 2010 The charge between 300$ and 950$ each time. Let's go with a low ball and say 400$. That is 132 million dollars (on the low end) plus you add in the charges of all the necessary side services that go along with it, and you come up with a huge portion of their overall income.
If you think that they aren't doing it for the money, you are an idiot.
We Are The 53%
Hold the phone...you're
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:00am.
Hold the phone...you're telling me that a nationwide health service organization...makes MONEY when they provide an in-demand service?
I am floored.
Next you'll tell me they also charge for the pap smears, HIV tests, and contraceptive prescriptions that make up the bulk of their services.
May I ask where the 38/hour and $300-$950 figures came from? The former stat sounds fishy and the latter is an awfully wide range.
Dyscalculia?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:16am.
There are (365 days x 24/hours per day) = 8,760 hours in a standard year. This is an inflation because most PP clinics are not open 24 hours all year around. Take the 332,378 abortions provided by the website that you supplied. 332,378 abortions total per year reported divided by 8,760 hours in a standard year = 37.94 (round off to 38) per hour TOTAL as he pointed out.
The reimbursement that Planned Parenthood may receive from an abortion would vary based on whether or not there is public subsidy for the service as certain states do pay for it. Washington State, for example, would probably pay for abortion services because their state constitution has strong equal rights language that has been interpreted very liberally to extend to what their Supreme Court has consistently found as gender-based inequities in health care service reimbursements. If a Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington provided an abortion to a patient receiving Medicaid (and not using that portion of federal funding which is prohibited under current law), the state would reimburse according to a standard procedure table based on the coding submitted for the patient at point of care delivery. The range provided is consistent with other procedures that are reimbursed at widely varying rates dependent on specific patient factors such as severity, complexity of care and other factors which are reflected in the coding of the bill submitted to the payer (public or private) for the service rendered. In most cases, if there is no established Medicare reimbursement rate, the state or third party payer would then use a UC&R (usual, customary & reasonable) source to determine its reimbursement. State Medicaid programs often share their reimbursement tables with each other for uniformity of reimbursement, particularly with neighboring states and where there may be significant patient crossover at border points, e.g. Portland, OR to Vancouver, Washington.
A very fishy source.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:43am.
38 per hour. Of course I had to use a calculator. 329,445 divided by (365x24) equals 37.6. Unfortunately that is counting every single hour in the year, and I don't think PP is open 24/7/365 but maybe they are.
300$ to 950$? Yes that came from some radical disgusting website.
I didn't say that making money is wrong you idiot, I said they are in it for the money, not to help the poor and helpless women. It is a HUGE part of their revenue stream. 3-5% of their "treatments" provide at a minimum 20% of their income and probably closer to 50% if you include all the other services that a women receives because of their "choice".
We Are The 53%
Rupert Cadell LIES again. Right through his green teeth.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:27am.
Rupert Cadell in a another LIE; Percentage of PP patients in a given year who end up getting an abortion: ~3-5
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE
A BOLD FACED LIE RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.
Factcheck: Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion.
NPR: It is actually a little bit closer to the 10% that Marjorie Dannenfesler suggested, because there are about 3 million patients who come in. There are about 300,000 abortions provided.
NPR: CONAN: And the difference might be that the same woman who later received an abortion also got a pregnancy test and counseling and some other services.
HE LIES RIGHT IN YOUR FACE AND THEN SPITS AT YOU. THAT IS THE VICIOUS TURD TROLL Rupert Cadell.
Why were these women coming to Planned Parenthood for their pregnancy tests, considering how they could have gotten a cheap pregnancy test at their local drug store? It certainly couldn’t be for the prenatal care, since so few Planned Parenthood centers offer it (FN According to the Services fact sheet, PPFA clinics provided prenatal services just 7,021 clients in 2009 in the U.S.).
A not so insignificant part of the bottom line
To get a real idea of how essential abortion is to Planned Parenthood, instead of comparing all services equally, one does well to take a look at the relative revenue brought in by each service.
While a pregnancy test may cost $15 and birth control pills may run $15-$50 a month, the average price a woman pays for basic first trimester surgical abortion in the U.S. is about $451, says a recent survey by the Guttmacher Institute (FN Rachel Jones and Kathryn Kooistra, “Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 43, No. 1 (March 2011), Table 6, p. 48).
If so, and all 332,278 abortions performed at Planned Parenthood in 2009 are counted as these first trimester surgical abortions, then the revenue generated by abortion would be $149.9 million. This would represent a full 37% of the $404.9 million in “health center income” Planned Parenthood reported for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 (FN, Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Annual Report, 2008-2009,”The Promise of Change,” p.29)
Given that Planned Parenthood clinics advertise and perform more expensive chemical abortions with abortifacients like RU486 (average price paid $483) and later surgical abortions (average price of $1562 at 20 weeks), [4] the revenue stream generated by abortion and the percentage of clinic income it represents at Planned Parenthood is probably much higher.
Put all this together, largely taken from PPFA’s own reports, and it is clear that the “3%” figure is a myth intended to mask Planned Parenthood’s deep, wide, and lucrative involvement in abortion.
UP YOURS YOU VICIOUS LYING TROLL.
Vet and DrSam
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:04pm.
Alright gentlemen, I like to think I can admit when I'm wrong, and you two got me good. Vet's sources are more credible and detailed than the ones I was working from, and DrSam's skepticism toward the way that the data was compiled only furthers the wrongness of my oversimplified claims. I wanted to believe the 3-5% stat because it flattered my preconceived notions, and I should have known better.
This doesn't really change my pro-choiceness or belief that PP is, in the end, a necessary organization that does a lot of good. But as far as my hasty citation of faulty data: I was wrong.
Mea Culpa.
~"A necessary organization that does a lot of good"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:27pm.
Yes, I did throw up in my mouth a little as I typed that.
RC, if they were such a great organization, why don't they make a point to undergo state health inspections?
Wisconsin abortion facilities not subject to health inspections
Planned Parenthood’s Illinois abortion clinics are not subject to state inspection.
Did you know that PP has no rule that there must be a registered nurse on staff? Pennsylvania had to make a law requiring it.
There's lots more links I could show you, but this subject makes me ill.
Couldn't you just have cut
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:50pm.
Couldn't you just have cut and pasted it? That might have been less vomit-inducing.
Just kidding. You're certainly entitled to find PP repugnant. My opinion stands, but I'm not going to argue and continue my apologism for them, lest I put my foot in my mouth once again.
~Not without having to then erase the
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 3:44pm.
"Read more:linkgobbledygook" that shows up every time you try to copy-paste something.
I accept your white flag of surrender.
Oh yeah, that is
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 3:52pm.
Oh yeah, that is irritating.
Um, thanks.
~You're welcome
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 3:55pm.
It's a little service I provide to NB liberals, free of charge. Think of it as a "Thanks for playing" consolation prize.
That's thoughtful. Well,
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:01pm.
That's thoughtful. Well, back to reading Wikipedia articles on Marx and painting signs about how awesome the 99% is, I guess.
~Fun fact to take away
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:10pm.
What we call "poor" here, a family of four making 22,000, for example, qualifies as part of the wealthiest 10% of people in the world.
Meaning...?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:13pm.
Meaning...?
~Oh, the irony
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 4:27pm.
The most cryptic person on NB wants me to elaborate.
Meaning
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 8:06pm.
Dey ain't menny po peepul in these here US of A.
Seemed to be implying that
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 8:28pm.
Seemed to be implying that poor people aren't really poor.
She wasn't implying anything
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 9:17pm.
She was stating the simple fact that, by the world's standards, our poor aren't really poor.
Really, fat poor??? Cable TV, a home paid for, two cars, computer, cell phone. "Poor" people in this country have those things. Poor people in other countries can see the incongruity in those facts, but leave it the modern day American liberal to be blind to it.
~Jinx
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 9:25pm.
.
~Compared to what?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 9:23pm.
"Poor" people in this country, on average, have at least one car, air conditioning, central heat, cable TV, cell phones, they get free medical care, free food, and have more disposable income than the average middle-class family.
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
I'd call that 'not really poor' compared to poor people in most of the world.
This marks the first time a
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 9:38pm.
This marks the first time a conservative has suddenly found it useful to compare Americans to anyone else.
One problem: those people live in America, not elsewhere.
Balby, More of your second
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 10:06pm.
Balby,
More of your second grade Liberal "logic".
Hmmmm....WRONG! I as a Conservative who grew up in a REAL poor nation, I make this comparision all the time.
"Poverty" in America is middle class or higher in the rest of the world.
It might do you good to travel outside of the USA and go to Venezuela, Guatemala, Nigeria, El Salvador, Honduras, Albania, Croatia, Taiwan, China, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
99.9% of Americans do not know what the true meaning of poverty is. Much less spoiled brat Liberals such as yourself who believe that poverty is not being able to afford an IPAD.
ThiS should be AWESOME. What
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 10:25pm.
ThiS should be AWESOME. What was I wrong about? Wait, let me get settled first.
OK: go.
Balby, balby... here you
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 1:42am.
Balby, balby...
here you go, this is what you are WRONG about, "This marks the first time a conservative has suddenly found it useful to compare Americans to anyone else." I know it is hard for you, but c'mon now. Really? you really need to hand holding? You made a false statement. Not that you care. As long as it pushes and moves your Liberalism, why not spew lies, right Rocky? Again you prove that you have received too many punches to the head. Thanks for playing...next.
PROVE your statement beyond a reasonabble doubt or admit your a liar. LOL
Speaking for myself
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 12:28am.
I honestly can't say you're wrong, because I honestly don't have a clue as to your point.
Are you saying well fed Americans uploading to YouTube on smart phones are just as bad off as poor kids in Africa who may not eat for days on end?
The problem is not that "those people live in America...". The problem is the the entitlement mentality of our poor happily fed by the class warfare wrought by liberals.
bal, No electricity and no refrigeration, that's poor.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 12:27am.
I'm willing to bet you know no one in that condition here in America.
Me and maybe Killa know of some off-the gird, folk that have no refrigeration, however they have a cooler with ice and organic food from the health food store in it, living in a shack, tv show lost like.
You Didn't Build That.
Bru
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 7:18pm.
Try using "control v" to paste instead of your mouse, sometimes it works without getting the read more part.
We Are The 53%
~Who knew
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 8:04pm.
a computer geek could be so hot.
Who Knew!
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 10:08pm.
A mother of 4 could be so smokin!!!
We Are The 53%
Denny
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 12:35am.
Like
er Ditto
You Didn't Build That.
Rupert, You pro-PP opinion
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 6:18pm.
Rupert,
You pro-PP opinion stands?
You prove exactly what is wrong with Liberals in America. You have been proven wrong about your pro-Planned Parenthood arguments. Everything you said about Planned Parenthood has been found to be a lie. You acknowledge as much, yet you continue to support an organization that lies, covers up pedophilia, abuses government funds, lies about the services it provides.
It is not our opinion that Planned Parenthood is immoral, it is a fact. Yet, you still back Planned Parenthood.
I have to ask, why? PP are liars, PP are misusing federal funds, PP is covering for pedophiles.
LibLies, perfectly reasonable
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 7:35pm.
LibLies, perfectly reasonable question. My stance of being pro-choice stands completely. There's no reason, based on this discussion, that it shouldn't.
And since PP works for pro-choice issues and provides abortions to women who choose to get them (on a sliding scale, as another poster pointed out), and also provides other, far less controversial essential services, I'm inclined to support them.
However, thanks to Vet's and DrSam's posts (and believe me, I never thought I'd be thanking Vet for anything) I've had some of my perhaps naive beliefs about certain aspects of PP challenged, and I recognize that I should re-evaluate. I don't yet feel convinced that lying, misusing funds, and covering for pedophiles are things that PP is all about. But I was wrong on the 3-5 stat, and I tossed it out there irresponsibly. So maybe I'm wrong about this too.
~Covering for pedophiles
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 7:57pm.
These workers were told that a 14 year old's 31 year old "boyfriend" got her pregnant and told her to have an abortion.
"In the state of Kentucky, sex between a 14-year-old and a 31-year-old is rape in the third degree and would reasonably be considered sexual abuse of a child which must be reported to law enforcement immediately. The clinic failed to ask the questions necessary to file a child sexual abuse report and did not communicate to Rose about the illegal or dangerous nature of her sexual relationship."
Ok Rupert*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 9:00pm.
It's nice to see you waking up. Here's a cup of coffee. Abortion clinics, no matter how presented, is strictly in the business of killing babies. Those doctors care not one whit for the patients health or care. Its a huge money making business that has been able, for decades, to avoid state health care regulations. Here in La, we have a charity hospital system for the poor. After dozens of complaints of botched abortions, the health dept finally got involved. Out of 7 abortion clinics here in La, 3 have been permanently closed when atrocities were found in inspections. And It isnt just La.
Here are a few more links for you to peruse at you leisure for further enlightenment.
This was stunning to be found in a very conservative state.
It should be no surprise that doctors who perform murder for a living actually think nothing of butchering babies.
They have hidden themselves well in the slums of big cities
Butchers live in several large populated areas
Wouldn't you like to have this guy providing medical care for the women in your life
That is just a few links. If I wasn't so lazy, I could link dozens more for you.
Understand the underlying causes in all of these stories. Due to liberals pushing certain agendas, billions of taxpayer money, regulations designed to "protect" these operations, have basically seen this business evolve into "puppy mills" so to speak. Doctors that are incompetent find jobs there, directors make hundreds of thousands in wages, and women are left damaged by botched abortions. They provide no follow up services and we know the harm done to women who have had abortions.
Women who suffered depression and harm from these abortion clinics were many of MY clients as I tried to point out to you in earlier posts.
PP isnt an organization that has a grand vision of providing care to women. It's a damn racket to make money off those who are desperate and vulnerable.
Ruppert, Fair enough answer.
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/03/2012 - 2:28am.
Ruppert,
Fair enough answer. However, in this forum as well as in other forum dealing with abortion, Planned Parenthood you have been linked to stories, stats, etc which prove the pro-abortion movement lies, distorts the truth, it is involved in criminal behavior.
Planned Parenthood IS involved in covering up for pedophiles. Why is this so hard for you to believe?
And the most important question is, do you believe that abortions kills a human being? which according to biology, a baby inside the womb of a woman is a human being.
So where will you go, then?
Submitted by Hero Squad on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 10:56pm.
I wonder if the women outraged at the decision by the Komen Foundation will not only cease their contributions to the organization, but also make sure that they are getting their mammogram from a practice that is not funded in any way by the Komen Foundation... in order to stand firm to their beliefs.
Of course, they might not be left with too many options other than to go to Planned Parenthood themselves (which would be something very new for most of them), since the contributions of Komen for mammogram service is very wide-reaching. And even if they do, PP will most likely end up referring them to a radiology practice that receives funding from Komen anyway.
If only 3-5% of Planned Parenthood's business comes from abortions... it is still 3-5% too much.
*
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
If only 3-5% of Planned
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:06pm.
If only 3-5% of Planned Parenthood's business comes from abortions... it is still 3-5% too much.
I actually agree with you on that point. Contrary to popular belief, Pro-Choice is not = to Pro-Abortion. I'd love for no women to be getting abortions. But I'd love to see that be the case because women don't wind up in the position of feeling they need one, not because they're legally banned from doing so. The latter will never happen. Women who want abortions badly enough will get them, just like drug addicts will get their drugs one way or another; the illegality is a mere inconvenience. And on that note, I think that the other services PP offers keeps the abortion rate down. Because again, they provide more women with contraceptives than they perform abortions. Many many more times over.
Numbers Rupert*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:43pm.
After reading the link you posted, let me add something. Lets say only half of the 4m women that have been to PP decided not to have abortions. Mostly because the majority of their clinics are pathetic, filthy and ill equipped as well as poorly staffed. Even though these women may have decided not to have an abortion, they will still have an exam, be tested for STD;s, and a mammogram. Should be standard procedures for "women's reproductive care". If these women do have abortions, they return for follow up visit, they count them again, for testing and counseling but this time provide them with contraceptives. So the numbers are actually skewed when showing repeat patients.
The problem is that these are all poor women or women with other problems like alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic abuse, no proper ID, and underage pregnancy, like Ms Rad pointed out.
Basically, this is an organization that takes advantage of desperate women and young girls with the promise of privacy. So they draw the kind of patients that would otherwise fear more ordinary medical facilities. The majority of affiliated and PP supported clinics are not directly counted in the numbers. They do not carry the license for PP but are financially supported by PP. The directors and Doctors in those clinics work for PP, but not the clinic itself. Those are the clinics that provide only abortions, usually in the slums or poor sections of large cities.
An NB poster stated a few days ago....if they give you percentages ask for numbers, if they give you numbers ask for percentages.....
Anyone can skew numbers if you ignore certain issues that deflect from your agenda.
Add to that darling
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:42pm.
That over 40% of abortions are the woman's second one.
We Are The 53%
Try this one Rupert*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:55pm.
If PP wants to improve their reputation, how about they provide serious care by psychiatrists and psychologists for the women who have had abortions. There is another price women pay for abortion
That statistic, Denny
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:02am.
Is so incredibly sad.
These liberal women weep at the destruction of a sand carp's habitat, but think nothing of destroying an unborn child.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, It is even more sad
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:41am.
Blonde,
It is even more sad than that.
We have a legal system which will protect the eggs, the embroys of animals, whaltes, turtles, etc. giving jail time to a person who kills the eggs, the embroy, etc., but will turn a blind eye, in fact support the murder of a human being who was unfortunate enough to be inside the womb of a mother.
It is incredible that whale embroys, turtle eggs, etc. have more protection under the law than a human being inside the womb of a mother.
Do we live in a twisted society or what?
JJ, All of these statistics are incredibly sad
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 2:02am.
You may not want to click the link.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0102.pdf
We Are The 53%
Rupert, Well,
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:18am.
Rupert,
Well, hmmm....contrary to what pro-abortionist like to say, pro-choice=pro-abortion. The better thing to say is, that people who are pro-choicers love to lie to themselves, friends and to the public. But it is often proven that pro-choicers are pro-abortionist.
Using your logic, that even if abortion is made illegal, abortions will continue, shoot, why make murder illegal, murders will continue whether these are illegal or not. Why make stealing illegal, thefts will continue whether stealing is illegal or not, etc., etc.
Just because humanity will always find a way to continue immoral behavior, it doesn't mean that we should not make it illegal.
If providing contraceptives stopped abortions, why is it that we still have millions of abortions?
I'll one-up you, LL
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:23am.
Pro-Choice = Abortion Lover/Promoter/Defender
There is nothing "pro" about their position. It's all about DEATH. Well, I take that back, maybe they are pro-DEATH.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, Yeap, exactly.
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:38am.
Blonde,
Yeap, exactly. Pro-choicer=pro-death.
I deal a lot with medical students due to my job. Where I work there is a pro-abortion club and a pro-life club. During the Roe v. Wade anniversary they had a debate. It was incredible what I witnessed.
When the pro-life group proved through science, biology, that a baby inside of the womb IS a human being by the definition biology uses to defing a breathing, living human being the only way that the pro-choice club could answer is that science is relative and it means what the person wants it to mean. It was a surreal moment. The pro-life club called the pro-choice club on their ridiculous statement. The pro-life club forced the pro-choice club to admit what the latter wanted to hide, that the pro-choice movement can no longer hide from the fact that abortions murder a human being.
This is something I have encountered too. When I was in college during the mid-1990s the debate was that abortions did not kill a human being. Today, I have come across the fact that pro-abortionist know that they are killing a human being, but they simply do not care. In their warped mind the choice of the mother to murder the baby in her womb is more important than the life of a human being in her womb.
Not sure it's a good idea for
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 02/01/2012 - 11:58pm.
Not sure it's a good idea for Komen to get political. The backlash is already beginning. For example, people are asking why Komen is in business with Bank of America.
Perhaps because they need a bank, bal.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:04am.
Who are they going to use for their banking services? At that level of financial services, the competition for accounts that size is incredibly fierce. There are only a few banks with a nationwide footprint like Bank of America.
Why should they even have to defend this?
Then why draw a line in the
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:09am.
Then why draw a line in the sand if it doesn't mean anything?
Careful Balboa*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:26am.
Don't lump Susan G. Komen into the lib argument of evil corporations. SGK provides services to people who cannot afford cancer prevention and treatment. Those that can, pay. They also receive millions in donations. They DO care about women's health.
Just today I and thousands of other women have written to SGK and thanked them for their decision. An organization that claims to care about womens health , saving the lives of cancer patients, cannot be hypocritical and advocate the death of human infants at the same time.
I am a breast cancer survivor and have been a patient at one of their facilities. Luckily, I have insurance and received excellent care. My mother died of breast cancer and having been "poor", this organization cared for her as they did other more financially able patients. She received the best care, services and counseling to help her through her losing battle with cancer.
The more money SGK makes, the more indigent patients they can help. How is that a negative?
I'm not saying they don't do
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:32am.
I'm not saying they don't do great things. Im just not sure they want to step into the political line of fire.
SGKF probably had differences with the funding.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:35am.
As a private foundation, to keep its tax-exempt status it has to spend so much of its income every year. What that is, I don't know. The statistics regarding charitable foundations are easily accessible with a Google search.
I have dealt with many, many care-focused foundations over the years, from NORD (National Organization for Rare Disorders) to local MHMR (mental health/mental retardation) organizations to private, single-purpose entities. The politics in the non-profit world is incredibly personal. What drove Komen to end its relationship with PP is only a matter that their boards and executives will ever know. The board of Komen is hardly a conservative think tank, and of course the board of PP would not be either. Nobody will ever know the real reason, whether it was some personal experience or if the terms of a specific grant were not followed.
That being said, SGKF would be legally obliged to withdraw funding if the case involved what it felt to be a misuse of publicly donated funds for purposes other than intended. I am NOT saying that is the case, but when you have these types of grants, anything and everything under the sun can and will happen.
The description of saying "drawing a line in the sand" sounds adversarial, when in fact we do not have the reason why SGKF withdrew its funding. SGKF is not legally required to fund Planned Parenthood, and it may have made a decision that there were other avenues available to it for it to maintain its mission.
You are attributing political reasons to situation where no facts are available outside of the scant information sources. Please do not conflate to that point of sensationalism.
A possible explanation drsam*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 12:47am.
When you are in the business of providing quality health care for women you must be careful with your associates
The abortion issue is not a
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:07am.
The abortion issue is not a political issue. It is a Moral issue which has been made political.
Planned Parent Hood
Submitted by CJohnson on Thu, 02/02/2012 - 1:53am.
They do not create or enhance parenthood; they do the exact opposite and the results are the planned parent hood epidemic.