# No crime for Planned Parenthood



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"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/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

*****


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope Nope


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for offering, but I'm not the one with the issue.


I am baking pies from scratch...lard pie crust too....with some beer for me...for Christmas...Jesus's birthday...get all holiday up and enjoy it...everyone else is...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope Nope


You should come to Missouri for the holidays...yes I know about the abortion thing here...but we could feed my horse's on Christmas day together...you in your fleece lined leggings...me in my union suit...take pics of that...and around the Christmas tree together...post them here...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

elevenpoint said:


> You should come to Missouri for the holidays...yes I know about the abortion thing here...but we could feed my horse's on Christmas day together...you in your fleece lined leggings...me in my union suit...take pics of that...and around the Christmas tree together...post them here...


My brother and his family are in Branson today. Just made me realize I need to call him and see how his trip was.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Obvious to everyone capable of objective scrutiny.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I caught an interesting interview on NPR the other day but couldn't stay with it. It was with 2 authors who wrote a book about the attacks abortion providers receive. It was pretty eye opening:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/17/46003...viders-turn-to-armed-guards-bullet-proof-vest



> GROSS: So you're looking at attacks and threats of attacks directed at abortion providers. And it's often not at the clinics, it's at their homes, it's on their way to work. Let's look at some of the attacks and threats of attacks on the homes of abortion providers. Before we get to the people who are living now who you interviewed, let's look at an example from the past of somebody who didn't survive the attack. Barnett Slepian was killed in his home. David, tell us what happened.
> COHEN: He was cooking dinner on a Friday night. He was cooking Shabbat dinner on a Friday night in Buffalo or just outside Buffalo, where he lived. He was an abortion provider in that area - a longtime provider, very well respected. And James Kopp, who is an antiabortion extremist who had previously shot several doctors along that Canadian-New York border in past years, used a sniper rifle and shot Dr. Slepian through his kitchen window, killing him. This happened in 1998, and this was a big change, at least in terms of the field, because the previous murders that had happened against abortion providers had happened at the clinic or at their place of work. And now this moved it to the home. Home protest - protesting providers at their home on a Saturday or Sunday morning had been a tactic for a long time, but now the violence came home. And that really sent a new message.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> You should come to Missouri for the holidays...yes I know about the abortion thing here...but we could feed my horse's on Christmas day together...you in your fleece lined leggings...me in my union suit...take pics of that...and around the Christmas tree together...post them here...


Never ever going to happen, and a totally inappropriate post.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Never ever going to happen, and a totally inappropriate post.


Ummm...that was a joke....besides I have no time to entertain others...after a few hours of electric work today I am off for five days...another deer season here and five days of hunting...poor lil deer....


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We all knew PP wouldn't be held accountable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> We all knew PP wouldn't be held accountable.


Did you read the link? _PP committed no crime_. CMP may well have, the judges haven't ruled on their court cases.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Wow. It's like an obsession. :facepalm:


It's more like "current events"


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's more like "current events"



Uh huh. There are a LOT of 'current events'. This one sure seems to be pulled out by some folks with a much higher frequency than others. In fact, in my Google News it doesn't even register. Lots of higher priority Top Stories.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I'm going with obsession too! Ms. Pixie always starts another when the last one dies!





Knight9 said:


> Uh huh. There are a LOT of 'current events'. This one sure seems to be pulled out by some folks with a much higher frequency than others. In fact, in my Google News it doesn't even register. Lots of higher priority Top Stories.


If something doesn't interest you I suggest you don't read it. Or even simpler- put me on ignore. No need for you (collective you) to get so upset, and it's easy peasy lemon squeezy.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Knight9 said:


> Uh huh. There are a LOT of 'current events'. This one sure seems to be pulled out by some folks with a much higher frequency than others. In fact, in my Google News it doesn't even register. Lots of higher priority Top Stories.


Boy that is funny. The anti abortion group here could not stop posting every new video that came out about this in the fall. And once they find out there was no crime involved it all of sudden is not important.

Somehow I think if the opposite was found we would have a hundred posts.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

keenataz said:


> boy that is funny. The anti abortion group here could not stop posting every new video that came out about this in the fall. And once they find out there was no crime involved it all of sudden is not important.
> 
> Somehow i think if the opposite was found we would have a hundred posts.


post of the century


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Uh huh. There are a LOT of 'current events'. This one sure seems to be pulled out by some folks with a much higher frequency than others. In fact, in my Google News it doesn't even register. Lots of higher priority Top Stories.


There was a large contingent here who couldn't wait to post the anti PP videos as they were being released. 

It's logical to assume they would all be interested in the latest developments in the on-going saga.

If one doesn't like a topic, they don't have to open the thread.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was a large contingent here who couldn't wait to post the anti PP videos as they were being released.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it does appear I struck a nerve!! Reminds me of the saying "me thinks thou dost protest too much". But I do love your last sentence especially! One would suggest that to be good advice to everyone...but I didn't read the link or anything about it. I merely commented on the very apparent obsession with folks who habitually start threads on the same topic.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Knight9 said:


> Well, it does appear I struck a nerve!! Reminds me of the saying "me thinks thou dost protest too much". But I do love your last sentence especially! One would suggest that to be good advice to everyone...but I didn't read the link or anything about it. I merely commented on the very apparent obsession with folks who habitually start threads on the same topic.


I missed your complaint on the multitudinous anti-Islam threads.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Well, it does appear I struck a nerve!! Reminds me of the saying "me thinks thou dost protest too much". But I do love your last sentence especially! One would suggest that to be good advice to everyone...but *I didn't read the link or anything about it*. I merely commented on the very apparent obsession with folks who habitually start threads on the same topic.


Yes, I realize you have no interest in the actual topic.
I'm just here passing time, so you couldn't possibly "strike a nerve".
If I don't have any interest in a topic I can simply not read it at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I missed your complaint on the multitudinous anti-Islam threads.


Well, he has only posted 45 times in three years, with all but about three this year, and most in the last few months, so he may be trying to catch up 

Nearly 10% of the total is in this one thread alone


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Well, he has only posted 45 times in three years, with all but about three this year, and most in the last few months, so he may be trying to catch up
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 10% of the total is in this one thread alone



LOL!! Awesome! I managed to get all the familiar names in the dogpile! Glad you all made it!


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> I missed your complaint on the multitudinous anti-Islam threads.



Maybe because they weren't all started by the same person.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Planned parenthood threads weren't all started by the same person either. There were 13 threads started about PP and the videos this year. 

Jeffery 1
BFF 1
Gapeach 1
Preparing 1
No really 1
Irish Pixie 3
Poppy 1
Patchouli 1
Txsteader 1
susieneddy 2


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Planned parenthood threads weren't all started by the same person either. There were 13 threads started about PP and the videos this year.
> 
> Jeffery 1
> BFF 1
> ...



Sheesh! There has been that many PP threads?! That's sad in itself. Now, if you can count number of posts in the threads I'll be very impressed!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

In the same period of time 19 threads were started about Muslims. 

Gapeach 4
Poppy 4
Moonriver 2
where I want to 1
Popscott 1
Darren 1 
Patchouli 1
Hdrider 1
TNhermit 1
Harry chickpea 1
no really 1 
Cornhusker 1


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> In the same period of time 19 threads were started about Muslims.
> 
> Gapeach 4
> Poppy 4
> ...



Are you seriously comparing the world events involving and surrounding Islam to the news around PP? That ratio should be skewed way more than that! It should likely be tens of thousands to one! Thus my comment about obsession with the topic. In the scheme of world events and news, PP just doesn't rank.

On the good side, you all are wasting so much time justifying your postings that at least no one is even paying attention anymore. Good job there!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> Are you seriously comparing the world events involving and surrounding Islam to the news around PP? That ratio should be skewed way more than that! It should likely be tens of thousands to one! Thus my comment about obsession with the topic. In the scheme of world events and news, PP just doesn't rank.
> 
> On the good side, you all are wasting so much time justifying your postings that at least no one is even paying attention anymore. Good job there!


No one needs to pay attention to the CMP videos slandering PP anymore, the court ruled that they didn't commit a crime. It did say that Dear was influenced by their lies tho. That means CMP, and those that supported them, have blood on their hands.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one needs to pay attention to the CMP videos slandering PP anymore, the court ruled that they didn't commit a crime. It did say that Dear was influenced by their lies tho. That means CMP, and those that supported them, have blood on their hands.


Blood on their hands? That is PPs business model...might as well hold hands with ISIS and speak of how kind and compassionate they are.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Blood on their hands? That is PPs business model...might as well hold hands with ISIS and speak of how kind and compassionate they are.


Are you saying that what Dear did, killing three and wounding nine, is OK because PP provides a legal procedure?


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one needs to pay attention to the CMP videos slandering PP anymore, the court ruled that they didn't commit a crime. It did say that Dear was influenced by their lies tho. That means CMP, and those that supported them, have blood on their hands.



So by this SAME logic, the guys who shot the cops were influenced by the lies and chants and inciting rhetoric of the BLM crew. Thus BLM has blood on their hands.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Knight9 said:


> So by this SAME logic, the guys who shot the cops were influenced by the lies and chants and inciting rhetoric of the BLM crew. Thus BLM has blood on their hands.


For the sake of discussion, let's just say she agrees. Now get back on topic... The people who refused to believe that those videos offered absolutely nothing and the hateful, sometimes violent rhetoric they spewed....some of it right here on this site....have blood on their hands.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> So by this SAME logic, the guys who shot the cops were influenced by the lies and chants and inciting rhetoric of the BLM crew. Thus BLM has blood on their hands.


Dear stated while in custody he told detectives he did it because of "baby parts". He also stated, absolutely and in court that he shot people at PP because he was a "warrior for the babies".

Please link which cops were shot because of the rhetoric of the BLM protesters.

ETA: And wiscto is right, lets stay on topic.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Blood on their hands? That is PPs business model...might as well hold hands with ISIS and speak of how kind and compassionate they are.


So you are saying that people who are doing a legal medical procedure are the equivalent of terrorists who are beheading people? That is quite sad really.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

wiscto said:


> For the sake of discussion, let's just say she agrees. Now get back on topic... The people who refused to believe that those videos offered absolutely nothing and the hateful, sometimes violent rhetoric they spewed....some of it right here on this site....have blood on their hands.



Since when do you speak for another poster? I would like to hear the agreement from her. If you claim a position in one area, you should be willing to concede the same position in similar circumstances.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that what Dear did, killing three and wounding nine, is OK because PP provides a legal procedure?


No I'm not..I don't believe violence solves anything...I also don't believe in any business or organization that is primarily about killing. There was a quote here about a news story about.."a well respected abortion provider"...that really exists? 
I wonder how many brag about working for PP? Yes...maybe they commit no crimes...but how shameful.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> No I'm not..I don't believe violence solves anything...I also don't believe in any business or organization that is primarily about killing. There was a quote here about a news story about.."a well respected abortion provider"...that really exists?
> I wonder how many brag about working for PP? Yes...maybe they commit no crimes...but how shameful.


PP is a well respected abortion provider, along with birth control and treating many health conditions. 

Did you know that many PP clinics don't do abortions at all? And abortion amounts to 3% of what PP does?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

keenataz said:


> So you are saying that people who are doing a legal medical procedure are the equivalent of terrorists who are beheading people? That is quite sad really.


Is it a legal medical procedure to that living breathing child? Now that's sad.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> PP is a well respected abortion provider, along with birth control and treating many health conditions.
> 
> Did you know that many PP clinics don't do abortions at all? And abortion amounts to 3% of what PP does?


Well respected by who? Will they...and do they sell body parts?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Is it a legal medical procedure to that living breathing child? Now that's sad.


Now who is using rhetoric? 

I am pro choice, not pro abortion. That means it's none of my business what another woman does with her body. No one has that right except the woman that has to make what must be a truly horrible decision.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Well respected by who? Will they...and do they sell body parts?


Did you read the link in my first post? Since you're asking that question, I'd say no. :facepalm:


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

elevenpoint said:


> Is it a legal medical procedure to that living breathing child? Now that's sad.


You know what, we agree. I think abortion is sad myself. But as a middle aged man I try to avoid telling women what they can do with their bodies as long as it is legal.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Dear stated while in custody he told detectives he did it because of "baby parts". He also stated, absolutely and in court that he shot people at PP because he was a "warrior for the babies".
> 
> Please link which cops were shot because of the rhetoric of the BLM protesters.
> 
> ETA: And wiscto is right, lets stay on topic.



We are on topic. The topic is whether or not the actions or statements of a group of people, in your example CMP - in mine BLM, are to blame for the behaviour of individuals who do terrible things, in your example shoot up a PP and kill people, in mine shoot cops. Same topic. Same issue.

I never heard anyone from CMP say "go kill PP folks". We all heard BLM say "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> We are on topic. The topic is whether or not the actions or statements of a group of people, in your example CMP - in mine BLM, are to blame for the behaviour of individuals who do terrible things, in your example shoot up a PP and kill people, in mine shoot cops. Same topic. Same issue.
> 
> I never heard anyone from CMP say "go kill PP folks". We all heard BLM say "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon".


No, the topic is that a court found that PP did not sell "baby parts" or do any of the illegal things that CMP accused them of in the lying, highly edited videos they produced.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Is it a legal medical procedure to that living breathing child? Now that's sad.


Since embryos/fetuses don't breathe, what are you talking about?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Are you seriously comparing the world events involving and surrounding Islam to the news around PP? That ratio should be skewed way more than that! It should likely be tens of thousands to one! Thus my comment about obsession with the topic. In the scheme of world events and news, PP just doesn't rank.
> 
> On the good side, you all are wasting so much time justifying your postings that *at least no one is even paying attention anymore*. Good job there!


What makes you think anyone is trying to justify something?

Every time you post, it kicks it back to the top so if your goal is distraction, you're failing


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> Since embryos/fetuses don't breathe, what are you talking about?


It is going to be the same...fetus...medical procedure..etc..all the terms used by those that believe that...but will not acknowledge it is their son or daughter.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, the topic is that a court found that PP did not sell "baby parts" or do any of the illegal things that CMP accused them of in the lying, highly edited videos they produced.



I think you better go back and read your own link in post one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> It is going to be the same...fetus...medical procedure..etc..all the terms used by those that believe that...but will not acknowledge it is *their* son or daughter.


*Not *yours


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> I think you better go back and read your own link in post one.


The one you said you didn't read, and didn't think was worth discussion?

Why play these games?


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The one you said you didn't read, and didn't think was worth discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> Why play these games?



LOL! I didn't read it. I glanced it long enough to see the typical drivel and knew we had yet another ridiculous topic posted. Again. I do find it amusing that even a quick glance was enough to see I wad bang on with the blame game rhetoric coming out.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Knight9 said:


> LOL! I didn't read it. I glanced it long enough to see the typical drivel and knew we had yet another ridiculous topic posted. Again. I do find it amusing that even a quick glance was enough to see I wad bang on with the blame game rhetoric coming out.


Exactly why I didn't read it...knew what it was all about.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> LOL! I didn't read it. I glanced it long enough to see the typical drivel and knew we had yet another ridiculous topic posted. Again. I do find it amusing that even a quick glance was enough to see I wad bang on with the blame game rhetoric coming out.





elevenpoint said:


> Exactly why I didn't read it...knew what it was all about.


So you both admit you're trolling? That's not nice.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you both admit you're trolling? That's not nice.


What's trolling? Or at least your version.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> So you both admit you're trolling? That's not nice.



Not trolling at all. Let's see...what's the line again? Oh yes, 'just vocalizing my opinion on the topic'.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> Boy that is funny. The anti abortion group here could not stop posting every new video that came out about this in the fall. And once they find out there was no crime involved it all of sudden is not important.
> 
> Somehow I think if the opposite was found we would have a hundred posts.


When that first video came out there were people frothing at that the mouth about "selling baby parts". Then the transcript and unedited video came out, and they didn't care about the real videos. Every time a video was released there were more howls of "defund PP" but very very few watched the unedited video or read the transcripts because it didn't support their agenda.

Had this court decided _against_ PP the gloating would have epic.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> When that first video came out there were people frothing at that the mouth about "selling baby parts". Then the transcript and unedited video came out, and they didn't care about the real videos. Every time a video was released there were more howls of "defund PP" but very very few watched the unedited video or read the transcripts because it didn't support their agenda.
> 
> Had this court decided _against_ PP the gloating would have epic.


Now my idea is this...is there not an I love Roe vs Wade.com site anywhere on the internet? Or I love PP.com? Then all that love that can go there and get slapped on the back and bask in the warmth of that love? Has to be...Why here? Merry Christmas!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Now my idea is this...is there not an I love Roe vs Wade.com site anywhere on the internet? Or I love PP.com? Then all that love that can go there and get slapped on the back and bask in the warmth of that love? Has to be...Why here? Merry Christmas!


Who are you to say what people can post here? Isn't there a foaming at the mouth anti-choice site on the internet where you can go and post?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> Who are you to say what people can post here? Isn't there a foaming at the mouth anti-choice site on the internet where you can go and post?


I have never brought the subject up...never.
Find we love PP.com...then you will be welcome with open arms and slaps on the back. Your group looks to divide and stir up controversy. Find roe vs wade lovers.com...and enjoy. Merry Christmas!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> I have never brought the subject up...never.
> Find we love PP.com...then you will be welcome with open arms and slaps on the back. Your group looks to divide and stir up controversy. Find roe vs wade lovers.com...and enjoy. Merry Christmas!


It doesn't matter if you never brought it up. You don't get to decide what people post about here. 
You seem to be a teensy bit controlling and power hungry.

Happy Holidays!


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> It doesn't matter if you never brought it up. You don't get to decide what people post about here.
> You seem to be a teensy bit controlling and power hungry.
> 
> Happy Holidays!


Same old rhetoric....posting about the same topic...the same thing everybody has heard...just bent a bit...but still the same.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Knight9 said:


> Are you seriously comparing the world events involving and surrounding Islam to the news around PP? That ratio should be skewed way more than that! It should likely be tens of thousands to one! Thus my comment about obsession with the topic. In the scheme of world events and news, PP just doesn't rank.
> 
> On the good side, you all are wasting so much time justifying your postings that at least no one is even paying attention anymore. Good job there!


Actually turns out I left out quite a few Muslim posts. I forgot some of y'all can't spell.... 

And this may be a shocker for you but most of those threads were not current events, they were just general bash fests.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Same old rhetoric....posting about the same topic...the same thing everybody has heard...just bent a bit...but still the same.


Sounds like you're just posting the same silly nonsense over and over, hoping to irritate people. 

Lame.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> I have never brought the subject up...never.
> Find we love PP.com...then you will be welcome with open arms and slaps on the back. *Your group looks to divide and stir up controversy.* Find roe vs wade lovers.com...and enjoy. Merry Christmas!


By forcing you to read and comment on topics you don't like?
Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds?


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Planned P. funding was put in the latest budget and the bill passed, so we are funding aborting with our tax dollars.

I am more and more convinced that whta the people want is not taken into account when our leader vote on bills


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Forcast said:


> Planned P. funding was put in the latest budget and the bill passed, so we are funding aborting with our tax dollars.
> 
> I am more and more convinced that whta the people want is not taken into account when our leader vote on bills


Have none of you ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? No federal money pays for abortion, your state might, but not the federal government.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Forcast said:


> Planned P. funding was put in the latest budget and the bill passed, *so we are funding aborting with our tax dollars*.
> 
> I am more and more convinced that *whta the people want* is not taken into account when our leader vote on bills


"What people want" is for abortions to remain legal.

That was even the result of a poll on this site

No Federal funds are spent on abortions.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Forcast said:


> Planned P. funding was put in the latest budget and the bill passed, so we are funding aborting with our tax dollars.
> 
> I am more and more convinced that whta the people want is not taken into account when our leader vote on bills


One would think that when your income is over 164 million for abortion alone...you would not need funding.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *One would think *that when your income is over 164 million for abortion alone...you would not need funding.


The "funding" is payment *for services*.
They don't just hand them money for nothing.

*One would think* if you aren't interested in the topic you wouldn't even know that figure though.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "funding" is payment *for services*.
> They don't just hand them money for nothing.
> 
> *One would think* if you aren't interested in the topic you wouldn't even know that figure though.


Of course you don't want that figure know...on first page of Google search...3% of abortions? Nope. The largest provider...they brag.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Of course *you don't want that figure know*...on first page of Google search...3% of abortions? Nope. The largest provider...they brag.


Why would I care who knows?.
I'm all in favor of *accurate* facts.

Just like it's a fact if you *truly* had no interest in the topic you wouldn't be here posting.

Why not admit reality?

You're anti-abortion, and you just want to argue about that instead of accept there is no proof they broke any laws and move on. 

It's not like you're fooling anyone. :shrug:


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would I care who knows?.
> I'm all in favor of *accurate* facts.
> 
> Just like it's a fact if you *truly* had no interest in the topic you wouldn't be here posting.
> ...


I have life long friends and we believe in life...none would describe the other as anti abortion...or pro life...we don't have to discuss it...I don't believe the state has a right to execute a human being either...I like human beings and can't grasp ending ones life regardless of the method...even if the government says you can. As for PP...I guess it does not matter if they sell body parts...it may be legal..most are numb today to anything and life has little value.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> none would describe the other as anti abortion.


That's really not relevant, since the evidence shows you are.



> As for PP...I guess *it does not matter if they sell body parts*...it may be legal..most are numb today to anything and life has little value.


There is no evidence they do that, so why keep doing what you yourself complained about earlier?:



> Originally Posted by elevenpoint
> *Same old rhetoric*....posting about the same topic...the same thing everybody has heard...just bent a bit...but still the same.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's really not relevant, since the evidence shows you are.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence they do that, so why keep doing what you yourself complained about earlier?:


There is no evidence I am anything but a person that respects life...as my friends do...we call them values...none of us have been to an abortion protest or harassed those at a clinic...what we believe in encompasses much more than abortion. The second part you quoted is false...the CEO of PP is on record confirming sales at 1% of their clinic. There is a grey area if those sales are legal are not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The second part you quoted is false...the CEO of PP *is on record confirming sales* at 1% of their clinic. There is a grey area if those sales are legal are not.


It's illegal to "sell baby parts", so if you want to make the claim you will also have to show the source.

And it can't be from one of the videos


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

How about a signed letter from the CEO to congress?

http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVmMQR51KNkcLKWgR2hTdC2Y=

Now, the debate will sure to be focused on "selling" vs. "donating".
In comparison to donations made for instance at the Goodwill, your reimbursement is in the form of a tax deduction, which due to tax laws isn't necessarily going to apply to everyone in a dollar-for-dollar amount, versus an actual cash reimbursement at the time of the transaction.

PP does sell their service which includes the tissues collected, they simply sell them with no profit, IOW at cost.
Many here will realize that selling at a profit, at a loss or at break even in no way means it wasn't a sale. The terms are what is regulated, not the fact that transaction never happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How about a signed letter from the CEO to congress?


There's nothing there "confirming sales"

But you already knew that which is why you immediately started qualifying it by talking about "Goodwill" and "profit"



> For the few centers that are involved with fetal tissue research, there is absolutely *no indication they have deviated from the law* or done anything inappropriate.
> 
> In fact, despite Mr. Daleiden&#8217;s three-year effort to entrap Planned Parenthood, he failed to succeed in convincing even a single affiliate to enter into a procurement contract with his fake company.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing there "confirming sales"
> 
> But you already knew that which is why you immediately started qualifying it by talking about "Goodwill" and "profit"




Would like me to copy and paste it, including the CEO's reference to the federal law that allows it?
And yes, I knew you would be one of those denying the transaction was a sale.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Would like me to copy and paste it, including the CEO's reference to the federal law that allows it?
> And yes, I knew you would be one of those denying the transaction was a sale.


You can copy and paste anything you want but it will be pointless because nowhere in that document does it "confirm sales".

You knew it would be denied because it's not a sale, and sales are illegal.

You can't post any laws that allow the sale of "baby parts", and I'm not going to run in circles with you while you insist it does.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing there "confirming sales"
> 
> But you already knew that which is why you immediately started qualifying it by talking about "Goodwill" and "profit"


Exactly. There is a difference between selling something and accepting reimbursement, but some won't admit it because it doesn't suit their agenda.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between selling something and accepting reimbursement, but some won't admit it because it doesn't suit their agenda.


That is splitting them hairs so fine you need a microscope to see them...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> That is splitting them hairs so fine you need a microscope to see them...



Finer than frog hairs...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> That is splitting them hairs so fine you need a microscope to see them...


No, it's not. 

"Reimbursement is an act of compensating someone for an expense. Often, a person is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when the person incurs those expenses through employment or *in an account of carrying out the duties for another party or member*."

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

PP was reimbursed the cost of packing and shipping fetal tissue.

ETA: Just because you don't like or understand something doesn't make it illegal. Reimbursement is not the same thing as a sale. A court has found that PP committed no crime.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes, which is why my statement was worded that way.
I'm probably going to post the 3 links I just reviewed from the IRS on donations, reimbursements and capital gains/losses from sales.

I would think that that particular government source would carry more weight than any individual opinion on the matter.
Of course, I could be wrong..........


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between selling something and accepting reimbursement, but some won't admit it because it doesn't suit their agenda.


Sooo...when I bought the brake pads for my truck...the auto parts store is not really selling brake parts...but accepting reimbursement for the material?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, which is why my statement was worded that way.
> I'm probably going to post the 3 links I just reviewed from the IRS on donations, reimbursements and capital gains/losses from sales.
> 
> I would think that that particular government source would carry more weight than any individual opinion on the matter.
> Of course, I could be wrong..........


And you'd think the court finding that I based the OP on indicating that PP committed no crime that the videos accused them of would end this nonsense. No crime, no crime, no crime. Selling fetal tissue would be a crime, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Sooo...when I bought the brake pads for my truck...the auto parts store is not really selling brake parts...but accepting reimbursement for the material?


The key words are "I bought" so the auto parts store _sold_ you brake pads, correct? They weren't just reimbursed for their cost of the brake pads, were they?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm probably going to post the 3 links I just reviewed from the IRS on donations, reimbursements and capital gains/losses from sales.


If they don't "confirm the sale of baby parts" it would just be the typical distraction from the actual subject


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can copy and paste anything you want but it will be pointless because nowhere in that document does it "confirm sales".
> 
> You knew it would be denied because it's not a sale, and sales are illegal.
> 
> You can't post any laws that allow the sale of "baby parts", and I'm not going to run in circles with you while you insist it does.



Naturally...........:face palm:


The Honorable John A. Boehner Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Mitch McConnell Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Harry Reid Minority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader McConnell, Leader Pelosi, and Leader Reid:
In the last month, Planned Parenthood has been the focus of extensive discussion and scrutiny for our role in fetal tissue research.
Four committees in the Senate and House are currently investigating allegations against Planned Parenthood. The Senate has already held a vote on an effort to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, and the House of Representatives may hold a similar vote in September. Several Senators and House members, as well as some Republican Presidential candidates, are advocating shutting down the federal government unless Planned Parenthood is defunded.
We obviously take this matter very seriously. We also agree with Speaker Boehner&#8217;s view that Congress should get the &#8220;facts first&#8221; because &#8220;the more we learn, the more it will educate our decisions.&#8221;1
I am writing today because we are doing as much as we can to collect the facts and share them with you. We are also cooperating with the House and Senate committees that have requested relevant information from us.
In this letter, I will provide background on the bipartisan 1993 law on fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood&#8217;s role in this research, and what we are doing in response to questions that have been raised over the last month. I will also share what we know about anti-abortion extremist David Daleiden and the organizations that spent nearly three years infiltrating our affiliates and trying to entrap our staff into potentially illegal conduct, including the results of a forensic analysis of the doctored videos.
1 &#8220;Boehner Wants &#8216;Facts First&#8217; Before Defunding Planned Parenthood,&#8221; The Hill (July 23, 2015).
&#65532;--------------------------------------------------------------------
Our affiliates operate health centers, which is where we provide health services to millions of women and men every year. Of the hundreds of health centers that are part of the Planned Parenthood network, just 1% are involved with fetal tissue research.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Law on Fetal Tissue Research
The federal law on fetal tissue research was shaped by a blue-ribbon panel created in
1988 under the Reagan Administration. Arlin Adams, a retired federal judge opposed to abortion, chaired the panel, which was called the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel. Although the panel&#8217;s charge &#8211; to evaluate the ethics of research involving fetal tissue &#8211; was controversial, Judge Adams led the panel to a broad consensus. Its final report stated: &#8220;a decisive majority of the panel found that it was acceptable public policy to support transplant research with fetal tissue.&#8221;3
The panel separated the question of the ethics of abortion, about which the panel members had differing views, from the question of the ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research. The panel supported fetal tissue research for two primary reasons: (1) &#8220;abortion is legal&#8221; and &#8220;would occur regardless&#8221; of the use of fetal tissue in research and (2) &#8220;the research in question is intended to achieve significant medical goals.&#8221;4 The panel then made a series of recommendations to ensure that any research followed appropriate guidelines.
The panel recommended that &#8220;the decision and consent to abort must precede discussion of the possible use of fetal tissue&#8221; so that &#8220;a woman&#8217;s abortion decision would be insulated from inducements to abort to provide tissue for transplant research and therapy.&#8221;


(******the bolding is mine, FB************)
*5 The panel recommended prohibiting &#8220;payments ... associated with the procurement of fetal tissue ... except payment for reasonable expenses&#8221; so that there would be &#8220;no offer of financial incentives or personal gain to encourage abortion or donation of fetal tissue.
*

&#8221;6 And the panel recommended that &#8220;no abortion should be put off to a later date nor should any abortion be performed by an alternate method entailing greater risk to the pregnant woman in order to supply more useful fetal materials for research.&#8221;7
The panel&#8217;s work won broad bipartisan support. In 1993, Congress overwhelmingly passed the NIH Health Revitalization Act, which codified the key recommendations of the panel into law. As you know, three of you &#8211; Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Reid, and House Minority Leader Pelosi &#8211; all voted for the legislation. The final vote was 93 to 4 in the Senate and 290 to 130 in the House.
The law has two main provisions. One section (42 U.S.C. 289g-1) addresses federally funded research on &#8220;the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes.&#8221; Under this section, the medical researcher must obtain a statement from the attending physician declaring that the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to the consent for the fetal tissue donation and that there was no alteration of the timing, method, or abortion procedure solely for purposes of obtaining the tissue.
3 Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Research Panel, p. 2 (December 1988).
4 Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Research Panel, pp. 1-2 (December 1988). 5 Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Research Panel, pp. 2-3 (December 1988). 6 Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Research Panel, p. 2 (December 1988).
7 Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Research Panel, p. 14 (December 1988).
&#65532;3
&#65532;

*
The other provision (42 U.S.C. 289g-2) prohibits the acceptance of any payment for a fetal tissue donation other than &#8220;reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.&#8221;*

-----------------------------------------------------------

Our few participating affiliates can offer tissue donation services in two ways: through tissue procurement organizations (TPOs) which have been the focus of the recent public debate, or as partners or participants in research studies being conducted by major research programs connected to some of our nation&#8217;s most prestigious universities, medical schools, and research laboratories.
Today, only one affiliate (in California) is involved with fetal tissue research working through a TPO. That affiliate also has a separate relationship with the University of California.
4
&#65532;
A second affiliate is involved with fetal tissue research working with the University of Washington. Altogether, the health centers at the affiliates involved with fetal tissue research represent 1% of our centers. Stated the other way, 99% of our health centers do not offer women the opportunity to be involved with fetal tissue research. 
-------------------------------------------
Compliance with Federal Requirements
As mentioned above, federal law restricts the reimbursement that Planned Parenthood can receive when it facilitates a fetal tissue donation. Our guidance to our affiliates reflects this requirement, stating:
Federal law prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is federally funded or not. There are limited exceptions that allow reimbursement for actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue. If an affiliate chooses to accept reimbursement for allowable expenses, it must be able to demonstrate the reimbursement represents its actual costs.10
Our affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement. 



*The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen from the TPO, and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement. The four other affiliates whose programs ended after the release of the videos received lesser but comparable amounts. The affiliate working with the research laboratory received no reimbursement. The others received reimbursements from TPOs ranging from $45 to $55 per tissue specimen. *


In every case, the affiliates report that these amounts were intended to recover only their costs, as allowed under the federal law and our guidance.
___________________________________________________________


************
My post continues.......

You are now free to ignore or accept the federal statute cited by the CEO and the amount of payment received.
After all, it's a "free" country.:happy2:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> And you'd think the court finding that I based the OP on indicating that PP committed no crime that the videos accused them of would end this nonsense. No crime, no crime, no crime. Selling fetal tissue would be a crime, right?


On the contrary.
I agree there is no crime, and "selling" it or "being reimbursed for expenses" as some would prefer, is legal under the federal state cited.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> "Reimbursement is an act of compensating someone for an expense. Often, a person is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when the person incurs those expenses through employment or *in an account of carrying out the duties for another party or member*."
> 
> ...


OK...now I understand...PP was reimbursed for.."the cost of packing and shipping"....There is an ugly rumor making the rounds that the "reimbursement" price was 2000 for a part...is that not a wee bit high for packing and shipping?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

So the federal judge that said that PP committed no crime is wrong, and your interpretation is the correct one in this case? 

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


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> OK...now I understand...PP was reimbursed for.."the cost of packing and shipping"....There is an ugly rumor making the rounds that the "reimbursement" price was 2000 for a part...is that not a wee bit high for packing and shipping?



Link to a credible source, please.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The key words are "I bought" so the auto parts store _sold_ you brake pads, correct? They weren't just reimbursed for their cost of the brake pads, were they?


Correct.
They sold them at a profit, over and above the expense they incurred.
Had they sold them at cost, they would have to make a profit elsewhere or go broke.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> On the contrary.
> I agree there is no crime, and "selling" it or "being reimbursed for expenses" as some would prefer, is legal under the federal state cited.


Isn't it great that everyone can have an opinion?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> OK...now I understand...PP was reimbursed for.."the cost of packing and shipping"....There is an ugly rumor making the rounds that the "reimbursement" price was 2000 for a part...is that not a wee bit high for packing and shipping?



I posted a link in another thread that included prices charged for fetal tissue, BUT that was what the company that got the tissue from PP charged, NOT Planned Parenthood.



Irish Pixie said:


> Link to a credible source, please.


If you'd like, I try and find it again, but it will not support the claim made by eleven point.
The profit is made by the other companies.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. There is a difference between selling something and accepting reimbursement, but some won't admit it because it doesn't suit their agenda.





Bearfootfarm said:


> If they don't "confirm the sale of baby parts" it would just be the typical distraction from the actual subject


Yep, the IRS is funny that way.......


https://www.irs.gov/publications/p463/ch06.html (reimbursements)

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html (sales gains and losses)

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/index.html (donations)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I posted a link in another thread that included prices charged for fetal tissue, BUT that was what the company that got the tissue from PP charged, NOT Planned Parenthood.
> 
> If you'd like, I try and find it again, but it will not support the claim made by eleven point.
> The profit is made by the other companies.


No thank you. I asked elevenpoint for a credible link to his assertion that "There is an ugly rumor making the rounds that the *"reimbursement" price** was 2000 for a part*...is that not a wee bit high for packing and shipping?"


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> No thank you. I asked elevenpoint for a credible link to his assertion that "There is an ugly rumor making the rounds that the *"reimbursement" price** was 2000 for a part*...is that not a wee bit high for packing and shipping?"


The only credibility that matters is PP...they should publish the packing and shipping price that they are reimbursed....every person would know right away if a sale took place.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> The only credibility that matters is PP...they should publish the packing and shipping price that they are reimbursed....every person would know right away if a sale took place.


That's what I thought.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

elevenpoint said:


> The only credibility that matters is PP...they should publish the packing and shipping price that they are reimbursed....every person would know right away if a sale took place.


See post #90, in bolded red.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Again, the IRS has defined a "sale" in its publications.

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch14.html
"What Is a Sale or Trade?

This section explains what is a sale or trade. It also explains certain transactions and events that are treated as sales or trades.

A sale is generally a transfer of property for money or a mortgage, note, or other promise to pay money.

A trade is a transfer of property for other property or services and may be taxed in the same way as a sale."


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

farmrbrown said:


> See post #90, in bolded red.


Saw that...that was a PP statement. So I did some research. Investigative news reporter Chris Wallace was provided a list of body parts for sale...fetal brain..under eight ounces...$999. Then I researched the videos I keep hearing about...that would shock the most hardened human being alive. Really incredible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are now free to ignore or accept the federal statute cited by the CEO and the amount of payment received.
> After all, it's a "free" country.


Was there really a point in posting the entire thing when the link was sufficient?

It just fills the screen with meaningless rambling, since it still doesn't "confirm sales of baby parts".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep, the IRS is funny that way.......
> 
> 
> https://www.irs.gov/publications/p463/ch06.html (reimbursements)
> ...


More off-topic distractions as predicted


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Saw that...that was a PP statement. So I did some research. Investigative news reporter Chris Wallace was provided a list of body parts for sale...fetal brain..under eight ounces...$999. Then I researched the videos I keep hearing about...that would shock the most hardened human being alive. Really incredible.


No link, no credibility


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More off-topic distractions as predicted


Really?
You can prove no crime has been committed, per the OP, so why, when the subject of it being a legal sale and not a crime, is that a distraction?
Is it because even though it's legal, it makes people uncomfortable?



Bearfootfarm said:


> No link, no credibility


Would YOU like the link, I already asked Irish Pixie.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Was there really a point in posting the entire thing when the link was sufficient?
> 
> It just fills the screen with meaningless rambling, since it still doesn't "confirm sales of baby parts".


For someone who insists on "proof" you sure have a nasty reaction when it's presented. 
BTW, the IRS doesn't list every piece of property and service in its publications, but I'm sure they would give you the confirmation on that, if you asked them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> For someone who insists on "proof" you sure have a nasty reaction *when it's presented.*
> BTW, the IRS doesn't list every piece of property and service in its publications, but I'm sure they would give you the confirmation on that, if you asked them.


You've presented nothing that proves any of the claims made, and continue to post links to things that have nothing to do with the real topic.

It's your usual M.O.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Good god just when you think these things are dead and buried. An investigation ruled they gif nothing illegal, just accept it. If you are anti abortion work to get it stopped. But to keep on this tact is ridiculous.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've presented nothing that proves any of the claims made, and continue to post links to things that have nothing to do with the real topic.
> 
> It's your usual M.O.


Really?
An objection was made to calling it a "sale" and I provided the government definition from the IRS, with a link.
I readily admit that PP doesn't charge thousands of dollars for the tissue, it charged about $60 per the link with the CEO letter.
I CAN find the link where the tissue vendors are charging thousands of dollars.......but if you are going to say I haven't posted any proof after doing it multiple times........that would define me as "insane" by that commonly quoted phrase from AA.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No link, no credibility


That would be Google...then type in planned parenthood...the reading is endless...about a half hour is when you start getting sick.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

What the heck, it wasn't that hard to find......

http://stemexpress.com/order/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Really?
> An objection was made to calling it a "sale" and I provided the government definition from the IRS, with a link.
> I readily admit that PP doesn't charge thousands of dollars for the tissue, it charged about $60 per the link with the CEO letter.
> I CAN find the link where the tissue vendors are charging thousands of dollars.......but if you are going to say I haven't posted any proof after doing it multiple times........that would define me as "insane" by that commonly quoted phrase from AA.


More rambling, still no proof PP "confirmed selling baby parts"




> What the heck, it wasn't that hard to find......
> 
> http://stemexpress.com/order/


That's not PP, and therefore irrelevant


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> That would be Google...then type in planned parenthood...the reading is endless...about a half hour is when you start getting sick.


I'm not searching for something that doesn't exist

It appears neither of you have anything worthwhile to offer on the real topic.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More rambling, still no proof PP "confirmed selling baby parts"
> 
> 
> 
> That's not PP, and therefore irrelevant


You're really good at printing what I already said.
It isn't PP, they sell their tissue at cost for $60.
The CEO confirmed it and I quoted it in red so it couldn't be overlooked in the letter. When you put a dollar amount on it, it's really hard to explain it as not having been "sold". The IRS agrees.
It's StemExpress and they resell it for a lot more.

Is anything I printed incorrect? Or do you also need to see receipts of transactions between PP and SE?
Also, I think "relevancy" is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Is anything I printed incorrect? Or do you also need to see receipts of transactions between PP and SE?
> Also, I think "relevancy" is in the eye of the beholder.


This statement is false since selling the tissue would be a crime, and there is no evidence of any crimes:



> It isn't PP, *they sell their tissue* at cost for $60.
> The CEO confirmed it...


You can run down these rabbit trails all you like but you still end up with nothing of substance. 

They never said what was claimed.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not searching for something that doesn't exist
> 
> It appears neither of you have anything worthwhile to offer on the real topic.


I don't have to offer anything...the internet provided plenty...PP is on record as saying they cannot create a paper trail...the videos are crystal clear...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> *I don't have to offer anything*...the internet provided plenty...*PP is on record *as saying they cannot create a paper trail...the videos are crystal clear...


You don't have anything to offer since you said:



> *Same old rhetoric*....posting about the same topic...the same thing everybody has heard...just bent a bit...but still the same.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> This statement is false since selling the tissue would be a crime, and there is no evidence of any crimes:


I've given you every opportunity to review the proof and decide whether PP sold its collected tissue at cost to StemExpress and others, since the CEO released that fact with the dollar amount to Congress.
You can't deny the fact the letter was written, yet you claim either it or I, is making a false statement.



There is none so blind as those that refuse to see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I've given you every opportunity to review the proof and decide whether PP sold its collected tissue at cost to StemExpress and others, since the CEO released that fact with the dollar amount to Congress.
> You can't deny the fact the letter was written, yet you claim either it or I, is making *a false statement*.
> 
> There is none so blind as those that refuse to see.


It's false to claim it's a "sale".
We both know that, so repeating the falsehood endlessly is pointless.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's false to claim it's a "sale".
> We both know that, so repeating the falsehood endlessly is pointless.


I know no such lie.
I know that I have shown unequivocally that it was a sale, a legal one by federal law and shown the statute number.
I know that StemExpress resells the tissue at a profit, also legal under federal law.
I also know that the moderation on this board allows you to libel me and will delete this post if I call you a liar.
These are the things that I know.

Here's one more, for the defenders of these vile acts........

Matthew 25:40

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Maybe they are not doing anything that is considered a crime today, but per chance, might this not be a good time to review the idea that brought Planned Parenthood into being?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic[/ame]


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> Maybe they are not doing anything that is considered a crime today, but per chance, might this not be a good time to review the idea that brought Planned Parenthood into being?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic


Do a search and see what the governors of Texas and Utah are doing at this time...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I know no such lie.
> I know that I have shown unequivocally that it was a sale, a legal one by federal law and shown the statute number.
> I know that StemExpress resells the tissue at a profit, also legal under federal law.
> 
> These are the things that I know.


Those are things of which you've convinced yourself in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. 

There are no "sales of baby parts", since that is illegal



> *I also know that the moderation on this board allows you to libel me and will delete this post if I call you a liar.*


Don't you get tired of that whining?
You've been doing it for months now
These are the things that I know.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those are things of which you've convinced yourself in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
> 
> There are no "sales of baby parts", since that is illegal


Then tell me, why haven't the FBI busted down the doors of PP and StemExpress and locked them in jail?
You saw the StemExpress website with the prices didn't you?
Why on earth would you say selling the tissue was illegal?
They are selling it today, completely legal.
If it's legal to abort a baby in a mother's womb, for over 40 years, what would make you think it was illegal to sell the tissue?
You people should be shouting from the rooftops about how this ISN'T illegal.
Aren't you proud of your legal accomplishments?

By not crossing state lines, PP being non-profit and selling the tissue at cost, along with complying with the rest of the statute, it clearly is NOT illegal.
As you will see below, the only time it is illegal is if it violates the part of the statute below...............

U.S. Code âº Title 42 âº Chapter 6A âº Subchapter III âº Part H âº Â§ 289gâ2
42 U.S. Code Â§ 289gâ2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) Purchase of tissue
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantationIt shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, andâ
(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposesIt shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce toâ
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
*(d) Criminal penalties for violations
(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.

(e) DefinitionsFor purposes of this section:
(1) The term âhuman fetal tissueâ has the meaning given such term in section 289gâ1(g) of this title.
(2) The term âinterstate commerceâ has the meaning given such term in section 321(b) of title 21.
(3) The term âvaluable considerationâ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.*
(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, Â§&#8239;498B, as added Pub. L. 103â43, title I, Â§&#8239;112, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 131; amended Pub. L. 109â242, Â§&#8239;2, July 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 570.)




Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't you get tired of that whining?
> You've been doing it for months now
> These are the things that I know.



As long as there are those that don't tire of telling lies, no I won't get tired of telling the truth.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Then tell me, *why *haven't the FBI busted down the doors of PP and StemExpress and locked them in jail?


There was no crime, because there was no "sale of baby parts".
I don't know why you seem to think repeating everything is going to change that reality.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I guess the doctors who, remove, prepare and transplant donated organs and tissues are selling them as well in Farmerbrowns world. Or just maybe they are charging for their labor and materials.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I guess the doctors who, remove, prepare and transplant donated organs and tissues are selling them as well in Farmerbrowns world. Or just maybe they are charging for their labor and materials.


Yes they are.
When you've been involved in the experience firsthand, you get to know how this stuff works.
It ain't just my world, you're living here too.
The person donating the organ can't sell it, nor their family member but organizations like the hospital can do what PP does (sell at cost) and organizations like Translife charge much more than that.
BTW, the prohibitions on what relatives do in the case of fetal tissue was written in the part I posted.
For organ transplants, it's in another section close by, if you want to look it up.

It's one thing to be wrong thru ignorance, and I can even see why some would attempt to deceive due to embarrassment or shame for what they are defending. There are some religious sects that prohibit any transfer of blood/organs under any circumstances, not just in this case.
But once the statute is laid out there in black and white, along with the IRS standards on what is a "sale", to further argue is obstinance beyond all reason.

If anyone would like to PM me and find out the pros and cons of organ donation, and how not to get stuck with a large hospital bill, I'd be happy to tell them of my experiences.
It's a little sensitive and graphic for public consumption.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no crime, because there was no "sale of baby parts".
> I don't know why you seem to think repeating everything is going to change that reality.


So, you're saying this website is a complete fabrication?


http://stemexpress.com/order/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> So, *you're saying* this website is a complete fabrication?
> http://[COLOR="Red"]stemexpress[/COLOR].com/order/


I haven't mentioned that website so no, I haven't said anything about it at all.

That's not PP, so it's not relevant to the OP topic: 



> No crime for Planned Parenthood


Don't waste time looking for hidden meanings in what I post.
Just read the actual words. 

Especially the ones that said "there were no sales of baby parts".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't mentioned that website so no, I haven't said anything about it at all.
> 
> That's not PP, so it's not relevant to the OP topic:
> 
> ...


For future reference, you might need to know that neither you nor I the only ones who post on a thread. Also there is no filter to restrict the topic to only the select words used in the first post.
When you make a statement, "selling baby parts is illegal" it in no way is restricted to one company or person, even if that's the way you would like it to read.
Furthermore, even in the case of PP only being the topic, you're still legally incorrect, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Of course there was no crime, and I thoroughly documented why that is.
Look, it's ok to be wrong once in a while. I promise you the world won't end just because it happened to you.:grin:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Of course there was no crime, and I thoroughly documented why that is.


It's because there was no "sale of baby parts".
Repeating there was is parroting the same lie from all the videos


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's because there was no "sale of baby parts".
> Repeating there was is parroting the same lie from all the videos



No sir, it is you that is parroting a lie.

Look, the problem that you and many other Americans have, is that you were unaware or disbelieve that human tissue IS sold in this country and that it is LEGAL, as long as you comply with the federal guidelines.

It's ok to be shocked or surprised and it's even better to be aware of the fact to help ensure its compliance.

But to persist in ignorance and the spreading of lies, is NOT ok.

Just accept the fact that you learned something you didn't know before. Nobody should believe they know everything in the world, anyway.

Now, in the interest of fairness and education, if you can find the statute that prohibits the sale of human tissue in ANY circumstance, I'll be more than happy to take a look at it and learn something new myself.
I have no fear of learning, it's ignorance that scares me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But to persist in ignorance and the spreading of lies, is NOT ok.


I've been telling you that all along


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've been telling you that all along



I've followed this thread, read the citations that Farmer Brown has posted, checked the URLs that he put to verify what he is stating and find that he is the one that is correct. Human Tissue, by the exact terminology that he is using "being sold", is in fact happening. There is no way to get around it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I've followed this thread, read the citations that Farmer Brown has posted, checked the URLs that he put to verify what he is stating and find that he is the one that is correct. Human Tissue, *by the exact terminology* that he is using "being sold", is in fact happening. There is no way to get around it.


It's no big surprise you agree but it's still not true.
It's illegal to sell human tissue, and all the word games don't change that.
No one "sold baby parts"

You'd also agree if he said George Bush took down WTC 7 at free fall speed, but that won't be true either

For months all we heard was "PP broke the law selling baby parts" and now that no evidence has been found anywhere, the new spin is it's suddenly "legal".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's no big surprise you agree but it's still not true.
> It's illegal to sell human tissue, and all the word games don't change that.
> No one "sold baby parts"
> 
> ...



I didn't find the letter to Congress until a few days ago. PP had maintained they broke no laws but I hadn't seen the cited statutes before although a few people mentioned the videos claim of "altering procedures" as a violation of the law, so apparently this is the statute they were talking about.

What is puzzling is, if it turns out it IS legal, what's wrong with citing the law and acknowledging it?
Doesn't that make more sense that insisting it is illegal like you complained others did?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> what's wrong with citing the law and acknowledging it?


I complained that they *lied* about it all, as many continue to do
The law you cited says selling the tissue is illegal


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I complained that they *lied* about it all, as many continue to do
> The law you cited says selling the tissue is illegal


If that's the case then I completely missed it and am wrong.
Could you point out where it says that?

The entire section cited by the CEO of PP is in post #127.


Maybe it just has to be confirmed by an "accepted source"?
The link in the article below cites the same federal statute, BTW


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/07/17/facilitating-donating-fetal-tissue-isnt-breaking-law/

"Federal law regulates the use of fetal tissue for research or transplant, and as far as federal statutes go, this one is pretty clear.

* It&#8217;s a crime for anyone to buy or sell fetal tissue for profit.*


It is not a crime to donate and transfer that tissue for research or transplant into another organism or tissue.

Donating any tissue or organ for research or transplant is an expensive process, which is why the law specifically states those involved may make and receive &#8220;reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.&#8221; The costs for various fetal tissue parts that Planned Parenthood&#8217;s senior director of medical services Deborah Nucatola discusses in the video? Those are costs related to transportation, processing, preservation, and other expenses associated with biomedical research and practice. Why are there a range of numbers that differ depending on the fetal part? Because the law grants practitioners flexibility in setting those costs, with the key point that they are &#8220;reasonable.&#8221;


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More spin, more word games, same results.

PP didn't "sell baby parts"

Your newest source even states the money isn't for the tissue itself:



> The costs for various fetal tissue parts that Planned Parenthood&#8217;s senior director of medical services Deborah Nucatola discusses in the video?
> 
> Those are *costs related to transportation, processing, preservation, and other expenses associated with biomedical research and practice*.





> Could you point out where it says that?


It's in the first 7 words of the statute



> (a) *Purchase* of tissue:
> 
> It shall be *unlawful* for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue *for valuable consideration* if the transfer affects interstate commerce.


Notice it doesn't say "for profit" as implied by the sentence you highlighted 
(Which isn't part of the statute, but merely an opinion) :



> It&#8217;s a crime for anyone to buy or sell fetal tissue for profit.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More spin, more word games, same results.
> 
> PP didn't "sell baby parts"
> 
> ...



If I didn't know your attention to detail, I would believe you overlooked that the statute defined "valuable consideration" right in the body of the text, along with interstate commerce.
I'm convinced you read the definition and understood what it meant, same as the legal analyst for women's rights that I linked.
It's the same statement the CEO of PP made in the letter.

The statute even begins with the words, "Purchase of tissue" and proceeds to set the guidelines for doing so, as I've said.
This link explains the technical loopholes that you say don't exist, rather don't matter because none of it is true....

**I posted the COMPLETE first paragraph, since leaving out important context would make the quote seem to mean the opposite of what was written.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/...arts-of-aborted-babies-how-can-that-be-legal/


**But is the practice illegal?

Federal law purportedly prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). On the surface, that seems pretty straightforward and Planned Parenthood is breaking federal law by selling body parts from babies victimized by abortions.

But, the law may not be worth the paper it&#8217;s written on.**





But after all of that, because YOU say it isn't selling, it must be so.

I'm done now, one way streets are not that interesting.......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The statute even *begins with the words*, "Purchase of tissue"


Followed by the words "it shall be unlawful". 



> This link explains the technical loopholes





> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/p...that-be-legal/


I don't need more biased opinions from an anti-abortion organization.
There are no "loopholes" that allow "selling baby parts".
There are regulations as to the reimbursement of costs for the procedures, but not for the tissues, as stated in the statute.



> I'm done now, one way streets are not that interesting.......


I don't believe that either, since I told you before you started it was going to be pointless.

This is also from your latest link:



> Federal law prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Let it go, this person is not going to give you a fair rendition of what has been placed before their face in actual black and white...

Ain't happening.

The sales and transfers are done with the normal symantecs that all businesses operate within. Its a book keeping entry that often enhances one part of the income while suppressing another... 

Make it look legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I agree, be like Elsa and just let it go. 

The anti abortion contingent makes their own definitions and will stick to them until the bitter end. They have to, abortion is legal and a court has determined that PP did nothing illegal. The end.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, be like Elsa and just let it go.
> 
> The anti abortion contingent makes their own definitions and will stick to them until the bitter end. They have to, abortion is legal and a court has determined that PP did nothing illegal. The end.



And Al Capone operated for decades and could never be indicted because of lack of evidence. It was probably said of him too that 'there was no evidence of illegal activities' although everyone knew he was a mobster. But in the end they got him.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> And Al Capone operated for decades and could never be indicted because of lack of evidence. It was probably said of him too that 'there was no evidence of illegal activities' although everyone knew he was a mobster. But in the end they got him.


You're OK with half the country losing their Constitutional Right to Privacy? Why do you think you have the right to tell another human being what they can do with body? Why do you want to control women?

How would you like it if it was arbitrarily decided that you could no longer own a gun?


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're OK with half the country losing their Constitutional Right to Privacy? Why do you think you have the right to tell another human being what they can do with body? Why do you want to control women?
> 
> How would you like it if it was arbitrarily decided that you could no longer own a gun?


You are hilarious! I simply pointed out that the "no evidence of criminal activity" may not be because there isn't criminal activity, it may be just because they couldn't scrape together evidence. You somehow twist that into me wanting to control women's bodies and losing my right to own a gun. I'm in awe of your ability to twist reality. :bow:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> You are hilarious! I simply pointed out that the "no evidence of criminal activity" may not be because there isn't criminal activity, it may be just because they couldn't scrape together evidence. You somehow twist that into me wanting to control women's bodies and losing my right to own a gun. I'm in awe of your ability to twist reality. :bow:


No twist, the reality is that Roe v Wade was decided partly on a woman's right to privacy, thus if you want abortion to be illegal you are taking that right away. Correct? 

Anyone that wants abortion made illegal wants to control what a woman can do with her body, correct? There really is no other way to look at it.

Again, having an abortion is constitutionally protected (right to privacy) as is owning a gun. You OK with having your right to bear arms made illegal?

Can you answer the questions? You have no problem calling me on my opinion, so I thought I'd ask yours.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

OK, let's go back and look at what I wrote:

"And Al Capone operated for decades and could never be indicted because of lack of evidence. It was probably said of him too that 'there was no evidence of illegal activities' although everyone knew he was a mobster. But in the end they got him."

Now what you responded:



Irish Pixie said:


> No twist, the reality is that Roe v Wade was decided partly on a woman's right to privacy, thus if you want abortion to be illegal you are taking that right away. Correct?
> 
> Anyone that wants abortion made illegal wants to control what a woman can do with her body, correct? There really is no other way to look at it.
> 
> ...


Are you for real? Not even remotely connected.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> OK, let's go back and look at what I wrote:
> 
> "And Al Capone operated for decades and could never be indicted because of lack of evidence. It was probably said of him too that 'there was no evidence of illegal activities' although everyone knew he was a mobster. But in the end they got him."
> 
> ...


I didn't really think you'd answer the questions...


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Whatever you say.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.



You too!


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> We all knew PP wouldn't be held accountable.


Hold that thought for a moment.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one needs to pay attention to the CMP videos slandering PP anymore, the court ruled that they didn't commit a crime. It did say that Dear was influenced by their lies tho. That means CMP, and those that supported them, have blood on their hands.


This is an absolute false statement. 100%.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, the topic is that a court found that PP did not sell "baby parts" or do any of the illegal things that CMP accused them of in the lying, highly edited videos they produced.


Again..this is false. 100%.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> And you'd think the court finding that I based the OP on indicating that PP committed no crime that the videos accused them of would end this nonsense. No crime, no crime, no crime. Selling fetal tissue would be a crime, right?


What court finding?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree, be like Elsa and just let it go.
> 
> The anti abortion contingent makes their own definitions and will stick to them until the bitter end. They have to, abortion is legal and a court has determined that PP did nothing illegal. The end.


No...not the end. Which court determined PP did nothing illegal?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

elevenpoint said:


> No...not the end. Which court determined PP did nothing illegal?


I would refer you to the comments made by the federal judge in the article presented in the op. While the actual ruling on the case has yet to be made, it certainly sounds like he has seen no evidence of any crimes by PP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which court determined PP did nothing illegal?


All that have investigated the matter


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would refer you to the comments made by the federal judge in the article presented in the op. While the actual ruling on the case has yet to be made, it certainly sounds like he has seen no evidence of any crimes by PP.[/QUOT
> 
> Has not made a ruling on what yet?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All that have investigated the matter


Define "all".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Define "all".


"All" as in " *All done* playing your silly game"


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "All" as in " *All done* playing your silly game"


That's a good response when you don't have an answer.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> Again..this is false. 100%.





elevenpoint said:


> What court finding?





elevenpoint said:


> No...not the end. Which court determined PP did nothing illegal?





elevenpoint said:


> Yvonne's hubby said:
> 
> 
> > I would refer you to the comments made by the federal judge in the article presented in the op. While the actual ruling on the case has yet to be made, it certainly sounds like he has seen no evidence of any crimes by PP.[/QUOT
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

susieneddy said:


> :trollface


We mustn't feed it.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> We mustn't feed it.


Again...there is no ruling...determination..or did the court find...that PP did not commit a crime. No such case exists in Judge Orricks court.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I get it that some are going to view abortion as evil and wrong in any and all circumstances, and so fight to end it whereever possible... to those people I ask, since it IS legal, would it be preferrable if the remains of the fetus be simply placed in the trash and sent to a landfill, or sold to researchers so they can work on new treatments and medical breakthroughs?
The people buying the fetal tissue aren't macbre collectors doing it for fun, they are using the tissues for potentially life saving research.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

greg273 said:


> I get it that some are going to view abortion as evil and wrong in any and all circumstances, and so fight to end it whereever possible... to those people I ask, since it IS legal, would it be preferrable if the remains of the fetus be simply placed in the trash and sent to a landfill, or sold to researchers so they can work on new treatments and medical breakthroughs?
> The people buying the fetal tissue aren't macbre collectors doing it for fun, they are using the tissues for potentially life saving research.


I have no doubt that would be an interesting thread...however I was trying to stay on topic as to PP being cleared of any crime in a case that does not exist.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> susieneddy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. But if you're going to be a troll, good grief...at least be interesting. Most boring posts ever.
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

elevenpoint said:


> Every abortion rights advocate has jumped on the bandwagon on this thread repeating that the court ruled PP did not commit a crime...which is fine except for one problem...that never happened. The case before Judge Orrick is a civil matter..an injunction to prevent the release of the tapes...which there is a temporary restraint order in place but still has not made a decision on the injunction. Judge Orricks "comments"...that PP committed no crime...has no legal bearing whatsoever...and is very unethical for a judge to make a comment on a criminal matter that is not the subject of this court...now if you want to include the fact that he bundled 200+K and 30+K out of his own pocket to Obama's 08 campaign...that his wife is an outspoken abortion advocate..and Obama put him on the bench...you know exactly what his political and personal beliefs are. His comments in court...carry the same weight as any person here saying the same thing. In summation...there is no ruling..determination..binding legal opinion...that PP committed no crime. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


Let's put a different twist on it.... Is there any evidence or legal judgments made by any court that says PP has committed any crime? Accusations are just that, accusations. They prove nothing, and last I heard there is something about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let's put a different twist on it.... Is there any evidence or legal judgments made by any court that says PP has committed any crime? Accusations are just that, accusations. They prove nothing, and last I heard there is something about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.


You are correct.


----------

