# Planned Parenthood bill blocked!



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/24/us-usa-fiscal-senate-idUSKCN0RO27020150924

The Senate blocked the Planned Parenthood bill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/24/us-usa-fiscal-senate-idUSKCN0RO27020150924
> 
> The Senate blocked the Planned Parenthood bill.


Which bil? Link doesn't work for me.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Why is anyone supprised? For some horrible reason our gov. is handcuffed by the obama regime.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which bil? Link doesn't work for me.


Sorry. It works for me.

Here's another one, it's actually more in depth, anyway. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lock-bill-defund-planned-parenthood/72695166/

Does this one work for you?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Why is anyone supprised? For some horrible reason our gov. is handcuffed by the obama regime.


Republicans have the majority in Congress and Senate. Maybe they should start taking some responsibility for what is going on too. Or for some reason are they afraid of Obama.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

keenataz said:


> Republicans have the majority in Congress and Senate. Maybe they should start taking some responsibility for what is going on too. Or for some reason are they afraid of Obama.


Exactly. obama has something hanging over the heads of our Country.I've always thought it was the threat of another run on the fed. reserve like the one we had in sept. 2008 that put him in office.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Exactly. obama has something hanging over the heads of our Country.I've always thought it was the threat of another run on the fed. reserve like the one we had in sept. 2008 that put him in office.


No , they just don't ever do what they say they will do.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

painterswife said:


> No , they just don't ever do what they say they will do.


No, it is something far bigger because even people not involved in gov. are scared crapless.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

7thswan said:


> No, it is something far bigger because even people not involved in gov. are scared crapless.


Another conspiracy theory. Don't you get tired of them?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> No , they just don't ever do what they say they will do.


Well I remember when Republicans were running is 2010 or 2012 and it was going to be all "jobs, jobs, jobs". 

I think it slipped their mind.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Here in Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson terminated the contract with Planned Parenthood but U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker granted Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's request to block the state from denying funding to the organization.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry. It works for me.
> 
> Here's another one, it's actually more in depth, anyway. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lock-bill-defund-planned-parenthood/72695166/
> 
> Does this one work for you?


Yes, thank you


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Louisiana quit PP, also.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

By Abigail Wilkinson | August 7, 2015 | 5:00 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) -- Three more states - Alabama, Louisiana, and New Hampshire - have cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood (PP) in the wake of recent videos released by the Center for Medical Progress that appear to show PP officials negotiating over the sale of aborted baby organs and tissue.

According to LifeSiteNews, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas also prohibit state funds from going to any facility that performs abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Louisiana quit PP, also.


Which is bizarre because neither PP in Louisiana performs abortions. 

From my link: "Planned Parenthood has two facilities in Louisiana, neither of which performs abortions. The New Orleans and Baton Rouge operations provide well-woman exams, cancer screenings, pregnancy testing and counseling."

http://theadvocate.com/news/13021867-123/planned-parenthood-responds-to-jindal


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Alright!!!!!

More dead babies!
More dead babies!

It's a Liberals dream come true!!!!!!!!!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Alright!!!!!
> 
> More dead babies!
> More dead babies!
> ...


That is an insulting post aimed at liberals.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> By Abigail Wilkinson | August 7, 2015 | 5:00 PM EDT
> 
> (CNSNews.com) -- Three more states - Alabama, Louisiana, and New Hampshire - have cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood (PP) in the wake of recent videos released by the Center for Medical Progress that appear to show PP officials negotiating over the sale of aborted baby organs and tissue.
> 
> According to LifeSiteNews, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas also prohibit state funds from going to any facility that performs abortions.


Federal money will still fund Planned Parenthood. Although some still think that it funds abortions despite the Hyde Amendment. 

There could be some reversals if/when CMP is charged with illegal taping. 

Arkansas judge has issued an injunction that prevents the end of medicaid funding to PP. 

http://5newsonline.com/2015/09/18/a...n-funding-to-continue-for-planned-parenthood/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which is bizarre because neither PP in Louisiana performs abortions.
> 
> From my link: "Planned Parenthood has two facilities in Louisiana, neither of which performs abortions. The New Orleans and Baton Rouge operations provide well-woman exams, cancer screenings, pregnancy testing and counseling."
> 
> http://theadvocate.com/news/13021867-123/planned-parenthood-responds-to-jindal


The PP fight is about poltics, not babies or even common sense.

Now they can complain about the "Liberals" adding more unplanned children, to the welfare rolls..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Since the bogus videos raised some questions I think the investigations are in order. I also think that since they provided absolutely no evidence to any wrong doing by PP we should wait and see what those investigations reveal, if anything, before cutting any funding.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> That is an insulting post aimed at liberals.


Oh, it's a bit o'er the top, but it certainly reflects how a lot of people think about much of the pro-choice crowd. It seems as if many of those folks view abortion as just another means of birth control and a stack of dead babies as nothing more than fodder for a science project.

I think it would have done the pro-choice movement a world of good if they would have embraced the latest round of PP videos, rather than offering every excuse known to man for such uncivilized and uncaring behavior. I think it would also do their cause a lot of good if they simply acknowledged much of PP's skull-duggery and lying, and demanded a thorough investigation and revamp of the process. 

The Left has been its own worst enemy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Oh, it's a bit o'er the top, but it certainly reflects how a lot of people think about much of the pro-choice crowd. It seems as if many of those folks view abortion as just another means of birth control and a stack of dead babies as nothing more than fodder for a science project.
> 
> I think it would have done the pro-choice movement a world of good if they would have embraced the latest round of PP videos, rather than offering every excuse known to man for such uncivilized and uncaring behavior. I think it would also do their cause a lot of good if they simply acknowledged much of PP's skull-duggery and lying, and demanded a thorough investigation and revamp of the process.
> 
> The Left has been its own worst enemy.


If that is all true then you would think those that agree with you would have proof instead of labels insults.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> Republicans have the majority in Congress and Senate. Maybe they should start taking some responsibility for what is going on too. Or for some reason are they afraid of Obama.


Corruption runs deep in both parties
Obama is just the head of the snake


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Oh, it's a bit o'er the top, but it certainly reflects how a lot of people think about much of the pro-choice crowd. It seems as if many of those folks view abortion as just another means of birth control and a stack of dead babies as nothing more than fodder for a science project.
> 
> I think it would have done the pro-choice movement a world of good if they would have embraced the latest round of PP videos, rather than offering every excuse known to man for such uncivilized and uncaring behavior. I think it would also do their cause a lot of good if they simply acknowledged much of PP's skull-duggery and lying, and demanded a thorough investigation and revamp of the process.
> 
> The Left has been its own worst enemy.


But they have bought and bribed their way into high places too thus making laws only a small % care for.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Another conspiracy theory. Don't you get tired of them?


Obama has been known to use threats against families as well as blackmail


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Oh, it's a bit o'er the top, but it certainly reflects how a lot of people think about much of the pro-choice crowd. It seems as if many of those folks view abortion as just another means of birth control and a stack of dead babies as nothing more than fodder for a science project.
> 
> I think it would have done the pro-choice movement a world of good if they would have embraced the latest round of PP videos, rather than offering every excuse known to man for such uncivilized and uncaring behavior. I think it would also do their cause a lot of good if they simply acknowledged much of PP's skull-duggery and lying, and demanded a thorough investigation and revamp of the process.
> 
> The Left has been its own worst enemy.


Perhaps the pro-choice contingent would have considered the round of heavily edited videos if they weren't complete and total lies. The producers lied to get into these facilities, they lied about who they were, they lied about what they did, and then they edited the findings to make it look like PP was doing something wrong. 

How do you support such a group of liars? Do you really believe the videos? Did you read the full transcripts?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Another conspiracy theory. Don't you get tired of them?


What makes you think it's a conspiracy theory?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps the pro-choice contingent would have considered the round of heavily edited videos if they weren't complete and total lies. The producers lied to get into these facilities, they lied about who they were, they lied about what they did, and then they edited the findings to make it look like PP was doing something wrong.
> 
> How do you support such a group of liars? Do you really believe the videos? Did you read the full transcripts?


How do you support murder?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> Well I remember when Republicans were running is 2010 or 2012 and it was going to be all "jobs, jobs, jobs".
> 
> I think it slipped their mind.


Seems like Obama promised jobs too
Will you ridicule him or will you make excuses?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> How do you support murder?


Murder is a legal term, and the act must be unlawful. Abortion isn't murder. 

I support the right for a woman to have control over her own body. Her body her choice.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> That is an insulting post aimed at liberals.


If the shoe fits


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Murder is a legal term, and the act must be unlawful. Abortion isn't murder.
> 
> I support the right for a woman to have control over her own body. Her body her choice.


Murder is an act
You make all women sound evil


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

If I remember correctly NJ defunded PP too? I think WI also? Seems like a couple of the R candidates mentioned during the debates, that they defunded PP in their state?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Murder is an act
> You make all women sound evil


How so? I don't think women are evil, and I certainly never said anything about women being evil. It must be something that you think.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Murder is not just a legal term. It is the killing of an innocent human being. If Native Americans were killed was it called murder legally?
If slaves were killed was it called murder legally?

Just because at a certain period time an act is not called murder doesn't mean it isn't murder...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> If I remember correctly NJ defunded PP too? I think WI also? Seems like a couple of the R candidates mentioned during the debates, that they defunded PP in their state?


 True and even with a few federal funds that do make it through there is a vote right now directly that monies to OTHER areas that will serve women's health manners better and some PP clicks have already closed in WI a few years ago when the funds were cut. This is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Not At All. Cuts WILL BE made one way or another. You take THAT to the bank.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> How so? I don't think women are evil, and I certainly never said anything about women being evil. It must be something that you think.


I don't think all women are evil either.
The women I know would die for their children, protect them at all costs, not just throw them in a medical waste bucket so the party can continue.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't think all women are evil either.
> The women I know would die for their children, protect them at all costs, not just throw them in a medical waste bucket so the party can continue.


That's where the choice in pro-choice comes in. It's a woman's body so she gets to choose to carry the pregnancy to term or terminate it. I don't imagine the decision to terminate is made lightly for most women.

It's also completely legal, and there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> I don't think all women are evil either.
> The women I know would die for their children, protect them at all costs, not just throw them in a medical waste bucket so the party can continue.


Although I can't speak for others, I know I'd give my life for any one of my kids and I have never thrown any of them in a medical waste bucket but I still don't believe that gives me the right to tell someone else how they should live their life nor does it make me evil or a murderer.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

*except change the laws...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Although I can't speak for others, I know I'd give my life for any one of my kids and I have never thrown any of them in a medical waste bucket but I still don't believe that gives me the right to tell someone else how they should live their life nor does it make me evil or a murderer.


Exactly this.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

light rain said:


> Murder is not just a legal term. It is the killing of an innocent human being. If Native Americans were killed was it called murder legally?
> If slaves were killed was it called murder legally?
> 
> Just because at a certain period time an act is not called murder doesn't mean it isn't murder...


There are many things that shouldn't require a law to tell people what is wright or wrong .Even laws don't say things are wrong ,they just tell you the cost of doing a illegal act :fussin:


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Perhaps the choice could take place before the pregnancy is started. We should check with the government and see if that would work.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> That is an insulting post aimed at liberals.


No, that is an accurate post aimed at Liberals.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Sawmill Jim said:


> There are many things that shouldn't require a law to tell people what is wright or wrong .Even laws don't say things are wrong ,they just tell you the cost of doing a illegal act :fussin:


You don't get to tell other people what is morally right or wrong.

If a woman that you didn't impregnate has an abortion how is it any of your business? Please explain.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wr said:


> Although I can't speak for others, I know I'd give my life for any one of my kids and I have never thrown any of them in a medical waste bucket but I still don't believe that gives me the right to tell someone else how they should live their life nor does it make me evil or a murderer.


If a guy walks into a liquor store and kills the clerk for the $500 in the cash register, is this wrong?

If so, who are you to tell someone else how to live their life?

We, as a society, are constantly making members of the society modify their behavior for the good of all. To do otherwise, is to institute anarchy. And that ain't good.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> If a guy walks into a liquor store and kills the clerk for the $500 in the cash register, is this wrong?
> 
> If so, who are you to tell someone else how to live their life?
> 
> We, as a society, are constantly making members of the society modify their behavior for the good of all. To do otherwise, is to institute anarchy. And that ain't good.


If you don't want anarchy there has to be law, yes? And those laws must be adhered to, yes? According to the law abortion is legal. And legally none of your business. 

Also, how is abortion for the "good of all"? Trying to exert total control over what half of the population can do with their body ain't good either.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> *You don't get to tell other people what is morally right or wrong.
> *
> If a woman that you didn't impregnate has an abortion how is it any of your business? Please explain.


Civilization, and the advancement of thereof, MUST be based on some sort of social and moral foundation. 

So, how far do you think mankind would have progressed if that moral foundation hadn't been established?

What do you think will happen if we do away with a moral foundation?

ETA: Exactly who _does_ get to decide what is morally right or wrong??


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Civilization, and the advancement of thereof, MUST be based on some sort of social and moral foundation.
> 
> So, how far do you think mankind would have progressed if that moral foundation hadn't been established?
> 
> ...


My point exactly - who does get to decide? Morals are subjective, and that is the reason we have law. 

No one can impose their morals on someone else, it simply doesn't work that way. Those without morals, or sufficient morals, are punished within the statute of the law.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> Civilization, and the advancement of thereof, MUST be based on some sort of social and moral foundation.
> 
> So, how far do you think mankind would have progressed if that moral foundation hadn't been established?
> 
> ...


Everyone gets to decide for themselves their own morality. As a society we all have to come to some consensus. It's a consensus that must be consistent a with and comply to our Constitution. It's not something that can be imposed based on any single religous belief or tradition. The same thing that protects us from the sharia law many fear is the very thing that protects us from Catholic canonical law or lets me dance in other religous enclaves.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Ok, 

I have a question..

I thought Corporate welfare was wrong?

So why is it that some here want to fund a private company/ corporation?

I guess I'm to assume that those that complain about Corporate Welfare only want it to stop to companies they don't like...

Well imagine that! 

Hypocrisy is prevalent


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

beowoulf90 said:


> Ok,
> 
> I have a question..
> 
> ...


What corporation are you talking about? Planned Parenthood? It's a nonprofit.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

beowoulf90 said:


> Ok,
> 
> I have a question..
> 
> ...


And many here say the government is incapable of doing anything with any efficiency or competency. Yet they point to other government programs that will pick up the slack caused by defunding the health services planned parenthood provides. You're, right. Hypocracy is prevalent. It's usually most prevalent in those who only see in black and white, not the many subtle tones that actually exist in life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> True and even with a few federal funds that do make it through there is a vote right now directly that monies to OTHER areas that will serve women's health manners better and *some PP clicks have already closed in WI a few years ago when the funds were cut.* This is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Not At All. Cuts WILL BE made one way or another. You take THAT to the bank.


You've mentioned that before and it was pointed out the number of abortions simply rose in neighboring states, so it really didn't change much other than cost some people in your state some money, since I'm sure they haven't reduced your taxes.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Actually our property taxes in WI have been reduced in the last few years...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

light rain said:


> Actually our property taxes in WI have been reduced in the last few years...


Along with the quality of our roads and schools and the safety of our prison guards.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> Although I can't speak for others, I know I'd give my life for any one of my kids and I have never thrown any of them in a medical waste bucket but I still don't believe that gives me the right to tell someone else how they should live their life nor does it make me evil or a murderer.


Bring a moderator, it seems odd that you would publize your positions in such a way that would call into question actions you take as a moderator.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Bring a moderator, it seems odd that you would publize your positions in such a way that would call into question actions you take as a moderator.


Funny, I've never seen you call out Shrek when he posts his political opinion... Why is that? Wouldn't that call into question actions that he takes as a moderator?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

It's the law is such a stupid argument, not long ago women couldn't vote and blacks couldn't marry whites. Plus it makes you sound so arrogant.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

oneraddad said:


> It's the law is such a stupid argument, not long ago women couldn't vote and blacks couldn't marry whites. Plus it makes you sound so arrogant.


And not all that long ago abortion was illegal. 

Isn't it great we can all have an opinion?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's where the choice in pro-choice comes in. It's a woman's body so she gets to choose to carry the pregnancy to term or terminate it. I don't imagine the decision to terminate is made lightly for most women.
> 
> It's also completely legal, and there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.


There's not much I can do to stop the butchering of innocents, that's true.
I don't have to like it though do I?
I'm not one to turn toes up every time some corrupt politician makes a law legalizing something horrible.
Have a nice ride on that bandwagon


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Funny, I've never seen you call out Shrek when he posts his political opinion... Why is that? Wouldn't that call into question actions that he takes as a moderator?


Never noticed a Shrek.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> Although I can't speak for others, I know I'd give my life for any one of my kids and I have never thrown any of them in a medical waste bucket but I still don't believe that gives me the right to tell someone else how they should live their life nor does it make me evil or a murderer.


I'm happy you stand by your children
A woman can do what she wants with her body, but hers is not the only body involved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

oneraddad said:


> It's the law is such a stupid argument, not long ago women couldn't vote and blacks couldn't marry whites. Plus it makes you sound so arrogant.


And women weren't allowed to have abortions... Little at a time people are gaining their basic rights.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> No, that is an accurate post aimed at Liberals.


Some people like to step in front of the bullet so they can complain about being shot.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> *You don't get to tell other people what is morally right or wrong.*
> 
> If a woman that you didn't impregnate has an abortion how is it any of your business? Please explain.


I guess you do get to tell people what is morally right or wrong?
How is it any of your business?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> My point exactly - who does get to decide? Morals are subjective, and that is the reason we have law.
> 
> No one can impose their morals on someone else, it simply doesn't work that way. Those without morals, or sufficient morals, are punished within the statute of the law.


Yet the left insists on imposing their lack of morals on everyone else


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I guess you do get to tell people what is morally right or wrong?
> How is it any of your business?


Where have I done that? Am I telling a woman what they can do with her body? Nope, cuz it's her choice.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Some people like to step in front of the bullet so they can complain about being shot.


And some people like to fire bullets in the air claiming they're not shooting at anything while conveniently forgetting those projectiles must come to rest somewhere.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet the left insists on imposing their lack of morals on everyone else


Now you're just being insulting. The generalization that anyone left of center has no morals is disgusting and wrong. Poor form.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where have I done that? Am I telling a woman what they can do with her body? Nope, cuz it's her choice.


I'm not telling them what they can or can't do with their body.
It's the innocent little body they kill, cut into pieces and sell off the parts
I don't know how you don't find that horrifying


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Now you're just being insulting. The generalization that anyone left of center has no morals is disgusting and wrong. Poor form.


What were you doing?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's where the choice in pro-choice comes in. It's a woman's body so she gets to choose to carry the pregnancy to term or terminate it. *I don't imagine the decision to terminate is made lightly for most women.*
> 
> It's also completely legal, and there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.


Oh I wouldn't say that.... In another thread several seem to take the disposal of a human life very lightly if it's done their way. They have no issue with doing that very thing once a month.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Some on here hold that an action is neither moral or immoral, it is simply legal or illegal. I understand that position. That does lend more authority to man than I'm willing to delegate regarding my personal governance. 

That aside, why would I not have the right to say how my money is spent on an act I find so fundamentally reprehensible and morally corrupt? Am I prevented my moral judgment simply because the act is legal?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm not telling them what they can or can't do with their body.
> It's the innocent little body they kill, cut into pieces and sell off the parts
> I don't know how you don't find that horrifying


I'm not riding the merry go round today. There is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. It's her right to do so.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Some on here hold that an action is neither moral or immoral, it is simply legal or illegal. I understand that position. That does lend more authority to man than I'm willing to delegate regarding my personal governance.
> 
> That aside, why would I not have the right to say how my money is spent on an act I find so fundamentally reprehensible and morally corrupt? Am I prevented my moral judgment simply because the act is legal?


Judge away, no one can stop you. Just as no one can stop a woman from having an abortion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not riding the merry go round today. There is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. It's her right to do so.


There's also nothing you can do to make me think recreational abortion is sane
It's the law, it doesn't make it right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Some on here hold that an action is neither moral or immoral, it is simply legal or illegal. I understand that position. That does lend more authority to man than I'm willing to delegate regarding my personal governance.
> 
> That aside, why would I not have the right to say how my money is spent on an act I find so fundamentally reprehensible and morally corrupt? Am I prevented my moral judgment simply because the act is legal?


When your money starts paying for these acts... Then you will have a legitimate beef, until that time maybe you should tone it down a tad.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well a good step in getting this abortion off the table is some states now are STOPPING abortions over 20 weeks so you CAN Stop women from killing a young body after that time. And that is ONLY the start of stopping this madness of killing~!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Some on here hold that an action is neither moral or immoral, it is simply legal or illegal. I understand that position. That does lend more authority to man than I'm willing to delegate regarding my personal governance.
> 
> That aside, why would I not have the right to say how my money is spent on an act I find so fundamentally reprehensible and morally corrupt? Am I prevented my moral judgment simply because the act is legal?


You have that right. So do others. It's one of the reasons we have elections and options to adjust our constitution. If you find things morally reprehensible don't directly participate in them and speak and work as loud and hard against them as you wish. I'll respect you for it. Just respect others rights to think and act differently.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Judge away, no one is can stop you. Just as no one can stop a woman from having an abortion.


So as an excersise of that judgment I will lend my support to those that want to remove tax funding from killing the unborn.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm not telling them what they can or can't do with their body.
> It's the innocent little body they kill, cut into pieces and sell off the parts
> I don't know how you don't find that horrifying


Any evidence you have that parts are being sold might help your argument. Accusations are not evidence.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Any evidence you have that parts are being sold might help your argument. Accusations are not evidence.


That's the only part you find horrifying?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> So as an excersise of that judgment I will lend my support to those that want to remove tax funding from killing the unborn.


Go ahead and remove the tax funding from abortions, since that amounts to zero. Could we go ahead and fund all of the health services provided to these low income women?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> So as an excersise of that judgment I will lend my support to those that want to remove tax funding from killing the unborn.


That's your right. Good luck, and may the Force be with you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> That's the only part you find horrifying?


Nope. It's the part I find false and misleading.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And look what just happened~!!! Get this dude OUT now, and things may just go bye bye for PP funding. YEAH.
WASHINGTON &#8212; Speaker John A. Boehner will resign from Congress and give up his House seat at the end of October, according to aides in his office.
Speaker John A. Boehner in Washington on Thursday. He is under pressure to stand up to the president on Planned Parenthood.
Mr. Boehner was under extreme pressure from the right wing of his conference over whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood in a bill to keep the government open.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/boehner-will-resign-from-congress.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Go ahead and remove the tax funding from abortions, since that amounts to zero. Could we go ahead and fund all of the health services provided to these low income women?


Untrue. 

According to the ACLU website 17 states use tax money for abortion as well as Fedral funding in some cases.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> And look what just happened~!!! Get this dude OUT now, and things may just go bye bye for PP funding. YEAH.
> WASHINGTON â Speaker John A. Boehner will resign from Congress and give up his House seat at the end of October, according to aides in his office.
> Speaker John A. Boehner in Washington on Thursday. He is under pressure to stand up to the president on Planned Parenthood.
> Mr. Boehner was under extreme pressure from the right wing of his conference over whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood in a bill to keep the government open.
> ...


Boehner will pass a CR with funding for PP on the way out, with Dem support. While he's been a horrible speaker, he knows shutting down the govt again would be terrible for the party. Now he avoids that happening, and he doesn't get fired as speaker, which would damage his worth as a lobbyist. Win/win.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Untrue.
> 
> According to the ACLU website 17 states use tax money for abortion as well as Fedral funding in some cases.


I would question the federal funding of abortions...as that would be a violation of federal law. What your state does is between you and your state.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And women weren't allowed to have abortions... Little at a time people are gaining their basic rights.



What about the rights of the unborn babies ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would question the federal funding of abortions...as that would be a violation of federal law. What your state does is between you and your state.


Question away then go to the ACLU page. I can only repeat what I see there.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

oneraddad said:


> What about the rights of the unborn babies ?


As I understand it rights don't kick in until a child is born.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Question away then go to the ACLU page. I can only repeat what I see there.


Gotta link? This pad I am working with has lousy search functions.... Or I have yet to figure out how use it properly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Gotta link? This pad I am working with has lousy search functions.... Or I have yet to figure out how use it properly.


I'm with ya. If I search ACLU.org for Federal abortion funding I get links to a lot of things calling for action against pending legislation but nothing about how the Feds fund abortions. The same for a state search. A little help, please.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

https://www.aclu.org/public-funding-abortion


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As I understand it rights don't kick in until a child is born.



Then how do you explain 2 murder charges when pregnant woman is killed?

If the unborn child has no Rights, that means the murderer can't be charged with that crime..

So either the unborn child has Rights or the unborn child doesn't...

But it can't be both ways.

So that means one of the laws is wrong and needs to be changed...

Guess which one I would like to change.... 

Imagine that!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> https://www.aclu.org/public-funding-abortion


Thanks, I had not been aware that federal funds could be used for cases involving rape, incest, or a threat to the mothers lives.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

HDRider said:


> https://www.aclu.org/public-funding-abortion


So, that link basically states that the Feds don't provide abortion funding. What's the issue?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Deacon Mike said:


> So, that link basically states that the Feds don't provide abortion funding. What's the issue?


It does not.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've mentioned that before and it was pointed out the number of abortions simply rose in neighboring states, so it really didn't change much other than cost some people in your state some money, since I'm sure they haven't reduced your taxes.


ANd now this is happening. Or about to happen. LOL
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin would no longer be eligible for about $3.5 million a year in federal funding under a bill before the state Assembly.

The measure up for a vote Thursday seeks to have the state take control of the federal Title X money that currently all goes to Planned Parenthood.

Republican backers say the money should not go to the abortion provider, even though none of the money is allowed to be spent on abortions. Federal law requires it go for family planning and contraceptives and screening for breast and cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

The bill requires the federal money go first to the state's Well-Woman Program which provides breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings for women between the ages of 45 and 64.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Go ahead and remove the tax funding from abortions, since that amounts to zero. Could we go ahead and fund all of the health services provided to these low income women?


Yes, as the funding would simply to to the other health services... like the one pp do referrals to now for health care needs that even with the funding from government...aka taxpayers they (pp).. in all these years have not found the rational to invest in.


Republicans Will Protect Womenâs Health Funding

According to a March 20, 2015, Government Accountability Office report, Planned Parenthood received $344.5 million from federal agencies and nearly $1.2 billion in Medicaid funding from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012. Senator Ernst â along with 44 co-sponsors â has introduced legislation that protects federal funding for womenâs health while addressing the serious problems at Planned Parenthood

PP funding
The bill would keep the existing level of funding for womenâs health. It would distribute the funds to other eligible organizations â including community health centers â that provide womenâs health services. Since there are more than 13 federally qualified health centers for each Planned Parenthood clinic, women will have many options to receive these important services. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, federally qualified health centers operate âservice sites in both rural and urban locations, offer low-income populations health services similar to those provided by Planned Parenthood, but do not perform abortions.â

http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/protect-womens-health-not-planned-parenthood


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet the left insists on imposing their lack of morals on everyone else



Although I'm not 'the left' I would disagree. Just because the option to have an abortion is available doesn't mean anyone is imposed on another. 

It seems to me if we all had the same values, those clinics would be out of business.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> You have that right. So do others. It's one of the reasons we have elections and options to adjust our constitution. If you find things morally reprehensible don't directly participate in them and speak and work as loud and hard against them as you wish. I'll respect you for it. Just respect others rights to think and act differently.


In terms of PP, we've not adjusted the Constitution. What has taken place is called 'legislating from the bench', where laws are made according to the _opinions_ of Supreme Court justices. They are the ones who mandated the moment of viability, which has also been disputed and changed. ETA: The laws have disputed & changed re: when abortions were allowed, formerly being prior to the point of 'quickening'. That, too, has changed.

Aren't those justices making moral decisions re: the point when life begins? 

How is that not legislating morality.....the question of when it's OK to kill a human life?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> By Abigail Wilkinson | August 7, 2015 | 5:00 PM EDT
> 
> (CNSNews.com) -- Three more states - Alabama, Louisiana, and New Hampshire - have cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood (PP) in the wake of recent videos released by the Center for Medical Progress that appear to show PP officials negotiating over the sale of aborted baby organs and tissue.
> 
> According to LifeSiteNews, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas also prohibit state funds from going to any facility that performs abortions.


Planned Parenthood in Arkansas doesn't actually perform abortions, they only hand out the pharmaceuticals for the very early ones. So once again Asa looks like an idiot. He's been on a roll lately. Thankfully the courts handed him his posterior. I do love how our handy dandy save money Republicans keep throwing it down the hole by passing laws and doing stuff that isn't constitutional and we the tax payers have to cover the costs of the legal wrangles.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I do love how our handy dandy save money Republicans keep throwing it down the hole by passing laws and doing stuff that isn't constitutional and we the tax payers have to cover the costs of the legal wrangles.


Ah like the PAYING for the killing of babies?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Well a good step in getting this abortion off the table is some states now are STOPPING abortions over 20 weeks so you CAN Stop women from killing a young body after that time. And that is ONLY the start of stopping this madness of killing~!


Once again you ignore the fact that the vast majority of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. 

These political gestures are largely meaningless, and are done to placate the gullible


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> ANd now this is happening. Or about to happen. LOL
> MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin would no longer be eligible for about $3.5 million a year in federal funding under a bill before the state Assembly.
> 
> The measure up for a vote Thursday seeks to have the state take control of the federal Title X money that currently all goes to Planned Parenthood.
> ...


That only confirms what I said about it costing your state money, while doing nothing at all to reduce the number of abortions, and making it harder for women to get services they need.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ah like the PAYING for the killing of babies?


Federal funds don't pay for abortions


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> Ah like the PAYING for the killing of babies?


I thought it ok to abort babies the are the result of rape/incest or threaten the life of the mother..... Do wish someone would make up their mind.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Federal funds don't pay for abortions


I thought that too, until this morning. Seems there are exceptions made for rape/incest or risk to mothers life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> In terms of PP, we've not adjusted the Constitution. What has taken place is called 'legislating from the bench', where laws are made according to the _opinions_ of Supreme Court justices. They are the ones who mandated the moment of viability, which has also been disputed and changed. ETA: The laws have disputed & changed re: when abortions were allowed, formerly being prior to the point of 'quickening'. That, too, has changed.
> 
> Aren't those justices making moral decisions re: *the point when life begins? *
> 
> How is that not legislating morality.....the question of when it's OK to kill a human life?


I don't think we will never know exactly when life began but it was thousands of years ago and it's still being handed down one generation at a time. There is no new beginning of life to quibble over.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beowoulf90 said:


> Then how do you explain 2 murder charges when pregnant woman is killed?
> 
> If the unborn child has no Rights, that means the murderer can't be charged with that crime..
> 
> ...


im not sure how that works, probably need to check with a lawyer.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't think we will never know exactly when life began but it was thousands of years ago and it's still being handed down one generation at a time. There is no new beginning of life to quibble over.


You're being obtuse. Must we now write 'an individual life' when referring to the creation of a human being? :indif:

Maybe you've been around for thousands of years but I've only been around for 64 years, from the point of MY conception.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> You're being obtuse. Must we now write 'an individual life' when referring to the creation of a human being? :indif:
> 
> Maybe you've been around for thousands of years but I've only been around for 64 years, from the point of MY conception.


You have to think in the metaphysical nonsensical.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet the left insists on imposing their lack of morals on everyone else


 The only why that statement would be true is if abortion was made mandatory not just an option. Same with same sex marriage and any number of other things many on the right are so morally opposed to. 

Jim


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> You're being obtuse. Must we now write 'an individual life' when referring to the creation of a human being? :indif:
> 
> Maybe you've been around for thousands of years but I've only been around for 64 years, from the point of MY conception.


Not being obtuse.... Just honest.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> You have to think in the metaphysical nonsensical.


Or simply be realistic... If you know of any "new" life, as in one that didn't come directly from already existing life...... I'm all ears.

All of the life I have ever seen is a continuing cycle passed on from one generation to the next.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or simply be realistic... If you know of any "new" life, as in one that didn't come directly from already existing life...... I'm all ears.
> 
> All of the life I have ever seen is a continuing cycle passed on from one generation to the next.


Again, don't know about you but I am a _unique_ individual, with _unique_ DNA, known by my heavenly Father while I was still in my mother's womb.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Tx...online human reproduction class hassle been offered. It's down to
DTTB. unless you like bunny trails.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Lets get back to basics.

Killing babies is bad.

It doesn't matter if their Mommy's want them dead.

It is bad.

Anyone who says otherwise is a morally bankrupt person. 

Is that simple enough?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Lets get back to basics.
> 
> Killing babies is bad.
> 
> ...


Why do you have to be so insulting? 

You'll never be pregnant and you'll never have to make what must be the most difficult decision a woman has to make.

The "basics" is a merry go round that never ends. You will _never_ make me believe that a woman doesn't have the right to her own body.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> Lets get back to basics.
> 
> Killing babies is bad.
> 
> ...


I agree...straight shooting no, sweet talking. Just boom..
Now, holding that realistic logic is going to offend folks..the thing is it's a ok to murder an unborn child ...but to hold the moral position that killing the unborn is wrong to them is evil and hateful and demeaning...and you sir should be barred from hold and stating that opinion.

Remember it only the sensitive,compassionate, guns kill, or seekers of social justice crowd so empowered at this time who wish to quell your voice.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Lets get back to basics.
> 
> Killing babies is bad.
> 
> ...


I'll agree -killing babies is bad. Not allowing a fertilized egg to implant so that it doesn't become a baby. Prudent. Somewhere in between those two is a personal decision you'll never have to make. Nor should you make it for others.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why do you have to be so insulting?
> 
> You'll never be pregnant and you'll never have to make what must be the most difficult decision a woman has to make.
> 
> The "basics" is a merry go round that never ends. You will _never_ make me believe that a woman doesn't have the right to her own body.


Please don't give me that worn out line of crap.

If you can justify the killing of an innocent life as a matter of choice then the killing of anyone is a matter of choice.

Should a Father be able to kill his child because he is tired of working hard to support it? It's his body doing the work. Isn't that his "Choice"?
Genetically the child is as much his as it is it's Mother. Doesn't he have the choice of what to do with his genetic material?

If someone has elderly parents who require constant care and they can not afford to provide it for them shouldn't they be able to end their lives. It is their choice.

If a government has citizens that do not support the governments programs and cause disention shouldn't the government be able to kill them for the sake of a more stable society. Is that the governments choice?

The most difficult decision a woman has to make?
Right.
They sure seem to make it all the time.

I know one woman who made that horrible decision because they finally rented the Jersey beach house and she did not want to spend the summer pregnant in a swimsuit.
Bet she tore her soul out over that one.

Nothing justifies killing a Baby.

The key word is NOTHING!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> Lets get back to basics.
> 
> Killing babies is bad.
> 
> ...


I hate abortion. I am 100% pro life.
But I am also, 100% pro human.....including the woman who chose abortion.
The Great Lie is that 'this is a choice, and it's legal and it's ok'......but they don't tell you that the emotional and mental repercussions of abortion can stick with you for the rest of your life.

Women who abort 1 time or multiple times find themselves unable to conceive, live w/ that guilt.

Women who abort 1 time or multiple times, remember the day they found out, the day the baby was due, and the day they chose to end that life. Anniversaries are VERY hard on people; especially if they have PTSD.

Women who abort because they are young, and it's inconveinent to be pregnant; and their bf/husband is killed, and the chance to carry on his name is gone......forever; and it didn't need to be.

Women who have had 1 or more abortions, who later have kids, and have all boys or all girls, will go back in their minds and wonder---be haunted by the abortion wondering "was that the girl / boy I do not have"?

A woman, who is pro life, but is raped while she is passed out, and does not realize she has been raped until she finds out she is pregnant......and if that trauma and humiliation isn't enough, she chooses to abort; something totally against her beliefs, because she is scared, traumatized, etc.

A woman who is pro choice, but would not have an abortion herself finds she is in the same situation as the woman above.......
Although this woman believes in the right to choose......and it is something she would not choose, is now on the table.

Having an abortion is not just a procedure.
That woman on the table, is a human being. 
Whatever her reason for being there; she will still be a human 10 years after the abortion.
Her mind, her heart, and sometimes her body will forever be changed after the abortion......and not for the better.

It is easy to point a finger in her face and call her a murderer......
But look past the moment of abortion......
That woman's life will forever be altered, and not in a good way.

I do not think women are given the full story before they abort.
I do not think women fully understand the emotional and mental (and spiritual) impact abortion has on the woman, LONG after the procedure is over.
I do not think women realize what this does to their hearts, and minds.
There are 2 victims in an abortion. The baby, and the mom.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

True, but the babies dead. Those who justify the death of a baby are, as I said before, morally bankrupt.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> True, but the babies dead. Those who justify the death of a baby are, as I said before, morally bankrupt.


Ok, to 'justify' killing is bad.

I just wanted to point out the woman on the table is a human too, and I really do not believe she is fully informed about what she is about to do......
And I find that heartbreaking.
Yes, the baby is dead..........but this woman has to live with this choice, mourn this choice, regret this choice, be haunted by this choice for the rest of her life........40-50-60-70 years. Every single day.........


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Ok, to 'justify' killing is bad.
> 
> I just wanted to point out the woman on the table is a human too, and I really do not believe she is fully informed about what she is about to do......
> And I find that heartbreaking.
> Yes, the baby is dead..........but this woman has to live with this choice, mourn this choice, regret this choice, be haunted by this choice for the rest of her life........40-50-60-70 years. Every single day.........


So spare them that regret.

Stop the killing.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

and rational posts like

I hate abortion. I am 100% pro life.
But I am also, 100% pro human.....including the woman who chose abortion.
The Great Lie is that 'this is a choice, and it's legal and it's ok'......but they don't tell you that the emotional and mental repercussions of abortion can stick with you for the rest of your life.

Women who abort 1 time or multiple times find themselves unable to conceive, live w/ that guilt.

Women who abort 1 time or multiple times, remember the day they found out, the day the baby was due, and the day they chose to end that life. Anniversaries are VERY hard on people; especially if they have PTSD.

Women who abort because they are young, and it's inconveinent to be pregnant; and their bf/husband is killed, and the chance to carry on his name is gone......forever; and it didn't need to be.

Women who have had 1 or more abortions, who later have kids, and have all boys or all girls, will go back in their minds and wonder---be haunted by the abortion wondering "was that the girl / boy I do not have"?

A woman, who is pro life, but is raped while she is passed out, and does not realize she has been raped until she finds out she is pregnant......and if that trauma and humiliation isn't enough, she chooses to abort; something totally against her beliefs, because she is scared, traumatized, etc.

A woman who is pro choice, but would not have an abortion herself finds she is in the same situation as the woman above.......
Although this woman believes in the right to choose......and it is something she would not choose, is now on the table.

Having an abortion is not just a procedure.
That woman on the table, is a human being. 
Whatever her reason for being there; she will still be a human 10 years after the abortion.
Her mind, her heart, and sometimes her body will forever be changed after the abortion......and not for the better.

It is easy to point a finger in her face and call her a murderer......
But look past the moment of abortion......
That woman's life will forever be altered, and not in a good way.

I do not think women are given the full story before they abort.
I do not think women fully understand the emotional and mental (and spiritual) impact abortion has on the woman, LONG after the procedure is over.
I do not think women realize what this does to their hearts, and minds.
There are 2 victims in an abortion. 



Need to be shared when discussing sexuality education.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I wish I lived in such a simplistic, black and white world. But, alas, I live in the real one.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> So spare them that regret.
> 
> Stop the killing.


Right......so who will rise up, and teach, educate these women who are facing a pregnancy that are not ready for, didn't plan on, etc AND ARE BOMBARDED by those who say "ehhh just abort and get on w/ your life".........who will take these women by the hand and explain to them how this will mess with their minds and hearts (maybe even their bodies) for the rest of their lives?

Who is going to do this?

How can we get women to listen? Not by calling them baby killers......Not by standing outside the clinic with a sign of an aborted baby.......

So who will publish the study showing the emotional trauma?
Who will show the stats of women who have emotional and mental disruptions in life, long after the abortion?
NOT some preacher and his opinion...........I am talking hard core facts that SHOW the trauma caused by abortion.

You cannot stand and scream "baby killer" in someones face and expect to guilt them into 'doing the right thing'........not when there is a "quiet, compassionate group, who care about you bla bla bla bla" is filling their heads with lies lies lies and what they want to hear.......

People who want to change the mind of women about abortion better bring some hard core facts that it DOES impact them for the rest of their life (emotionally, mentally, physically) AND not only options, but resources.

Honey, not vinegar.
Truth, not lies.
Compassion, not condemnation.
Love, not hate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> True, but the babies dead. Those who justify the death of a baby are, as I said before, morally bankrupt.


You're entitled to your opinion.
You just don't get to make choices for anyone other than yourself


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.
> You just don't get to make choices for anyone other than yourself


Not even your unborn child.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Not even your unborn child.


An unborn child is not a someone for a significant portion on gestation. And yes a women does get to decide.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thus I am fully correct and validated by your post that a male has not say.
Or choice as it stands today on the life of his unborn child.

If a society can force a baker to make a cake will we sometime see when a man can require the bun stays in the oven till it's done. Perhaps it is discrimination against the man's sperm that causes a woman to reject the sperms's success in swimming..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Not even your unborn child.


Yes, mothers get to make that choice.
No one else does

straight shooting no, sweet talking. Just boom.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, mothers get to make that choice.
> No one else does
> 
> straight shooting no, sweet talking. Just boom.




That is as it is today tommrow and the future?
Oh .. why call them mothers... mothers have children


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> That is as it is today tommrow and the future?
> Oh .. *why call them mothers.*.. mothers have children


You're correct, they shouldn't be called mothers, because they *don't* have "children"

They are women, free to make their own decisions without others butting in.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Just thought that mother's day would be hard to celebrate.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

It seems to me that, because the abortion issue is so contentious, the simple solution is for abortion clinics to be strictly privately funded.........no state or federal funding whatsoever.

If PP wants to continue to receive federal funding, they shut down that portion of the business, since it is allegedly such a small portion of their work. 

Problem solved.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> It seems to me that, because the abortion issue is so contentious, the simple solution is for abortion clinics to be strictly privately funded.........no state or federal funding whatsoever.
> 
> If PP wants to continue to receive federal funding, they shut down that portion of the business, since it is allegedly such a small portion of their work.
> 
> Problem solved.


No money from the federal government has been used for abortion since the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Not all states fund Planned Parenthood, and if your state is one that does by all means advocate for it's removal. What other states do is not your concern.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

no mammogram have been done by plan parenthood since the beginning.
No cervical cancer care has been done it is outsourced..
So it's pap smears, std , birth control, etc... all of which are done along with the stuff pp does outsource to health clinics.

But for abortions. Pp is just redundancy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> no mammogram have been done by plan parenthood since the beginning.
> No cervical cancer care has been done it is outsourced..
> *So it's pap smears, std , birth control, etc..*. all of which are done along with the stuff pp does outsource to health clinics.
> 
> But for abortions. Pp is just redundancy.


Same things done in the clinic I go to that is not Planned parenthood. No mammograms , no cervical cancer care. I don't find it redundant. It is great that I can get those things done at my local clinic because travelling 3 miles is way better that travelling 45 miles for every little appointment.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Same things done in the clinic I go to that is not Planned parenthood. No mammograms , no cervical cancer care. I don't find it redundant. It is great that I can get those things done at my local clinic because travelling 3 miles is way better that travelling 45 miles for every little appointment.


I don't understand the concept that if everything isn't done at one place it's redundant. My doctor's office does nothing except exams and blood work, I have to go somewhere else for xrays, mammography, cat scans, surgery, etc... 

It's just odd to think that all medical centers have everything that could possibly be needed like some sort of convenience store. Most (all?) medical facilities outsource, even hospitals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand the concept that if everything isn't done at one place it's redundant. My doctor's office does nothing except exams and blood work, I have to go somewhere else for xrays, mammography, cat scans, surgery, etc...
> 
> It's just odd to think that all medical centers have everything that could possibly be needed like some sort of convenience store. Most (all?) medical facilities outsource, even hospitals.


It is the talking point heard on Conservative radio shows. I heard it yesterday on the way home and knew it would be posted again within the next couple of days.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Same things done in the clinic I go to that is not Planned parenthood. No mammograms , no cervical cancer care. I don't find it redundant. It is great that I can get those things done at my local clinic because travelling 3 miles is way better that travelling 45 miles for every little appointment.


I would imagine that it's much handier for women to visit the clinics nearest them even if that clinic happens to be PP too. For thousands if not millions of women PP is their local clinic. Yet some here would love to see them closed down.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Same things done in the clinic I go to that is not Planned parenthood. No mammograms , no cervical cancer care. I don't find it redundant. It is great that I can get those things done at my local clinic because travelling 3 miles is way better that travelling 45 miles for every little appointment.


So you would be willing to shut down the Federal Govt for your convenience of easy access when the bill that was killed provided more money for women's health although it was to other organizations that did not provide abortions? I thought the real issue was providing more healthcare access for poor women. More money would mean more care provided.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If you need a mammogram....it can't be done at any pp....
If you don't need one... places that have them don't force you to have one.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> So you would be willing to shut down the Federal Govt for your convenience of easy access when the bill that was killed provided more money for women's health although it was to other organizations that did not provide abortions? I thought the real issue was providing more healthcare access for poor women. More money would mean more care provided.


If you can't get to the care then it is of no good. Are you willing to shut down the government just because you don't like the other services provided in the same building?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> If you need a mammogram....it can't be done at any pp....
> If you don't need one... places that have them don't force you to have one.


What difference does that make? Not every doctor or clinic provides every available test and procedure. You shutting them all down or is this just an stupid excuse to make an end run on clinics that provide services you don't like?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

There are far more clinic that are non ppl than are.

Sorta like there are more subways shops than blimipies shops.
Yet funding to ppl is the bulk and they provide so few services for health care in which they farm out to the other clinics after getting a cut of funding for farming the needs to the clinic that can and do the care...that is the reality of redundancy...and bloats cost.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> There are far more clinic that are non ppl than are.
> 
> Sorta like there are more subways shops than blimipies shops.
> Yet funding to ppl is the bulk and they provide so few services for health care in which they farm out to the other clinics after getting a cut of funding for farming the needs to the clinic that can and do the care...that is the reality of redundancy...and bloats cost.


So you want to decide for others where they can go for their services because you don't like the list of services they provide or don't provide?

If it works for them why do you get a say? Will you be fighting for my local clinic to be shut down because it does not fit your agenda?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

45 minutes ride is the result of your choice of where you live...cry me a river my son is flying to his eye doctor..as it is 275one way..
But....I chose to live here.

I take responsibility for where I live...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> So you want to decide for others where they can go for their services because you don't like the list of services they provide or don't provide?
> 
> If it works for them why do you get a say? Will you be fighting for my local clinic to be shut down because it does not fit your agenda?



You read more into to what I posted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> 45 minutes ride is the result of your choice of where you live...cry me a river my son is flying to his eye doctor..as it is 275one way..
> But....I chose to live here.
> 
> I take responsibility for where I live...


So you would deny me my 3 mile drive so that the clinic would me your standards?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Planned parenthood is so out numbered in the field of health care clinics they are just good at advertising, and donate to.Many campaigns....


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No money from the federal government has been used for abortion since the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Not all states fund Planned Parenthood, and if your state is one that does by all means advocate for it's removal. What other states do is not your concern.


Maybe technically, but any money received from the feds, frees up more money from other sources for other things, including abortions. You cannot argue that. 

I am not arguing for or against, it's just a simple fact, as it is in every business. Mom and pops, and big businesses work the same way ion that regard. Money in one area frees it up for another. 

You all know why Planned Parenthood was started, right?

Arkansas did defund it...and the Feds overturned it and ordered the payments to resume. So it needs to be done at the federal level, if it is going to be done. What other states do, in any area, should be a concern for everyone, because it sets precedents. Some good, some bad.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> If you can't get to the care then it is of no good. Are you willing to shut down the government just because you don't like the other services provided in the same building?


With more money, the other organizations can open more offices. Or Planned Parenthood can spin off the abortion services to a separate entity and seek private or donated funding. 

It was the lefts talking point a while back that the right should learn to compromise. Seems like these are both ways to compromise and get more funds for women's healthcare. It should be a win-win.

And no, It is the Dems shutting down the govt with their filibuster. The House did its job. Now the Senate Dems and President have to do theirs or it is their shutdown.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Planned parenthood is so out numbered in the field of health care clinics they are just good at advertising, and donate to.Many campaigns....


Yet they provide a needed service or they would not be in existence. Why not stop with the other stupid excuses and admit the only good reason you want them unfunded is because they provide abortions.

I can at least respect that approach but this back door way of going at it by attacking their other services is ridiculous.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Planned parenthood is not a branch of the government.
It is a non profit..

If it shuts down donation by those who support it will be on the backs of those people ....as any non profit volunteer place should operate.

Nothing special.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> *With more money, the other organizations can open more offices. Or Planned Parenthood can spin off the abortion services to a separate entity and seek private or donated funding.
> *
> It was the lefts talking point a while back that the right should learn to compromise. Seems like these are both ways to compromise and get more funds for women's healthcare. It should be a win-win.
> 
> And no, It is the Dems shutting down the govt with their filibuster. The House did its job. Now the Senate Dems and President have to do theirs or it is their shutdown.


That will not solve your problem. There will still be the same amount of abortions, paid for in the same way. Therefore it is a solution without a purpose. Denying people services they need right now.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TraderBob said:


> Maybe technically, but any money received from the feds, frees up more money from other sources for other things, including abortions. You cannot argue that.
> 
> I am not arguing for or against, it's just a simple fact, as it is in every business. Mom and pops, and big businesses work the same way ion that regard. Money in one area frees it up for another.
> 
> You all know why Planned Parenthood was started, right?


The post was edited and included this: 


TraderBob said:


> Arkansas did defund it...and the Feds overturned it and ordered the payments to resume. So it needs to be done at the federal level, if it is going to be done. What other states do, in any area, should be a concern for everyone, because it sets precedents. Some good, some bad.


The original name of Planned Parenthood, as started by Margaret Sanger, was the American Birth Control League. This has been discussed many times.

It's definitely the right wing talking point in support of defunding Planned Parenthood. I won't argue that.

This post was done to announce that the bill to block federal funding to PP was blocked. There will continue to be federal funding to PP. 

Protest what ever funding you'd like- it's your right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Okay say PP spins off the abortion part of the services.

Then they rent space to that abortions services entity in their business. They just did exactly what you wanted to but the abortion services still got offered.

Do you still have a problem?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yep, I am still against non profits getting tax money.
Volunteer groups of charity should be funded solely by supporters and never propped up by the government.

Government should could only fund the required constitutional items period..

No funding Catholic charities, tattoo removing, etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Well, why didn't you say that instead of using the excuse that they don't provide all the services?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That will not solve your problem. There will still be the same amount of abortions, paid for in the same way. Therefore it is a solution without a purpose. Denying people services they need right now.


While the actual procedure may not be paid for with Federal Funds, the rent, utilities, furnishings, computers, office personnel, and a long list of other things are in fact used for all services including abortions which means the funds are directly used to provide the abortion services. To argue otherwise isn't being intellectually honest. My compromise would provide more funds for women's healthcare and truly remove all Federal funds from the abortion services. Which should give both sides a win and still allow the right to choose for women but guarantee tax dollars are not used. I am sure there are many organizations that would raise the money necessary to the abortion services. 

I actually think this is a workable compromise.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> While the actual procedure may not be paid for with Federal Funds, the rent, utilities, furnishings, computers, office personnel, and a long list of other things are in fact used for all services including abortions which means the funds are directly used to provide the abortion services. To argue otherwise isn't being intellectually honest. My compromise would provide more funds for women's healthcare and truly remove all Federal funds from the abortion services. Which should give both sides a win and still allow the right to choose for women but guarantee tax dollars are not used. I am sure there are many organizations that would raise the money necessary to the abortion services.
> 
> I actually think this is a workable compromise.


Are you sure about that? Have you seen the books? Sharing space to lessen costs does not mean that the abortion portion is not paying their share or getting subsidized by other services.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Well, why didn't you say that instead of using the excuse that they don't provide all the services?


What excuse.. pp has yet to provide the health care that other places do.
Pp is a non profit volunteer org as such the should be voluntarily funded. 

Multi issues required multi rational answers..


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure about that? Have you seen the books? Sharing space to lessen costs does not mean that the abortion portion is not paying their share or getting subsidized by other services.


My way means you nor I have to trust the books that use Washington math or some fancy accounting. I am guaranteed to get my desire that not one penny of Tax dollars are used for providing any part of an abortion and your side (the general you) get more money for women's healthcare and don't lose the choice you desire.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Home offices are prorated deductibles per square foot exclusively designated to the function and use of the home business.

One can't dump 100percent of taxes,heating,mortgage,repaired to the business and not account for the personal use.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> What excuse.. pp has yet to provide the health care that other places do.
> Pp is a non profit volunteer org as such the should be voluntarily funded.
> 
> Multi issues required multi rational answers..


How many times do I have to repeat it. Most doctors and clinics do not provide those services in house. PP is no different from the majority of service providers. Unless you are going close them all down you are offering a ridiculous excuse.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

False.. I have cancer ...I have dealt with cancer at clinics. Yes, some is hospitalized care but it was cost saving to use clinics for mammogram, and the procedure I called the clip and stitch lab work repeat ...repeat repeat


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That will not solve your problem. There will still be the same amount of abortions, paid for in the same way. Therefore it is a solution without a purpose. Denying people services they need right now.


My immediate problem would be solved by the compromise which is I want no Federal funds used for any part of an abortion. Guaranteed!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> False.. I have cancer ...I have dealt with cancer at clinics. Yes, some is hospitalized care but it was cost saving to use clinics for mammogram, and the procedure I called the clip and stitch lab work repeat ...repeat repeat


Well in the valley I live in you don't deal with cancer at any clinic but the one at the hospital 45 minutes being the closest. You don't get to use your experience to deny others services close to their homes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> My immediate problem would be solved by the compromise which is I want no Federal funds used for any part of an abortion. Guaranteed!


That is something we can discuss. Are you now going after all the medical abortions provided by funds for low income women, with doctors and hospitals that are not Planned Parenthood? Do you have a right to decide what medical care low income women can and can not have?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That is something we can discuss. Are you now going after all the medical abortions provided by funds for low income women, with doctors and hospitals that are not Planned Parenthood? Do you have a right to decide what medical care low income women can and can not have?


If they are Federal funds, yes. 

My position is simple. Absolutely no Federal tax dollars are to be used for providing any part of an abortion, period. All abortions should be done in a privately funded facility unless there is an immediate, and I mean immediate, threat to the mother that will not allow transport to a private facility.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I actually think this is a workable compromise.


In a "compromise" generally both sides give up something.
In yours, PP loses and you gain

A better "compromise" would be to leave things as they are, and no one who doesn't like them won't have to use their services


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> What excuse.. pp has yet to provide the health care that other places do.
> Pp is *a non profit volunteer org *as such the should be voluntarily funded.
> 
> Multi issues required multi rational answers..


No one place provides all services.
You complained they don't do mammograms, but most clinics don't

It's not a "volunteer" organization at all, even though they are "non-profit"


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In a "compromise" generally both sides give up something.
> In yours, PP loses and you gain
> 
> A better "compromise" would be to leave things as they are, and no one who doesn't like them won't have to use their services


Actually, PP gets to keep their Federal funding if they stop providing abortion services. Otherwise, I will support they lose all their funding. Might not win but I will tirelessly fight to end their funding. And I could begin to fight for an end to all abortions. So far, I have stayed out of that fight on the political level.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If they are Federal funds, yes.
> 
> My position is simple. Absolutely no Federal tax dollars are to be used for providing any part of an abortion, period. All abortions should be done in a privately funded facility unless there is an immediate, and I mean immediate, threat to the mother that will not allow transport to a private facility.


See that is obviously just a stepping stone to full stop no abortion and will be viewed as such. It is always going to lose. Legal medical procedures being banned from any hospital or clinic because they get Federal Funds for other procedures will never cut it. It is like saying no abortionist can use roads paid for with federal funds because they perform abortions. No logical link.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> What excuse.. pp has yet to provide the health care that other places do.
> Pp is a non profit volunteer org as such the should be voluntarily funded.
> 
> Multi issues required multi rational answers..


What are you doing to make this a reality? Are you protesting? Writing letters? Making phone calls? What are you doing to support your drive to defund Planned Parenthood besides saying it should be done on a small forum on the internet?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> What are you doing to make this a reality? Are you protesting? Writing letters? Making phone calls? What are you doing to support your drive to defund Planned Parenthood besides saying it should be done on a small forum on the internet?


I write letters to Fienstein and Boxer, but they fall on deaf ears. Nothing like sending a letter opposing something and getting a letter back saying "thank you for your support". Can't call their Washington offices cause their always "busy".

I also make many phone calls, so many in fact, that they know me by my voice. I also attend community meets when I can and badger the heck out of my city representatives. Their useless idiots and I do take great pleasure in proving what poltroons they are!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> *No money from the federal government has been used for abortion* since the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Not all states fund Planned Parenthood, and if your state is one that does by all means advocate for it's removal. What other states do is not your concern.


Not true..


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> Lets get back to basics.
> 
> Killing babies is bad.
> 
> ...


2 problems there. Not all of us agree on the definition of a baby. And sometimes the kindest thing you can do is put a suffering creature, human or animal, out of it's misery. 

Abortion can actually alleviate suffering and your idea of killing babies may actually lead to a horrible few years of incredible pain and darkness and then a genuinely painful death. 

The real question here is why those on a moral high horse are so cruel and lacking in compassion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> It seems to me that, because the abortion issue is so contentious, the simple solution is for abortion clinics to be strictly privately funded.........no state or federal funding whatsoever.
> 
> If PP wants to continue to receive federal funding, they shut down that portion of the business, since it is allegedly such a small portion of their work.
> 
> Problem solved.


War is pretty contentious. Should that all be privately funded too? Personally I would go for that. You can't have a war unless you can sell enough "stocks" in it to fund it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Na, read up you will see that there are some valid docs stating that protection is a duty of the federal government ...invasion is also covered.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Not true..


You want truth?:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/



> Planned Parenthoodâs 2008-2009 annual report states that it received $363.2 million in "Government Grants and Contracts." (See page 29.) Thatâs about one-third of its total revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.
> However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthoodâs government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest â about $293 million â is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.
> 
> But Planned Parenthood cannot use the money it receives from the federal government for abortions anyway. According to the Department of Health and Human Serviceâs website, "by law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You want truth?:
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


We already covered this...

Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

An today now that I took a Breck from here a help slaughter 13 goats I need to get ready to celebrate my son's birthday... ..an event that had his mother gone thru with what she saw as the only answer ---the abortion. We would not have him.

She informed the father... he gave her the choice....she could have just kept quiet.. now that is real pro choice. He's 21 today.

He knows every detail about sex, he knows the responsibility, and he knows that unlike if father if he leaves his sperm there is no guarantee his kid will live so he better be careful. Some folks don't believe it would be his child....just tissue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> *We already covered this...*
> 
> Medicaid funding is restricted by the Hyde Amendment to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Some states use their own funds under Medicaid to go beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


Lots of things get covered more than once.
It doesn't change whether or not it's true.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lots of things get covered more than once.
> It doesn't change whether or not it's true.


Right, so fed funds do fund abortions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Right, so fed funds do fund abortions.


Not *elective *abortions, which is mostly what PP does.

Life threatening situations would more likely be done in a hospital.

Most of PP's "federal" money is for research grants and contracts.

Defunding PP won't make any difference in the number of abortions performed, so nitpicking over where the money goes makes no sense


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Right, so fed funds do fund abortions.


Just the ones that the vast majority of the prolife crowd approve of. Odd how they get to choose for others when they like something.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just the ones that the vast majority of the prolife crowd *approve of*. Odd how they get to choose for others when they like something.


Some don't..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Some don't..


They won't be forced to have one


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Some don't..


True, and some think smoking pot should be legal everywhere too... But it ain't.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Callous, and incoherent.. Such a pair.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Callous, and incoherent.. Such a pair.


And so it goes.... Nothing to contribute.... Let's start insulting.... Sorry I don't play that game.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not *elective *abortions, which is mostly what PP does.
> 
> Life threatening situations would more likely be done in a hospital.
> 
> ...


Too late. People have seen the videos/watched the news reports. The idea of harvesting fetal tissue/parts/organs is repulsive and has turned even more people against PP and elective abortions.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> See that is obviously just a stepping stone to full stop no abortion and will be viewed as such. It is always going to lose. Legal medical procedures being banned from any hospital or clinic because they get Federal Funds for other procedures will never cut it. It is like saying no abortionist can use roads paid for with federal funds because they perform abortions. No logical link.


Actually, I was ok with a compromise with only the PP funding. You brought in the discussion of other situations. I was ready to take a small step toward a compromise like the gay rights advocates did with "don't ask, don't tell" but you wanted to bring in other situations. I guess the days of the Tip-Reagan compromises are officially dead! Long live the extremes since there is no compromise from the Left.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And so it goes.... Nothing to contribute.... Let's start insulting.... Sorry I don't play that game.


Soil needs to be fertile before planting...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Soil needs to be fertile before planting...


I can't argue with that if one expects to see life grow. Life also needs water and nutrition to thrive. Not quite sure the connection here to the beginning of new life though. Denying it any of its required elements kills it, not ever seen the conditions required to start it from scratch. Don't think we ever will.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Actually, I was ok with a *compromise* with only the PP funding. You brought in the discussion of other situations. I was ready to take a small step toward a* compromise* like the gay rights advocates did with "don't ask, don't tell" but you wanted to bring in other situations. I guess the days of the Tip-Reagan *compromises* are officially dead! Long live the extremes since there is no *compromise from the Left*.


You keep using the word "compromise" even though your plan involves only one side losing something. 

That's a "mandate", not a "compromise".


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I fail to see the problem with cutting funding for PP because of abortion unless you are a pro abortion person. Sure, PP provides other services besides abortion but the tax money they get could easily be distributed to free women's clinics that don't do abortions and women would still have access to those services. In fact, spreading it to other clinics would make it more accessible to women because those clinics are scattered around more than PP clinics and women wouldn't have to travel so far for services.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Leaving pp to simply being an abortion mill and health care centers funding to handle health issues allows ppl to focus their donations on abortions streamlining costs.

Everyone wins


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep using the word "compromise" even though your plan involves only one side losing something.
> 
> That's a "mandate", not a "compromise".


The alternative is they COULD lose all their funding. Time will tell. Maybe not this budget. But they run the risk. A compromise to get some could be better than none. Or not.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Defunding PP will not end abortion. It may end convenient birth control, cancer screening, and STD treatment tho. The bottom line is that there is no federal funding for abortions other than those agreed upon when Congress passed the Hyde Amendment. 

If you defund PP some other medical facility will pickup their patients and abortions will still be performed, some will still be paid for via federal funding.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Defunding PP will not end abortion. It may end convenient birth control, cancer screening, and STD treatment tho. The bottom line is that there is no federal funding for abortions other than those agreed upon when Congress passed the Hyde Amendment.
> 
> If you defund PP some other medical facility will pickup their patients and abortions will still be performed, some will still be paid for via federal funding.



Why... Fed funding is currently per Hyde not going so??? The abortion cost have to be funded by only donations...

Thus if they no longer had to devote time to referring folks to medi heath clicnics they would have more time devoted to abortions.

The medical clinics will increase in funding and continue providing the services but patients would no longer wait for some one to refer them thus quicker health care.

Plan parenthood never need not used Fed funding for abortions.. it's Bern hammered into me.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Many PP offices are clinics that don't provide abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> Many PP offices are clinics that don't provide abortions.


Yup. The two in Louisiana that were recently defunded by Jindal didn't perform abortions. Just birth control, cancer screenings and other health care for low income people.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

There have been demonstrations recently outside the PP in Jackson, MI..they don't do abortions. Same with one in Grand Rapids.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Is plan parenthood a NON PROFIT ?

Volunteer organization?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

There are posts that are just too ridiculous to dispute.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

arabian knight said:


>


Just a different view.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> Many PP offices are clinics that don't provide abortions.


Then separating the abortion services is easier at the others because they have a blueprint.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Then separating the abortion services is easier at the others because they have a blueprint.


What do you think this will accomplish?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Is plan parenthood a NON PROFIT ?
> 
> Volunteer organization?


It is a not for profit and has both paid employees and volunteers.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Top salaries at the national office, according to the PPFA Federal Form 990 for the year ending June 30, 2010 are:
President Cecile Richards $353,819
Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
VP of Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins $257,115
VP of General Counsel Barbara Otten $251,379
VP of Public Policy Laurie Rubiner $248,438
VP of Operations Karen Ruffatto $247,932
VP of Affiliates Lisa David $245,322
&#8220;Planned Parenthood has a national headquarters in New York City. That headquarters organization, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, supervises the overall operation of Planned Parenthood in the United States. PPFA, itself, does not run any medical or educational facilities,&#8221; ALL said in its report. &#8220;PPFA is made up of affiliates across the country. Each affiliate is an independently incorporated entity that voluntarily operates as part of the Federation. It must meet certain operational criteria and adhere to certain financial guidelines, including paying dues to PPFA, in order to use the name Planned Parenthood

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/09/planned-parenthood-abortion-biz-ceos-average-158k-salary/


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you think this will accomplish?


It would simply guarantee that not one cent of tax dollars is used to subsidize the costs associated in providing abortions. Nothing more or less. No grand scheme.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> I fail to see the problem with cutting funding for PP because of abortion unless you are a pro abortion person. Sure, PP provides other services besides abortion but the tax money they get could easily be distributed to free women's clinics that don't do abortions and women would still have access to those services. In fact, spreading it to other clinics would make it more accessible to women because those clinics are scattered around more than PP clinics and women wouldn't have to travel so far for services.


Taxes will pay for the same amount of abortions whether PP gets the money or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Too late. People have seen the videos/watched the news reports. The idea of harvesting fetal tissue/parts/organs is repulsive and has turned even more people against PP and elective abortions.


The videos were largely lies, and none of the investigations have turned up any evidence to support their allegations.

They *changed* no one's minds at all.
Even the majority of the people here want abortions to remain legal


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The alternative is they COULD lose all their funding. Time will tell. Maybe not this budget. But they run the risk. A compromise to get some could be better than none. Or not.


That's not going to happen.
Reality is the Federal money they get now is mostly research grants and Medicaid, and none of it is spent on abortions.

Your "compromise" is no compromise at all, no matter how many times you call it one


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Is plan parenthood a NON PROFIT ?
> 
> Volunteer organization?


That's been asked and answered more than once


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

If none of federal money is spent on abortions then where does the money come from? How much does an abortion cost? 

It has been stated that PP is a non profit. That does not mean that individuals and groups are not making a substantial profit, just means it is calculated and recorded differently.

Maybe along with the issue of not doing abortions except in extreme circumstances to save the life of the mother, maybe it would be advantageous to start publishing the monies collected at all different stages and show what each person working for PP (from the top to the bottom) is collecting along with whatever benefits and other financial gratuities they receive. If a lot of folks don't object on moral grounds maybe dollars and cents will be a wake up call.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The videos were largely lies, and none of the investigations have turned up any evidence to support their allegations.
> 
> They *changed* no one's minds at all.
> Even the majority of the people here want abortions to remain legal


I didn't say anything about it changing people's minds re: abortions remaining legal.

But it has change people's minds and attitudes towards PP and public funding. Just read the comments sections of articles on the subject.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

light rain said:


> If none of federal money is spent on abortions then where does the money come from? How much does an abortion cost?
> 
> It has been stated that PP is a non profit. That does not mean that individuals and groups are not making a substantial profit, just means it is calculated and recorded differently.
> 
> Maybe along with the issue of not doing abortions except in extreme circumstances to save the life of the mother, maybe it would be advantageous to start publishing the monies collected at all different stages and show what each person working for PP (from the top to the bottom) is collecting along with whatever benefits and other financial gratuities they receive. If a lot of folks don't object on moral grounds maybe dollars and cents will be a wake up call.


Planned Parenthood's latest tax information is incredibly detailed. Here's a copy of their federal tax return:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/9914/2470/6601/PPFA_FY14_Final_990_-_public_inspection.pdf

Why would there be an objection to someone getting paid for their work? Do you work for free? I don't.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I have no problem with someone getting paid for their work but in the course of daily living and bill paying I have found great variables in what one company will charge and what another one would charge. This does not correlate to I just want a cheaper abortionist. I don't believe in abortion except to save the life of the mother. That being said, I still would like to know if PP is competitive in their charges for ALL their services. 

Again I ask, if the woman/girl does not have the funds for the abortion who pays the bill? 

Thank you IP for sharing the link. I will go over it tonight.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I do work for free.... many do. It's charity. Lots of homes where I live are built for free by craftsmen. There's no shame in being a true volunteer.
Normally there no credit with it. But I know that much really can get accomplished thru volunteer labor.

Now, when people donate money to a charity... say feed the kids in summer only to learn that the volunteers are well paid to hand out the food yet there is such a shortage of fund left to buy food then folks scratch their heads and say...wait I want to feed hungry kids not employ high paid 20 and hour team of "volunteers"... I have been duped. No more will I funnel money into the hands of the board of directors friends and family working as volunteers...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

light rain said:


> I have no problem with someone getting paid for their work but in the course of daily living and bill paying I have found great variables in what one company will charge and what another one would charge. This does correlate to I just want a cheaper abortionist. I don't believe in abortion except to save the life of the mother. That being said, I still would like to know if PP is competitive in their charges for ALL their services.
> 
> Again I ask, if the woman/girl does not have the funds for the abortion who pays the bill?
> 
> Thank you IP for sharing the link. I will go over it tonight.


In some states, I think the number is 17/18, an abortion can be paid for by state medicaid. In NY, PP takes cash, debit, credit or medicaid. This is what I found as far as what an abortion costs: "Nationwide, it can cost up to $1,500 for abortion in the first trimester, but it's often less. The cost is usually more for a second-trimester abortion. Costs vary depending on how long you've been pregnant and where you go. Hospitals generally cost more."

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures

I don't think that PP can use a sliding scale on in-clinic abortions because of the Hyde Amendment. It does use a sliding scale for birth control and heath care. Here's the national link: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Top salaries at the national office, according to the PPFA Federal Form 990 for the year ending June 30, 2010 are:
> President Cecile Richards $353,819
> Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
> Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
> ...


Wow their CEO makes less than half what Franklin Graham makes as CEO of Samaritan's Purse.  And his organisation's money is all supposed to go to help starving kiddies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...3ce940-45f2-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Just compare 2010 numbers posted by me to your future link or post to Franklin 2010 numbers..


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nardizzi at WWP takes @ $330k a year


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Wow their CEO makes less than half what Franklin Graham makes as CEO of Samaritan's Purse.  And his organisation's money is all supposed to go to help starving kiddies.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...3ce940-45f2-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html


If my tax dollars are going to Samaritans Purse, I want their funds cut off too.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> Nardizzi at WWP takes @ $330k a year


Current year??? I listed 2010 numbers let's compare the same year so please provide a link


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Just compare 2010 numbers posted by me to your future link or post to Franklin 2010 numbers..


I don't understand? You want to know Graham's salary in 2010? I found 2008 and 2011 but not 2010. 

2008:


> As president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse, he receives two full-time salaries and two retirement packages. Last year his total compensation from the two Christian ministries was $1.2 million.
> The size of Graham's total 2008 compensation -- $535,000 from Samaritan's Purse and $669,000 from Charlotte, N.C.-based BGEA -- drew questions from nonprofit experts. They doubted that one person -- even the energetic, globe-trotting Graham -- can do two full-time jobs when those positions are head of organizations that employ hundreds and spend hundreds of millions around the world.


http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/10/franklin_graham_moves_to_addre.html



> In 2011, the latest year compensation data is available, Franklin earned total compensation from Samaritan's Purse and related organizations of $585,000 while also receiving additional compensation from BGEA totaling over $115,000, for a total of $700,000. This remains among the highest compensation packages in both Christian and secular relief and development groups. While the work of both BGEA and Samaritan's Purse remains admirable, it is clear Franklin has not been as successful as his father in avoiding financial controversy, especially when it comes to taking moderate levels of compensation.


http://www.ministrywatch.com/articles/children.aspx


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> If my tax dollars are going to Samaritans Purse, I want their funds cut off too.


You should start lobbying then: they received Government Grants of $29,758,301 in 2013. 

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4423#.Vgh8QpcuQo4


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I was just looking around at CEO non profit compensation and found this at charity navigator, very eye opening:

This report represents Charity Navigator&#8217;s ninth CEO Compensation Study. This year&#8217;s study 
examined the compensation practices at 3,946
1
mid to large sized U.S. based charities that de-
pend on support from the public. Our analysis revealed that the top leaders of these charities 
earned a median salary in the low to mid six figures
2
in 2012 representing a compensation in-
crease of just 2.6%
over the previous year
3
.http://www.charitynavigator.org/docs/2014_CEO_Compensation_Study.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I didn't say anything about it changing people's minds re: abortions remaining legal.
> 
> But it has change people's minds and attitudes towards PP and public funding. Just *read the comments sections *of articles on the subject.


Reading comments on the internet is pointless.

Half the folks commenting don't really have a clue about the issues, and react based on emotion and hype in the stories, factual or not.

Give them a few weeks and they will have moved on to the next crisis de jour.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> I was just looking around at CEO non profit compensation and found this at charity navigator, very eye opening:
> 
> This report represents Charity Navigatorâs ninth CEO Compensation Study. This yearâs study
> examined the compensation practices at 3,946
> ...


Out of fear of being called lazy, or 'I'm not your goggle mama" and other hateful things; I do not ask "in layman's terms, what does this mean"?

I have enough on my plate right now, so I have to focus my energy on that; but.........if more people understood what this meant (in simple, layman's terms) maybe more folks would say "ENOUGH".

I thought Sam Purse was a charity; meaning if I CHOOSE to donate, I can. NOT my tax dollars are TAKEN and donated for me.

I just don't understand all the the mumbo jumbo and when folks get lost in too many words, they quit paying attention; that's how things go down the tubes.
Again, I have bigger fish to fry; but if this was 'straight forward' and easily understood, more folks might say "UM NO".


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

âAt a time when the economy is in trouble and the American taxpayer provides 46 percent of Planned Parenthoodâs income,â said Rob Gasper, senior researcher at ALL and co-author of the report, âit is incredible that the top eight people at PPâs headquartersâwho provide no actual healthcare and never see a single clientâmake an average of $269,541 a year.âhttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-execs-making-more-than-250k-per-year

According to Planned Parenthood Federation of Americaâs 2012 IRS Form 990, CEO Cecile Richards made over one-half million dollars â $523,616, to be exact â for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2013.http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/04/planned-parenthood-ceo-cecile-richards-now-makes-over-500000/


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Out of fear of being called lazy, or 'I'm not your goggle mama" and other hateful things; I do not ask "in layman's terms, what does this mean"?
> 
> I have enough on my plate right now, so I have to focus my energy on that; but.........if more people understood what this meant (in simple, layman's terms) maybe more folks would say "ENOUGH".
> 
> ...



Layman's terms; we have one screwed up method of charitable giving, and spending time looking at where your favorite charity uses your hard earned money behooves you


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I was surprised to learn that corporate PP actually don't run any clinics that they just lease there name and logo.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Cool so do they like "sell" there name... do the leased name outfits receive government funding..a share of donations or does the.money flow in one direction pp headquarters?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

This is PP's site calling the state and local offices "independent affiliates. The site I found earlier explained it better but alas I lost it somehow.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/local-state-offices/

I lean pro choice but always suspect organizations with large cash flow's just how many sticky fingers get between me and the person needing my help.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

coolrunnin said:


> This is PP's site calling the state and local offices "independent affiliates. The site I found earlier explained it better but alas I lost it somehow.
> 
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/local-state-offices/
> 
> I lean pro choice but always suspect organizations with large cash flow's just how many sticky fingers get between me and the person needing my help.


I use www.charitynavigator.org to check how much goes to administration, executive salaries and my most hated catagory- fund raising. There are other sites doing the same thing. But it has helped me to choose.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

coolrunnin said:


> This is PP's site calling the state and local offices "independent affiliates. The site I found earlier explained it better but alas I lost it somehow.
> 
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/local-state-offices/
> 
> I lean pro choice but always suspect organizations with large cash flow's just how many sticky fingers get between me and the person needing my help.


You could do it the way I do and cut out the middlemen entirely. When I run up on someone in need I take care of those needs personally. Sometimes that means granting them a months free rent, opening up my freezer or pantry, maybe giving them a car so they can get back and forth to work. Lots of ways to help.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Reading comments on the internet is pointless.
> 
> Half the folks commenting don't really have a clue about the issues, and react based on emotion and hype in the stories, factual or not.
> 
> Give them a few weeks and they will have moved on to the next crisis de jour.


People aren't nearly as clueless and you might like to believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> People aren't nearly as* clueless *and you might like to believe.


Having worked in retail I can truly say "Yes they are".
If they believed those videos, it reinforces that opinion


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> People aren't nearly as clueless and you might like to believe.


I would disagree, there are a lot of people that are pretty clueless about a lot of things. I feel sure that there are plenty of others in the world besides those who post regularly here in GC.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> Layman's terms; we have one screwed up method of charitable giving, and spending time looking at where your favorite charity uses your hard earned money behooves you


I am confused.

When the Salvation Army man's the red kettle Nov/Dec, and I put money in that pot, that is 'charitable' giving.

When I pay my taxes, it is a fee, due to pay for goods and services provided by the government (roads, bridges, military, etc).

Are you saying that the government PICKS 'charities' and TAKES my taxes and GIVES it to WHOM they have chosen?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I am confused.
> 
> When the Salvation Army man's the red kettle Nov/Dec, and I put money in that pot, that is 'charitable' giving.
> 
> ...


Yep. Not for profit organizations and charities, including the Salvation Army, rely on Federal, state and local tax dollars to fund services and programs. A good grant writer can make the difference between a not for profit failing or succeeding.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=281#.Vgkhetm9Kc0


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Even the Salvation Army operates as a parent organization with local chapters who must "pay" part of all their revenue to the parent organization.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would disagree, there are a lot of people that are pretty clueless about a lot of things. I feel sure that there are plenty of others in the world besides those who post regularly here in GC.


Sure, there are plenty of clueless people. But there are also a lot of people that are paying attention and are fully aware of what's happening in this country. 

What the PP videos did was make people aware of the industry, as a whole, of selling fetal tissue/parts/organs. A lot of people weren't aware because it's being done very quietly. But, regardless of who is doing it , people (even abortion advocates) are repulsed by the idea of an industry using aborted babies. 

Because, you see, killing babies is bad enough, but most can find a reason to justify it. But using their aborted bodies for research is just more than they can tolerate.

So, regardless of whether or not the PP videos were misleading re: PP practices, they have opened peoples' eyes to the rest of the story.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Sure, there are plenty of clueless people. But there are also a lot of people that are paying attention and are fully aware of what's happening in this country.
> 
> What the PP videos did was make people aware of the industry, as a whole, of selling fetal tissue/parts/organs. A lot of people weren't aware because it's being done very quietly. But, regardless of who is doing it , people (even abortion advocates) are repulsed by the idea of an industry using aborted babies.
> 
> ...


Do you have an equal problem with dead adult or children's tissue being used for research?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What the PP videos did was make people aware of the industry, as a whole, of selling fetal tissue/parts/organs. A lot of people weren't aware because it's being done very quietly. But, regardless of who is doing it , people (even abortion advocates) are repulsed by the idea of an industry using aborted babies.


If it "made them aware of the *selling* of fetal tissue", then they bought the hype and not the truth, since *selling that tissue is illegal*, which is why I said the comments would largely be from the clueless.

There has still been no real evidence shown of any illegal acts by PP. 

Those against the practice of using the tissues for research are mostly against abortions for any reason, so they want to believe the misinformation, and even keep repeating it for the sole purpose of demonizing PP.

It's similar to the "Monsanto is the Devil" syndrome, and largely comprised of the same crowd

Why is it "repulsive" to advance medicine through the use of the tissues versus tossing them in an incinerator?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it "made them aware of the *selling* of fetal tissue", then they bought the hype and not the truth, since *selling that tissue is illegal*, which is why I said the comments would largely be from the clueless.
> 
> There has still been no real evidence shown of any illegal acts by PP.
> 
> ...


Most will admit that it's a lie... but will repeat it because it supports their agenda. They'll justify the lying too. "Anything that works" regardless if it's a total fabrication. SMH


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it "made them aware of the *selling* of fetal tissue", then they bought the hype and not the truth, since *selling that tissue is illegal*, which is why I said the comments would largely be from the clueless.
> 
> There has still been no real evidence shown of any illegal acts by PP.
> 
> ...


Forgive me for not being clear.

Forget about PP. 

Stem cell research and abortions have always been controversial issues in regards to ethics.

Researchers 'obtain' tissue' from abortion clinics (not necessarily PP). There are currently no laws/regulations regarding 'shipping and handling' costs of fetal tissue/organs/body parts.

What people weren't aware of (again, because it's being done very quietly) is how the industry works and the extent to which it's being done.

The CMP/PP videos brought the industry to light....and people don't like what they're seeing. Even people who previously were pro-abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Forgive me for not being clear.
> 
> Forget about PP.
> 
> ...


Again, it doesn't matter if the videos were complete and total lies?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

How do you know that every single frame of every single tape is a lie? The verdict is still out and time will tell. Even if One single frame on ANY of those videos is true it makes pp a liar.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, it doesn't matter if the videos were complete and total lies?


How were they complete and total lies? What parts or what was said that were lies? Who exactly was lying in the videos?

I think the full videos speak for themselves and most people have enough sense to understand what was said......enough to begin questioning the ethics of the whole issue of 'donating' the bodies of aborted babies for research.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> How were they complete and total lies? What parts or what was said that were lies? Who exactly was lying in the videos?
> 
> I think the full videos speak for themselves and most people have enough sense to understand what was said......enough to begin questioning the ethics of the whole issue of 'donating' the bodies of aborted babies for research.


The complete lie was that PP sells fetal tissue. The full videos and transcripts show exactly how much CMP lied to support it's crusade against PP. 

*Is your opinion the same regarding tissue research on dead adults, born babies and kids? 
*


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> The complete lie was that PP sells fetal tissue. The full videos and transcripts show exactly how much CMP lied to support it's crusade against PP.
> 
> *Is your opinion the same regarding tissue research on dead adults, born babies and kids?
> *


We're not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about what's being said around the country. And we're not talking about dead adults, born babies or kids. We're talking about *aborted* babies, period.

And I'll say it again, the full videos speak for themselves and people have enough sense to understand what was said regarding the whole process of harvesting parts/tissue & 'donating' it to businesses like Stem Express who, in turn, sells the tissue to research facilities.

Fact: there are profits being made from the bodies/organs/tissue of aborted babies. Perhaps not by PP (wink, wink) but by those middlemen like Stem Express who sell to research organizations.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> We're not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about what's being said around the country. And we're not talking about dead adults, born babies or kids. We're talking about *aborted* babies, period.
> 
> And I'll say it again, the full videos speak for themselves and people have enough sense to understand what was said regarding the whole process of harvesting parts/tissue & 'donating' it to businesses like Stem Express who, in turn, sells the tissue to research facilities.
> 
> Fact: there are profits being made from the bodies/organs/tissue of aborted babies. Perhaps not by PP (wink, wink) but by those middlemen like Stem Express who sell to research organizations.


You made it about your opinion when you indicated the videos "got the message out about fetal tissue research." I will assume that you are fine with other tissue research and that the only reason you have a problem with fetal tissue research is because it utilizes abortion. 

People have enough sense to understand the videos were lies, based on lies, solely in order to promote the anti abortion agenda. 

Further, I hope CMP is sued into oblivion, and the "actors" are criminally charged.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> We're not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about what's being said around the country. And we're not talking about dead adults, born babies or kids. We're talking about *aborted* babies, period.
> 
> And I'll say it again, the full videos speak for themselves and people have enough sense to understand what was said regarding the whole process of harvesting parts/tissue & 'donating' it to businesses like Stem Express who, in turn, sells the tissue to research facilities.
> 
> Fact: there are profits being made from the bodies/organs/tissue of aborted babies. Perhaps not by PP (wink, wink) but by those middlemen like Stem Express who sell to research organizations.


its hard to make a profit on parts that cannot be sold to anyone dontcha think? Research facilities do not buy tissue from PP, stem express or anyone else... They work with donated tissue. Do you really think these organizations are going to risk all to buy tissue that they can get for free? You are aware that federal law provides very stiff penalties to anyone caught buying or selling body parts. Right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> How do you know that every single frame of every single tape is a lie? The verdict is still out and time will tell. Even if One single frame on ANY of those videos is true it makes pp a liar.


Do you have any proof that any of the claims were true?
There wasn't enough evidence on any of the videos for charges to be filed.

Do lies really bother you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Researchers 'obtain' tissue' from abortion clinics (not necessarily PP). There are currently *no laws/regulations regarding 'shipping and handling' costs *of fetal tissue/organs/body parts.
> 
> What people weren't aware of (again, because it's being done very quietly) is how the industry works and the extent to which it's being done.
> 
> The CMP/PP videos brought the industry to light....and people don't like what they're seeing. Even people who previously were pro-abortion.


Who told you there are "no laws or regulations"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you have any proof that any of the claims were true?
> There wasn't enough evidence on any of the videos for charges to be filed.
> 
> Do lies really bother you?


I think there are some that *like* and actively promote the lies because many people only read "headlines" and when the headline screams, "PP sells aborted baby parts" that's what they are going to believe. No matter that the videos are edited to lie, and the full length and transcripts tell the truth. People won't take the time to actually watch or read them. 

The anti abortionists simply don't care if it's a lie because it promotes their agenda.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You made it about your opinion when you indicated the videos "got the message out about fetal tissue research."


I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can you link the post where I said what you've included in quotation marks?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who told you there are "no laws or regulations"?


I read it in a NYT article. And I should have used the phrase 'processing fees' rather than 'shipping and handling'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/h...r-research-is-traded-in-a-gray-zone.html?_r=0


> Companies that obtain the tissue from clinics and sell it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping.





> Fetal tissue can be used only with the consent of the woman having an abortion. Some researchers receive the tissue from abortion clinics at their own institutions, or from tissue banks maintained by some universities. Many buy the tissue from companies that act as middlemen. Those companies pay small fees, usually $100 or less a specimen, to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, who say they charge only what they need to cover their expenses. The companies then process the tissue and sell it to researchers for higher prices that reflect the processing.
> 
> 
> The fees, which can run to thousands of dollars for a tiny vial of cells, do not break the law, according to Arthur Caplan, the director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can you link the post where I said what you've included in quotation marks?


Here's what you said:



> Quote:
> What the PP videos did was make people aware of the industry, as a whole, of selling fetal tissue/parts/organs.
> 
> A lot of people weren't aware because it's being done very quietly. But, regardless of who is doing it , people (even abortion advocates) are repulsed by the idea of an industry using aborted babies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping.


The law doesn't set fees. 

The market does that, as well as the complexity of the procedures required to get the desired tissue types. 

It would be impossible to set precise fees when it's almost never the same.

There are too many variables to even consider a price list.

The bottom line remains they do not sell the tissues, and they are a non-profit organization.

Also your source states the fees are for the processing, not the tissue itself



> The companies then process the tissue and sell it to researchers for higher* prices that reflect the processing*.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here's what you said:


I know what I said. 



> What the PP videos did was make people aware of the industry, as a whole, of selling *fetal *tissue/parts/organs.


And I know what she said. She even used the word in her quote-that-wasn't-a-quote.



> You made it about your opinion when you indicated the videos "got the message out about *fetal *tissue research."


I never said anything about dead adults, born babies or kids. That's her red herring.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The law doesn't set fees.
> 
> The market does that, as well as the complexity of the procedures required to get the desired tissue types.
> 
> ...


In other words, what I said was true.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> its hard to make a profit on parts that cannot be sold to anyone dontcha think? Research facilities do not buy tissue from PP, stem express or anyone else... They work with donated tissue. Do you really think these organizations are going to risk all to buy tissue that they can get for free? You are aware that federal law provides very stiff penalties to anyone caught buying or selling body parts. Right?


You need to do more research. 

The tissue is, indeed, sold.......but only at a price that covers costs. There's not supposed to be any profit made from that sale.

However, as I showed in the NYT article, the processing fees are not regulated and leave plenty of room for making a profit.....just not from the sale of the tissue itself. So it's included under 'processing fees'.

Kinda like selling something on Ebay for $1.00 and charging $30 S&H.

Wink. Wink.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> In other words, what I said was true.


True, but meaningless.

Laws set prices for very few things, but that doesn't give it evil connotations.

What is the point in recognizing they don't set prices?

What exactly does it prove, other than without knowing precisely all that is involved, it's impossible to set a price?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I know what I said.
> 
> And I know what she said. She even used the word in her quote-that-wasn't-a-quote.
> 
> I never said anything about dead adults, born babies or kids. That's her red herring.


She didn't mention adults in the comment you quoted, and then asked for proof of.
She pretty much said exactly what you said.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
> You made it about your opinion when you indicated the videos *"got the message out about fetal tissue research."*





> I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can you link the post where I said *what you've included in quotation marks*?


On another note:


> Kinda like selling something on Ebay for $1.00 and charging $30 S&H.
> 
> Wink. Wink.


If that's the actual cost no one has made any profit.
This is not some cheap plastic item you throw in a box with bubble wrap.

So far your "proof" is just more allegations and insinuations, much like the videos.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> True, but meaningless.


Now, how did I know you would say that? 

What it proves is that there is room for profit in the transfer of aborted baby tissue/bodies/organs between the mother and the research facility.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> Now, how did I know you would say that?
> 
> What it proves is that there is room for profit in the transfer of aborted baby tissue/bodies/organs between the mother and the research facility.


 PP is a non-profit entity. This means that any money they receive must be used to pay costs. Those costs can and do include a whole number of things that can be used to hide any monies received. A bonus given to a doctor, who towed the line, is a cost. A raise in pay for an administrator, or, accountant, who did some fancy work with the numbers, is a cost. 

By law, did they make a profit? No. Did they break the law? The letter? no, The spirit? likely. Will they face any consequences? No. They are an immoral entity that is supported by immoral people. These immoral people rise to the highest levels of our government, so, nothing will be done.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can you link the post where I said what you've included in quotation marks?


Twasn't a quote, it was a paraphrase. If I used quotation marks incorrectly, I thought they could be used in paraphrasing, I apologize. I did use the word "indicated" rather "quote" or "said" or "stated". Which I never would if I was quoting. 

I think I captured your _intent_, didn't I?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I know what I said.
> 
> And I know what she said. She even used the word in her quote-that-wasn't-a-quote.
> 
> I never said anything about dead adults, born babies or kids. That's her red herring.


Not a red herring. The only reason that you have a problem with fetal tissue research is because it's a by product of abortion. And you are anti-abortion. If you had a problem with tissue research- it would be with all tissue. 

Would you be OK with fetal tissue donation if it was from a delivered still born? Still fetal tissue, but no abortion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I am confused.
> 
> When the Salvation Army man's the red kettle Nov/Dec, and I put money in that pot, that is 'charitable' giving.
> 
> ...


I posted this in my response to you above. Charities including Samaritan's Purse apply for grants from the government. So yes your tax dollars go to charities who apply to receive them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Now, *how did I know you would say that*?
> 
> What it proves is that there is room for profit in the transfer of aborted baby tissue/bodies/organs between the mother and the research facility.


Maybe because it's the most logical conclusion.

It would be like trying to set a price for "a car" without specifying if it's a Yugo or a Ferrari.

Even your own source said the price was for the procedures

There's still no evidence of any illegal activity by anyone other than the producers of the videos


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.winknews.com/2015/08/06/...ds-to-report-of-illegal-abortions-in-florida/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> http://www.winknews.com/2015/08/06/...ds-to-report-of-illegal-abortions-in-florida/


The biggest issue there is how to know exactly when to start counting the beginning of the pregnancy. 



> Goodhue also says, âthe claim that any of our health centers are performing procedures we are not licensed to perform is false.â
> 
> Planned Parenthood claims the investigation did not measure trimesters correctly.



The state changed the definition of "first trimester", making it 2 weeks shorter



> Planned Parenthood said AHCA had long agreed to define the first trimester of a pregnancy as the first 12 weeks of pregnancy or the first 14 weeks following the last normal menstrual period.
> 
> AHCA had observed that definition during routine inspections, it said. The group noted that AHCA's new definition was made without any prior announcement, and noted the political timing of the citations which were issued two days before the Republican presidential debate.



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pl...-abortion/2015/08/17/id/670499/#ixzz3n4YbGI9X


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> You need to do more research.
> 
> The tissue is, indeed, sold.......but only at a price that covers costs. There's not supposed to be any profit made from that sale.
> 
> ...


Again you are trying to confuse things using facts not in evidence. There are very strict laws regarding the sale of human tissue obtained from any source. No one is allowed to sell tissue, not PP, not those who transport, or process it. Yes they can charge fees for other services rendered, but not for the tissue itself. 
Even you admit that.

Do you have something in your eye? Murine may help, unless it's some sort of nervous tick.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again you are trying to confuse things using facts not in evidence. There are very strict laws regarding the sale of human tissue obtained from any source. No one is allowed to sell tissue, not PP, not those who transport, or process it. Yes they can charge fees for other services rendered, but not for the tissue itself.
> Even you admit that.
> 
> Do you have something in your eye? Murine may help, unless it's some sort of nervous tick.


From my link to NYT article in post #271. Note the key word:


> Companies that obtain the tissue from clinics and *sell* it to laboratories exist in a gray zone, legally. Federal law says they cannot profit from the tissue itself, but the law does not specify how much they can charge for processing and shipping.


Here's more, note the terminology being used by the media:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-8-things-know-about-plan-national/


> While abortion clinics or hospitals sometimes provide tissue directly to researchers, organizations or private companies like the tissue brokers mentioned above often act as middlemen. Profiteering may be occurring on this level, Caplan said.
> Caplan said brokers can *resell *tissue to researchers at what seem like fairly high markups, but "regulations don't exist on fees, so what they charge is set by market."


http://www.newsweek.com/fetal-tissue-essential-science-357264


> Caplan believes that ultimately if the concern was about the ethics of fetal tissue donation and not abortion politics, then the Center for Medical Progress would have launched an attack on for-profit brokers that act as middlemen between research institutes that need fetal tissue for studies and Planned Parenthood (or hospitals) that donate the tissue. These brokers *sell* the product at a huge profit margin, well beyond the cost needed to cover fees to purify, process and store the tissue. There is little oversight for tissue brokers&#8212;such as ones the actors in the sting operation were pretending to be in the videos.


Surely even you can see why this has caused such a firestorm, where it is being stated that these tissue brokers are making profits from fetal tissue.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Yes, it's easy to accuse anyone of most any crime. I have encountered such accusations myself more than once. It's a different story entirely to have a falsely accused entity proven guilty of said crimes. I have been investigated more than once in the past several years, the real estate commission here in Ky found zero zip nada of any wrong doing on my part in one case and two separate grand juries voted 14 to zip to not indict me in another case. In yet another case (civil suit) the plaintiff (retired cop) opted not to pursue his claims once he found out that I could afford an attorney and was not in mind to roll over and play dead. That one died a natural death by the cops failure to proceed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Perhaps you missed my question? I'm very interested in your answer.

Not a red herring. The only reason that you have a problem with fetal tissue research is because it's a by product of abortion. And you are anti-abortion. If you had a problem with tissue research- it would be with all tissue. 

*Would you be OK with fetal tissue donation if it was from a delivered still born? Still fetal tissue, but no abortion.*

The stem cells from fetal tissue _could_ possibly eradicate some horrible diseases some day. I simply don't understand why something this valuable should just be incinerated.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps you missed my question? I'm very interested in your answer.
> 
> Not a red herring. The only reason that you have a problem with fetal tissue research is because it's a by product of abortion. And you are anti-abortion. If you had a problem with tissue research- it would be with all tissue.
> 
> ...


Sorry, intended to answer earlier, got sidetracked.

I never said that I was opposed to tissue research. But you're correct, in this instance, I would be opposed to it because it is a product of abortion. I oppose it because I believe abortion to be unethical & immoral.

Stillborn is a different issue.....it's a natural death. Abortion is not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> From my link to NYT article in post #271. Note the *key word*:


The fact that a reporter uses a certain word doesn't mean it's correct.



> Surely even you can see why this has caused such a firestorm, where *it is being stated *that these* tissue brokers* are making profits from fetal tissue.


The laws all say it's illegal to sell the tissues, and the gist of the report confirmed the money is for the procedures and processing.

The "tissue brokers" have nothing to do, financially, with PP.
The anti-abortion crowd is the driving force behind all the hype, and they tend to do this in cycles. It's been going on for years with the same results

The TV news had a poll this morning showing 55% think PP should keep their funding.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The fact that a reporter uses a certain word doesn't mean it's correct.


 Just bringing to attention the words being used in the media. 



> The laws all say it's illegal to sell the tissues, and the gist of the report confirmed the money is for the procedures and processing.


 I've not disputed that. But what the PP videos, and subsequent articles/discussions on the internet, have brought to light is the 'gray area' when it comes to how much those tissue brokers can charge for those processing fees. 

It's my understanding that there is no oversight in that area, and even PP isn't required to report the actual charges for tissue, so there's room for illegal activity even there.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Just bringing to attention the words being used in the media.
> 
> I've not disputed that. But what the PP videos, and subsequent articles/discussions on the internet, have brought to light is the 'gray area' when it comes to how much those tissue brokers can charge for those processing fees.
> 
> It's my understanding that there is no oversight in that area, and even* PP isn't required to report the actual charges for tissue, *so there's room for illegal activity even there.


why would PP report non existent charges for tissue? There is no, zero, zip, nada, charges for tissue, and PP does report any shipping/handling fees that they are required by law to charge in the amount of actual costs involved.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> why would PP report non existent charges for tissue? There is no, zero, zip, nada, charges for tissue, and PP does report any shipping/handling fees that they are required by law to charge in the amount of actual costs involved.


You do understand that PP charges a fee for each specimen, don't you? I mean, that's precisely the point that has caused all the furor, that the fees charged gave the impression that they were selling/profiting from aborted babies. And if they were merely S&H fees, wouldn't they be pretty consistent? Instead, the worker is heard quoting a range of fees......a wide range of fees.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's my understanding that there is no oversight in that area, and even PP isn't required to report the actual *charges for tissue*, so there's room for illegal activity even there.


I'm pretty sure the pricing breakdown was all discussed in some of the videos, and those facilities are well audited.

You keep talking about "room for" things, while presenting no real evidence.

Many people are thrilled that Bobby Jindal cut funding for PP in LA.

I bet if you asked most of them if they are happy this will reduce the number of abortions, you could get lots of comments to that effect, because most of them won't have taken the effort to learn PP in LA doesn't do abortions at all.

They are having a Syphilis epidemic in NOLA, as well as other STD's, and PP has treated and tested 10's of thousands of patients, but that may end if funding is cut.

http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2012/12/louisiana_leads_the_nation_in.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> You do understand that PP charges a fee for each specimen, don't you? I mean, that's precisely the point that has caused all the furor, that the fees charged gave the impression that they were selling/profiting from aborted babies. And if they were merely S&H fees, wouldn't they be pretty consistent? Instead, the worker is heard quoting a range of fees......a wide range of fees.


They charge fees for each *procedure* they do to obtain and prepare the specimen.

What you keep overlooking is the fees differ because the tissues needed, and the preservation techniques used differ depending on lots of variable.

Again, much of this is covered in detail in the transcripts



> And if they were merely S&H fees, wouldn't they be pretty consistent?


They would be if you shipped the same things to the same places all the time but this is
not simple "shipping and handling",

This is highly detailed preparation of medical samples and handling "bio-hazard" materials


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> You do understand that PP charges a fee for each specimen, don't you? I mean, that's precisely the point that has caused all the furor, that the fees charged gave the impression that they were selling/profiting from aborted babies. And if they were merely S&H fees, wouldn't they be pretty consistent? Instead, the worker is heard quoting a range of fees......a wide range of fees.


Yes, federal law requires them to charge a fee to pay their actual cost of any processing and delivering the tissue.
I am quite certain this is going to vary on a case by case basis. Some cases will require different packaging than others, methods of transport are bound to vary. The videos whole purpose was to "give the impression" that PP was acting in a criminal manner, nothing on the videos show any wrong doing or people would be going to jail instead of being investigated. Which thus far has produced no evidence of any wrong doing.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Note the word.... actual...

So, that value would be where negotiating as to what is actual.

I know that the cost of shipping in a flat box cost the same when it contains one item or twenty items ...yet actually charging each part full shipping... is not the actual business expense cost. When the cost is one twenty of the cost for the shipping.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They charge fees for each *procedure* they do to obtain and prepare the specimen.
> 
> What you keep overlooking is the fees differ because the tissues needed, and the preservation techniques used differ depending on lots of variable.
> 
> ...


*Sigh* I'm not overlooking anything. I've simply tried to explain how & why people around the country are up in arms about the whole issue & how they could come to certain conclusions, based on those 'gray' areas re: processing fees and the potential for illegal activity.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, federal law requires them to charge a fee to pay their actual cost of any processing and delivering the tissue.
> I am quite certain this is going to vary on a case by case basis. Some cases will require different packaging than others, methods of transport are bound to vary. The videos whole purpose was to "give the impression" that PP was acting in a criminal manner, nothing on the videos show any wrong doing or people would be going to jail instead of being investigated. Which thus far has produced no evidence of any wrong doing.


And that's what investigations are for. Whether or not those investigations change peoples' perception of what's going on remains to be seen.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> *Sigh* I'm not overlooking anything. I've simply tried to explain how & why people around the country are up in arms about the whole issue & how they could come to certain conclusions, based on those 'gray' areas re: processing fees and the potential for illegal activity.


It's pretty obvious why some are in a fizz about these videos. They were created for the purpose of misleading folks who are predisposed to the notion that abortions are wrong. It's amazing how someone will beleive lies if those lies happen to be what the reader wants to beleive to begin with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> And that's what investigations are for. Whether or not those investigations change* peoples' perception* of what's going on remains to be seen.


Reality won't change perceptions based on delusions and misinformation.

Many ignore the facts in favor of the "perceptions" because of their agendas



> Originally Posted by Txsteader View Post
> *Sigh* I'm not overlooking anything. I've simply tried to explain how & why people around the country are up in arms about the whole issue & how they could come to certain conclusions, based on those 'gray' areas re: processing fees and the potential for illegal activity.


We already know why

They fell for the hype, which is why I said in the beginning their comments are often "clueless"

The "gray areas" are a part of the hype, since they aren't really confusing with a little research


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And here there are some that think even if the Planned Parenthood president gets a Half A Million Dollar salary they STILL need federal funding? I don't think so~!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> And here there are some that think even if the Planned Parenthood president gets a Half A Million Dollar salary they STILL need federal funding? I don't think so~!


Are you qualified to do the job? If so get the board of directors to have you take his place. I'm quite sure they would jump at the chance to hire you for ten grand a year.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you qualified to do the job? If so get the board of directors to have you take his place. I'm quite sure they would jump at the chance to hire you for ten grand a year.


Beside the point you're addressing, but since you're one of the big constitutionalists here, I am curious: how do you justify the federal funding for Planned Parenthood? I know many would simply say the general welfare clause, but from what I know of you, I have a feeling that's not the route you take. This is not a challenge or anything. I'm simply curious about your perspective since you're not a "liberal."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kuriakos said:


> Beside the point you're addressing, but since you're one of the big constitutionalists here, I am curious: how do you justify the federal funding for Planned Parenthood? I know many would simply say the general welfare clause, but from what I know of you, I have a feeling that's not the route you take. This is not a challenge or anything. I'm simply curious about your perspective since you're not a "liberal."


Naw, my position has nothing to do with the general welfare clause. Funding PP flys in the face of the constitution same as about 80% everything the Feds do. Since we can't seem to get congress out of the illegal charity games we might as well help those who need it the most. PP does provide a lot of badly needed services so why defund them if we aren't going to defund the rest... Medicaid, Medicare, SS, food stamps welfare etc ad nauseum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> And here there are some that think even if the Planned Parenthood president gets a Half A Million Dollar salary they STILL need *federal funding*? I don't think so~!


80% of their "federal funding" is in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for birth control and cancer and STD screenings for low income patients.

Most of the rest is for research grants.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, my position has nothing to do with the general welfare clause. Funding PP flys in the face of the constitution same as about 80% everything the Feds do. Since we can't seem to get congress out of the illegal charity games we might as well help those who need it the most. PP does provide a lot of badly needed services so why defund them if we aren't going to defund the rest... Medicaid, Medicare, SS, food stamps welfare etc ad nauseum.


Thanks for your honest answer. It seems reasonable enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> And here there are some that think even if the Planned Parenthood president gets a Half A Million Dollar salary they STILL need federal funding? I don't think so~!


You've often mentioned how "good" it is that Walker is cutting PP's funding in your state.

His most recent efforts want to cut 3.5 million in "Title X Family Planning funds"

Not one cent of that money goes toward funding abortions

It's playing politics with people's healthcare based on misinformation:

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/index.html



> *By statute, Title X funds are not used to pay for abortions.*
> 
> Clients served.
> Title X-funded centers served approximately &#64257;ve million clients. 92% were women and 8% were men
> ...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> 80% of their "federal funding" is in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for birth control and cancer and STD screenings for low income patients.
> 
> Most of the rest is for research grants.


Since those low income patients are now eligible for an Obamacare policy, why not defund PP? The ACA makes PP redundant. And the services of PP are probably why a lot of young women didn't sign up for Obamacare. IF they can get their screenings and birth control at PP, why bother?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's pretty obvious why some are in a fizz about these videos. They were created for the purpose of misleading folks who are predisposed to the notion that abortions are wrong. It's amazing how someone will beleive lies if those lies happen to be what the reader wants to beleive to begin with.


This just needs to be read again. And again, and again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Since those low income patients are now eligible for an Obamacare policy, *why not defund PP*? The ACA makes PP redundant. And the services of PP are probably why a lot of young women didn't sign up for Obamacare. IF they can get their screenings and birth control at PP, why bother?


Medicaid still pays for most of those people.

They still have to go somewhere for those services, and PP runs 850 clinics that currently treat over 3 million patients each year.

Other medical facilities get those same Medicare reimbursements. 

PP isn't just being handed money as many love to imply. 

They are being paid for the services they provide, and abortions are NOT one of those things unless the woman's life is in danger.

Those services prevent millions of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, so it would be foolish to defund them and risk increasing the number of abortions

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/affordable-care-act/index.html



> On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, the law put in place comprehensive health insurance reforms. The law makes preventive care&#8212;including family planning and related care&#8212;more accessible and affordable for many Americans. The information and resources provided here are intended to assist *Title X-funded family planning centers* and other safety net providers in implementing the new law.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> PP isn't just being handed money as many love to imply.
> 
> *They are being paid for the services they provide, and abortions are NOT one of those things unless the woman's life is in danger.*


Hold on! 

Are you implying that PP doesn't perform elective abortions.....abortions on demand???


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Hold on!
> 
> Are you implying that PP doesn't perform elective abortions.....abortions on demand???


Read it carefully:



> Other medical facilities get those same* Medicare reimbursements*.
> 
> PP isn't just being handed money as many love to imply.
> 
> They are being paid *for the services they provide*, and abortions are NOT one of those things unless the woman's life is in danger.


*Federal funds* and more specifically "Title X funds" are NOT used to pay for elective abortions

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/index.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Read it carefully:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you getting tired of having to explain the same stuff over and over? I am. I don't understand why things don't get read unless it is a tactic to confuse and confound.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Are you getting tired of having to explain the same stuff over and over? I am. I don't understand why things don't get read unless it is a tactic to confuse and confound.


Yeah, you'd think that since I had already shown it twice, just a few posts back, it would have been noticed.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Medicaid still pays for most of those people.
> 
> They still have to go somewhere for those services, and PP runs 850 clinics that currently treat over 3 million patients each year.
> 
> ...


I think you meant Medicaid. I don't see people old enough to be on Medicare needing much in the way of the services that PP offers!

There is still some overlap between the ACA subsidized policies and the PP services. We the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for the same thing twice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I think you meant Medicaid. I don't see people old enough to be on Medicare needing much in the way of the services that PP offers!
> 
> There is still some overlap between the ACA subsidized policies and the PP services. We the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for the same thing twice.


Yes, I should have said Medicaid
(Old people can get STD's and Cancer too, so Medicare can also be a part of it)

You're not "paying twice" though

Medicaid is paying the vast majority (about 80%) and the rest of the Federal funds are research grants and contracts for services. 

None of what you pay is funding elective abortions anywhere.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, I should have said Medicaid
> (Old people can get STD's and Cancer too, so Medicare can also be a part of it)
> 
> You're not "paying twice" though
> ...


Indirectly, yes it is. They can't use those funds to provide abortion but receipt of those funds frees up other dollars.

Don't confuse me with some here that seem to be obsessed with abortion. I might personally disrespect someone who destroys a life for the sake of their own convenience, but the law allows them to do it. That's just the world we live in.

I'm more concerned about government overspending in general, and the requirement of the ACA to provide birth control is redundant to the services provided by PP. Again, this could be a reason that young, otherwise healthy women aren't signing up for Obamacare. They are getting what they want from PP. You don't have to be on Medicaid to use them, they offer services with fees based on income. I remember when the girls in high school were getting birth control pills thru PP so they didn't have to go thru the family doctor and let their parents know.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Hold on!
> 
> Are you implying that PP doesn't perform elective abortions.....abortions on demand???


Besides that let the VOTERS SPEAK.
65 percent of voters oppose eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Besides that *let the VOTERS SPEAK*.
> 65 percent of voters oppose eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood.


Have you rethought your position?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Indirectly, yes it is. They can't use those funds to provide abortion but receipt of those funds *frees up other dollars*.


No, those funds pay for services already provided, hence the term "reimbursement"
It's not "free money" to use any way they want

They are Medicaid insurance payments for treatments given.

It's not just "free birth control"


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Hmmm... What if the full video wasn't "heavily edited" as some on here are quick to say so as to discredit it?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/a-fo...-the-truth-about-the-planned-parenthood-vids/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Hmmm... What if *the full video* wasn't "heavily edited" as some on here are quick to say so as to discredit it?
> 
> http://investmentwatchblog.com/a-fo...-the-truth-about-the-planned-parenthood-vids/


No one ever said the "*full *video" was edited.

The first versions *released *were edited, then they later released the entire recordings, along with transcripts that refuted a lot of the implications

They discredited themselves with all the lies.

This latest "news" is just word games for the gullible, timed so as to influence the Congressional hearings

Also note who paid for the report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom



> The ADF opposes abortion, and believes that healthcare workers have a right to decline participation in the performance of abortions and other practices an individual health worker finds morally objectionable.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Why don't people ready every post?

In making use of personal freedom and features of this board.... sometimes we just don't see every post till quoted or the member chooses to view.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Why don't people ready every post?
> 
> In making use of personal freedom and features of this board.... sometimes we just don't see every post till quoted or the member chooses to view.


If the "member chooses" to ask questions, it would be nice if they would read the other posts first.

Then they might find the answers have already been given


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> No, it was snark, in disguise.
> 
> BFF's link in *post #313 didn't contain any explanation* about which type of abortions are allowed under Title X funds.
> 
> If you're tired of having to post the same thing repeatedly, perhaps you should just stop.


Post #*310* contained a detailed explanation with a link to the source
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/index.html


> By statute, Title X funds are not used to pay for abortions.


They are on the same page.

The link in *#313* goes to a page that has a menu at the top which says:
"Title X Family Planning"

Under that menu is a link to all the relevant statutes:
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/title-x-policies/statutes-and-regulations/

Under that heading is:


> 1008 â The *Prohibition of Abortion*


I'm on crappy AOL dial-up, and I can find the information in less time than it took to type all this.

It was there all the time, but you have to make some effort on your own if you want the facts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Hold on!
> 
> Are you implying that PP doesn't perform elective abortions.....abortions on demand???


Yes PP performs abortions on demand... But they are not being payed with federal tax dollars for those services.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever said the "*full *video" was edited.
> 
> So... you're saying that it was not implied? LOL
> 
> ...


Attack the messenger.

So... the full versions were released at or near the same time as the short versions, I understand that the short versions could be called "edited" due to them being cut from the full cloth.

Please, provide where they "edited" the versions that were cut from the full version. I understand your attack much better now.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes PP performs abortions on demand... But they are not being payed with federal tax dollars for those services.


Yeah, well... That remains to be seen. I've seen how organizations do their books...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Yeah, well... That remains to be seen. I've seen how organizations do their books...


I've seen how the government looks at books too, fortunate for me mine were straight up and well documented all three times, two of my brothers? Not so much. :Bawling:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Attack the messenger.
> 
> So... the full versions were released at or near the same time as the short versions, *I understand that the short versions could be called "edited"* due to them being cut from the full cloth.
> 
> *Please, provide* where they "edited" the versions that were cut from the full version. I understand your attack much better now.


Please provide real evidence that PP committed any crimes.

I'm not running in circles with you on multiple threads, posting the same information when it's already been done, especially when you use a method of responding that makes it too difficult to quote your replies.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Will do once those charged with investigating the improprieties come forward with their findings.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya like I said a few days ago the verdict is still out on all this stuff that goes on. But that don;t stop the pro groups from grandstanding when they still have no solid ground or evidence that it is not happening. 
Just say so and just because a video is shortened up to play in a shorter period of time they scream it is full of lies because it was edited. Baloney its full of lies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ya like I said a few days ago the verdict is still out on all this stuff that goes on. But that don;t stop the pro groups from grandstanding when *they still have no solid ground or evidence that it is not happening. *
> Just say so and just because a video is shortened up to play in a shorter period of time they scream it is full of lies because it was edited. Baloney its full of lies.


And you have none that it is.
All the investigations completed so far have found nothing at all.
The videos are just the usual misinformation from the same anti abortion crowds

*Like you already said*, most people want to keep funding PP

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...unding-planned-parenthood-supported/73016440/



> Poll: By 2-1, funding for Planned Parenthood supported


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> Ya like I said a few days ago the verdict is still out on all this stuff that goes on. But that don;t stop the pro groups from grandstanding when they still have no solid ground or evidence that it is not happening.
> Just say so and just because a video is shortened up to play in a shorter period of time they scream it is full of lies because it was edited. Baloney its full of lies.


After watching the vids, both short and long versions the "lies" were primarily with the headlines and articles about the vids. Baby parts being sold etc. The lies in the vids themselves were being told by the people conducting the interviews. They lied about who they were and the purpose of the discussions. There were plenty of accusations made that the vids did not substantiate.


----------

