# PP filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Center f



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I think this makes 3, maybe 4, lawsuits against CMP. 

"Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit Thursday against the anti-abortion activists who secretly taped the group's officials talking about the sale of fetal tissue and released the heavily edited videos last year."

"Health centers face a nine-fold increase in security threats and violence culminating in the shooting in Colorado that left three innocent people dead," she said, referencing the November shooting by a man at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. Robert Lewis Dear, the accused shooter, said at a hearing for his case that, "I am a warrior for the babies."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/14/polit...ical-progress0148AMVODtopLink&linkId=20379185


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

They got caught and are now blaming those who exposed them.
In this day and age where those who do the right thing are often punished by the corrupt "justice" system, those who do wrong can just get a lawyer and attack.
Is it any wonder this country is in the moral toilet?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And our Tax Dollars to do this deed also. What a piece of work they are~! sarcasm all the way is needed to clean up things like pp what a way to do got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar now they are ------ so lets get back on them lets take them to court unring this money we get from the tax payers lets get rid of some.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yes, it's a vast conspiracy... PP was actually caught selling fetal body parts but the entire left wing, government et al is covering it up. As a theory it's up there with no Holocaust and we didn't really walk on the moon. Some people will believe anything as long as it suits their agenda. It's terrifying that people can be so fixated but when the goal is to control women they _have_ to believe it. :facepalm:

"Recordings secretly made by an anti-abortion group at meetings of abortion providers do not show criminal activity and could put the providers at risk, a federal judge said Friday, citing the recent shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it's a vast conspiracy... PP was actually caught selling fetal body parts but the entire left wing, government et al is covering it up. As a theory it's up there with no Holocaust and we didn't really walk on the moon. Some people will believe anything as long as it suits their agenda. It's terrifying that people can be so fixated but when the goal is to control women they _have_ to believe it. :facepalm:
> 
> *"Recordings secretly made by an anti-abortion group at meetings of abortion providers do not show criminal activity and could put the providers at risk, a federal judge said Friday, citing the recent shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic."
> *
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/


 *About District Judge William H. Orrick*

Born 1953 in San Francisco, CA
*Federal Judicial Service:*



Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California 
*Nominated by Barack Obama* on June 11, 2012 and renominated on January 3, 2013, to a seat vacated by Charles R. Breyer. Confirmed by the Senate on May 15, 2013, and received commission on May 16, 2013.
 That is pretty much all one needs to know about the allegiances of this particular Federal judge.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oh, "proof" of a conspiracy.  It isn't the law at all, it's all about who nominated you.  So every judge nominated by a Republican President will rule for the right, correct? Or is it just Democrat/liberal judges? SMH. It's sad and scary what people will believe to support their agenda and it's conspiracy theories.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, "proof" of a conspiracy.  It isn't the law at all, it's all about who nominated you.  So every judge nominated by a Republican President will rule for the right, correct? Or is it just Democrat/liberal judges? SMH. It's sad and scary what people will believe to support their agenda and it's conspiracy theories.


Obama has a history of appointing activists, why would we think he wouldn't appoint a judge with an agenda?
Either way, PP got caught, now they are throwing a fit to distract the gullible.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I simply can't believe there is an American with two functioning brain cells that has never heard of the Hyde Amendment. Maybe there _should_ be a test in order to vote. Just kidding, kinda. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It's telling that a republican governor refuses to believe the findings of his own hand picked board that investigated this issue. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...6e4214-bb27-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I agree it's gullibility and the ability to pigeon hole limited intellect into conspiracy theories and the agenda. That and the complete inability to comprehend the difference between a sale and reimbursement of costs. That type of true gullibility (focus on agenda?) is terrifying.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree it's gullibility and the ability to pigeon hole limited intellect into conspiracy theories and the agenda. That and the complete inability to comprehend the difference between a sale and reimbursement of costs. That type of true gullibility (focus on agenda?) is terrifying.


For some gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills do come into play. For many more it is the need to drive an agenda regardless of the facts. In this case the facts are that numerous investigations have been done in numerous states by politically motivated entities which had every reason to find even a hint of wrongdoing. None have. The most likely reason is that there was no wrong doing. Logic like that seems to elude those like Gov. Brownback. But then, only the other side has an agenda and cannot be trusted. And we wonder why the country's divided.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> It's telling that a republican governor refuses to believe the findings of *his own hand picked board* that investigated this issue.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...6e4214-bb27-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html


The stupidity? arrogance? is strong with Brownback, isn't it? This is the article that flipped my switch this morning...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The simple fact is that PP aborts the unborn. That is an undisputed fact. Just because our lax morals allows the practice to continue is nether hear nor there.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> For some gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills do come into play. For many more it is the need to drive an agenda regardless of the facts. In this case the facts are that numerous investigations have been done in numerous states by politically motivated entities which had every reason to *find even a hint of wrongdoing*. None have. The most likely reason is that there was no wrong doing. Logic like that seems to elude those like Gov. Brownback. But then, only the other side has an agenda and cannot be trusted. And we wonder why the country's divided.


 Oh, PP admits to some of the most horrid wrongdoing that humans can do. Perhaps they couldn't find anything currently illegal, but, there is plenty of wrongdoing going on.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> The simple fact is that PP aborts the unborn. That is an undisputed fact. Just because our lax morals allows the practice to continue is nether hear nor there.


Thanks again for sharing the obvious and offering your opinion on it. The facts still remain that despite numerous investigations there has been no proof offered that PP did anything illegal even though many continue to contend they did.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, "proof" of a conspiracy.  It isn't the law at all, it's all about who nominated you.  So every judge nominated by a Republican President will rule for the right, correct? Or is it just Democrat/liberal judges? SMH. It's sad and scary what people will believe to support their agenda and it's conspiracy theories.


 Proof? No, but, strong evidence. If it were purely about the law, it wouldn't matter who nominated anyone, but, we know and have seen that the fastest way for a President to give his agenda staying power, is to fill the courts with his people. I don't believe anyone with, as you say, two brain cells, can deny that fact. We all know that Obama doesn't want anyone "Punished with a baby".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, PP admits to some of the most horrid wrongdoing that humans can do. Perhaps they couldn't find anything currently illegal, but, there is plenty of wrongdoing going on.


I'd say spreading misinformation and allegations about someone commiting illegal acts is wrongdoing. We'll find out if the courts agree. So far, no governmental body has found anything that would be wrongdoing by PP.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> *Thanks again for sharing the obvious and offering your opinion on it.* The facts still remain that despite numerous investigations there has been no proof offered that PP did anything illegal even though many continue to contend they did.


 Kinda what we do here.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, PP admits to some of the most horrid wrongdoing that humans can do. Perhaps they couldn't find anything currently illegal, but, there is plenty of wrongdoing going on.


What horrible "wrongdoing" does PP admit to? Can you explain? Or is it just your opinion, and what PP does is completely legal and sanctioned by the Constitution? Don't bother responding if it is just your opinion, and as per usual, there is no fact to back it up.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> I'd say spreading misinformation and allegations about someone commiting illegal acts is wrongdoing. We'll find out if the courts agree. So far, no governmental body has found anything that would be wrongdoing by PP.


 As the courts are largely as corrupt as the rest of the Criminal Federal Government, they may very well agree. 

To me there is no need to spread rumors of "illegal" acts of PP, the legal ones are more horrific than any of the alleged "crimes"


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What horrible "wrongdoing" does PP admit to? Can you explain? Or is it just your opinion, and what PP does is completely legal and sanctioned by the Constitution? Don't bother responding if it is just your opinion, and as per usual, there is no fact to back it up.


 They kill the unborn. They do not deny that fact. And it is not sanctioned by the Constitution. It is sanctioned by the OPINIONS of evil men who twisted the Constitution.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The simple fact is that PP aborts the unborn. That is an undisputed fact. Just because our lax morals allows the practice to continue is nether hear nor there.





Farmerga said:


> They kill the unborn. They do not deny that fact. And it is not sanctioned by the Constitution. It is sanctioned by the OPINIONS of evil men who twisted the Constitution.


Abortion is legal in the US since Roe v. Wade in 1973. You can wail, tear your hair, gash your teeth... still legal. 

If you're confused: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Proof? No, but, strong evidence. If it were purely about the law, it wouldn't matter who nominated anyone, but, we know and have seen that the fastest way for a President to give his agenda staying power, is to fill the courts with his people. I don't believe anyone with, as you say, two brain cells, can deny that fact. We all know that Obama doesn't want anyone "Punished with a baby".


And yet those governors and their hand picked boards can't find the evidence of these misdeeds. Who has the greater political agenda? The judge only ruled the case had merit. All will get their day in court. You won't believe or trust the outcome unless it favors you. You'll again blame overreaching government functionaries. I'll trust the courts to do their job. Much more than the kangaroo court of public opinion fed by those who distrust logic because it doesn't fit their purpose.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And yet those governors and their hand picked boards can't find the evidence of these misdeeds. Who has the greater political agenda? The judge only ruled the case had merit. All will get their day in court. You won't believe or trust the outcome unless it favors you. You'll again blame overreaching government functionaries. I'll trust the courts to do their job. Much more than the kangaroo court of public opinion fed by those who distrust logic because it doesn't fit their purpose.


Excellent post.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Kinda what we do here.


Some of us offer more than just opinion. We offer facts and citations we can substantiate. I know which I give more credence to.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Some of us offer more than just opinion. We offer facts and citations we can substantiate. I know which I give more credence to.


 Oh, is it not a true statement that PP performs abortions? Is that not a fact. I guess, if you deny that fact, I could scare up a citation that proves it. Silly me, I thought everyone knew that. Shoot, I even admit that there is nothing much to the videos. (more than a disgusting lack of respect for human life). I will admit that, in 1973, a bunch of men, in black robes, did indeed decree that abortion restrictions went against the Constitution. That was their opinion. I have often said that the only way to get rid of the immoral and shameful practice of homicide against the unborn is to amend the Constitution. I don't even call abortion murder, because it is currently legal and murder is illegal homicide. 

Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. I have my opinions, you have yours, and the guys in black robes have theirs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> You see, this is why I often question your reading comprehension skills. When have I EVER denied that the shameful practice of abortion was not legal? I have said it is wrong, immoral, disgusting, not fit for civilized society, etc., but, I have never denied its current legality.


Yet you try to deny a legal service to women in the US based on _your_ opinion, and it just doesn't work that way. *Your opinion on abortion means squat. Nothing you can do about it. Nada. Zip*.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I simply can't believe there is an American with two functioning brain cells that has never heard of the Hyde Amendment. Maybe there _should_ be a test in order to vote. Just kidding, kinda.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


At least a photo ID


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. I have my opinions, you have yours, and the guys in black robes have theirs.


Thank you. Who's opinion takes precedence?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree it's gullibility and the ability to pigeon hole limited intellect into conspiracy theories and the agenda. That and the complete inability to comprehend the difference between a sale and reimbursement of costs. That type of true gullibility (focus on agenda?) is terrifying.


I think it's more what they are selling and how they obtain their "product" than the terminology


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> And yet those governors and their hand picked boards can't find the evidence of these misdeeds. Who has the greater political agenda? The judge only ruled the case had merit. All will get their day in court. You won't believe or trust the outcome unless it favors you. You'll again blame overreaching government functionaries. I'll trust the courts to do their job. Much more than the kangaroo court of public opinion fed by those who distrust logic because it doesn't fit their purpose.


 
Would you deny that those who support homicide of the unborn have an agenda to keep it legal? I know I have an agenda, but, so does this judge. So does Obama, So does anyone with strong feelings about Abortion one way or the other. If a judge appointed by Bush had said the opposite from this judge, I have a feeling that you wouldn't be cheering about it. You may even say that he was wrong/crazy/agenda driven, etc. 

You make it out like only those opposed to you have an agenda, that is silly. You have an agenda as does IP and so do I.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. Who's opinion takes precedence?


 It is a matter of fighting for your beliefs. The major opinion will ebb and flow over decades. For the moment, as to legality, the wrong opinion has precedence. That can change.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet you try to deny a legal service to women in the US based on _your_ opinion, and it just doesn't work that way. *Your opinion on abortion means squat. Nothing you can do about it. Nada. Zip*.


 You keep saying that. If it were 1965 and we were having this same conversation and I stated that "Your opinion on abortion means squat. Nothing you can do about it. Nada. Zip" Would you give up the fight, sit down and shut up? Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is a matter of fighting for your beliefs. The major opinion will ebb and flow over decades. For the moment, as to legality, the wrong opinion has precedence. That can change.





Farmerga said:


> You keep saying that. If it were 1965 and we were having this same conversation and I stated that "Your opinion on abortion means squat. Nothing you can do about it. Nada. Zip" Would you give up the fight, sit down and shut up? Somehow, I doubt it.


Sigh. It's been nearly 43 years of of trying to overturn Roe v Wade, and a woman's right to her control her own body.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, is it not a true statement that PP performs abortions? Is that not a fact. I guess, if you deny that fact, I could scare up a citation that proves it. Silly me, I thought everyone knew that. Shoot, I even admit that there is nothing much to the videos. (more than a disgusting lack of respect for human life). I will admit that, in 1973, a bunch of men, in black robes, did indeed decree that abortion restrictions went against the Constitution. That was their opinion. I have often said that the only way to get rid of the immoral and shameful practice of homicide against the unborn is to amend the Constitution. I don't even call abortion murder, because it is currently legal and murder is illegal homicide.
> 
> Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. I have my opinions, you have yours, and the guys in black robes have theirs.


See, I never denied that PP performs abortionsvin some of their clinics. It's your opinion that this is wrong. It's not against the law. The law is a fact. Your opinion is yours. One can be proven. The other belongs soley to you.

This thread started out about allegations that PP committed illegal acts and their fight back against such allegations. Allegations that dispite numerous investigations remain unproven. That is another fact. It's one there is no counter to except to attempt to disparage those who deal in the facts. Tougher to do when those fact finders are on your side. Of course, rather than deal in such facts you can also try to deflect the conversation back to your opinion about abortion. I won't try to dissuade you of that opinion. It's yours even though there is no way to prove its basis true or untrue. I can offer proof that PP committed no illegal acts. For that I can thank Govs. Brownback, Jindhal and others who sent their minions out to search for evidence of such acts and came back empty handed. You can have your opinion. I'll stick with the facts


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Today's supereme court is more than half staffed with morons. Does anyone think we could get a reasonable result appealing to a court of morons? Packing the court with tools who will do the bidding of the packers was part of the plan. It matters not what the law says when the deciders interpret the laws completely against their words in favor of the controllers' desired outcomes.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> See, I never denied that PP performs abortionsvin some of their clinics. It's your opinion that this is wrong. It's not against the law. The law is a fact. Your opinion is yours. One can be proven. The other belongs soley to you.
> 
> This thread started out about allegations that PP committed illegal acts and their fight back against such allegations. Allegations that dispite numerous investigations remain unproven. That is another fact. It's one there is no counter to except to attempt to disparage those who deal in the facts. Tougher to do when those fact finders are on your side. Of course, rather than deal in such facts you can also try to deflect the conversation back to your opinion about abortion. I won't try to dissuade you of that opinion. It's yours even though there is no way to prove its basis true or untrue. I can offer proof that PP committed no illegal acts. For that I can thank Govs. Brownback, Jindhal and others who sent their minions out to search for evidence of such acts and came back empty handed. You can have your opinion. I'll stick with the facts


This. My original post was not about abortion, it was about PP filing a lawsuit against CMP for lying and manipulation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Would you deny that those who support homicide of the unborn have an agenda to keep it legal? I know I have an agenda, but, so does this judge. So does Obama, So does anyone with strong feelings about Abortion one way or the other. If a judge appointed by Bush had said the opposite from this judge, I have a feeling that you wouldn't be cheering about it. You may even say that he was wrong/crazy/agenda driven, etc.
> 
> You make it out like only those opposed to you have an agenda, that is silly. You have an agenda as does IP and so do I.


Actually, had he ruled on the law and the validity of this suit I would feel the same. I notice that no one has offered a countering legal opinion as to why this suit shouldn't proceed? That would be another example of a supportable counter argument. Your's, or others', opinions of the judge's state of mind from afar is just another example of unsupportable opinion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> I think it's more what they are selling and how they obtain their "product" than the terminology


I think that's based on perception. Most outside the medical industry are inclined to think it likely costs less than $20 to ship product but it's a lot more complicated than that. 

There's the cost associated with preservation and storage, keeping specimens at a very specific temperature and they have to be delivered in the same manner, which is why blood banks tend to use their own specially equipped vehicles.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Actually, had he ruled on the law and the validity of this suit I would feel the same. I notice that no one has offered a countering legal opinion as to why this suit shouldn't proceed? That would be another example of a supportable counter argument. Your's, or others', opinions of the judge's state of mind from afar is just another example of unsupportable opinion.


 The Suit is irrelevant as anyone can file suit for anything. The 1st amendment should give protection to the anti-abortion group, unless, of course, agenda driven judges ignore it to further their pro-abortion stance.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The Suit is irrelevant as anyone can file suit for anything. *The 1st amendment should give protection to the anti-abortion group, unless, of course, agenda driven judges ignore it to further their pro-abortion stance*.


Your opinion? Or can you verify it as fact?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> I think it's more what they are selling and how they obtain their "product" than the terminology


It's more about the continued false allegation that they were selling anything. Selling would have been illegal and provable. If you have evidence to back up such claims you should forward it to the proper authorities. They seem to be having trouble finding it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. It's been nearly 43 years of of trying to overturn Roe v Wade, and a woman's right to her control her own body.


 I am not interested in just overturning Roe V. Wade. It would be nice, but, the ultimate goal must be to protect the unborn via a Constitutional amendment. 

All overturning Roe V. Wade would do is to kick the decision back to the States and allow them to make their own laws concerning abortion. 

No matter if it takes 43, 143, or, more years to accomplish this, it will still be a worthwhile endeavor.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> The Suit is irrelevant as anyone can file suit for anything. The 1st amendment should give protection to the anti-abortion group, unless, of course, agenda driven judges ignore it to further their pro-abortion stance.


The first amendment protects one from having the government restrict ones speech. It doesn't protect private citizens from filing suit for libel, slander or defamation of character. A constitutional scholar such as yourself should know these things.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion? Or can you verify it as fact?


The 1st amendment is very clear that speech/press are protected. I didn't think that was in dispute.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The 1st amendment is very clear that speech/press are protected. I didn't think that was in dispute.


It's not, Roe v. Wade was ratified 43 years ago based on the same document, and it's wrong according to your _opinion_.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> The first amendment protects one from having the government restrict ones speech. It doesn't protect private citizens from filing suit for libel, slander or defamation of character. A constitutional scholar such as yourself should know these things.


Like I posted previously anyone can file a suit for anything. I said that. Having reading problems today? Plus persons/groups in the public sphere have a much higher wall to climb when trying to prove slander/defamation etc.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> The 1st amendment is very clear that speech/press are protected. I didn't think that was in dispute.


Again, they're protected from government intrusion. They're not protected from me filing suit against you for telling provable lies and untruths about me. That is the basis of this suit. I can send you a link to the text of the constitution if you need it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not, Roe v. Wade was ratified 43 years ago based on the same document, and it's wrong according to your _opinion_.


 
Yes, it is. That is why I said "Should give protection" with the number of activist judges in our court systems, nothing can be taken for granted. There is no twisting needed to see that speech and the press are protected under the Constitution, they are LISTED as such. The right to commit homicide upon the unborn is not listed.


----------



## 1948CaseVAI (May 12, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, "proof" of a conspiracy.  It isn't the law at all, it's all about who nominated you.  So every judge nominated by a Republican President will rule for the right, correct? Or is it just Democrat/liberal judges? SMH. It's sad and scary what people will believe to support their agenda and it's conspiracy theories.


Well, going to court and trying to use lawyers to extend their agenda is what libs do. We conservatives, on the other hand, take action (hence the video taping and yes, even the shooting, although that was too extreme for most of us). I don't give a hoot about your courts or judges - I will take the actions I think are necessary to fit the situation and I have no fear of libs or their courts.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Like I posted previously anyone can file a suit for anything. I said that. Having reading problems today? Plus persons/groups in the public sphere have a much higher wall to climb when trying to prove slander/defamation etc.


No problems at all. Your words stated that the first amendement should protect the group from such a suit. You're wrong.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Again, they're protected from government intrusion. They're not protected from me filing suit against you for telling provable lies and untruths about me. That is the basis of this suit. I can send you a link to the text of the constitution if you need it.


 Holy crap. Please tell me you are being obtuse on purpose. I will say it, for the 3rd time, Anyone can file suit on anyone else, for any reason. They can use the 1st amendment as a DEFENSE against such a suit.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, it is. That is why I said "Should give protection" with the number of activist judges in our court systems, nothing can be taken for granted. There is no twisting needed to see that speech and the press are protected under the Constitution, they are LISTED as such. The right to commit homicide upon the unborn is not listed.


Opinion again, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Well, going to court and trying to use lawyers to extend their agenda is what libs do. *We conservatives, on the other hand, take action (hence the video taping and yes, even the shooting, although that was too extreme for most of us).* _ I don't give a hoot about your courts or judges - I will take the actions I think are necessary to fit the situation and I have no fear of libs or their courts_.


Do you realize that your posts tend to be threatening? 

Question, are you advocating violence, even death, for abortion providers? I just want to be clear as to what you're saying.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Opinion again, right?


No, it is a fact that freedom of speech/press are written into the 1st amendment and there is no such listing, in the Constitution, for abortion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Holy crap. Please tell me you are being obtuse on purpose. I will say it, for the 3rd time, Anyone can file suit on anyone else, for any reason. They can use the 1st amendment as a DEFENSE against such a suit.


No they cannot. The constitution limits the powers of the government to restrict speech. It offers no protection from private citizens seeking redress from other private citizens. If it did there could be no legal grounds for libel or slander. The defense against libel and slander are to prove you didn't say it or that there was at least some minimal factual basis for what was said.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> My fault, I estimated your intelligence a little too highly. I will explain and use small words so the chances of misunderstanding will be slight.
> 
> The first amendment should protect them from liability from the suit as I have stated at least 4 times now, anyone can bring suit for anything.


Matte this will help you. http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> No they cannot. The constitution limits the powers of the government to restrict speech. It offers no protection from private citizens seeking redress from other private citizens. If it did there could be no legal grounds for libel or slander. The defense against libel and slander are to prove you didn't say it or that there was at least some minimal factual basis for what was said.


 And, as I have said before, for a group in the public sphere, the wall to climb to prove slander, is a high one and freedom of speech and the press should protect those who collect/ disseminate information. If that were not true. GWB could sue MSNBC into bankruptcy and Obama could sue Fox for the same thing, and win.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Matte this will help you. http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander


 Seems like a high hill to climb even if it really is private citizen vs. private citizen. As the videos were the words of the PP executives themselves, I would think that proving libel or slander would be an uphill battle. 

Of course, the suit was likely brought, not to win, but to financially drain the anti-abortion group.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I find it interesting that advocate's are trying to get rights for animals while the unborn are in a somewhat similar situation. While something may not, in the eyes of the law, be illegal, it may be repugnant to many.

In a time when some are concerned by microaggression, I have to wonder where we're going. Will the lawsuit by Planned Parenthood prove their undoing? Will the lawsuit further inflame those against abortion and provide more impetus for defunding Planned Parenthood?

I think they're walking on thin ice by engaging in activities that may further publicize their actions. They need to let the dust settle. Obviously they're out to teach someone a lesson by bullying them via the legal system. That carries a significant risk in this case.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I find it interesting that advocate's are trying to get rights for animals while the unborn are in a somewhat similar situation. While something may not, in the eyes of the law, be illegal, it may be repugnant to many.
> 
> In a time when some are concerned by microaggression, I have to wonder where we're going. Will the lawsuit by Planned Parenthood prove their undoing? Will the lawsuit further inflame those against abortion and provide more impetus for defunding Planned Parenthood?
> 
> I think they're on very thin ice.


I'm confused. In what way are animal rights and a woman's right to have control over her own body in any way similar? Can you explain?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I simply can't believe there is an American with two functioning brain cells that has never heard of the Hyde Amendment. Maybe there _should_ be a test in order to vote. Just kidding, kinda.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


I will post with my one brain cell on this. I have never heard of it before. But then again this topic doesn't consume me as it seems to others.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Well, going to court and trying to use lawyers to extend their agenda is what libs do. We conservatives, on the other hand, take action (hence the video taping and yes, even the shooting, although that was too extreme for most of us). I don't give a hoot about your courts or judges - I will take the actions I think are necessary to fit the situation and I have no fear of libs or their courts.


And you are a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I'll wait to see who wins, and probably not care much about that either.

Someone said above that this is about "a woman's right to have control over her own body". I say fine, a woman or a man should have total rights about what they want to do to their body. They can get obnoxious tattoos in whatever spots they want, women can cut off their breasts to avoid cancer, they can get their teeth filed down to points or capped with metal, they can get horns attached to their skull, they can cut themselves, they can stretch their necks by incrementally adding metal rings and heck, I would not care if someone wanted surgery done so that they can put a metal ring all the way through the center of their body.

All that is fine as long as they do not trample upon the rights of another. If you are caught running a stop sign, you are held responsible. If you are caught lying under oath, you are held responsible. If you enter into a contract, you are held to the terms of that contract. I do not see why people think that they can act in an irresponsible fashion which results in the creation of another life and then to callously snuff that life out at a mere whim. That boggles the conscience...

So, I will wait for the outcome of this suit and truthfully, it will not matter much to me, I've seen the courts punish good people for trivialities before so as far as the concept of "Good" and "Evil" goes, this will have little to no impact upon my understanding of those to combatants.

Let the bickering continue...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

1948CaseVAI said:


> Well, going to court and trying to use lawyers to extend their agenda is what libs do. We conservatives, on the other hand, take action (hence the video taping and yes, even the shooting, although that was too extreme for most of us). I don't give a hoot about your courts or judges - I will take the actions I think are necessary to fit the situation and I have no fear of libs or their courts.


 You got that right. Even now that Obama has been filling the lower courts with liberals to push their agenda even further, cause doing it that way more liberal cases are heard per year then just going before the SC which only hears a few cases on a yearly bases.
So even if this go before some lower courts system it is still trying to push their liberal agenda even further into the fabricate of what THEY CONCEDER a normal life and a normal lifestyle. Phoey and the bunch of the libs, THEIR day is coming. They can't hide forever from The One that will Judge them. LOL


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

I think anyone supporting abortion rights is morally bankrupt!
They have no respect for a life, a small human being that has no say in this matter.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree it's gullibility and the ability to pigeon hole limited intellect into conspiracy theories and the agenda. That and the complete inability to comprehend the difference between a sale and reimbursement of costs. That type of true gullibility (focus on agenda?) is terrifying.



Some of us DO understand the difference.
A transfer of money for something, anything IS a sale.
Sales come in various forms. You can sell for a profit, large or small, or you can sell at cost, which only *reimburses* you and provides you zero profit.
Understanding this would SEEM simple enough, but apparently not.





mmoetc said:


> Thanks again for sharing the obvious and offering your opinion on it. The facts still remain that despite numerous investigations there has been no proof offered that PP did anything illegal even though many continue to contend they did.



That is correct. As far as I know, PP did nothing illegal. As far as I know....
If they sold at cost across state lines, that was legal.
If they sold above costs and did it WITHIN state lines, that's legal.
If they didn't alter procedures and got consent, that was legal. This last part may be the most subjective and hardest to prove for both sides.





Irish Pixie said:


> *Your opinion on abortion means squat. Nothing you can do about it. Nada. Zip*.


It's always helpful to know what someone's true feelings are when they debate an issue.
It may not help in an intellectuals way, but getting a glimpse of a mindset goes a long way in understanding why they hold the opinions they do.



mmoetc said:


> It's more about the continued false allegation that they were selling anything. Selling would have been illegal and provable. If you have evidence to back up such claims you should forward it to the proper authorities. They seem to be having trouble finding it.




http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html

I've posted this before, it's worth reading if the law is to be invoked in this.
Selling is NOT illegal, just the terms of the sale are restricted.

If the contention of libel against CMP, is that they alleged a sale, the law quoted should clear that up.
If the objection is the fact that sales of tissue are legal and occurring today in this country........well, at least you can rest easy that "there's nothing anyone can do about it!"


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> I think anyone supporting abortion rights is morally bankrupt!


And somewhere, many-wheres in fact, in the Mid East, some bearded imam is informing kids in a shabby medrassa that drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is so morally bankrupt that any such infidels daring to do so should pay with their lives, and those hearing it go forth believing it as a fact.

Same thing, exactly. Nobody in the US is legally required to think that a discreet "soul" that has one shot at existence is generated by two cells meeting in a female's womb, or falls off a cosmic assembly line at that instant into the fertilized egg, or whatever, and then is tragically goners forever whenever that clump of cells ceases to be, with no provisions from the creating god to find another host or incarnation or have a nice Limbo existence awaiting that's just A-OK with the little soul thingy. As far as *I* can tell, somehow having a belief that exactly that IS the case is the only reason for all this angst and borderline homicidal fury by the right-to-life crowd. Well, *legality* does matter and at this point in the US it's on the side of abortion rights early in a pregnancy, at least. 

Legally, once lawsuits and likely counter-suits get filed, both sides will be required to produce testimony and evidence such as emails under oath and under threat of penalties for perjury should they start lying and be caught at it. My expectation is that PP will be just fine under those conditions, and their opponents will not be. We'll see. I do still recall one President I rather admired wiggling his finger at me and millions of other viewers saying "I did not have sex.. etc" and ultimately losing a great deal of my respect in the process, so who knows, there may well be lies and idiocies on both sides in this situation.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, it's a vast conspiracy... PP was actually caught selling fetal body parts but the entire left wing, government et al is covering it up. As a theory it's up there with no Holocaust and we didn't really walk on the moon. Some people will believe anything as long as it suits their agenda. It's terrifying that people can be so fixated but when the goal is to control women they _have_ to believe it. :facepalm:
> 
> "Recordings secretly made by an anti-abortion group at meetings of abortion providers do not show criminal activity and could put the providers at risk, a federal judge said Friday, citing the recent shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic."
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/


I pointed out correctly in your previous thread there is not a criminal matter before Judge Orrick...a civil case only. His comments mean nothing besides a personal opinion.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think this makes 3, maybe 4, lawsuits against CMP.
> 
> "Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit Thursday against the anti-abortion activists who secretly taped the group's officials talking about the sale of fetal tissue and released the heavily edited videos last year."
> 
> ...


3 or 4 lawsuits when there is no wrongdoing? Why would any entity spend that much in attorney fees when they never did anything wrong? Something has an odor.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Look at us go, another abortion thread heading into page 5 
You can always count on it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Discovery works both ways. Planned Parenthood may have opened up something they'll regret. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. The public may get a look at Planned Parenthood's internal accounting data,


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> Look at us go, another abortion thread heading into page 5
> You can always count on it.


I saw the OP before work...no way I thought 4 plus pages today.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Darren said:


> Discovery works both ways. Planned Parenthood may have opened up something they'll regret. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. The public may get a look at Planned Parenthood's internal accounting data,


Bingo...CMP said " game on"...look forward to deposing all...have to watch and be careful of what you get into....discovery ain't pretty....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The simple fact is that PP aborts the unborn. That is an undisputed fact. Just because *our lax morals* allows the practice to continue is nether hear nor there.


You don't get to dictate morals for anyone but yourself.
Let just jump to slavery now and save some steps


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Darren View Post
> Discovery works both ways. Planned Parenthood may have opened up something they'll regret. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. The public may get a look at Planned Parenthood's internal accounting data,


That's been going on for decades


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's been going on for decades


Disagree...this is a different issue. That's why PP is filing one civil case after another..even though there is no wrongdoing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Darren said:


> Discovery works both ways. Planned Parenthood may have opened up something they'll regret. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. The public may get a look at Planned Parenthood's internal accounting data,


I was thinking that too, this might turn out better than those that took the videos could have ever hoped for...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article that detailed how much money the Red Cross made from selling blood. It was shocking. When they were saying their stocks were low they were selling everything that was donated. 

That info had never been made public before.

We're about to find out how much PP makes by selling "parts." I suspect that will not be good PR.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Disagree...this is *a different issue*. That's why PP is filing one civil case after another..even though there is no wrongdoing.


It's not a different issue at all.
It's the same old allegations of illegal activities and demands for "audits" just like always


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a different issue at all.
> It's the same old allegations of illegal activities and demands for "audits" just like always


The topic is the lawsuit that PP filed. *They've just opened themselves up to a defacto audit through discovery.* What was once beyond reach has been served up on a silver platter.

No wonder the man said, "Game on!" 

PP may have committed political suicide. If I was one the board of a company where the CEO did something like that on their own, I would vote for immediate termination of employment.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a different issue at all.
> It's the same old allegations of illegal activities and demands for "audits" just like always


Well, the nature of Civil Cases make this a Pandora's Box for both sides... Should be as interesting as a Trump Presidency could be... lol


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a different issue at all.
> It's the same old allegations of illegal activities and demands for "audits" just like always


Still disagree...PP has opened themself up to discovery...as previously noted...not pretty...has nothing to do with roe vs wade....PP is digging a hole.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Darren said:


> The topic is the lawsuit that PP filed. *They've just opened themselves up to an audit through discovery.* What was once beyond reach has been served up on a silver platter.
> 
> No wonder the man said, "Game on!"
> 
> PP may have committed political suicide. If I was one the board of a company where the CEO did something like that on their own, I would vote for immediate termination of employment.


This is it...PP went to far...now they have to answer through sworn depositions..but the goal is to silence them...regardless of the attorney fees...or try and bankrupt them...through however many civil suits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> The topic is the lawsuit that PP filed. They've just opened themselves up to an audit through discovery.
> 
> *What was once beyond reach has been served up on a silver platter*.
> 
> ...


It's never been "beyond reach" and they have been investigated by the anti's for decades. 

The fallacy is pretending this has changed anything at all


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The intent is obvious. It's still never a good idea to expose your jugular.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Well, the nature of Civil Cases make *this a Pandora's Box *for both sides... Should be as interesting as a Trump Presidency could be... lol


That's what they said about the videos too
It's the same old BS as always


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's never been "beyond reach" and they have been investigated by the anti's for decades.
> 
> The fallacy is pretending this has changed anything at all


It has indeed been served up...this is not about roe vs wade..now PP is opened up to all being deposed..."game on"...not a good idea for PP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> It has indeed been served up...this is not about roe vs wade..now PP is opened up to all being deposed..."game on"...not a good idea for PP.


All of that has already been said before
It didn't change what I said the first time it was stated, so repeating it
ad infinitum won't either.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All of that has already been said before
> It didn't change what I said the first time it was stated, so repeating it
> ad infinitum won't either.


Different realm...you..a person..a corporation..non profit..anything..anybody...have to be very careful of going to far in your cause that opens you up to being deposed...and exposed for what you really are...very slippery slope...


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Darren said:


> Years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article that detailed how much money the Red Cross made from selling blood. It was shocking. When they were saying their stocks were low they were selling everything that was donated.
> 
> That info had never been made public before.
> 
> We're about to find out how much PP makes by selling "parts." I suspect that will not be good PR.


It is an odd thing IMO how blood is sold, but babies/parts/whatever from pp is donated.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

elevenpoint said:


> Different realm...you..a person..a corporation..non profit..anything..anybody...have to be very careful of going to far in your cause that opens you up to being deposed...and exposed for what you really are...very slippery slope...


Info bill Cosby probably wished he would have considered more carefully at some point, lol....just saying.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

gibbsgirl said:


> Info bill Cosby probably wished he would have considered more carefully at some point, lol....just saying.


You betcha.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> It is an odd thing IMO how blood is sold, but babies/parts/whatever from pp is donated.


It is considered a reimbursement fee for collection, testing, shipping and business operations.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

wr said:


> It is considered a reimbursement fee for collection, testing, shipping and business operations.


Uh huh...which is why they file one lawsuit after another..


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> It is an odd thing IMO how blood is sold, but babies/parts/whatever from pp is donated.


That is what we're about to find out.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> It is considered a reimbursement fee for collection, testing, shipping and business operations.


Which one? Or both? I was talking about two things and you said it. I missed which one you meant it means.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> Which one? Or both? I was talking about two things and you said it. I missed which one you meant it means.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. The sale of blood is actually considered a reimbursement of costs as well but the difference I see is that the blood collection companies do state that their costs also cover business operations & administration costs.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what they said about the videos too
> It's the same old BS as always


This is now at a different level, as others have said, because of the Civil Suits, we now get to request information. I am comfortable with the waiting period for discovery, I will wait and see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> This is now at a different level,* as others have said*, because of the Civil Suits, we now get to request information. I am comfortable with the waiting period for discovery, I will wait and see.


Endless repetition doesn't change anything


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> And, as I have said before, for a group in the public sphere, the wall to climb to prove slander, is a high one and freedom of speech and the press should protect those who collect/ disseminate information. If that were not true. GWB could sue MSNBC into bankruptcy and Obama could sue Fox for the same thing, and win.


I owe, at least a limited apology. I broke my own rules and only read the quoted comments in the OP but did not read the cited article or any other source material. Thus, I was arguing that PP sued on grounds of defamation when they did not. The constitution has been used to provide protection to the press from endless lawsuits for inadvertant errors or commentary. Hence the first part part of my apology. Farmerga was partially correct, though I doubt they knew why. Generally a public figure has limited ability to bring suit for slander, libel or defamation. They do have a much higher bar to cross but not an insurmountable one. Public figures in these cases have also generally been those who have done public service( elected or appointed offices and ranking military officers) or those who sought out publicity. It would be an interesting argument whether the planned parenthood official involved met any of these definitions or that the group disseminating the information could be called "press". That would be an interesting constitutional challenge. So, I apologize for getting the basis for the case wrong.

The case brought seeks injunctions and damages for the illegal actions of taping the conversations and the fraudulent representations the group in question used to gain access to PP. As such PP won't have to be deposed or defend their actions regarding tissue collection and donation. None of that really even factors into the case. The defendants will have to defend their breaking the law to gather the information they did. I was correct that the first amendment offered no protection in this case but it wasn't because I was smarter, just that I didn't inform myself fully as to the facts involved. Sorry for that. Not for ultimately being right.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All of that has already been said before
> It didn't change what I said the first time it was stated, so repeating it
> ad infinitum won't either.


I'm missing something. Are you saying, Planned Parenthood has always made internal accounting details available? I'm curious about how many Planned Parenthoods exist. When I looked for IRS 990 filings there's a lot of them. Each is a non-profit. 

I find it curious there's no audited financial statement available per Guidestar for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Even our local volunteer fire dept. has a periodic audit independent of the bookkeeper. Why would PP not make that available? With the amount of taxpayer funds that flow into the organization, I would expect that. The fire dept. receives money from the state, thus the audit.

http://www.guidestar.org/organizati...parenthood-federation-america.aspx#forms-docs


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> I'm missing something. Are you saying, Planned Parenthood has always made internal accounting details available? I'm curious about how many Planned Parenthoods exist. When I looked for IRS 990 filings there's a lot of them. Each is a non-profit.
> 
> I find it curious there's no audited financial statement available per Guidestar for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Even our local volunteer fire dept. has a periodic audit independent of the bookkeeper. Why would PP not make that available? With the amount of taxpayer funds that flow into the organization, I would expect that. The fire dept. receives money from the state, thus the audit.
> 
> http://www.guidestar.org/organizati...parenthood-federation-america.aspx#forms-docs


Is this what you're looking for?

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/4514/5132/1803/FY15_PlannedParenthoodFederation_FS_Final.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> *I'm missing something. Are you saying, Planned Parenthood has always made internal accounting details available?* I'm curious about how many Planned Parenthoods exist. When I looked for IRS 990 filings there's a lot of them. Each is a non-profit.
> 
> I find it curious there's no audited financial statement available per Guidestar for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Even our local volunteer fire dept. has a periodic audit independent of the bookkeeper. Why would PP not make that available? With the amount of taxpayer funds that flow into the organization, I would expect that. The fire dept. receives money from the state, thus the audit.
> 
> http://www.guidestar.org/organizati...parenthood-federation-america.aspx#forms-docs


I'm saying exactly what I posted
There are no hidden meanings

Last I heard there were over 800 PP clinics, and not all of them do abortions

They've all been hounded for decades by anti's looking for any possible violations that can be used against them, and most of those efforts have failed.

It's one of the most highly regulated businesses in the country


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I wonder why Guidestar doesn't reference that. Thank you for finding that. I was wondering why they looked like a franchiser of sorts.

"The National Program Support Plan (NPS) is a membership program between PPFA and Planned Parenthood Affiliates. NPS requires affiliates to pay quarterly membership dues to PPFA for the support and national visibility PPFA provides as well as the right to use the PPFA brand. The revenue is recognized as an increase to unrestricted net assets as the membership fees become due"

I'm wondering which PP was the focus of the videos. The consolidated audit won't have their details nor does it disclose all of their affiliates' revenue sources.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> I wonder why Guidestar doesn't reference that. Thank you for finding that. I was wondering why they looked like a franchiser of sorts.
> 
> "The National Program Support Plan (NPS) is a membership program between PPFA and Planned Parenthood Affiliates. NPS requires affiliates to pay quarterly membership dues to PPFA for the support and national visibility PPFA provides as well as the right to use the PPFA brand. The revenue is recognized as an increase to unrestricted net assets as the membership fees become due"
> 
> I'm wondering which PP was the focus of the videos. The consolidated audit won't have their details nor does it disclose all of their affiliates' revenue sources.


PP only has clinics in three states that donate fetal tissue, California, Colorado, and an unnamed state. 

Due to violent anti abortionists I don't think the specific PP clinics will ever be publicly known. Naming anyone involved with PP is like putting a target on them because of abortion terrorism.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I wonder why Guidestar doesn't reference that. Thank you for finding that. I was wondering why they looked like a franchiser of sorts.
> 
> "The National Program Support Plan (NPS) is a membership program between PPFA and Planned Parenthood Affiliates. NPS requires affiliates to pay quarterly membership dues to PPFA for the support and national visibility PPFA provides as well as the right to use the PPFA brand. The revenue is recognized as an increase to unrestricted net assets as the membership fees become due"
> 
> I'm wondering which PP was the focus of the videos. The consolidated audit won't have their details nor does it disclose all of their affiliates' revenue sources.


Maybe you should watch the videos. I'm sure all that information is readily available in these totally factual "documentaries". Along with the fact that these journalists broke a few laws to gather their "facts".


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There was a local individual that secretly taped someone. He was prosecuted. He was lucky to not do jail time. If the taping of the meeting was illegal, I'm wondering why the local prosecutor didn't do something.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> PP only has clinics in three states that donate fetal tissue, California, Colorado, and an unnamed state.
> 
> Due to violent anti abortionists I don't think the specific PP clinics will ever be publicly known. Naming anyone involved with PP is like putting a target on them because of abortion terrorism.


All you have to do is look up the 990s through the internet. It looks like there's about 200 affiliates.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> All you have to do is look up the 990s through the internet. It looks like there's about 200 affiliates.


It shows exactly where the PP clinics are that collect fetal tissue? I'm shocked that would be released.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> It shows exactly where the PP clinics are that collect fetal tissue? I'm shocked that would be released.


The IRS filings have nothing to do with fetal tissue sales. You can determine where the offices are located if that's of interest. The consolidated report alluded to some previous accounting issues which is why a consolidated audit was done. PP appears to have changed the way they do business. That's neither good or bad at this point just curious.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> There was a local individual that secretly taped someone. He was prosecuted. He was lucky to not do jail time. If the taping of the meeting was illegal, I'm wondering why the local prosecutor didn't do something.


It could be that PP filed no criminal complaint with the local authorities. It could be a jurisdictional thing if the violations occurred across a wide enough area. PP could have felt that litigating a number of local criminal cases whose penalties might be minor was less useful than civil litigation where the burdens of proof are less and the penalties might be more severe in dollar amounts and injunctions. Criminal law also doesn't cover the charges that confidentiality agreements were broken. This can only be settled through civil action. 

All of this is just speculation on my part. If you're really curious call or email the prosecutors in the area. I'll be curious as to their reply. Please share them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> The IRS filings have nothing to do with fetal tissue sales. You can determine where the offices are located if that's of interest. The consolidated report alluded to some previous accounting issues which is why a consolidated audit was done. PP appears to have changed the way they do business. That's neither good or bad at this point just curious.


I kinda doubt it's that easy to find the specific PP clinics that handled fetal tissue, it would be opening the workers to violence from the abortion terrorists. Many have no issue at all with killing as long as it's for their agenda. 

I believe audits of PP are done every year.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.
The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
*The federal law I posted
*They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
(The following is hypothetical and not a real event. Just an example)
I'm going to harvest an oak tree today and make a bookshelf. 
The wood is "free".
I'm only going to charge for my labor, glue, screws and nails, sandpaper and varnish and shipping
I only charge to cover these costs.
The bookshelf is $200.


Any one not believe I'm going to sell a bookshelf today, made from "donated oak tree parts"?


The real problem isn't that PP is doing something illegal. It's the fact that the videos expose what IS legal to do in this country.
If you're going to defend it as legal, at least be able to tell the world what you're doing.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.
> The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
> *The federal law I posted
> *They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
> ...


You seem to think that simply because you believe something it's fact, it's not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.
> The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
> *The federal law I posted
> *They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
> ...


So if I come in and paint the shelf that your friend gave to you, I must be selling you the shelf.

Sorry logic does not work that way just because you want it to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue *and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.
> The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
> *The federal law I posted
> *They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
> ...


No, it's just you.
The rest of us know they're not "selling baby parts".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't opinions great?  You seem to think that simply because you believe something it's fact, it's not.


And simply reacting with the same words about opinions gets equally tiring.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> *I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.*
> The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
> *The federal law I posted
> *They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
> ...


 Some seem to love playing around with semantics. But reimbursements IS GETTING something for something. Making money is part of it. They may not be making what some like to call a profit on it but they ARE GETTING SOMETHING for murdering these kids.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Are there other non-profits that operate as franchises? This is interesting from a financial POV. As a comparison not all McDonalds are cash cows. A local owner dumped his because of profitability. It got to be too much of a headache for the money.

I'm wondering how all of the affiliates that are "licensed" to use the Planned Parenthood name are doing financially. That's where the tissue "donations" may play a part. How did that start? Is there an operations manual provided by PPFofA?

The more I look, the more I wonder about how the thing is set up. That may be a model for something locally.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.
> The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
> *The federal law I posted
> *They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
> ...


Are you operating as a not for profit? If so you must account for those costs. You cannot charge $1/nail for those you bought at a penny apiece. You cannot charge $200/hr for your time when carpenters in your area make $20/hr. You are subject to audits and public scrutiny of your finances and fraudulently inflating your costs may lead to criminal prosecution and loss of your not for profit status. PP faces the same standards.

When my granddaughter passed almost two years ago from a rare genetic disorder some tissue sample were requested by a researcher who had aided us greatly in figuring out what ailed her. I've spent much time in the past couple of years going over medical bills and gaining done understanding of them. The hospital billed the researcher for collecting, preparing and transporting the donated tissue. I thought the amount to be a bit excessive so I contacted the researcher and the hospital. They both explained the rationale behind the costs largely having to do with specialized handling and transportation. They can't just put in a USPS flat rate box.

Given the the scrutiny of everything PP does by its opponents and the access to its accounting records if PP were doing anything untoward with its finances it would be easily provable. Again, there's no evidence of wrongdoing. You can redefine sale to meet whatever argument you wish. It doesn't give your new definition any standing in the real world.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Are there other non-profits that operate as franchises? This is interesting from a financial POV. As a comparison not all McDonalds are cash cows. A local owner dumped his because of profitability. It got to be too much of a headache for the money.
> 
> I'm wondering how all of the affiliates that are "licensed" to use the Planned Parenthood name are doing financially. That's where the tissue "donations" may play a part. How did that start? Is there an operations manual provided by PPFofA?
> 
> The more I look, the more I wonder about how the thing is set up. That may be a model for something locally.


Many national groups operate under the same model. Habitat for Humanity. United way. Most fraternal organizations. They all operate as independent local chapters affiliated with and guided by the rules of a larger organization.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Some seem to love playing around with semantics. But reimbursements IS GETTING something for something. Making money is part of it. They may not be making what some like to call a profit on it but they ARE GETTING SOMETHING for murdering these kids.


Yes, the do get paid for performing abortions. They don't get paid for the tissue donated by the people having the abortion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yes, the do get paid for performing abortions. They don't get paid for the tissue donated by the people having the abortion.


Killers for hire.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Killers for hire.


Your opinion means not much to those that don't believe as you do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Are you operating as a not for profit? If so you must account for those costs. You cannot charge $1/nail for those you bought at a penny apiece. You cannot charge $200/hr for your time when carpenters in your area make $20/hr. You are subject to audits and public scrutiny of your finances and fraudulently inflating your costs may lead to criminal prosecution and loss of your not for profit status. PP faces the same standards.
> 
> When my granddaughter passed almost two years ago from a rare genetic disorder some tissue sample were requested by a researcher who had aided us greatly in figuring out what ailed her. I've spent much time in the past couple of years going over medical bills and gaining done understanding of them. The hospital billed the researcher for collecting, preparing and transporting the donated tissue. I thought the amount to be a bit excessive so I contacted the researcher and the hospital. They both explained the rationale behind the costs largely having to do with specialized handling and transportation. They can't just put in a USPS flat rate box.
> 
> Given the the scrutiny of everything PP does by its opponents and the access to its accounting records if PP were doing anything untoward with its finances it would be easily provable. Again, there's no evidence of wrongdoing. You can redefine sale to meet whatever argument you wish. It doesn't give your new definition any standing in the real world.


I'm sorry for your loss.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Your opinion means not much to those that don't believe as you do.


And of course yours is held in high esteem by all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> And of course yours is held in high esteem by all.


You seem to like assuming that I have said things I have not.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Are you operating as a not for profit? If so you must account for those costs. You cannot charge $1/nail for those you bought at a penny apiece. You cannot charge $200/hr for your time when carpenters in your area make $20/hr. You are subject to audits and public scrutiny of your finances and fraudulently inflating your costs may lead to criminal prosecution and loss of your not for profit status. PP faces the same standards.
> 
> When my granddaughter passed almost two years ago from a rare genetic disorder some tissue sample were requested by a researcher who had aided us greatly in figuring out what ailed her. I've spent much time in the past couple of years going over medical bills and gaining done understanding of them. The hospital billed the researcher for collecting, preparing and transporting the donated tissue. I thought the amount to be a bit excessive so I contacted the researcher and the hospital. They both explained the rationale behind the costs largely having to do with specialized handling and transportation. They can't just put in a USPS flat rate box.
> 
> Given the the scrutiny of everything PP does by its opponents and the access to its accounting records if PP were doing anything untoward with its finances it would be easily provable. Again, there's no evidence of wrongdoing. You can redefine sale to meet whatever argument you wish. It doesn't give your new definition any standing in the real world.


If you read the post again, carefully, ALL those questions were answered the first time. I'll go back and put them in bold letters.

But you have made my point.
It doesn't really matter how many statutes or how many examples are given, there are some who will insist to their graves that there was never a sale made.
It's the reason for that insistence that is the core of the debate.
IF it's legal (and it is) and IF there's nothing wrong in doing it, why continue to say it was every other term but a "sale"?
Is it because there is something deep down inside telling you that would be wrong if it was sold?
Is it because the perception of the general public would change towards this, if people called it what it really is?
I'm not "redefining" the word, I'm just asking what would anybody on the earth call that?
Sometimes a duck, is just a duck.


The bold part below = no profit.



farmrbrown said:


> I see that there are still some on here that are hung up on this "reimbursement" issue and think in some way it means no purchase or sale was involved.
> The REASON PP has to comply with the no profit regulation has 2 parts.
> *The federal law I posted
> *They are a NON-profit organization. The other federal laws would be IRS.
> ...



Yeah, and I'm the only one that has the comprehension problem.
I don't think it's a problem of comprehension. I think it's embarrassment.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> If you read the post again, carefully, ALL those questions were answered the first time. I'll go back and put them in bold letters.
> 
> But you have made my point.
> It doesn't really matter how many statutes or how many examples are given, there are some who will insist to their graves that there was never a sale made.
> ...


Sometimes it's a Muscovy. Sometimes a mallard. Even a platypus has a bill and lays eggs. Must be a duck. The clinics do not exchange the fetal material for anything of value. They do recoup the costs of procuring , handling and transporting the tissues. They could have the recipients of the tissue make all the arrangements and directly pay those bills rather than doing it themselves and submitting a bill. The end result would be the same. Donation, not sale. By your definition the car my neighbor just relinquished to the local boys ranch was sold, not donated. After all, he did recieve a rather valuable tax deduction in the exchange. The cad.

I see nothing wrong with using donated fetal tissue in research. I've seen the good it can do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Sometimes it's a Muscovy. Sometimes a mallard. Even a platypus has a bill and lays eggs. Must be a duck. The clinics do not exchange the fetal material for anything of value. They do recoup the costs of procuring , handling and transporting the tissues. They could have the recipients of the tissue make all the arrangements and directly pay those bills rather than doing it themselves and submitting a bill. The end result would be the same. Donation, not sale. By your definition the car my neighbor just relinquished to the local boys ranch was sold, not donated. After all, he did recieve a rather valuable tax deduction in the exchange. The cad.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with using donated fetal tissue in research. I've seen the good it can do.


The truth does not fit their agenda so they will not admit the truth. Queue the we will be judged chorus next.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Sometimes it's a Muscovy. Sometimes a mallard. Even a platypus has a bill and lays eggs. Must be a duck. The clinics do not exchange the fetal material for anything of value. They do recoup the costs of procuring , handling and transporting the tissues. They could have the recipients of the tissue make all the arrangements and directly pay those bills rather than doing it themselves and submitting a bill. The end result would be the same. Donation, not sale. By your definition the car my neighbor just relinquished to the local boys ranch was sold, not donated. After all, he did recieve a rather valuable tax deduction in the exchange. The cad.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with using donated fetal tissue in research. I've seen the good it can do.


Yep. You can buy the nails, sandpaper and glue, pay the shipping, and I'll send you the bookshelf.
Now, did ya pay anything for that, or did I "donate" it?

Do I now need to show the letter to Congress again, where the CEO of PP said they receive about $60 to cover the costs?
That's 3 $20 bills, 6 $10 dollar bills, 12 $5 dollar bills. 60 $1 dollar bills or a whole bunch of change, lol.
And no, by my definition, that would NOT include your neighbor's car donation.
To quote Cuba Gooding, "Show me the money!"

Again PP defenders, the law is on your side. The federal regulations allow the sale of fetal tissue. No *PROFIT* allowed if it's interstate commerce, meaning you can charge what you want if it remains IN the state.
That's what it says, read it for yourself.
As Pixie likes to say, it's the law and there's nothing you can do about it.
Why not just go with that?
Be proud of what you're doing and tell the world about it. In fact, why not produce your own videos?
This isn't something you want to keep secret is it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep. You can buy the nails, sandpaper and glue, pay the shipping, and I'll send you the bookshelf.
> Now, did ya pay anything for that, or did I "donate" it?
> 
> Do I now need to show the letter to Congress again, where the CEO of PP said they receive about $60 to cover the costs?
> ...


I will repeat my statement again in case you missed it. Do you disagree?



painterswife said:


> So if I come in and paint the shelf that your friend gave to you, I must be selling you the shelf.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep. You can buy the nails, sandpaper and glue, pay the shipping, and I'll send you the bookshelf.
> Now, did ya pay anything for that, or did I "donate" it?
> 
> Do I now need to show the letter to Congress again, where the CEO of PP said they receive about $60 to cover the costs?
> ...


Where do I send the supplies. I'd be happy to have you donate your time and wood in order to provide me the bookcase. 

I think it would be a good idea if PP released a story tracing donated fetal tissue directly to research such as that discussed here. http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/672617


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Many national groups operate under the same model. Habitat for Humanity. United way. Most fraternal organizations. They all operate as independent local chapters affiliated with and guided by the rules of a larger organization.


I never considered that. You're correct. Now I'm curious why PP has a consolidated audit. What part does taking public money/grants play in that?
For example, The Benevolent Protective Order of Elks doesn't get taxpayer money AFAIK. Nor do college sororities or fraternities. So far all of the examples are federal non-profits.

Which PP is suing?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I will repeat my statement again in case you missed it. Do you disagree?


Very well. I'l answer your question.





> Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
> So if I come in and paint the shelf that your friend gave to you, I must be selling you the shelf.


No, but you would be selling me your labor. Depending on what you charge for your labor, you may or may not make a profit.

I assume you want this answer to dispute my previous analogy, which was expected, and is fair.

Just painting the already harvested and cut wood, would be a service transaction only.
The one who supplied the raw material, separated it, treated it and shipped it can claim it was labor only as well, but that would ignore the elephant in the room - the raw material that was used in the making of the product in the first place.




mmoetc said:


> Where do I send the supplies. I'd be happy to have you donate your time and wood in order to provide me the bookcase.



I didn't put the sentence at the beginning of my example in bold as I did when you asked the other question.
I guess I'll do it for this one too...........






farmrbrown said:


> *(The following is hypothetical and not a real event. Just an example)*
> 
> 
> I'm going to harvest an oak tree today and make a bookshelf.
> ...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I owe, at least a limited apology. I broke my own rules and only read the quoted comments in the OP but did not read the cited article or any other source material. Thus, I was arguing that PP sued on grounds of defamation when they did not. The constitution has been used to provide protection to the press from endless lawsuits for inadvertant errors or commentary. Hence the first part part of my apology. Farmerga was partially correct, though I doubt they knew why. Generally a public figure has limited ability to bring suit for slander, libel or defamation. They do have a much higher bar to cross but not an insurmountable one. Public figures in these cases have also generally been those who have done public service( elected or appointed offices and ranking military officers) or those who sought out publicity. It would be an interesting argument whether the planned parenthood official involved met any of these definitions or that the group disseminating the information could be called "press". That would be an interesting constitutional challenge. So, I apologize for getting the basis for the case wrong.
> 
> The case brought seeks injunctions and damages for the illegal actions of taping the conversations and the fraudulent representations the group in question used to gain access to PP. As such PP won't have to be deposed or defend their actions regarding tissue collection and donation. None of that really even factors into the case. The defendants will have to defend their breaking the law to gather the information they did. I was correct that the first amendment offered no protection in this case but it wasn't because I was smarter, just that I didn't inform myself fully as to the facts involved. Sorry for that. Not for ultimately being right.



You bring up an interesting notion. Could anyone be considered press just by even posting on here or blogs? I now many people get their news from blogs but not all blogs are news. 

or are they?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Very well. I'l answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This probably means I won't be getting a donated bookcase, huh? Oh well. Your second question was much more in line with PP's practices than the first. Thus it was more deserving of an answer. The problem with your first question is you left out various pertinent facts. I asked before if you were operating as a not for profit. It's an important bit of information. Are the costs you're charging for the various inputs in line with standard costs for these things or are you attempting to profit by inflating these costs. Perfectly fine in the business world but not allowed in PP's case. I realize its much easier to set hypotheticals like this in your favor and leave out information that is detrimental to them. It's why I don't often respond to such questions until things are clarified. I am disappointed I won't be getting an essentially free bookcase utilizing your donated labor and materials.

If it costs PP $20 in labor to prepare the sample, $20 for the specialized packaging and $30 for specialized shipping the money to do so must come from somewhere. PP could donate these things themself but they obviously feel they have better ways to use their limited funds. These are the things they are being reimbursed for. It could rightly be said that they are selling these goods and services. Of course they're doing it at cost. There is no reimbursement for the tissue itself so to say they are selling the tissue is factually wrong. They are giving, ie donating, the tissue. It's a clear, and not so subtle, distinction.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> You bring up an interesting notion. Could anyone be considered press just by even posting on here or blogs? I now many people get their news from blogs but not all blogs are news.
> 
> or are they?


Here's an interesting (at least to me) link to some information about libel and the internet. I don't think all is settled law yet and it veil likely continue to evolve as does technology.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep. You can buy the nails, sandpaper and glue, pay the shipping, and I'll send you the bookshelf.
> Now, did ya pay anything for that, or did I "donate" it?
> 
> Do I now need to show the letter to Congress again, where the CEO of PP said they receive about $60 to cover the costs?
> ...


No, they do not no matter how many times you post that opinion


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We can argue back and forth. I'm waiting for the countersuit. Will that be dismissed? Or will it continue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> We can argue back and forth. *I'm waiting for the countersuit.* Will that be dismissed? Or will it continue.


I thought the videos were all "the proof" needed to shut them down?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> This probably means I won't be getting a donated bookcase, huh? Oh well. Your second question was much more in line with PP's practices than the first. Thus it was more deserving of an answer. The problem with your first question is you left out various pertinent facts. I asked before if you were operating as a not for profit. It's an important bit of information. Are the costs you're charging for the various inputs in line with standard costs for these things or are you attempting to profit by inflating these costs. Perfectly fine in the business world but not allowed in PP's case. I realize its much easier to set hypotheticals like this in your favor and leave out information that is detrimental to them. It's why I don't often respond to such questions until things are clarified. I am disappointed I won't be getting an essentially free bookcase utilizing your donated labor and materials.
> 
> If it costs PP $20 in labor to prepare the sample, $20 for the specialized packaging and $30 for specialized shipping the money to do so must come from somewhere. PP could donate these things themself but they obviously feel they have better ways to use their limited funds. These are the things they are being reimbursed for. It could rightly be said that they are selling these goods and services. Of course they're doing it at cost. There is no reimbursement for the tissue itself so to say they are selling the tissue is factually wrong. They are giving, ie donating, the tissue. It's a clear, and not so subtle, distinction.



I thought I was pretty clear from the start.
Free wood, labor and materials AT COST.
I figured everyone knew "at cost" meant I would only charge what it cost me, no markup for a profit. It must have been a wrong assumption on my part, but by stating that up front, I wasn't leaving that part out or trying to hide it.:shrug:
My labor could be considered the most subjective part of the bill. My definition would be what I would make if I was at my job working, instead of home doing carpentry. That's what I consider to be "my cost", the money I would have made had I not been doing this.
Someone may have a better answer, but I think that's exactly what PP charges, their standard labor rate.
I tried to keep it simple and comparative.

But here's the part that interests me the most.
Comparing the two, I would never feel the need to direct attention to the fact the wood was free or donated. If I advertised the bookshelf for sale, and stated it was at cost or no profit, I would be trying to dance around the fact that I was simply selling a product that I had collected and put my labor into. Here it is, anyone want to pay me for it?
But in discussing what Planned Parenthood is doing, it seems an extreme effort is going into denying any sale at all. Heavens No! We're not selling our collected and refined, carefully stored, baby parts at our cost only.
And if anyone says that we are, we'll sue!
Ever get that reaction from a generous carpenter?
Ever wonder why?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they do not no matter how many times you post that opinion


What I find ironic, is that is EXACTLY the same opinion CMP has.......

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CMPfactsheetfedlaw.pdf

Unfortunately, it isn't correct.
I didn't state my opinion, I posted the federal statute.
It SAYS, you can't sell it for "*valuable consideration*" IF that affects "*interstate commerce*".
The definitions of those terms are referred to in that statute under U.S. code.

That little word that trips people up, IF.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

This has nothing to do with legal...profit...non profit....a sale...or not a sale...nor is it about what side of the fence you stand on....this is about human beings and cash. Then what follows is corruption...because humans do things for cash regardless if it is illegal...no..not you..... but your local drug dealer does not take checks...Chris Wallace was offered a fetal head intact for $999...less than 8 ounces. PP only got $60? Nope. If you are over 16 y. o. and do not understand human beings and cash...you live in a fantasy world that is absent any reality.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I thought the videos were all "the proof" needed to shut them down?


PP seems to get most of its money for operations through the federal or state governments. The consolidated audit raised questions since the opinion said it resolved previous issues. The franchise setup raises others. Now the lawsuit raises others. All in all its inviting attention, and not in a good way, to PP's operations. If the state and federal funds are cut off because of the imbroglio, PP loses big.

We don't know the full details of the membership dues and the true source of all of their earnings ... yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> PP seems to get most of its money for operations through the federal or state governments. The consolidated audit raised questions since the opinion said it resolved previous issues. The franchise setup raises others. Now the lawsuit raises others. All in all its inviting attention, and not in a good way, to PP's operations. If the state and federal funds are cut off because of the imbroglio, PP loses big.
> 
> We don't know the full details of the membership dues and the true source of all of their earnings ... yet.


None of those Federal funds go towards abortions.
Some state Medicaid programs will help finance the procedure.

That has little to do with CMP's underhanded actions, which are what the suit is about.

It's not "inviting attention" that hasn't always been there.

Still no evidence has surfaced showing illegal activities by PP.

There is evidence CMP has broken several laws


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of those Federal funds go towards abortions.
> Some state Medicaid programs will help finance the procedure.
> 
> That has little to do with CMP's underhanded actions, which are what the suit is about.
> ...


We'll have to agree to disagree on that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I thought I was pretty clear from the start.
> Free wood, labor and materials AT COST.
> I figured everyone knew "at cost" meant I would only charge what it cost me, no markup for a profit. It must have been a wrong assumption on my part, but by stating that up front, I wasn't leaving that part out or trying to hide it.:shrug:
> My labor could be considered the most subjective part of the bill. My definition would be what I would make if I was at my job working, instead of home doing carpentry. That's what I consider to be "my cost", the money I would have made had I not been doing this.
> ...


It's why I asked about the nature of your business. You initially stated that you were charging to cover your costs. I asked you to more properly define those costs. Covering costs can be different than at cost. It doesn't really matter as your examples all revolve around selling and marketing a product which you own, bookcases. You can choose to profit or not. You likely won't stay in business long if you don't. PP doesn't own the tissue donated. The tissue is donated by the woman to the researcher. PP facilitates the transfer and is reimbursed only for the costs incurred in doing so. They never own the tissue so they cannot be said to sell something they have no rights to. It would be as if I gave a bookcase to the local library and the library paid you to transport it. The library didn't buy a bookcase. You didn't sell one. You were reimbursed for the expenses involved in its transport.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Don't really have a dog in this hunt but I have set up two 501c3's. Now both of these were Texas 501c3's. But according to IRS laws which Is federal they are allowed to make a profit. I will have to check and see if it has anything to do with state lines. Both that I set up were Fire Depts but the structure is the same. PP is 501c3 for the ones I have found online. The one I currently am a part of we are allowed to buy stock (speculation) or hard assets (rental property). But anything over 20k (profit) we have to pay tax on. That includes donations that we don't spend in the fiscal year. 

Wonder why PP has a restriction on state lines?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> PP doesn't own the tissue donated. The tissue is donated by the woman to the researcher. PP facilitates the transfer and is reimbursed only for the costs incurred in doing so. They never own the tissue so they cannot be said to sell something they have no rights to. It would be as if I gave a bookcase to the local library and the library paid you to transport it. The library didn't buy a bookcase. You didn't sell one. You were reimbursed for the expenses involved in its transport.


You may have found a technicality in the legal ownership of the tissue, but after viewing the PP consent forms for the tissue donation, that would be a hard one to prove in court.
Having the PP letterhead at the top of the form, the abortion being done in their facility and the release stating the woman has no control over who gets it, are the legal basis for constructive possession.


But that does bring up another question though.
Who in fact IS the legal owner of the tissue once the woman donates it?
If PP won't claim it, and other companies that facilitate transfers like StemExpress won't claim ownership, does that mean it ends up being the research labs, many of them federally funded, as the legal owners?

That would make the claim of no federal funds involved a real hot potato, wouldn't it?

No one seems to have the same discomfort over handling a bookcase, do they?

It just isn't the same as some discarded tissue from an old oak tree, is it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on that.


*Show* the evidence :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You may have found a technicality in the legal ownership of the tissue, but after viewing the PP consent forms for the tissue donation, that would be *a hard one to prove in court.*
> Having the PP letterhead at the top of the form, the abortion being done in their facility and the release stating the woman has no control over who gets it, are the legal basis for constructive possession.
> 
> 
> ...


No federal funds are used *for abortions*

The tissues that aren't donated are buried or burned.
The tissues that are donated don't need "legal owners".

They merely possess them until the research is complete and they are then discarded as medical waste


There's no need to prove "ownership" in any court when it's donated 
"for research"


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You seem to like assuming that I have said things I have not.


You seem to like assuming I assumed you said something I didn't assume you said.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You may have found a technicality in the legal ownership of the tissue, but after viewing the PP consent forms for the tissue donation, that would be a hard one to prove in court.
> Having the PP letterhead at the top of the form, the abortion being done in their facility and the release stating the woman has no control over who gets it, are the legal basis for constructive possession.
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it's exactly the same to many. Here's a Fox News poll from last year as this story was breaking that shows, as on many things, an equal divide on the issue of fetal tissue research and that a majority support federal funding of PP. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-divided-over-issues-involving-abortion.html

The tissue, just like the wood in your bookcase, becomes the property of the the person, or lab, they were donated to. Break into the lab and destroy either. The law will treat you the same. The difference and trying to expand the definition of sale to include these types of donations only seems important to those who oppose abortion and PP specifically. Why? Maybe because it's easier and more beneficial for them to deal in emotion rather than fact. Emotion that may have led to three dead people in Colorado. I'll circle back and point out that this lawsuit isn't about PP or any of its actions. It is about the illegal and unethical acts performed by the anti - abortion group and the danger their practices and misdeeds put others in. Seeds of danger that have already come to fruition. Keep planting.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> You may have found a technicality in the legal ownership of the tissue, but after viewing the PP consent forms for the tissue donation, that would be a hard one to prove in court.
> Having the PP letterhead at the top of the form, the abortion being done in their facility and the release stating the woman has no control over who gets it, are the legal basis for constructive possession.
> 
> 
> ...


Are you willing to apply the same concept to organ donation? Consent of donation forms are signed with hospital with a clear hospital logo on it, yet they aren't they legal owners of those organs, yet it starts the process. 

Once harvested, the organ is intended for another purpose but is not legally considered owned or possessed by the harvest team nor is it owned by the transplant team, although each is responsible for it's care. The donor has no further say and if it's unsuitable for donation, it is my understanding, it can be used for research. 

It's also against the law to sell organs or bone marrow or human bodies and yet there is substantial associated costs in getting organs from donor to recipient or bodies to a research lab. 

Some donate their bodies to scientific research and again, there are steps between the morgue and research labs and each step in the process is reimbursed for costs associated. 

Do you also consider donated organs or bodies donated to scientific research as being sold by hospitals?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Show* the evidence :shrug:


That's why we'll have to wait for the countersuit. If I can search and find this on the CMP website, so can you.

*1)* How much money total did Planned Parenthood receive from StemExpress from 2010 to 2015?

*2)* Why is Planned Parenthood&#8217;s Senior Director of Medical Services talking about manipulating fetuses to breech position to get better organs?

*3)* Why did a Planned Parenthood Medical Director endorse a StemExpress advertisement for &#8220;financial profits&#8221; from fetal tissue donation if Planned Parenthood does not support profiting from fetal tissue?

*4) *Since the President of the Medical Directors&#8217; Council said &#8220;we didn&#8217;t really have to do anything&#8221; when letting Novogenix Laboratories, LLC harvest fetal tissue, why did Novogenix pay Planned Parenthood?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> That's why we'll have to wait for the countersuit. If I can search and find this on the CMP website, so can you.
> 
> *1)* How much money total did Planned Parenthood receive from StemExpress from 2010 to 2015?
> 
> ...


Are those the highly edited videos? Which parts were edited? Can you point the edited and unedited portions please?

ETA: Have you read the unedited transcripts? If not, why?


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

After WWII was over the world condemned the German people for allowing the holocaust to go on - millions of people - men, women and children were murdered - well let me tell you something - we have no right to criticize the Germans because the same thing is happening right here in our own country - millions of babies being murdered and in some cases by organizations funded by the government - there is a God and someday our country is going to pay for this sin - I was born and raised in this country but at this time I find that I have nothing in common with it anymore - our only hope is that we get someone like Ted Cruz to get us out of the gutter that we find ourselves in - if that doesn't happen then this country deserves to be buried with all the filth it produces -


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are those the highly edited videos? Which parts were edited? Can you point the edited and unedited portions please?
> 
> ETA: Have you read the unedited transcripts? If not, why?


My response was to Bearfootfarm. The info represents CMP's claims which revolve around how much PP has made from the sale of fetal tissue and the apparent efforts to maximize the "quality" of the tissues to make it saleable. 

Whether or not that is illegal, I have no idea. The proof will have to come from access to internal records which AFAIK, PP has never made public.

I'm not getting into the moral issues. Those are dependent on the individual's perspective. What I view as immoral, you may not and vice versa. Legality is not a personal issue. That is defined. For that to be determined, internal accounting data will have to be made available. 

If you or anyone else has found a public source for PP's affiliates' accounting books, let me know. At that point we can settle the issue. Otherwise it's unknown.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Not worth arguing with such a closed mind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> That's why we'll have to wait for the countersuit. If I can search and find this on the CMP website, so can you.
> 
> *1)* How much money total did Planned Parenthood receive from StemExpress from 2010 to 2015?
> 
> ...


On what grounds can they countersue. Are they going to claim that PP somehow entrapped them to falsely register their business with the state, to illegally record private conversations or to violate various confidentiality agreements. This lawsuit isn't about PP's actions. PP is not disputing anything in this action other than the group in question broke various laws and in doing so put people in danger. The anti abortion group will have to prove they did none of these. Their own tapes prove otherwise.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> That's why we'll have to wait for the countersuit. If I can search and find this on the CMP website, so can you.
> 
> *1)* How much money total did Planned Parenthood receive from StemExpress from 2010 to 2015?
> 
> ...





Darren said:


> My response was to Bearfootfarm. The info represents CMP's claims which revolve around how much PP has made from the sale of fetal tissue and the apparent efforts to maximize the "quality" of the tissues to make it saleable.
> 
> Whether or not that is illegal, I have no idea. The proof will have to come from access to internal records which AFAIK, PP has never made public.
> 
> ...


Are you or are you not using the CMP highly edited videos as truth of the information detailed in the "meetings" with PP? It sounds to me, at least, that you are. Based on that you must know which parts are edited and which are not, correct? 

I'm not interested in discussing morality either, and for the same reason.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No federal funds are used *for abortions*


Technically, that's incorrect per the Hyde amendment, but the exception allowed for rape or saving the mother's life, is quite reasonable to me.
I'm also aware of the technicality that these reimbursements are NOT for the abortion procedure, which is why I never stated that in my post.
No need to refute what was never said, I just said it would raise some issues. I wasn't specific about what those would be.



Bearfootfarm said:


> The tissues that aren't donated are buried or burned.
> The tissues that are donated don't need "legal owners".
> 
> They merely possess them until the research is complete and they are then discarded as medical waste
> ...


You will find that is not the case when it comes to the law........ 
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


mmoetc said:


> The tissue, just like the wood in your bookcase, becomes the property of the the person, or lab, they were donated to. Break into the lab and destroy either. The law will treat you the same.





mmoetc said:


> *The difference and trying to expand the definition of sale to include these types of donations only seems important to those who oppose abortion and PP specifically.*
> Why? Maybe because it's easier and more beneficial for them to deal in emotion rather than fact. Emotion that may have led to three dead people in Colorado. I'll circle back and point out that this lawsuit isn't about PP or any of its actions. It is about the illegal and unethical acts performed by the anti - abortion group and the danger their practices and misdeeds put others in. Seeds of danger that have already come to fruition. Keep planting.


I think the same could be said about the other side of the issue, and has been many times.
If EITHER side is going to claim 100% of the moral high ground, it might be best to stop and reconsider. Note that I said this applies equally.





wr said:


> Are you willing to apply the same concept to organ donation? Consent of donation forms are signed with hospital with a clear hospital logo on it, yet they aren't they legal owners of those organs, yet it starts the process.
> 
> Once harvested, the organ is intended for another purpose but is not legally considered owned or possessed by the harvest team nor is it owned by the transplant team, although each is responsible for it's care. The donor has no further say and if it's unsuitable for donation, it is my understanding, it can be used for research.
> 
> ...



Being an organ donor myself as well as those in my immediate family, I can speak to this, and it's a valid question.

In a word, "Yes".

Yes, I view them equally and although it can be uncomfortable to talk about, when it comes down to who pays the bill and for what, it does come up, so anyone who hasn't dealt with it, be prepared.
Per the federal statute, there is money involved and the regulation is there to prevent this from being a "for profit" transaction.
To put it bluntly, the sales are kept at the "wholesale" value. No retailers need apply.eep:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> On what grounds can they countersue. Are they going to claim that PP somehow entrapped them to falsely register their business with the state, to illegally record private conversations or to violate various confidentiality agreements. This lawsuit isn't about PP's actions. PP is not disputing anything in this action other than the group in question broke various laws and in doing so put people in danger. The anti abortion group will have to prove they did none of these. Their own tapes prove otherwise.


Qui tam opens a lot of doors. While the feds don't have to assume the suit, CMP can proceed on their own.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you or are you not using the CMP highly edited videos as truth of the information detailed in the "meetings" with PP? It sounds to me, at least, that you are. Based on that you must know which parts are edited and which are not, correct?
> 
> I'm not interested in discussing morality either, and for the same reason.


I've copied the statements off the CMP website. Nothing more. Nothing less. The question: are the statements true or false? That's for CMP to prove via a counter lawsuit. 

Whether you like it or not PP may have just handed CMP legal standing for a court to adjudicate. If so, then CMP can get a court order to access the books, bank records, etc. of the PP affiliates that have been alleged to have broken the law.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Qui tam opens a lot of doors. While the feds don't have to assume the suit, CMP can proceed on their own.


As was posted earlier. Anyone can bring suit. I'm asking on what grounds? PP's finances are open to scrutiny. In all that scrutiny no anti abortion group or government entity has produced one shred of evidence PP violated any law. Without such evidence what is the case? What harm has been done to the anti abortion group other than exposing their illegal acts?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I've copied the statements off the CMP website. Nothing more. Nothing less. The question: are the statements true or false? That's for CMP to prove via a counter lawsuit.
> 
> Whether you like it or not PP may have just handed CMP legal standing for a court to adjudicate. If so, then CMP can get a court order to access the books, bank records, etc. of the PP affiliates that have been alleged to have broken the law.


But PP isn't disputing the tapes. They are alledging that laws were broken in obtaining them. The content of the tapes isn't the crux of the case. Whether the information was illegally gathered is. On what grounds can the group countersue? What is their standing and what harm has PP done to them in conducting their legal business?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> As was posted earlier. Anyone can bring suit. I'm asking on what grounds? PP's finances are open to scrutiny. In all that scrutiny no anti abortion group or government entity has produced one shred of evidence PP violated any law. Without such evidence what is the case? What harm has been done to the anti abortion group other than exposing their illegal acts?


What illegal acts? Where and what docket is that criminal case set? Oh...some have a personal opinion about CMP? Oh...ok.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

A qui tam wouldn't be a defense. It would be an offense to prove that federal money was used for illegal acts. For that CMP would need access to the records mentioned previously for those affiliates. If their books and bank records are a matter of public record please provide a link.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> I've copied the statements off the CMP website. Nothing more. Nothing less. The question: are the statements true or false? That's for CMP to prove via a counter lawsuit.
> 
> Whether you like it or not PP may have just handed CMP legal standing for a court to adjudicate. If so, then CMP can get a court order to access the books, bank records, etc. of the PP affiliates that have been alleged to have broken the law.


You are using the highly edited tapes as proof that PP has done something wrong, ie. you provided video from youtube and your questions. Based on your assumption that what CMP claims on their webstite is true you must know which parts are edited and which are not. Can you explain which is which? 

As mmoetc has stated PP is not suing for defamation, they're suing because CMP broke the law obtaining the videos. That doesn't allow CMP carte blanche access to PP.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> What illegal acts? Where and what docket is that criminal case set? Oh...some have a personal opinion about CMP? Oh...ok.



A) It is alleged that representatives of CMP obtained fraudulent driver's licenses (California) and other fraudulent credentials to gain access to meetings where attendees are carefully screened.



Darren said:


> A qui tam wouldn't be a defense. It would be an offense to prove that federal money was used for illegal acts. For that CMP would need access to the records mentioned previously for those affiliates. If their books and bank records are a matter of public record please provide a link.


A) You can see the PP books thru their website.
The other allegation that is disputed (opinion on whether it's been proven by the CMP tapes is divided, predictably) is whether altering procedures in obtaining these tissues was done in violation of the federal statute I've posted.
That won't be documented in writing in all probability, although there was an email from a New England branch of PP to MIT stating they would try to obtain better tissue samples by using ultrasound to guide them. It would depend on medical testimony whether this was done for the mother's safety or to yield a better quality of tissue.
The truth is known only to those who did the procedure.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Technically, that's incorrect per the Hyde amendment, but the exception allowed for rape or saving the mother's life, is quite reasonable to me.
> I'm also aware of the technicality that these reimbursements are NOT for the abortion procedure, which is why I never stated that in my post.
> No need to refute what was never said, I just said it would raise some issues. I wasn't specific about what those would be.
> 
> ...


Were you paid for the organ(s) you donated?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> A) It is alleged that representatives of CMP obtained fraudulent driver's licenses (California) and other fraudulent credentials to gain access to meetings where attendees are carefully screened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You'd have to have a forensic accountant go through all of the financial records to match credits and debits to prove wrong doing. That would also involve bank statements, their check books and anything else that would show the acquisition and disbursement of funds.

All of that is not on any website.

In addition the companies that received the tissue sample might need to be deposed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> You'd have to have a forensic accountant go through all of the financial records to match credits and debits to prove wrong doing. That would also involve bank statements, their check books and anything else that would show the acquisition and disbursement of funds.
> 
> All of that is not on any website.
> 
> In addition the companies that received the tissue sample might need to be deposed.


I'm sure the investigations by the government entitities, including the recently concluded one I Kansas, were quite thorough. No evidence of wrongdoing was found even with great political pressure to do so. I'll ask again. On what grounds will a lawsuit be filed? Evidence wrongdoing and standing to file must be met before a suit can continue. "I think" isn't grounds. That's a fishing expedition.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> A) It is alleged that representatives of CMP obtained fraudulent driver's licenses (California) and other fraudulent credentials to gain access to meetings where attendees are carefully screened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Back in the day..a friend had a set up in his basement to make fake id's so we could get in bars... because we were screened to get in....yes it was all a big lie...same as CMP.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> I'm sure the investigations by the government entitities, including the recently concluded one I Kansas, were quite thorough. No evidence of wrongdoing was found even with great political pressure to do so. I'll ask again. On what grounds will a lawsuit be filed? Evidence wrongdoing and standing to file must be met before a suit can continue. "I think" isn't grounds. That's a fishing expedition.


A qui tam might allow them to do that if federal funds were involved. Do you have a link to the Kansas investigation and final report?

The fact that PP filed a federal lawsuit is an opening, but not necessarily required, for a qui tam which is federal. Qui tams are of necessity often fishing expeditions, IMO, to prove wrong doing


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> A qui tam might allow them to do that if federal funds were involved. Do you have a link to the Kansas investigation and final report?
> 
> The fact that PP filed a federal lawsuit is an opening, but not necessarily required, for a qui tam which is federal. Qui tams are of necessity often fishing expeditions, IMO, to prove wrong doing


I'm not a lawyer. With that caveat I'll state that my reading about qui tam actions shows that they still require the whistleblower to have some provable knowledge that an illegal act or payment has taken place. Seeing your boss hand the envelope of cash to the health inspector is different than thinking the only way the inspection could be passed was through payoff. One is actionable in court, the other might get authorities to investigate further. Those investigations have been done. The defendants in this case have proven nothing. None of the state investigations (You can do your own research on them if you wish or write me a check for doing it for you. I'll send you a fee schedule if you wish.) have found any evidence of wrong doing. Having suit filed against them for illegal acts gives them no special standing to file such an action. If they had evidence they could have filed any time. You've shown no grounds. You've shown no standing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Were you paid for the organ(s) you donated?


Uhhhhhh......no.
My organs are still intact, but thanks for asking.ound:

My brother donated organs to 4 people who can now live without dialysis and can see.
There were thousands of dollars of medical bills while he was on life support which the transplant organization agreed to pay when I signed the release.
When the bills came to us in the mail, I had to call and remind them of our agreement. They promptly took care of it and I have no regrets on that decision.
It was one of the few comforts in a tragic death, and I look at the abortion issue in EXACTLY the same way, which may come as a surprise to some who would rather demonize the other side in hopes of scoring points in whatever game they see this as being played.

First, is this death the ONLY option available?
Obviously this is the first stumbling block encountered. I can't make that decision for anyone else, I can only hope they choose wisely, because it IS a matter of life or death. I know the young neurosurgeon was uncomfortable and reluctant to answer my questions, but I gave him no choice - I HAD to be sure.
Calling security to have me removed was their first choice of action, and I informed them it was a foolish one so they backed down and did things MY way.

Second, the laws are in place to be followed because this is such a grave matter, and anyone insisting on their adherence is absolutely in the right.
There is to be NO PROFIT in this transaction, no exceptions.

Third, and it may seem a minor point, but not to me.
If you're going to do something you claim is legal, and something you believe is morally right, then you shouldn't hesitate to state publicly that's what you're doing.
Trying to hide behind some opinion you aren't handling organs and getting paid to provide them as part of a financial transaction, isn't the way to go. Admitting it openly may bring you some unwanted criticism, but that's where your own conscience comes into play.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> I'm not a lawyer. With that caveat I'll state that my reading about qui tam actions shows that they still require the whistleblower to have some provable knowledge that an illegal act or payment has taken place. Seeing your boss hand the envelope of cash to the health inspector is different than thinking the only way the inspection could be passed was through payoff. One is actionable in court, the other might get authorities to investigate further. Those investigations have been done. The defendants in this case have proven nothing. None of the state investigations (You can do your own research on them if you wish or write me a check for doing it for you. I'll send you a fee schedule if you wish.) have found any evidence of wrong doing. Having suit filed against them for illegal acts gives them no special standing to file such an action. If they had evidence they could have filed any time. You've shown no grounds. You've shown no standing.


Time will tell. Neither you nor I are the judge.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I'll go ahead and say what hasn't been said in regard to any investigations of PP that have "found no evidence of wrong doing."

You know what I'm going to say, but here it is so anyone can shoot it down.

*Obama and Holder.*

I wouldn't trust them nor hire them to pick up the dog poop in the yard.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll go ahead and say what hasn't been said in regard to any investigations of PP that have "found no evidence of wrong doing."
> 
> You know what I'm going to say, but here it is so anyone can shoot it down.
> 
> ...


13 state investigations including S. Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, and Kansas. The most recently concluded in Kansas was done by a board appointed by noted lefty and abortion rights supporter, Sam Brownback. They found nothing as did every other investigation. I won't mention the probe Republicans in congress.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *I'll go ahead and say *what hasn't been said in regard to any investigations of PP that have "found no evidence of wrong doing."
> 
> You know what I'm going to say, but here it is so anyone can shoot it down.
> 
> ...


So you're going to say it's all a conspiracy because no one can find any evidence.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> That's why we'll have to wait for the countersuit. If I can search and find this on the CMP website, so can you.
> 
> *1)* How much money total did Planned Parenthood receive from StemExpress from 2010 to 2015?
> 
> ...


That's not evidence.
Those are the same old lame, parroted allegations and insinuations


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> 13 state investigations including S. Carolina, Louisiana, Ohio, and Kansas. The most recently concluded in Kansas was done by a board appointed by noted lefty and abortion rights supporter, Sam Brownback. They found nothing as did every other investigation. I won't mention the probe Republicans in congress.


From what I can see at this time, PP affiliates in three states are known to have donated tissue. Those are California, Colorado and Washington. I found the AG's report from Washington which seemed to be based on interviews and records of the abortions. From those there were no evidence of illegalities. There was no evidence that financials were checked.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not evidence.
> Those are the same old lame, parroted allegations and insinuations


Those are CMP's allegations. As before, unless you look closely at the financial records including the books, bank records and check books, you won't know what happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> Those are CMP's allegations. As before, unless you look closely at the financial records including the books, bank records and check books, you won't know what happened.


I asked you to *show evidence*
All you've offered is the same old allegations.

I've seen all that before


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> A) It is alleged that representatives of CMP obtained fraudulent driver's licenses (California) and other fraudulent credentials to gain access to meetings where attendees are carefully screened.
> 
> A) You can see the PP books thru their website.
> The other allegation that is disputed (opinion on whether it's been proven by the CMP tapes is divided, predictably) is whether *altering procedures* in obtaining these tissues was done in violation of the federal statute I've posted.
> ...


Using ultrasound is a standard procedure, not "altered" in any way.
You're once again parroting CMP's mindless rhetoric

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Ultrasound+Guided+Abortion&FORM=QSRE4&ajf=70


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not evidence.
> Those are the same old lame, parroted allegations and insinuations


Plus the poster is accepting the highly edited videos on CMP's website as fact. SMH.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Discovery is not going to be pretty for pp, can't wait. There really no need for pp anyway since Obamacare became law. Remember, the SC once ruled that tomatoes were indeed a vegetable!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Discovery is not going to be pretty for pp, can't wait. There really no need for pp anyway since Obamacare became law. Remember, the SC once ruled that *tomatoes were indeed a vegetable!*


There's no evidence that is true either.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're going to say it's all a conspiracy because no one can find any evidence.



No.
I say Obama and Holder are criminals and liars. 
That's pretty simple isn't it?
No conspiracy needed.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Using ultrasound is a standard procedure, not "altered" in any way.
> You're once again parroting CMP's mindless rhetoric
> 
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=Ultrasound+Guided+Abortion&FORM=QSRE4&ajf=70



I cited an email from PP to MIT as proof of altering procedures, not anything published by CMP.
BTW, if you'd like to read that email where they discussed ultrasound was NOT a standard procedure, but would begin using it to get better specimens, I'll post it for you.
You might want to further investigate those links you offered. Other than the study by the Egyptian doctor, the clinics you linked to offered ultrasounds........as a service for pregnant women having prenatal care. No mention of using it in abortions.
I'm no one's parrot and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Plus the poster is accepting the highly edited videos on CMP's website as fact. SMH.


That's not true. What I have seen leads me to believe discovery involving financial records will show the real story and prove whether or not CMP's allegations are correct. It's simply the old story of follow the money. 

There's not enough out there to either prove or disprove the allegations. They do provide the basis for an investigation. The AG investigation in the one state where PP allegedly donated tissue did not involve the financial records. Neither would an audit.

I'm curious why PP's affiliates in those states didn't invite a financial review by an outside agency.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No.
> I say Obama and Holder are criminals and liars.
> That's pretty simple isn't it?
> No conspiracy needed.
> ...


When you repeat allegation instead of offering something new, you're "parroting". 
If you want to discuss Holder and Obama, that's a different topic

The title of the search I linked is "Ultrasound Guided Abortions", so if you didn't see any evidence of it being a normal procedure, you didn't take time to look. Here's just one:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.3945/full

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ultras...=-1&sk=&cvid=14CB69DC27634E3BADC9BC2D1E33DA8F




> BTW, if you'd like to read that email where *they discussed ultrasound was NOT a standard procedure*, but would begin using it to get better specimens, *I'll post it for you.*


Post whatever you like, but I bet it doesn't really say "not a standard procedure". 

I suspect it merely describes the technique that allows them to see the placement of the forceps, which is valuable in any surgery rather than blindly probing


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> highly edited videos



Please clarify. The "highly edited videos" that you are speaking of, was there any proof of where CMP changed any words or anything of substance from what was in the full unedited version?

You make me chuckle when I see you continuing with your use of "highly edited videos" when all that was done that constitutes "editing" was the long version was cut down to a number of shorter versions...

...just have to chuckle...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You might want to further investigate those links you offered. Other than the study by the Egyptian doctor, the clinics you linked to offered ultrasounds........as a service for pregnant women having prenatal care. No mention of using it in abortions.
> I'm no one's parrot and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me that.





Bearfootfarm said:


> When you repeat allegation instead of offering something new, you're "parroting".
> If you want to discuss Holder and Obama, that's a different topic
> 
> The title of the search I linked is "Ultrasound Guided Abortions", so if you didn't see any evidence of it being a normal procedure, you didn't take time to look. Here's just one:
> ...


Yes, I went thru most of the first page.
I will "parrot" myself here and restate that the first link above is a book from 2007, not a clinic.
I'll try to stick to the topic of Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States, if that's ok.

The second link contained a website for a film called "Silent Scream" which came out many years ago.
Probably not what you would want to see on here, nonetheless.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Post whatever you like,* but I bet it doesn't really say "not a standard procedure".*
> 
> I suspect it merely describes the technique that allows them to see the placement of the forceps, which is valuable in any surgery rather than blindly probing



Well, I'll see if I can find it again and get back to you on that bet. What's the wager BTW? I'm not normally a betting man, but I might make an exception or two.

Don't go overboard though, I can guarantee it doesn't state what you said in your last sentence.
I don't want to see you take a sucker bet like that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I went thru most of the first page.
> I will "parrot" myself here and restate that the first link above is a book from 2007, not a clinic.
> 
> *I'll try to stick to the topic of Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States, if that's ok.*
> ...


I made no claims as to what the E-mail said, so let's not pretend I did
Those are claims yours alone 

If you truly want to "stick to the topic" then Holder and Obama don't fit at all.

It makes no difference if the ultrasound information was from a book or a clinic when it only has to show it's a normal, accepted abortion procedure, not "altered".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Not worth the bother to respond.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No.
> I say Obama and Holder are criminals and liars.
> That's pretty simple isn't it?
> No conspiracy needed.
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> When you repeat allegation instead of offering something new, you're "parroting".
> If you want to discuss Holder and Obama, that's a different topic
> 
> The title of the search I linked is "Ultrasound Guided Abortions", so if you didn't see any evidence of it being a normal procedure, you didn't take time to look. Here's just one:
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> *I made no claims as to what the E-mail said, so let's not pretend I did*
> Those are claims yours alone
> 
> If you truly want to "stick to the topic" then Holder and Obama don't fit at all.
> ...




Ok, I'm going to correct these remarks.

First, if you follow the bold comments down to the red one, there's absolutely no way you can say "I made no claims as to what the E-mail said".
That's where the saying comes from, "Don't let your mouth write a check that your butt can't cash."
If you don't want to make a bet on it, just say so.
If you've now found the email yourself online and decided it IS indicative they broke the law or at least said they were going to do it for the MIT lab, then there's no shame in just saying, "Hey, I guess I was wrong."
There's no shame in being wrong and there's no shame in standing by what you say.

But don't post on here that what you typed never happened, that's doesn't serve you well at all.


As far as mentioning the leaders of the current administration, that WAS actually a topical reply to the claim that PP has been thoroughly investigated.
I said exactly what I said, because I refute that claim.



I think you know what altering the abortion procedure is, so I now see what tack you plan to take when and if I post the email from the New England chapter of PP.
No, it doesn't mean they altered the ultrasound, it means that normally they use what is called "blind evacuation" cited in your search link.
In the email, they were going to add the ultrasound to the procedure,. which was not the way they had been doing it prior to the request from MIT to get better tissue samples.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Please clarify. The "highly edited videos" that you are speaking of, was there any proof of where CMP changed any words or anything of substance from what was in the full unedited version?
> 
> You make me chuckle when I see you continuing with your use of "highly edited videos" when all that was done that constitutes "editing" was the long version was cut down to a number of shorter versions...
> 
> ...just have to chuckle...


Perhaps you don't realize just how highly edited the videos are, or just how easy it is to edit video. The following link is a transcript. Double dog dare you to actually read it. 

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps you don't realize just how highly edited the videos are, or just how easy it is to edit video. The following link is a transcript. Double dog dare you to actually read it.
> 
> http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


It is not necessary to "double dog dare" me, what ever that is but it is you that I asked for the proof that something in the editing or something in the content was being altered so as to change what actually happened. I've already seen where it states that no content has been changed and that the short clips reflect exactly what the long unedited video showed. 

So all that I was asking is if you found some credible information where the content or actual words had been changed or if the video had some voice-overs done or such. 

To infer, as you have been, that something is "heavily edited" would seem to me that something was changed, not that it was just shortened for easier viewing.

ETA: I went through all 60 pages of the PDF document and find myself uncertain as to the reason for your providing it. I am making the assumption that it is the full transcript of the event and that all of what was in it was also in the videos that was taken from it. There is nothing in the transcript that delineates where the short videos start and end so it really offers no assistance regarding knowing what was "added" or "omitted" if such a thing happened.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> It is not necessary to "double dog dare" me, what ever that is but it is you that I asked for the proof that something in the editing or something in the content was being altered so as to change what actually happened. I've already seen where it states that no content has been changed and that the short clips reflect exactly what the long unedited video showed.
> 
> So all that I was asking is if you found some credible information where the content or actual words had been changed or if the video had some voice-overs done or such.
> 
> To infer, as you have been, that something is "heavily edited" would seem to me that something was changed, not that it was just shortened for easier viewing.


Yes. I found creditable information on the link I provided that the heavily edited video was manipulated. Film was edited so that the content could be misconstrued, or was a blatant lie. Dialog was left out that was in explanation of stated information, and that also changed the meaning of the dialog. 

Better?  I still double dog dare you to actually read the transcript.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Nothing in the document shows any "editing" - can you identify that which was edited out or in or changed?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Nothing in the document shows any "editing" - can you identify that which was edited out or in or changed?


I can't help you understand it. Sorry.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

See - this is why I am so frustrated by the way that you do things. You say that the document is the full text so I am certain that if what you're alleging is the truth then there should be someone showing that "Here, this statement in the transcript is not in the video" or "right here in the transcript, the person said "X" and in the video you hear the words "Y"" - Do you have anything that supports the "heavily Edited" claim in that fashion?

I really do not want to go on and on, I just need a "Yes" and a citation to the information for me to review or a simple "no". 

Please?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> See - this is why I am so frustrated by the way that you do things. You say that the document is the full text so I am certain that if what you're alleging is the truth then there should be someone showing that "Here, this statement in the transcript is not in the video" or "right here in the transcript, the person said "X" and in the video you hear the words "Y"" - Do you have anything that supports the "heavily Edited" claim in that fashion?
> 
> I really do not want to go on and on, I just need a "Yes" and a citation to the information for me to review or a simple "no".
> 
> Please?


The link I provided contains all the required information. Read the transcript and watch the heavily edited video from CMP. They don't contain the same information. 

I'm not wasting my time doing a synopsis that you will (almost certainly) ignore, make your own sammich.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Although the edited version is just condensed of a longer conversation...the same as 60 minutes interview with Sean Penn last night. However, I do prefer the unedited version myself which I did read. The very fact that there is a butcher of that magnitude that lives among us is very disturbing...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

We have many people living among us that do far worse things then terminate a pregnancy and quite often they call themselves Christians.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> We have many people living among us that do far worse things then terminate a pregnancy and quite often they call themselves Christians.


Christian's? Only took three minutes too!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Christian's? Only took three minutes too!


Well you beat me to it with the butcher comment. I just wanted to keep up with you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> It is not necessary to "double dog dare" me, what ever that is but it is you that I asked for the proof that something in the editing or something in the content was being altered so as to change what actually happened. I've already seen where it states that no content has been changed and that the short clips reflect exactly what the long unedited video showed.
> 
> So all that I was asking is if you found some credible information where the content or actual words had been changed or if the video had some voice-overs done or such.
> 
> ...


This was all discussed months ago when the videos first came out, and it was shown how the short versions were edited in such a way as to *leave out* parts of statements to attempt to change the meaning.

Do a search and you can find those threads

CMP made a big deal over hiring their own "specialists" to say the *full length* versions weren't edited, when no one ever claimed they were.

It shouldn't all have to be repeated every time the subject comes up


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

elevenpoint said:


> Although the edited version is just condensed of a longer conversation...the same as 60 minutes interview with Sean Penn last night. However, I do prefer the unedited version myself which I did read. The very fact that there is a butcher of that magnitude that lives among us is very disturbing...


Ya really a shortened video is just condensed from the entire one. No big deal but the pp sure like to keep saying it was wrong and showed them in bad light. Ya THINK. Bought time they are shown in BAD LIGHT. In bad with getting money and keeping it from murdering children. They will some day get in front of a not so slanted liberal judge and the hammer will come down on them once and for all. They were in the wrong, they still are in the wrong, and that will stop..


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Well you beat me to it with the butcher comment. I just wanted to keep up with you.


Spend a day with her at the shop...you may think different after that. Doubt you will want to share a bottle of wine with her at the end of the day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

When you have to edit the truth to make it fit your agenda you have already lost the battle for truth. Then using it to back up your position further makes them look like fools.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Spend a day with her at the shop...you may think different after that. Doubt you will want to share a bottle of wine with her at the end of the day.


Are you sure I have not already?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> When you have to edit the truth to make it fit your agenda you have already lost the battle for truth. Then using it to back up your position further makes them look like fools.


I agree. A Federal judge agrees that there is no evidence of Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal after reading the transcripts and watching both the edited and unedited versions of the videos.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree. A Federal judge agrees that there is no evidence of Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal after reading the transcripts and watching both the edited and unedited versions of the videos.


Again...not the subject matter before him. A personal opinion. Not relevant in any way. His rulings are limited to a civil matter before him. Period.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure I have not already?


If the shoe fits.....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> If the shoe fits.....


Not sure what you are trying to imply. Why don't you just come out and say it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> The link I provided contains all the required information. Read the transcript and watch the heavily edited video from CMP. They don't contain the same information.
> 
> I'm not wasting my time doing a synopsis that you will (almost certainly) ignore, make your own sammich.


OK, I understand. There is no credible evidence showing that there is anything different from the unedited video when it was cut into portions and the information that I have which indicates that the short videos are, in fact, just portions of the unedited video. 

I was fairly certain that there was no "manipulation" of the content and that the only "editing" was to provide shorter pieces so that they lenght would not cause people to pass it by.

That's all I was looking for.

So, unless you have any hard data that resolves my question, I am going with this:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/CoalfireCMPvideosReport.pdf


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> When you have to edit the truth to make it fit your agenda you have already lost the battle for truth. Then using it to back up your position further makes them look like fools.


You know what? I agree with you on this.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This was all discussed months ago when the videos first came out, and it was shown how the short versions were edited in such a way as to *leave out* parts of statements to attempt to change the meaning.
> 
> Do a search and you can find those threads
> 
> ...


If you remember, back in that thread you do the same thing in telling others to "make your own sammich" without proving the point. I provided a link to forensic evidence. You cannot demean it just by saying "Oh, they're biased" or "CMP paid for them to lie" - show some hard facts where the actual videos were changed. That's how it works.

If it is so obvious, it should not be too hard to find the actual facts...

http://townhall.com/columnists/case...enthoods-highly-edited-talking-point-n2059788


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> OK, I understand. There is no credible evidence showing that there is anything different from the unedited video when it was cut into portions and the information that I have which indicates that the short videos are, in fact, just portions of the unedited video.
> 
> I was fairly certain that there was no "manipulation" of the content and that the only "editing" was to provide shorter pieces so that they lenght would not cause people to pass it by.
> 
> ...


"Fusion GPS concluded that the statement âitâs a babyâ was not technically heard and that the technicianâs words should have been deemed unintelligible: âIn our view, CMP created the purported statement, âitâs a baby,â either through transcription error or intentional fabrication.â
And it determined that the âanother boyâ comment was taken dramatically out of context and might have even been said in response to a question by the CMP operatives that was later cut from the tape. According to its report, the phrase would be out of place after statements from lab technicians engaged in a fairly technical discussion of identifying internal organs like the liver and thymus.
Fusion GPS says that the short versions of the videos, which have gotten significantly more attention than the longer versions, were distorted to misrepresent the full conversations. For example, one Planned Parenthood official made a reference to âdiversifying the revenue streamâ in regard to expanding patient services, but that was ultimately portrayed as collecting revenue from fetal tissue donations.
The firm also found several instances in which the transcripts that CMP released did not match up to the transcriptions done by an outside group for Fusion GPS.
Finally, it found evidence that the man representing the fake BioMax company in the videos is likely Daleiden. At one point in the tapes, his colleague accidentally calls him David, and he accidentally introduces himself as David before correcting himself."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...eport-finds-manipulation-121800#ixzz3xd3Aj3MN

The summary done by Fusion GPS of the CMP videos and transcripts.

http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVk3HDyuhhkPMnFMCvK5fVC8=


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS? There is no bigger joke than Fusion GPS.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...eport-finds-manipulation-121800#ixzz3xd3Aj3MN
> 
> From the Above Link:
> "But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no âwidespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.â
> ...


If this is true then I would have to say that there were more edits than I have been able to track down - for the most part it looks like one company wants to refute what another company says happened - there are quite a number of instances where they use the terms "might have been" and "seems to be out of place" and more of the same.

It almost sounds like each side doing a best case scenario for their clients.

So at this point, I cannot stand on either side of the "heavily edited video" statement, you're welcome to continue using it as you wish. Neither side sounds completely credible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *If you remember, back in that thread* you do the same thing in telling others to "make your own sammich" without proving the point. I provided a link to forensic evidence. You cannot demean it just by saying "Oh, they're biased" or "CMP paid for them to lie" - show some hard facts where the actual videos were changed. That's how it works.
> 
> If it is so obvious, *it should not be too hard to find the actual facts...*
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/case...enthoods-highly-edited-talking-point-n2059788


How is it you claim to remember what I said, but you can't remember the facts that were presented?

Their "forensic evidence" doesn't prove anything other than *one copy* wasn't changed, and they paid for the research themselves

A video doesn't have to be "changed" to be *edited* in such a manner as to make it appear they said something they didn't.

All this was explained and documented months ago as the videos were being released

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/search.php?searchid=5941167&pp=25&page=2


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS? There is *no bigger joke *than Fusion GPS.


That depends on who you ask


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How is it you claim to remember what I said, but you can't remember the facts that were presented?
> 
> Their "forensic evidence" doesn't prove anything other than *one copy* wasn't changed, and they paid for the research themselves
> 
> ...



um... I don't think that I was addressing you...

You lack specificity in your citation. Not wading in to try to find what you think it is that proves your point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> um... *I don't think that I was addressing you...
> *
> *You lack specificity* in your citation. Not wading in to try to find what you think it is that proves your point.


You could have* looked*. It's still there




> #222 Report Post
> Old Today, 03:07 PM
> Shine's Avatar
> Shine Shine is online now
> ...


I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain it to you if you won't even read your own posts before continuing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You could have* looked*. It's still there
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can tell by the use of "make your own sammich" that I was thinking that I was replying to pixie.. Oh well, when the new brains come out, I am going to get one...  

Still, the page that you posted has a number of multi post threads, don't have time to wade through - can you be specific?

I did look, you didn't suggest where in any of those posts I should be looking...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You can tell by the use of "make your own sammich" that I was thinking that I was replying to pixie.. Oh well, when the new brains come out, I am going to get one...
> 
> Still, the page that you posted has a number of multi post threads, *don't have time to wade through* - can you be specific?
> 
> I did look, you didn't suggest where in any of those posts I should be looking...


Don't look then. :shrug:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

bearfootfarm said:


> don't look then. :shrug:


ok...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I cited an email from PP to MIT as proof of altering procedures, not anything published by CMP.
> BTW, if you'd like to read that email where they discussed ultrasound was NOT a standard procedure, but would begin using it to get better specimens, I'll post it for you.





Bearfootfarm said:


> When you repeat allegation instead of offering something new, you're "parroting".
> 
> Post whatever you like, but I bet it doesn't really say "not a standard procedure".
> 
> I suspect it merely describes the technique that allows them to see the placement of the forceps, which is valuable in any surgery rather than blindly probing




You should have taken me up on that bet, lol.
My memory isn't as good as it used to be, I got a few key details wrong. This is the one I went looking for, but I got the college wrong (not MIT) and they were discussing injected solutions, not ultrasound.
In the end, PP was NOT able to alter the procedure to gain acceptable tissue specimens for the research.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/taxpayers-paid-for-intact-human-fetal-brains-from-stemexpress/

It's humbling to admit a mistake, but not world ending.:surrender::happy2:


While searching, I DID find something I overlooked before in PP CEO's letter to congress though.
Not a big smoking gun, more like gun powder residue.
While it's good to know she adheres to the 1988 blue ribbon panel guidelines, that ISN'T what the statute says.......
http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVmMQR51KNkcLKWgR2hTdC2Y=
"In performing the selected method, a physician may need to make multiple adjustments to the method as the surgery proceeds. These adjustments are clinical judgments &#8211; not a change of method &#8211; made by the physician as the abortion proceeds and are always intended to achieve the woman&#8217;s desired result as safely as possible. The key point, as the 1988 blue-ribbon commission recognized, is that there be no change that would impact the safety or well-being of the patient. The same principle applies in deliveries, where physicians will often make adjustments to facilitate the collection of cord blood if the patient wants to retain or donate this blood. *Our understanding, however, is that even adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations rarely occur at our few clinics that offer women this service."*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> You should have taken me up on that bet, lol.
> My memory isn't as good as it used to be, I got a few key details wrong. This is the one I went looking for, but I got the college wrong (not MIT) and they were discussing injected solutions, not ultrasound.
> In the end, PP was NOT able to alter the procedure to gain acceptable tissue specimens for the research.
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/taxpayers-paid-for-intact-human-fetal-brains-from-stemexpress/
> ...


No *procedures* were "altered", just like I said.
That was always just CMP's BS


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No *procedures* were "altered", just like I said.
> That was always just CMP's BS



To "parrot" a game show line, "Is that your final answer?'


Looks like the classic debate over definitions again. I guess you could argue that the "procedure" was an abortion, so as long as that was the result, nothing was altered.
As far as the "method" used, finding evidence in writing would usually be elusive if it was known they were violating the law. Most people are aware of self incriminating statements.
If the CMP videos had shown PP was unwilling to "alter" anything to obtain better quality tissues and that allegation wasn't confirmed in writing as I've shown, you would be 100% correct that it was all BS.
But that isn't the case is it?
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42 section:289g-1 edition:prelim)

It's somewhat amusing the standard used for authenticity of CMP is that they not alter one second of their tapes.
But if the same standard is applied to the abortion procedure, all bets are off, pun intended.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Looks like the classic debate over definitions again. I guess you could argue that the "procedure" was an abortion, so as long as that was the result, nothing was altered.


In the *context *of the laws and this discussion, "altered" means something *not* normally done as part of a procedure. 

Since people aren't machines, all abortions will be slightly different, but still within the realm of what's "normal"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In the *context *of the laws and this discussion, "altered" means something *not* normally done as part of a procedure.
> 
> Since people aren't machines, all abortions will be slightly different, but still within the realm of what's "normal"


Is editing a normal part of the procedure in shooting videotapes?............:whistlin:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Is editing a normal part of the procedure in shooting videotapes?............:whistlin:


Yes, fantasy films are usually edited.
Is it normal to lie and pretend to be someone you're not in order to make the videos?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, fantasy films are usually edited.
> Is it normal to lie and pretend to be someone you're not in order to make the videos?


I guess that depends. 
When they make undercover videos, I think that happens quite a bit.
Whether it's PETA on a chicken farm, CBS news at an Apple facility in China or the local NARC squad down the street, there's some deception that is necessary to gain access to inside information.
Otherwise secrets remain secret.
Even when video evidence is brought into court, the defense can have access to all the videos, but the prosecution will only show the edited version to the jury if that's all they need to prove their case.

So, only fantasy films are edited?
Documentaries aren't edited as part of a "normal procedure"?

As I said, I'm trying to establish the what the standard is for credibility in this case.
I understand and accept that if CMP altered any of their videos, their credibility is to be questioned. Some have gone as far as to say none of what they filmed is true because of that alteration.
Fair enough.
If PP has altered even a few abortions, as the CEO stated to congress in my last link, does that mean PP's credibility is to be questioned........or do they have none at all?

OR are the standards different when it comes to abortion?
Maybe there's a study somewhere that shows abortionists tell the truth more often than anti-abortionists?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Shine said:


> If you remember, back in that thread you do the same thing in telling others to "make your own sammich" without proving the point. I provided a link to forensic evidence. You cannot demean it just by saying "Oh, they're biased" or "CMP paid for them to lie" - show some hard facts where the actual videos were changed. That's how it works.
> 
> If it is so obvious, it should not be too hard to find the actual facts...
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/case...enthoods-highly-edited-talking-point-n2059788


Thanks for posting the link. I knew CMP was happy about the lawsuit. The links clarified some thoughts. More than ever I hope the discovery process gets into the PP's books and bank statements.

CMP will have to counter sue. I still think a qui tam is the way to go.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As I said, I'm trying to establish the what the standard is for credibility in this case.


CMP has no credibility if they have to go in with lies

Some seem to think it's fine to lie to get what you want, but even with all their lies, they still found no evidence of illegal acts



> If PP has *altered* even a few abortions, as the CEO stated to congress in my last link, does that mean PP's credibility is to be questioned........or do they have none at all?


They never "altered" anything
You can't seem to separate the reality from the spin, so now you're just parroting the buzzwords again.

No more running in circles


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> CMP has no credibility if they have to go in with lies
> 
> Some seem to think it's fine to lie to get what you want, but even with all their lies, they still found no evidence of illegal acts
> 
> ...


That's why I've said the real evidence has to come form the financials. The affiliates' books need to be accessed. I'm not sure how CMP will do that given PP's franchise setup other than suing specific affiliates. The franchise setup may be the Achilles heal when all is said and done. 

To put it another way does McDonalds corporate get involved when a franchise does something illegal?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

PP is acting like any person or company caught with their hand in the cookie jar...hire the most expensive law firm they can to silence the messenger. The foundation of any undercover investigation is to deceive the other party and gain their trust...job very well done by CMP. Those on the other end are always upset they got duped into spilling their guts.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

My guess when all is said and done, we'll find out that PP has a few rogue affiliates. Rather than getting to the bottom of it, PP is stonewalling. If true, that will damage them more than the recent apparent circling the wagons and denying.

Credibility is easy to lose. Hard to regain once lost. The lawsuit is telling.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You should have taken me up on that bet, lol.
> My memory isn't as good as it used to be, I got a few key details wrong. This is the one I went looking for, but I got the college wrong (not MIT) and they were discussing injected solutions, not ultrasound.
> In the end, PP was NOT able to alter the procedure to gain acceptable tissue specimens for the research.
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/taxpayers-paid-for-intact-human-fetal-brains-from-stemexpress/
> ...


You're right that it's a matter of semantics. The law states that shall be "no alteration of the timing, method, or abortion procedure solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue." What it doesn't say is that once the decision had been made to obtain the tissue the best practice to obtain the best tissue samples shouldn't be used. The purpose of the abortion, or even the method, isn't solely to obtain the tissue. It is to end the pregnancy. Obtaining the tissue is secondary. Quite honestly, I'd be more comfortable if all abortions were ultrasound assisted. As a layman it would seem to be the safest way to proceed surgically.

I'll also point out that "standard medical practice" in a variety of procedures is largely a personal thing among doctors. Some embrace technology like ultrasounds. Others say I've been doing this for 30 years and I don't need no stinkin' ultrasound to tell me what experience does. I've sat at a table and listened to two surgeons argue over which stitch is better to close an incision. 

I'm sure you'll disagree. There's really not much I can say to change your mind. Your mindset and morality are different than mine. I'm claiming no moral high ground. I'm also not trying to force my morality on you or anyone else. You can make your own choices on those. It's the same respect I give to all others.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> My guess when all is said and done, we'll find out that PP has a few rogue affiliates. Rather than getting to the bottom of it, PP is stonewalling. If true, that will damage them more than the recent apparent circling the wagons and denying.
> 
> Credibility is easy to lose. Hard to regain once lost. The lawsuit is telling.


And I'd guess you're wrong. There's nothing to get to the bottom of. The videotapes show no evidence of illegal acts. Even though that is what they were designed to do. Even though illegal methods were used to obtain the non existant evidence. You're free to postulate on whatever you wish. You're free to file that qui tam lawsuit whenever you wish. You have no more grounds than the group you tout, nor any more credibility.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And I'd guess you're wrong. There's nothing to get to the bottom of. The videotapes show no evidence of illegal acts. Even though that is what they were designed to do. Even though illegal methods were used to obtain the non existant evidence. You're free to postulate on whatever you wish. You're free to file that qui tam lawsuit whenever you wish. You have no more grounds than the group you tout, nor any more credibility.


For you and me it's all a guess at this point. The videos to me were wisps of smoke. Maybe there's something going on. Maybe not. Is something burning? The lawsuit is a fire. Now we have lots of flames. We're beyond smoke now, IMO. 

With as many franchisees as PP has, I'm obviously leaning to illegality in the past. PP is too political. When you go that route it's beyond rational. You can easily lose track of the details. 

The next thing you know, you've got a full blown scandal and you're stopped dead in your tracks.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> For you and me it's all a guess at this point. The videos to me were wisps of smoke. Maybe there's something going on. Maybe not. Is something burning? The lawsuit is a fire. Now we have lots of flames. We're beyond smoke now, IMO.
> 
> With as many franchisees as PP has, I'm obviously leaning to illegality in the past. PP is too political. When you go that route it's beyond rational. You can easily lose track of the details.
> 
> The next thing you know, you've got a full blown scandal and you're stopped dead in your tracks.


And once again I'll point out that PP's lawsuit has nothing to do with defending themselves against what you believe might have happened. The lawsuit has to do with the illegal and unethical acts the group in question used to obtain the information that every independent, and many not so independent, investigations have found prove no wrongdoing. Your answer? The next investigation will. Sometimes when you keep digging all you get is a deeper hole. I hope you enjoy your view from the bottom. Get back to me if you ever find anything but the products of your fevered imagination.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I try to take the long view. Obviously PP didn't when they opened themselves up to a countersuit. PP has handed CMP the standing to do discovery. Before that all they had was the potential for a qui tam which is uphill all the way. 

PP's actions opened the door to CMP to go on a fishing expedition. Only, now CMP knows which holes (affiliates) to go fishing in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I try to take the long view. Obviously PP didn't when they opened themselves up to a countersuit. PP has handed CMP the standing to do discovery. Before that all they had was the potential for a qui tam which is uphill all the way.
> 
> PP's actions opened the door to CMP to go on a fishing expedition. Only, now CMP knows which holes (affiliates) to go fishing in.


You keep making the same claim about a countersuit. On what grounds? It's a simple question. You've repeatedly not answered it. You cannot countersue on grounds that aren't addressed in the initial suit. If CMP had evidence of any wrongdoing they could file suit regardless of whether PP initially filed suit or not. They have provided no such evidence. No subsequent investigation has found any such evidence. You have provided no such evidence. No basis for further discovery of PP's financials exists except in your mind. Enjoy your ever deepening hole.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't have to stay at a Holiday Inn Express to know where there's smoke there's likely a fire.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> You keep making the same claim about a countersuit. On what grounds? It's a simple question. You've repeatedly not answered it. You cannot countersue on grounds that aren't addressed in the initial suit. If CMP had evidence of any wrongdoing they could file suit regardless of whether PP initially filed suit or not. They have provided no such evidence. No subsequent investigation has found any such evidence. You have provided no such evidence. No basis for further discovery of PP's financials exists except in your mind. Enjoy your ever deepening hole.


In an alternate universe far far away, opinion is fact and fact is opinion.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> In an alternate universe far far away, opinion is fact and fact is opinion.


It's much closer to home than you think. Reality is a construct which I think you already know.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I don't have to stay at a Holiday Inn Express to know where there's smoke there's likely a fire.


I can make substances that look a lot like smoke without lighting a fire. I can probably even convince some people that they look enough like smoke to insist that fire must be present. Are you sure you're looking at smoke and not something someone wants you to think is smoke? You might wish to look for other evidence of that fire other than what's being blown up a certain orifice by CMP. Oh yeah, that evidence hasn't been shown to exist no matter how hard it's been searched for.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

It's a fog machine pretending to be smoke.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> It's a fog machine pretending to be smoke.


Thanks! ound:


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Darren said:


> It's much closer to home than you think. Reality is a construct which I think you already know.


We have a friend that had a wayward wife although he was blind to it...we got a guy to video and tape her repeatedly....her company with other men in public and conversations with her. When he saw the video and heard the audio...that was the end. Common sense.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> It's a fog machine pretending to be smoke.


:bow: We are not worthy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> We have a friend that had a wayward wife although he was blind to it...we got a guy to video and tape her repeatedly....her company with other men in public and conversations with her. When he saw the video and heard the audio...that was the end. Common sense.


It helps to understand, in a manner of speaking, "There are no ugly babies." What someone holds near and dear, they will defend, sometimes to the death. It doesn't matter how ugly the truth is. It's their baby and they love it.

Awakening can be a soul-shaking experience. Most will not go there.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> It helps to understand, in a manner of speaking, "There are no ugly babies." What someone holds near and dear, they will defend, sometimes to the death. It doesn't matter how ugly the truth is. It's their baby and they love it.
> 
> Awakening can be a soul-shaking experience. Most will not go there.


And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But ugly and beauty are based on personal opinion and feelings, not fact. When you can bring forth fact that PP did anything illegal you're opinion will have a basis outside your head. Despite what you choose to believe no facts have been presented. I'll stick with facts. The fact is there are ugly babies. Sometimes they grow up to be ugly adults.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> CMP has no credibility if they have to go in with lies
> 
> Some seem to think it's fine to lie to get what you want, but even with all their lies, they still found no evidence of illegal acts
> 
> ...


I can see the reality of the CEO's letter to congress.
Can YOU?
She admitted they sometimes altered the procedures to obtain donated tissue.
It was in black and white.
Either she is lying or you are.

I said NOT to call me a parrot Bearfoot, and I MEANT it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I can see the reality of the CEO's letter to congress.
> Can YOU?
> *She admitted they sometimes altered the procedures* to obtain donated tissue.
> It was in black and white.
> Either she is lying or you are.


More running in circles


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> You're right that it's a matter of semantics. The law states that shall be "no alteration of the timing, method, or abortion procedure solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue." What it doesn't say is that once the decision had been made to obtain the tissue the best practice to obtain the best tissue samples shouldn't be used. The purpose of the abortion, or even the method, isn't solely to obtain the tissue. It is to end the pregnancy. Obtaining the tissue is secondary. Quite honestly, I'd be more comfortable if all abortions were ultrasound assisted. As a layman it would seem to be the safest way to proceed surgically.
> 
> I'll also point out that "standard medical practice" in a variety of procedures is largely a personal thing among doctors. Some embrace technology like ultrasounds. Others say I've been doing this for 30 years and I don't need no stinkin' ultrasound to tell me what experience does. I've sat at a table and listened to two surgeons argue over which stitch is better to close an incision.
> 
> I'm sure you'll disagree. There's really not much I can say to change your mind. Your mindset and morality are different than mine. I'm claiming no moral high ground. I'm also not trying to force my morality on you or anyone else. You can make your own choices on those. It's the same respect I give to all others.


Well surprise, surprise.
I actually DO agree. Why wouldn't I agree with a logical, thoughtful point of view?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Darren said:


> It helps to understand, in a manner of speaking, "There are no ugly babies." What someone holds near and dear, they will defend, sometimes to the death. It doesn't matter how ugly the truth is. It's their baby and they love it.
> 
> Awakening can be a soul-shaking experience. Most will not go there.


There is a name for that...it's called..."Drinking the Kool-Aid".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And I'd guess you're wrong. There's nothing to get to the bottom of. The videotapes show no evidence of illegal acts. Even though that is what they were designed to do. Even though illegal methods were used to obtain the non existant evidence. You're free to postulate on whatever you wish. You're free to file that qui tam lawsuit whenever you wish. You have no more grounds than the group you tout, nor any more credibility.


And in light of my last statement, i DON'T agree with you here.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Well surprise, surprise.
> I actually DO agree. Why wouldn't I agree with a logical, thoughtful point of view?


You haven't always done so in the past.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> There is a name for that...it's called..."Drinking the Kool-Aid".


True!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> And in light of my last statement, i DON'T agree with you here.


What specifically do you disagree with. There's no proof in the videotapes that PP broke any laws. There is evidence that CMP broke laws and violated confidentiality agreements. Anything else is pure speculation.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> What specifically do you disagree with. There's no proof in the videotapes that PP broke any laws. There is evidence that CMP broke laws and violated confidentiality agreements. Anything else is pure speculation.


There is no evidence that CMP broke any laws...that would result in an indictment and a pending criminal trial. Care to share a link to that case and the jurisdiction? Anything else is pure speculation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> There is no evidence that CMP broke any laws...that would result in an indictment and a pending criminal trial. Care to share a link to that case and the jurisdiction? Anything else is pure speculation.


You might need to read the link in the OP. There's plenty of evidence CMP broke numerous laws. Because PP has chosen a civil proceeding instead of asking prosecutors to bring criminal charges doesn't mean laws weren't broken. PP has outlined those transgressions and the violations of confidentiality agreements with enough supporting evidence to convince a federal judge the case has merit. CMP will have its day in court. That's not speculation. That's fact.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> You might need to read the link in the OP. There's plenty of evidence CMP broke numerous laws. Because PP has chosen a civil proceeding instead of asking prosecutors to bring criminal charges doesn't mean laws weren't broken. PP has outlined those transgressions and the violations of confidentiality agreements with enough supporting evidence to convince a federal judge the case has merit. CMP will have its day in court. That's not speculation. That's fact.


"Asking" prosecutors to bring criminal charges? Do you have any idea of how ignorant of a statement that is? The link is a news story...not a legal opinion from a court that has this subject matter before them in a setting. Not only is there no supporting evidence...it is not on the docket...there is no judge assigned to the case so it is impossible for a judge to be convinced the case has merit......fyi I read the entire court filing..Not worth the paper it is wrote on.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> "Asking" prosecutors to bring criminal charges? Do you have any idea of how ignorant of a statement that is? The link is a news story...not a legal opinion from a court that has this subject matter before them in a setting. Not only is there no supporting evidence...it is not on the docket...there is no judge assigned to the case so it is impossible for a judge to be convinced the case has merit......fyi I read the entire court filing..Not worth the paper it is wrote on.


So, if a woman is raped but refuses to press charges no crime occurred? The case is before a Federal judge in a Federal court. That's part of what the OP was about. The comments made by the judge who ruled the case could proceed seemed to upset some people. Maybe you should get a refund on that law degree.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> So, if a woman is raped but refuses to press charges no crime occurred? The case is before a Federal judge in a Federal court. That's part of what the OP was about. The comments made by the judge who ruled the case could proceed seemed to upset some people. Maybe you should get a refund on that law degree.


What comments made by a judge? None exist because the judge does not exist. Only in your mind and pixies.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> What comments made by a judge? None exist because the judge does not exist. Only in your mind and pixies.


I will again have to admit error. The judge is referenced was one mentioned early on in this thread who made comments relating to this matter in another venue. I'll stand by my contention that there is ample evidence of illegal acts committed by CMP. They released the evidence themselves in the form of the tapes. In California all parties must consent to the taping of private conversations. Since the conversations were secretly recorded by CMO it's difficult to see how they complied with this requirement.

I will say I object to PP attempting to use the RICO statutes in this case. I think that's a stretch, even a misuse, of the law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I can see the reality of the CEO's letter to congress.
> Can YOU?
> She admitted they sometimes altered the procedures to obtain donated tissue.
> It was in black and white.
> ...


You're big on calling people "liars" with *no* evidence, but I can *see* you parroting the same tired buzzwords. 

Let's not get this thread deleted just because you think it's about you when it's not


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> There is no evidence that CMP broke any laws...that would result in an indictment and a pending criminal trial. Care to share a link to that case and the jurisdiction? Anything else is pure speculation.


They are currently under investigation for multiple violations:

https://cummings.house.gov/media-ce...group-may-have-violated-law-targeting-planned



> Documents Sought From Group That May Have Violated Law in Targeting Planned Parenthood:
> 
> 
> August 20, 2015 Press Release
> Washington, D.C. (Aug. 20, 2015)âToday, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the Center for Medical Progress requesting information about whether the group broke federal or state laws during its multi-year effort to establish a fake company, solicit charitable donations as a 501(c)(3) organization, and secretly record videos of Planned Parenthood employees without their consent.


There's no evidence PP broke any laws even after many investigations have been completed


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're big on calling people "liars" with *no* evidence, but I can *see* you parroting the same tired buzzwords.
> 
> Let's not get this thread deleted just because you think it's about you when it's not



I've posted the letter and you've quoted from it.
She admitted to congress that it has happened on a few occasions.
So, is she lying?

As far as the rest of your insults go, I believe in many old sayings, as you know.
"If you give someone enough rope, they'll hang themselves."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Disagree...this is a different issue. That's why *PP is filing one civil case after another*..even though there is no wrongdoing.


What other civil lawsuit has Planned Parenthood filed against The Center for Medical Progress? I only know of the one I mentioned in my original post. 

Can you provide links please?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

mmoetc said:


> I will again have to admit error. The judge is referenced was one mentioned early on in this thread who made comments relating to this matter in another venue. I'll stand by my contention that there is ample evidence of illegal acts committed by CMP. They released the evidence themselves in the form of the tapes. In California all parties must consent to the taping of private conversations. Since the conversations were secretly recorded by CMO it's difficult to see how they complied with this requirement.
> 
> I will say I object to PP attempting to use the RICO statutes in this case. I think that's a stretch, even a misuse, of the law.


I don't find where a judge made that comment in the op but an attorney representing PP. CMP holds the position of investigative journalism and the public has a right to know and protection by the first amendment. How much has Chris Wallace paid out in California when he confronts the child molesters as part of those stings? Not one penny.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> What other civil lawsuit has Planned Parenthood filed against The Center for Medical Progress? I only know of the one I mentioned in my original post.
> 
> Can you provide links please?


Hard to keep track...it looks like stem express...national abortion federation...and PP are plaintiffs on separate civil matters with CMP as the defendant. Since all three are in bed together...and did nothing wrong...why that much in attorney fees?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> I don't find where a judge made that comment in the op but an attorney representing PP. CMP holds the position of investigative journalism and the public has a right to know and protection by the first amendment. How much has Chris Wallace paid out in California when he confronts the child molesters as part of those stings? Not one penny.


As I stated, the judge I mistakenly referenced was quoted in in a post early in this thread, not the OP. CMP will have their day in court and can try that defense. They'll also have to defend against falsifying official documents to gain fraudulent id's and business documentation. 

I believe it is Chris Hansen and his "To Catch A Predator" program you're referring to. The answer is nothing as whenever he ran one of his operations in California it was done in conjunction with local law enforcement who, I can only assume, made sure all proper warrants and documentation was in place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator. You might contact NBC's legal department if you have any further questions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Hard to keep track...it looks like stem express...national abortion federation...and PP are plaintiffs on separate civil matters with CMP as the defendant. Since all three are in bed together...and did nothing wrong...why that much in attorney fees?


Links? You stated that Planned Parenthood had filed "one civil case after another" you must have seen the files, right? 

Stem Express, NAF, and PP are all separate entities.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Stem Express, NAF, and PP are all separate entities.


 They MIGHT be separate entities, but they sure as heck are IN BED TOGETHER just like the other poster stated.~! Don't try and run from things. They ARE together like fleas on a dog, flies around a pile of cow dung.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> They MIGHT be separate entities, but they sure as heck are IN BED TOGETHER just like the other poster stated.~! Don't try and run from things. They ARE together like fleas on a dog, flies around a pile of cow dung.


Who is trying to run from things? Can you explain? Did the other poster state "they were in bed together"? I must have missed that...

The prior poster said on several occasions that *Planned Parenthood* had filed multiple civil suits against CMP. That isn't what I've found so I asked him for links. Did that help explain things for you?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Links? You stated that Planned Parenthood had filed "one civil case after another" you must have seen the files, right?
> 
> Stem Express, NAF, and PP are all separate entities.


Separate and all are working together...and their attorneys. CMP has had legal advice from the very beginning as they planned this out...these are not a group of people that decided to take on PP with an annual budget of nearly a billion dollars knowing exactly what they were getting into. In PP's lawsuit...they demanded a jury trial. That's laughable at best because they already know they would never seat a jury that would return a verdict in their favor and the defense would make certain of that. There is a winner already...the attorneys will milk these cash cows for every dime they can get.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Separate and all are working together...and their attorneys. CMP has had legal advice from the very beginning as they planned this out...these are not a group of people that decided to take on PP with an annual budget of nearly a billion dollars knowing exactly what they were getting into. In PP's lawsuit...they demanded a jury trial. That's laughable at best because they already know they would never seat a jury that would return a verdict in their favor and the defense would make certain of that. There is a winner already...the attorneys will milk these cash cows for every dime they can get.


All are plaintiffs on the lawsuits, or it's your opinion that all are working together? If they are plaintiffs there should be links to the cases, can you provide them?

I'm going to assume the rest of your post is opinion, if I'm wrong please provide links. Thank you.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> All are plaintiffs on the lawsuits, or it's your opinion that all are working together? If they are plaintiffs there should be links to the cases, can you provide them?
> 
> I'm going to assume the rest of your post is opinion, if I'm wrong please provide links. Thank you.


All three have filed separate lawsuits...individually...against one defendent..CMP. Every person knows the reason behind the suits is the video and audio tapes that CMP has released to the public.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> All three have filed separate lawsuits...individually...against one defendent..CMP. Every person knows the reason behind the suits is the video and audio tapes that CMP has released to the public.


Thank you. So your multiple assertions that Planned Parenthood has filed more than one _lawsuit because they must have done something wrong_ is false, correct? Or I suppose it could be your opinion that you stated as fact.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. So your multiple assertions that Planned Parenthood has filed more than one _lawsuit because they must have done something wrong_ is false, correct? Or I suppose it could be your opinion that you stated as fact.


No...because in a hair splitting contest I would correctly state that PP has filed many lawsuits going back 40+ years. I have correctly identified the parties that have individually filed suit against CMP for releasing the tapes to the public. Since PP has claimed they have done nothing wrong...I would like to see live televised programs of those on the tapes explaining exactly what they said as the unedited tape rolls...that's what I would do if I had done nothing wrong...not hide behind attorneys and frivilous suits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I've posted the letter and you've quoted from it.
> She admitted to congress that it has happened on a few occasions.
> So, is she lying?
> 
> ...


Do you believe repeating something endlessly will change the outcome?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> They MIGHT be separate entities, but they sure as heck are IN BED TOGETHER* just like the other poster stated*.~! Don't try and run from things. They ARE together like fleas on a dog, flies around a pile of cow dung.


That's not what he stated
He said:



> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> Disagree...this is a different issue. That's why PP is filing one civil case after another..even though there is no wrongdoing.


Do you have pictures of them all in bed?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> No...because in a hair splitting contest I would correctly state that PP has filed many lawsuits going back 40+ years. I have correctly identified the parties that have individually filed suit against CMP for releasing the tapes to the public. Since PP has claimed they have done nothing wrong...I would like to see live televised programs of those on the tapes explaining exactly what they said as the unedited tape rolls...that's what I would do if I had done nothing wrong...not hide behind attorneys and frivilous suits.


We're discussing PP and CMP, can you please link the "lawsuits going back 40+ years" please? I do believe that the topic of current discussion, the recent lawsuit that PP filed against CMP, is the _only_ lawsuit that PP has ever filed against CMP. If you know of others please link them. 

Why do you think that the current topic, PP vs. CMP recent filing, is frivolous? Can you explain?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I do believe that the topic of current discussion, the recent lawsuit that PP filed against CMP, is the only lawsuit that PP has ever filed against CMP. If you know of others please link them.


CMP didn't exist 40 years ago

They only began in 2013



> The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) is an anti-abortion organization founded by David Daleiden in 2013.[3][4][5][6]
> 
> Daleiden set up *a fake biomedical research company*, called Biomax Procurement Services, as a cover to enable activists to pose as buyers of fetal tissues and organs and secretly record Planned Parenthood officials during meetings.[7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Center_for_Medical_Progress


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> We're discussing PP and CMP, can you please link the "lawsuits going back 40+ years" please? I do believe that the topic of current discussion, the recent lawsuit that PP filed against CMP, is the _only_ lawsuit that PP has ever filed against CMP. If you know of others please link them.
> 
> Why do you think that the current topic, PP vs. CMP recent filing, is frivolous? Can you explain?


I never said they filed a lawsuit against CMP before...they have a 40+ year history of filing lawsuits.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> I never said they filed a lawsuit against CMP before...they have a 40+ year history of filing lawsuits.


The discussion has been the lawsuit between PP and CMP, why are you dragging in lawsuits from the last 40 years to try to prove your point? They are not relevant.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> The discussion has been the lawsuit between PP and CMP, why are you dragging in lawsuits from the last 40 years to try to prove your point? They are not relevant.


Not relevant to you? Of course not. I have some very bad related news....the Marist poll released on the 19th says 81% want tighter restrictions on abortions. Very interesting. Looks like PP Kool-Aid consumption is way down.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Not relevant to you? Of course not. I have some very bad related news....the Marist poll released on the 19th says 81% want tighter restrictions on abortions. Very interesting. Looks like PP Kool-Aid consumption is way down.


I don't care about 40+ years of lawsuits at all, the relevancy is to this thread, and there is none. Nice try tho.

Link to the poll please.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't care about 40+ years of lawsuits at all, the relevancy is to this thread, and there is none. Nice try tho.
> 
> Link to the poll please.


If PP had no history of filing lawsuits it would not be relevant...but since they do it is relevant. You can find the poll if you really really want to.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> If PP had no history of filing lawsuits it would not be relevant...but since they do it is relevant. You can find the poll if you really really want to.


I don't believe poll numbers that someone pulls out of their - well you know. You made the claim, either back it up or it won't be believed, your choice. I don't care, I'm not the one that doesn't look creditable. 

And PP's lawsuit history still isn't relevant in a discussion about cases between PP _and_ CMP no matter how many times you say it is. I'm not arguing about it anymore, it's not worth the time because it's not, wait for it... relevant. 

ETA: Don't be like a silly old woman from another forum, be creditable. Please.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't believe poll numbers that someone pulls out of their - well you know. You made the claim, either back it up or it won't be believed, your choice. I don't care, I'm not the one that doesn't look creditable.
> 
> And PP's lawsuit history still isn't relevant in a discussion about cases between PP _and_ CMP no matter how many times you say it is. I'm not arguing about it anymore, it's not worth the time because it's not, wait for it... relevant.
> 
> ETA: Don't be like a silly old woman from another forum, be creditable. Please.


My credibility has nothing to do with a poll...Marist did the poll...which you already stated you don't believe. 
Any person..company...government...can file a lawsuit against each other all day long...pay your filing fees...get it on the docket..assign a judge. Means nothing except filing fees were paid and will be heard..trial by jury...settlement...or dimissed. At this point in time PP's suit means nothing.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> My credibility has nothing to do with a poll...Marist did the poll...which you already stated you don't believe.
> Any person..company...government...can file a lawsuit against each other all day long...pay your filing fees...get it on the docket..assign a judge. Means nothing except filing fees were paid and will be heard..trial by jury...settlement...or dimissed. At this point in time PP's suit means nothing.


Nope. I said nothing of the sort. Read my post again.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Not Pay-Pal, Oh No. Now you tell me.:surrender:


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't believe poll numbers that someone pulls out of their - well you know. You made the claim, either back it up or it won't be believed, your choice. I don't care, I'm not the one that doesn't look creditable.
> 
> And PP's lawsuit history still isn't relevant in a discussion about cases between PP _and_ CMP no matter how many times you say it is. I'm not arguing about it anymore, it's not worth the time because it's not, wait for it... relevant.
> 
> ETA: Don't be like a silly old woman from another forum, be creditable. Please.


So...exactly what did you say about poll numbers? Research Marist..their polls..their credibility.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> So...exactly what did you say about poll numbers? Research Marist..their polls..their credibility.


Sigh. One more time, if someone is using a poll, stats, etc. as part of their argument it's customary to link the poll, stat, etc. Without a creditable link it's just your opinion, and you may have well pulled them out of a hat.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. One more time, if someone is using a poll, stats, etc... as part of their argument it's customary to link the poll, stat, etc... Without a creditable link it's just your opinion, and you may have well pulled them out of a hat.


Customary? I noticed that. I'm not arguing...I simply let you know about a poll that you may enjoy reading. I enjoy doing research on many subjects....you're capable of research too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Customary? I noticed that. I'm not arguing...I simply let you know about a poll that you may enjoy reading. I enjoy doing research on many subjects....you're capable of research too.


Got it. You put up your opinion as fact. It's actually a great thing to know so I won't waste time thinking that what you post is credible. Thanks.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Got it. You put up your opinion as fact. It's actually a great thing to know so I won't waste time thinking that what you post is credible. Thanks.


I post facts to the best of my knowledge and research...better that than a link that may be wrong. Sorry I don't live up to your shallow expectation of credibility.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> You're right that it's a matter of semantics. The law states that shall be "no alteration of the timing, method, or abortion procedure solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue." What it doesn't say is that once the decision had been made to obtain the tissue the best practice to obtain the best tissue samples shouldn't be used. The purpose of the abortion, or even the method, isn't solely to obtain the tissue. It is to end the pregnancy. Obtaining the tissue is secondary. Quite honestly, I'd be more comfortable if all abortions were ultrasound assisted. As a layman it would seem to be the safest way to proceed surgically.
> 
> I'll also point out that "standard medical practice" in a variety of procedures is largely a personal thing among doctors. Some embrace technology like ultrasounds. Others say I've been doing this for 30 years and I don't need no stinkin' ultrasound to tell me what experience does. I've sat at a table and listened to two surgeons argue over which stitch is better to close an incision.
> 
> I'm sure you'll disagree. There's really not much I can say to change your mind. Your mindset and morality are different than mine. I'm claiming no moral high ground. I'm also not trying to force my morality on you or anyone else. You can make your own choices on those. It's the same respect I give to all others.





farmrbrown said:


> Well surprise, surprise.
> I actually DO agree. Why wouldn't I agree with a logical, thoughtful point of view?





mmoetc said:


> You haven't always done so in the past.


I'm sure it's true that I haven't done so *always*. Even a logical position might not be one I agree with if an opposing view is logical also.:shrug:



mmoetc said:


> What specifically do you disagree with. There's no proof in the videotapes that PP broke any laws. There is evidence that CMP broke laws and violated confidentiality agreements. Anything else is pure speculation.


Specifically, the part about whether procedures were altered solely to obtain usable tissue.

There wasn't video of a surgery on those tapes, but there were statements made that it has been done and discussion of intent to do so in the future.
You've also seen the statement from PP's CEO.

I've seen the purported evidence that laws were broken by CMP in the area of false ID's and credentials and broken confidentiality agreements.
It wouldn't be logical for me to have looked at that, and said, "There's no evidence it ever happened."
I do realize there may be a legal loophole old two that PP can use to prove in court they didn't violate that part of the law on altering procedures.
One such exception whether it applies to the reimbursement money coming from federal funds or not.
If it doesn't, that may make it legal, even if they DID do that.
But that still doesn't prevent me from seeing the evidence of what was reported 
If there has been a specific ruling on those technical points of the law, I'd be happy to read it.



farmrbrown said:


> While searching, I DID find something I overlooked before in PP CEO's letter to congress though.
> Not a big smoking gun, more like gun powder residue.
> While it's good to know she adheres to the 1988 blue ribbon panel guidelines, that ISN'T what the statute says.......
> http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVmMQR51KNkcLKWgR2hTdC2Y=
> "In performing the selected method, a physician may need to make multiple adjustments to the method as the surgery proceeds. These adjustments are clinical judgments &#8211; not a change of method &#8211; made by the physician as the abortion proceeds and are always intended to achieve the woman&#8217;s desired result as safely as possible. The key point, as the 1988 blue-ribbon commission recognized, is that there be no change that would impact the safety or well-being of the patient. The same principle applies in deliveries, where physicians will often make adjustments to facilitate the collection of cord blood if the patient wants to retain or donate this blood. *Our understanding, however, is that even adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations rarely occur at our few clinics that offer women this service."*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> I post facts to the best of my knowledge and research...*better that than a link that may be wrong*. Sorry I don't live up to your shallow expectation of credibility.


You "may be wrong" too, which is why a link that supports the claims is more credible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Specifically, the part about *whether procedures were altered* solely to obtain usable tissue.
> 
> There wasn't video of a surgery on those tapes, but there were statements made that it has been done and discussion of intent to do so in the future.
> You've also seen the statement from PP's CEO.


You're still ignoring the part of what she said that makes your claim false:




> http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttach...KWgR2hTdC2Y=
> "In performing the selected method, a physician may need to make multiple adjustments to the method as the surgery proceeds. *These adjustments are clinical judgments â not a change of method *â made by the physician as the abortion proceeds and are always intended to achieve the womanâs desired result as safely as possible. The key point, as the 1988 blue-ribbon commission recognized, is that there be no change that would impact the safety or well-being of the patient. The same principle applies in deliveries, where physicians will often make adjustments to facilitate the collection of cord blood if the patient wants to retain or donate this blood. Our understanding, however, is that even adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations rarely occur at our few clinics that offer women this service."


No methods were "altered", and no "admissions" were made.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still ignoring the part of what she said that makes your claim false:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*adÂ·justÂ·ment
&#601;&#712;j&#601;stm&#601;nt/Submit
noun
a small alteration or movement made to achieve a desired fit, appearance, or result.
"I've made a few adjustments to my diet"
synonyms:	adaptation, accommodation, acclimatization, acclimation, habituation, acculturation, naturalization, assimilation More
the process of adapting or becoming used to a new situation.
"for many couples there may need to be a period of adjustment"*



I'm not the one ignoring parts of the statement.
We may disagree on whether "adjustment" is synonymous with "alter", but when I read a sentence, I read ALL of it.
Can I assume that the CEO's last sentence quoted below is what you define as "no admission"?
Maybe you can call it an "explanation" instead?



*adÂ·misÂ·sion
&#601;d&#712;miSH&#601;n/Submit
noun
1.
a statement acknowledging the truth of something.
"an admission of guilt"
synonyms:	confession, acknowledgment, mea culpa, acceptance, concession, disclosure, divulgence
"a written admission of guilt"*





> http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttach...KWgR2hTdC2Y=
> "In performing the selected method, a physician may need to make multiple adjustments to the method as the surgery proceeds. These adjustments are clinical judgments &#8211; not a change of method &#8211; made by the physician as the abortion proceeds and are always intended to achieve the woman&#8217;s desired result as safely as possible. The key point, as the 1988 blue-ribbon commission recognized, is that there be no change that would impact the safety or well-being of the patient. The same principle applies in deliveries, where physicians will often make adjustments to facilitate the collection of cord blood if the patient wants to retain or donate this blood.* Our understanding, however,* is that even adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations rarely occur at our few clinics that offer women this service."



This is what the LAW says......again.
(You may be right about repeating something not doing any good, lol.)
When you read the last sentence of the law quoted below, note the email from the UConn researcher I posted a few pages ago, with the director of PP's New England branch.

(A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion--
(i) the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research;
*(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; and*
(iii) the abortion was performed in accordance with applicable State law;
(B) the tissue has been donated by the woman in accordance with paragraph (1); and
(C) full disclosure has been provided to the woman with regard to--
(i) such physician's interest, if any, in the research to be conducted with the tissue; and
(ii) any known medical risks to the woman or risks to her privacy that might be associated with the donation of the tissue and that are in addition to risks of such type that are associated with the woman's medical care.
(c) INFORMED CONSENT OF RESEARCHER AND DONEE - In research carried out under subsection (a), human fetal tissue may be used only if the individual with the principal responsibility for conducting the research involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the individual, declaring that the individual--
(1) is aware that
(A) the tissue is human fetal tissue;
(B) the tissue may have been obtained pursuant to a spontaneous or induced abortion or pursuant to a stillbirth; and
(C) the tissue was donated for research purposes;
(2) has provided such information to other individuals with responsibilities regarding the research;
(3) will require, prior to obtaining the consent of an individual to be a recipient of a transplantation of the tissue, written acknowledgment of receipt of such information by such recipient; and
*(4) has had no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy made solely for the purposes of the research.*


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm sure it's true that I haven't done so *always*. Even a logical position might not be one I agree with if an opposing view is logical also.:shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please reread the law. A procedure that "facilitates" the collection of tissue isn't the same as one done "solely" to collect tissue. Read you highlighted sentences one after another. The adjustments you are concerned about are done to better ensure the health of the woman. That is made clear in first sentence. The second sentence acknowledges the reality that some of these medically prudent adjustments may have facilitated the collection of tissues, not that they were done with the sole intent of collecting tissue as you wish to claim. It is a reality that some methods of abortion allow for better tissue samples. It is also a fact that a doctor performing an abortion has choices as to how they proceed in the best interest of the woman's health. As long as those choices are done in the interest of the woman's health as indicated in the first statement the fact that the choice allows for better tissue samples is secondary. The law allows that. The collection of samples wasn't the driver of the choice. The woman's health was. This is made clear the first statement. I'll even allow that you can voice your skepticism and suspicions about the reason's for the doctor's choices as to methodology. But those feelings aren't proof. 

It's actually a very nuanced and precise statement by the PP representative. It acknowledges that there are no absolutes and that even medically prudent actions can have more than one consequence. It was a politically prudent answer designed to give an accurate and precise picture of a complex issue.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Please reread the law. A procedure that "facilitates" the collection of tissue isn't the same as one done "solely" to collect tissue. Read you highlighted sentences one after another. The adjustments you are concerned about are done to better ensure the health of the woman. That is made clear in first sentence. The second sentence acknowledges the reality that some of these medically prudent adjustments may have facilitated the collection of tissues, not that they were done with the sole intent of collecting tissue as you wish to claim. It is a reality that some methods of abortion allow for better tissue samples. It is also a fact that a doctor performing an abortion has choices as to how they proceed in the best interest of the woman's health. As long as those choices are done in the interest of the woman's health as indicated in the first statement the fact that the choice allows for better tissue samples is secondary. The law allows that. The collection of samples wasn't the driver of the choice. The woman's health was. This is made clear the first statement. I'll even allow that you can voice your skepticism and suspicions about the reason's for the doctor's choices as to methodology. But those feelings aren't proof.



All of that is true, it is an accurate description of the CEO's statement.
It is the same as the recommendations of the panel and I was keenly aware that's what was emphasized - not the actual wording of the statute passed.
The fact that the alteration doesn't endanger the mother's life isn't written into the law as an exception, it was the opinion of the panel that it should be.






mmoetc said:


> It's actually a very nuanced and precise statement by the PP representative. It acknowledges that there are no absolutes and that even medically prudent actions can have more than one consequence. It was a politically prudent answer designed to give an accurate and precise picture of a complex issue.


That was obvious to me too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> All of that is true, it is an accurate description of the CEO's statement.
> It is the same as the recommendations of the panel and I was keenly aware that's what was emphasized - not the actual wording of the statute passed.
> The fact that the alteration doesn't endanger the mother's life isn't written into the law as an exception, it was the opinion of the panel that it should be.
> 
> ...


The CEo's statement conflicts in no way with either of your highlighted portions of the law. You may legitimately question a doctor's reason for choosing which method to use or even the particulars of that method. But suspicions aren't proof. Provide proof that an abortion was done soley to gather tissue for research and I'll share in your condemnation. Show proof that the method of that abortion was chosen to collect tissue, not it the interest of the woman's health and I'll be on your side. Your feelings don't sway me. Evidence does.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The CEo's statement conflicts in no way with either of your highlighted portions of the law. You may legitimately question a doctor's reason for choosing which method to use or even the particulars of that method. But suspicions aren't proof. Provide proof that an abortion was done soley to gather tissue for research and I'll share in your condemnation. Show proof that the method of that abortion was chosen to collect tissue, not it the interest of the woman's health and I'll be on your side. Your feelings don't sway me. Evidence does.


That's my point.
You and I both know that the only way to show any "proof" is to have a sworn confession by an attending doctor. Otherwise, it can always be said that wasn't the real reason for altering the procedure. 
If everyone is honest then no laws were broken. The CEO's statement didn't cross that threshold but it went as close as we'll probably ever see. She admitted that it happened in at least a few instances while maintaining that it didn't violate the intentions of the advisory panel - that the actions never endangered the mother's life or health.
Whether you believe that to be all there was to it or that didn't violate the law at all is a matter of opinion and everyone's right to have that opinion.
I could choose to believe that CMP broke no laws because I haven't seen the sworn evidence of the ID's and signatures, but I have seen them posted online.
That's enough to make me at least suspicious that they broke a law or two and not steadfastly maintain they are 100% innocent of all allegations.

It appears to me that one side is willing to see everything that was done wrong by CMP, but won't accept any input about PP unless it's concrete evidence and of course whatever was on the tapes is to be completely ignored, even if it supports the allegations, because it was collected illegally.
I can understand not wanting it as legally admissible evidence. What I can't understand is after seeing the tapes, there isn't a single suspicion, not one ounce of doubt that PP is 100% innocent.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> That's my point.
> You and I both know that the only way to show any "proof" is to have a sworn confession by an attending doctor. Otherwise, it can always be said that wasn't the real reason for altering the procedure.
> If everyone is honest then no laws were broken. The CEO's statement didn't cross that threshold but it went as close as we'll probably ever see. She admitted that it happened in at least a few instances while maintaining that it didn't violate the intentions of the advisory panel - that the actions never endangered the mother's life or health.
> Whether you believe that to be all there was to it or that didn't violate the law at all is a matter of opinion and everyone's right to have that opinion.
> ...


Might as well let it go...even if any of the top individuals on the tapes admitted on the national news that they sold tissue for cash...altered procedures in the collecting process...there are certain people would say she/he is lying..trying to destroy PP and a woman's right to abortion.


----------

