So are Republicans going to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

[fskimospy]

"The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation."

Typical for someone like you. Are these facilities located where PP places are? Do they provide the same services? Are they staffed with actual educated workers, or are they like the anti-choice clinics that aren't actually staffed with doctors? Or does none of the matter because as a republican, anything that harms poor people and women is worth the effort?

A really large percentage of planned parenthood clinics are in places without much access to other health care, not that Fern bothered to check I would imagine. Also, how dumb do you have to be to go to an explicitly partisan organization to become informed about a contentious issue?

Some people just enjoy being duped I guess.

 

[dank69]

A really large percentage of planned parenthood clinics are in places without much access to other health care, not that Fern bothered to check I would imagine. Also, how dumb do you have to be to go to an explicitly partisan organization to become informed about a contentious issue?

Some people just enjoy being duped I guess.

Don't you understand by now that the regular media is biased? You need to go to these places to get the real story.

I also checked out his link. There are exactly 666 PP clinics in America. You can't convince me that isn't intentional.

 

[DrPizza]

Educate me as to why they are not.

I admit, I only know what I hear on conservative radio. They are where abortions are performed, and they receive huge government funding.

-John

Your statement that PP only exists to provide abortions is as logical as "Walmart only exists to provide lawn chairs, because in most cities, that's the only place you can go and purchase a lawn chair." Abortions are only 3% of PP's services. 3%. 3% 3% 3% 3% (In case you missed it the first or second time.) THREE PERCENT of their services. And, off the top of my head, I think it's 10% of women who use their services who have had an abortion, but don't quote me on that number. They provide hundreds of thousands of PAP smears, hundreds of thousands of breast exams, I think STD testing and treatment is in the millions, no clue how many birth control related services (IUD, etc.) they perform each year, but it's 80% of their services. (So, if you add up the other things we have numbers for, more than 4 times that combined number receive birth control services.)

Re: someone mentioned other free clinics, I think it was Fern. I heard a discussion on that topic on NPR the other day; that idea was fairly well destroyed by a few knowledgeable people for a variety of reasons, including how busy they were, back logged, etc. Reproductive services aren't something you can put off.

 

[fskimospy]

Your statement that PP only exists to provide abortions is as logical as "Walmart only exists to provide lawn chairs, because in most cities, that's the only place you can go and purchase a lawn chair." Abortions are only 3% of PP's services. 3%. 3% 3% 3% 3% (In case you missed it the first or second time.) THREE PERCENT of their services. And, off the top of my head, I think it's 10% of women who use their services who have had an abortion, but don't quote me on that number. They provide hundreds of thousands of PAP smears, hundreds of thousands of breast exams, I think STD testing and treatment is in the millions, no clue how many birth control related services (IUD, etc.) they perform each year, but it's 80% of their services. (So, if you add up the other things we have numbers for, more than 4 times that combined number receive birth control services.)

Re: someone mentioned other free clinics, I think it was Fern. I heard a discussion on that topic on NPR the other day; that idea was fairly well destroyed by a few knowledgeable people for a variety of reasons, including how busy they were, back logged, etc. Reproductive services aren't something you can put off.

But they're really angry about abortions and the Heritage Foundation said it would be fine. Why would such an esteemed organization lie to them?

 

[DrPizza]

Don't you understand by now that the regular media is biased? You need to go to these places to get the real story.

I also checked out his link. There are exactly 666 PP clinics in America. You can't convince me that isn't intentional.

Not saying it is that many, I thought it was slightly higher. But if that is the actual count, wouldn't it be due to Texas and Indiana forcing some of them to close? Texas is teh devil!

 

[dank69]

Not saying it is that many, I thought it was slightly higher. But if that is the actual count, wouldn't it be due to Texas and Indiana forcing some of them to close? Texas is teh devil!

That's just what the liberal media wants you to think.

 

[Jaskalas]

But it's already too late. The narrative is set, facts be damned.

That's P&N, and politics in general.
And you have no idea how convincing that video is.

You shouldn't be surprised if there's 10s of millions still thinking its factually happening.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's P&N, and politics in general.
And you have no idea how convincing that video is.

You shouldn't be surprised if there's 10s of millions still thinking its factually happening.

Of course. I've often remarked that Repubs have the best propagandists in the world, and this is just another example.

What else might they be lying about? Is it possible that you've been taught to believe in other things that aren't true at all?

When you catch somebody lying about one thing, that's usually just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Jhhnn]

I also checked out his link. There are exactly 666 PP clinics in America. You can't convince me that isn't intentional.

Proof positive!

I'll bet one of those clinics is in... Benghazi! which explains everything. That's where they send the baby parts, which are a mooslim delicacy! The former administrator disappeared after the attack on the consulate & they're afraid she'll spill the beans, so they started a military operation to find her. Her name is Jade Helm! It's right there in plain sight!

 

[Mxylplyx]

Looks like McConnell is trying to put the brakes on this. I guess his memory isnt quite as short as many of those in the house.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...thood-government-shutdown-121096.html?hp=t1_r

 

[lopri]

Why don't they simply ban the use of fetal wastes, academically or commercially (pharmaceuticals)? Seems like an easiest thing to do.. oh wait..

 

[theeedude]

Looks like McConnell is trying to put the brakes on this. I guess his memory isnt quite as short as many of those in the house.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...thood-government-shutdown-121096.html?hp=t1_r

Because Jeb Bush gone and said what he believes:

“I’m not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women’s health programs”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-planned-parenthood-2016-121045.html?hp=b2_c2

Now people can see what it's all about, defunding women's health.
Of course once he got busted, he tried to back out of it saying he misspoke and it's about abortion, not women's health, but since that funding doesn't fund abortion, and only funds women's health, that's a bunch of BS.
In any case, this is a loser for the GOP if it gets any more than the initial "eww gross" attention and people actually think about it.

 

[Fern]

How about you let their customers decide if they are necessary or not, instead of you and a bunch of politicians?

Customers? Diverting huh?

We're speaking of federal funds. That's exactly the kind thing taxpayers (me) and "a bunch of politicians" should be deciding.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Customers? Diverting huh?

We're speaking of federal funds. That's exactly the kind thing taxpayers (me) and "a bunch of politicians" should be deciding.

Fern

So, should the government decide for Medicare patients what doctors they can and can't see based on politics? Republicans want to go down that road?

 

[ivwshane]

So, should the government decide for Medicare patients what doctors they can and can't see based on politics? Republicans want to go down that road?

Lol! It's so easy to corner a righty, just use their own arguements against them and watch them scramble.

What was it they kept yelling while the ACA was being discussed? That government would come between doctors and their patients? And here they are trying to do just that.

Hypocrites, every last one of them.

 

[Fern]

Huh? Abortion is legal and supported by a super-majority of the country

Well, you're flat-out wrong. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Polling for approval of abortions under any circumstances shows support of just 29%

Support for abortions under certain circumstances is a mere 51%, not a "super majority".

[/quote]
, why would we defund PP and reallocate the funds to organizations that don't provide women the choice to have an abortion? You seem to be woefully confused. The half a billion PP receives in gov't funding specifically cannot be used for abortions, because of the Hyde amendment. Defunding PP, then, simply means a straight up defunding of the many health services PP offers to women. For you to admit that you support the funds going to other organizations that don't provide abortions reveals precisely your anti-choice bias, having nothing to do with what was revealed in the videos and having no real concern for the improbability of reallocation half a billion in funds away from PP without hurting women's health services/access, something documented in your own conservative-in-the-tank Daily Signal article, as shown below:[/QUOTE]

Reallocating federal funds from PP to other health service providers does not deny or hurt service for women.

There are tons of non-P government funded HC centers in each state.

My post had nothing to do with "anti-choice bias". Instead, I'm saying the liberals' argument that reallocating funds away from PP would deny services to women is utterly bogus. There are plenty of other HC service providers.

And since you claim that PP uses NO govt funds for abortions you must admit that reallocating those govt funds cannot impair anyone's ability to have an abortion. Right? Or do you want to have it both ways (as you seem to argue here): No federal funding is used to provide abortions, but we can't reallocate that federal funding because it would deny abortion services to women.

That website was chosen because it popped up first under a google search and had a handy chart with the number of clinics etc. I don't know anything about the site nor did I read the article nor ask anyone here to. I.e., any bias they may have is irrelevant since we're not concerning ourselves with their opinion or analysis.

If you think their numbers our wrong; hook us up to the correct info.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Funding for planned parenthood is not funding for abortions. Full stop.
-snip-

Bullshit. Full stop.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
But my point was that I'm surprised this fetal organ research didn't also become an issue at that time. Maybe it wasn't really a thing then? This was about 14 years ago...

My recollection is that IT WAS a big deal back then.

Fern

 

[Fern]

A really large percentage of planned parenthood clinics are in places without much access to other health care, not that Fern bothered to check I would imagine. Also, how dumb do you have to be to go to an explicitly partisan organization to become informed about a contentious issue?

Some people just enjoy being duped I guess.

Riiight Hot Shot.

I've checked NC. According to PP their facilities are located ONLY in our largest cities. Some much for your claim about "in places without much access to other health care."

So much for your contention about "A really large percentage" since it's exactly 0% here.

"The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation."

Typical for someone like you. Are these facilities located where PP places are? Do they provide the same services? Are they staffed with actual educated workers, or are they like the anti-choice clinics that aren't actually staffed with doctors? Or does none of the matter because as a republican, anything that harms poor people and women is worth the effort?

You have a lot questions. Can't you use google?

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Which they've already done and are breaking the law so why let them double dip because the govt isn't going to prosecute?

How are they breaking the law? If it's selling aborted babies, they pretty much had that covered until these videos by leasing space to the people who buy them.

"The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation."

Typical for someone like you. Are these facilities located where PP places are? Do they provide the same services? Are they staffed with actual educated workers, or are they like the anti-choice clinics that aren't actually staffed with doctors? Or does none of the matter because as a republican, anything that harms poor people and women is worth the effort?

Those are good questions but for fuck's sake don't say "anti-choice", it makes you look like a nut. Everyone is trying to define the other side, so when it should simply be pro-abortion or anti-abortion we have pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-life, and anti-life. It's just silly and no one is fooled.

If we're looking at defunding Planned Parenthood, we need to look at several things. Are there other existing facilities in reasonably close locations capable of providing these services? Can those other existing facilities provide the same level of care? Can they ramp up to meet the new demand, assuming Planned Parenthood has to cut back? $532 million for 666 clinics is almost $800k each; that's a hell of a budget shortfall, so I'm assuming services would have to be cut back, perhaps closing marginal offices. Can these other existing facilities provide services for the same or less cost? Over 666 clinics these questions won't be quickly answered, and everyone knows that Planned Parenthood will simply spin off their abortion wing and be back asking for money again next year. Seems like a lot of bother for a moral victory that really isn't going to materially change anything and will cause the GOP to take a political hit.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Riiight Hot Shot.

I've checked NC. According to PP their facilities are located ONLY in our largest cities. Some much for your claim about "in places without much access to other health care."

So much for your contention about "A really large percentage" since it's exactly 0% here.



You have a lot questions. Can't you use google?

Fern

Lol holy shit. You claim, quite arrogantly, that closing planned parenthood would impact 0% of the people who rely on their services. Then in the next part refuse to answer who else would provide those same services to the people relying on PP.

You must know since you are certain not a single person would be negatively impacted. So own it and explain the alternatives. Or admit you're full of shit arguing positions you have no basis for.

 

[ivwshane]

How are they breaking the law? If it's selling aborted babies, they pretty much had that covered until these videos by leasing space to the people who buy them.


Those are good questions but for fuck's sake don't say "anti-choice", it makes you look like a nut. Everyone is trying to define the other side, so when it should simply be pro-abortion or anti-abortion we have pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-life, and anti-life. It's just silly and no one is fooled.

If we're looking at defunding Planned Parenthood, we need to look at several things. Are there other existing facilities in reasonably close locations capable of providing these services? Can those other existing facilities provide the same level of care? Can they ramp up to meet the new demand, assuming Planned Parenthood has to cut back? $532 million for 666 clinics is almost $800k each; that's a hell of a budget shortfall, so I'm assuming services would have to be cut back, perhaps closing marginal offices. Can these other existing facilities provide services for the same or less cost? Over 666 clinics these questions won't be quickly answered, and everyone knows that Planned Parenthood will simply spin off their abortion wing and be back asking for money again next year. Seems like a lot of bother for a moral victory that really isn't going to materially change anything and will cause the GOP to take a political hit.

Sounds like a winner!

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/what-happens-when-you-defund-planned-parenthood

More government please...says every righty regarding healthcare! /s

 

[werepossum]

Well, you're flat-out wrong. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Polling for approval of abortions under any circumstances shows support of just 29%

Support for abortions under certain circumstances is a mere 51%, not a "super majority".

, why would we defund PP and reallocate the funds to organizations that don't provide women the choice to have an abortion? You seem to be woefully confused. The half a billion PP receives in gov't funding specifically cannot be used for abortions, because of the Hyde amendment. Defunding PP, then, simply means a straight up defunding of the many health services PP offers to women. For you to admit that you support the funds going to other organizations that don't provide abortions reveals precisely your anti-choice bias, having nothing to do with what was revealed in the videos and having no real concern for the improbability of reallocation half a billion in funds away from PP without hurting women's health services/access, something documented in your own conservative-in-the-tank Daily Signal article, as shown below:

Reallocating federal funds from PP to other health service providers does not deny or hurt service for women.

There are tons of non-P government funded HC centers in each state.

My post had nothing to do with "anti-choice bias". Instead, I'm saying the liberals' argument that reallocating funds away from PP would deny services to women is utterly bogus. There are plenty of other HC service providers.

And since you claim that PP uses NO govt funds for abortions you must admit that reallocating those govt funds cannot impair anyone's ability to have an abortion. Right? Or do you want to have it both ways (as you seem to argue here): No federal funding is used to provide abortions, but we can't reallocate that federal funding because it would deny abortion services to women.

That website was chosen because it popped up first under a google search and had a handy chart with the number of clinics etc. I don't know anything about the site nor did I read the article nor ask anyone here to. I.e., any bias they may have is irrelevant since we're not concerning ourselves with their opinion or analysis.

If you think their numbers our wrong; hook us up to the correct info.

Fern

I don't think it's quite as simple as pointing out that they are in our largest cities. You'd have to show that there are alternative services within reasonable proximity able to take up the slack. If we take a typical unmarried working poor woman who gets herself knocked up while working two part-time jobs, losing a local clinic with a two-hour wait and being forced to go to a clinic an additional half hour hour's bus ride away with a four hour wait may well be the difference between getting an ultrasound and not, or between seeing a nutritionist or not. (And remember, these women aren't in this situation because they are too smart and too educated.) Same with services; if a Planned Parenthood clinic is forced to cut a doctor or nurse practitioner due to losing the government money, that doesn't necessarily mean that another nearby clinic hires a doctor or nurse practitioner. Maybe what that clinic really needs is air conditioning or a psychologist. Even if there is another clinic that provides exactly the same services, just knowing that both are in Raleigh doesn't make them equally accessible, particularly if one relies on the bus to get around.

I'm not saying Planned Parenthood cannot lose government funding without negatively hurting poor women's health, I'm just saying that it would be non-trivial to show that. Particularly with 666 clinics, seems unlikely to me that at least some of these have no such duplicate services available. I hate to see us take up the proggies' demeanor that these people are simply acceptable collateral damage, especially given the group; someone like myself is much more able to absorb higher health costs due to Obamacare than is some poor single mother losing a local Planned Parenthood clinic.

 

[highland145]

How are they breaking the law? If it's selling aborted babies, they pretty much had that covered until these videos by leasing space to the people who buy them.

By adjusting the way the abortion is preformed to preserve certain parts intact or holding off until a certain gestation. 1993 law specifically prohibits it....and I'm failing at finding a link. I'll keep at it.

 

[ivwshane]

By adjusting the way the abortion is preformed to preserve certain parts intact or holding off until a certain gestation. 1993 law specifically prohibits it....and I'm failing at finding a link. I'll keep at it.

They in no way did that. You won't find a link unless it's a heavily edited one. You've been duped.