facepalm of the day

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

All I got from that article was that anti-abortion groups spend more money lobbying than Planned Parenthood does. What were you trying to prove?

that all heath care should go thru others, and not anyone who dares assist women seeking legal procedures such as abortion, hyde amendment notwithstanding.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And they are not capable of filling the hole defunding PP would create. That's just bs spread by right-wingers who dislike women and don't think women should have access to reproductive health

by which you mean abortions. Because that's what PP is really about. That's why pro-abortion Dems support it and it supports them in return. PP is an arm of the Democratic party. It's the "largest kick-butt political organization." ~ Cecile Richards ($2.47M 2009-2013)

For the broader spectrum of health care, CMCs do it better and there are more of them, despite what Vox's "experts" say. But yes, if you're all about women's reproductive health (abortions) and Democratic party support, PP is your savior.

And thanks for pointing out how expensive mammograms are. It's true that mammograms would not generate the sort of profit that say, abortions do. It's not even close.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...ide-mammograms

"...right-wingers who dislike women..." What utter bullshit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

by which you mean abortions. Because that's what PP is really about. That's why pro-abortion Dems support it and it supports them in return. PP is an arm of the Democratic party. It's the "largest kick-butt political organization." ~ Cecile Richards ($2.47M 2009-2013)

For the broader spectrum of health care, CMCs do it better and there are more of them, despite what Vox's "experts" say. But yes, if you're all about women's reproductive health (abortions) and Democratic party support, PP is your savior.

And thanks for pointing out how expensive mammograms are. It's true that mammograms would not generate the sort of profit that say, abortions do. It's not even close.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...ide-mammograms

"...right-wingers who dislike women..." What utter bullshit.

it's what pp is really about?
they're really about 3% of their total work?
cmc's don't do it 'better'. they don't do abortion, that doesn't make them better.
be honest, old dog.
you're not worried about mammograms, std testing, womens health. just the abortion part.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carso...advocacy-group

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's what pp is really about?
they're really about 3% of their total work?
cmc's don't do it 'better'. they don't do abortion, that doesn't make them better.
be honest, old dog.
you're not worried about mammograms, std testing, womens health. just the abortion part.

And with which part is PP most concerned? It's pretty obvious if one follows their lobbying and political efforts.

Do you know how the 3% claim is calculated? It would be interesting if PP released how much revenue it collects for these different services, but it doesn't. Aren't you at all curious? Perhaps it wouldn't matter to you. But don't quote that 3% figure to me because I think it's bogus propaganda.

Yes, my cover is blown. I am anti-abortion. And I am anti-PP because they are pro-abortion. They are so pro-abortion that they do more than any other "provider," and their share of that despicable market grows every year. They provide abortion under the guise of women's health, but every year they do more abortions and less of nearly everything else, while every year they receive more government money. They perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral. PP is in the abortion business, and it's subsidized by tax dollars.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by OldDog

And with which part is PP most concerned? It's pretty obvious if one follows their lobbying and political efforts.

Do you know how the 3% claim is calculated? It would be interesting if PP released how much revenue it collects for these different services, but it doesn't. Aren't you at all curious? Perhaps it wouldn't matter to you. But don't quote that 3% figure to me because I think it's bogus propaganda.

Yes, my cover is blown. I am anti-abortion. And I am anti-PP because they are pro-abortion. They are so pro-abortion that they do more than any other "provider," and their share of that despicable market grows every year. They provide abortion under the guise of women's health, but every year they do more abortions and less of nearly everything else, while every year they receive more government money. They perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral. PP is in the abortion business, and it's subsidized by tax dollars.

I know where this will go because it's a softball question, but you are saying that tax dollars shouldn't subsidize legal medical procedures?

[Danzig]

Am i curious how much revenue pp gets from abortions? Not at all.
but, if youre anti abortion, shouldnt you be as supportive of birth control as possible? After all, its better bc accessibility that has led to the decreasing number of pregnancies and abortions.
As for the assertion of pp doing more abortions, is that due to clinic closures and them picking up the slack?

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-abo...ore-women-wait


yay, texas.
here's hoping the courts overturn these bs laws that only had one aim, to shut clinics. for a legal procedure.

[Danzig]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/ten...ion/index.html

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Yes, my cover is blown. I am anti-abortion. And I am anti-PP because they are pro-abortion. They are so pro-abortion that they do more than any other "provider," and their share of that despicable market grows every year. They provide abortion under the guise of women's health, but every year they do more abortions and less of nearly everything else, while every year they receive more government money. They perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral. PP is in the abortion business, and it's subsidized by tax dollars.

Your cover is blown because you are opposed to PP. Because you don't mention anything about visits to dispense contraception vs. visits to perform elective abortion (note: 34 percent of visits to PP are to obtain contraception, vs. 3 percent for elective abortions). Why? I suspect you don't care. The fact that PP prevents 515,000 unintended pregnancies, and 216,000 abortions (via contraceptive services) doesn't matter. But it bears repeating- over half a million unintended pregnancies, and almost a quarter of a million abortions are PREVENTED by Planned Parenthood. Every year.

I have a friend who genuinely anti-abortion (she is also celibate by choice, so she has no dog in the unintended pregnancy game). She is, however, ardently in support of birth control being available to anyone who wants it. Because she is actually anti-abortion, not anti-woman. And she gets that people are going to have sex and that is a non-negotiable part of life. You can't just say "keep your legs crossed." (which, of course, is only ever said to women. Boys are expected to be boys, amirite?)

Right-wingers oppose abortion. They also oppose access to birth control, and feel that employers should be allowed to impose the religious values of the company's owner on their employees, too. They use incorrect information about birth control to justify this (claiming things like the morning after pill, and birth control pills, and IUDs prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, when every available bit of evidence points to exactly the opposite, that they do not).

And they want to defund the organization that has devoted 97 years to keeping poor women from getting pregnant before they are ready to be. Ninety-seven years. There's a reason the organization is called Planned Parenthood. Emphasis on "Planned."

People who oppose access to birth control and who oppose safe access to abortion, and who also oppose state-supported pre-natal care and post-natal care for infants and children of poor mothers (and right-wingers oppose all these things) view pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for women having sex.

And that's a terrible view to have of women and babies.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/fi...he_Numbers.pdf

[GenuineRisk]

Or, more eloquently (and stridently) put:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."

- Ayn Rand

[Danzig]

and scotus already ruled on whatever 'right to life' there is, when the state can begin to impose rules, when a womans rights begin to lose ground to a potential human beings 'rights'.

anyone up in arms over the video is up in arms because they think they found a gotcha moment for PP. except it's not, nor should it be. fetal tissue research has been going on far longer than roe has been around. only the lack of medical necessity will stop it in future.

i'm seriously considering having my body donated to science when i croak. if i could help one last time i'd be all for it. how else to find cures, vaccines, etc?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Your cover is blown because you are opposed to PP. Because you don't mention anything about visits to dispense contraception vs. visits to perform elective abortion (note: 34 percent of visits to PP are to obtain contraception, vs. 3 percent for elective abortions). Why? I suspect you don't care. The fact that PP prevents 515,000 unintended pregnancies, and 216,000 abortions (via contraceptive services) doesn't matter. But it bears repeating- over half a million unintended pregnancies, and almost a quarter of a million abortions are PREVENTED by Planned Parenthood. Every year.

I have a friend who genuinely anti-abortion (she is also celibate by choice, so she has no dog in the unintended pregnancy game). She is, however, ardently in support of birth control being available to anyone who wants it. Because she is actually anti-abortion, not anti-woman. And she gets that people are going to have sex and that is a non-negotiable part of life. You can't just say "keep your legs crossed." (which, of course, is only ever said to women. Boys are expected to be boys, amirite?)

Right-wingers oppose abortion. They also oppose access to birth control, and feel that employers should be allowed to impose the religious values of the company's owner on their employees, too. They use incorrect information about birth control to justify this (claiming things like the morning after pill, and birth control pills, and IUDs prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, when every available bit of evidence points to exactly the opposite, that they do not).

And they want to defund the organization that has devoted 97 years to keeping poor women from getting pregnant before they are ready to be. Ninety-seven years. There's a reason the organization is called Planned Parenthood. Emphasis on "Planned."

People who oppose access to birth control and who oppose safe access to abortion, and who also oppose state-supported pre-natal care and post-natal care for infants and children of poor mothers (and right-wingers oppose all these things) view pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for women having sex.

And that's a terrible view to have of women and babies.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/fi...he_Numbers.pdf

Yes you are

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...e-disaster-aid

[Crown@club]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ble-fellowship

Any correlation if the Cubs win tonight?
I figure this wouldn't post until the Cubs win the World Series.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ble-fellowship

Any correlation if the Cubs win tonight?
I figure this wouldn't until the Cubs win the World Series.

i can't believe people still see stuff like this occur in the sky, and think it means something apocalyptic.
i also can't believe other people listen to them....

[bigrun]

Dang watch, I'll probably hit the lottery at 11 and the world ends at midnite...i got no luck but bad luck

Oh and i've been Pirates fan for 50 years.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

People who oppose safe access to abortion view pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for women having sex.

And that's a terrible view to have of women and babies.

That's quite an imaginative conspiracy narrative.

One of the most effective arguments I’ve heard against capital punishment is the fallibility of the judicial system. It goes something like this: If there is the least shred of doubt of the accused’s guilt, how can society risk performing the ultimate, irreversible punishment? Do we know when human life begins? Can we say with certainty that it is less objectionable to take it at 14 or 18 weeks than at 22 or 24? I would think we’d prefer to err on the side of caution. Maybe I am in the minority, maybe not, but I believe that life begins at conception. Being pro-life or anti-abortion is anti-woman? That only works if one believes that life doesn’t begin until birth, or that rights, as HRC says, begin when the baby leaves the hospital. If one believes that life begins at conception, as is backed up by science, then how does a woman’s right to choose trump another human’s right to life? In this context, does the discussion of when life begins make some uncomfortable? It should. As Uncle Joe said, “It’s a big f____g deal.”

So I am anti-abortion, and pp is not only increasingly the single largest purveyor of abortions, but is the most politically active pro-abortion group, so of course I am opposed to government funding of pp. Do they do good things? Yes, pp provides many services to which I do not object. Pro-abortion advocates like to cite pp’s statistic that abortion is only 3% of what pp does, and that even if one objects to abortion one must hold them near and dear because of their good works. Follow the money. PP is run more like a business than many realize. “Abortion is only 3% of what pp does.” As measured by “discrete clinical interaction,” which is how pp calculated that percentage, that may be true. That means that the person who comes in to obtain condoms is counted as one “interaction,” just as is the client who comes in to obtain an abortion. How about in terms of revenue generated? Unless pp receives significantly more than 3% of their revenue from abortion, why would they not open their books to independent analysis so as to put the issue to rest? To some (pro-choice'ers) it wouldn’t matter if abortion generated 30% or 60% or even 90% of pp’s non-government granted revenue, but to others it might (and that may well be pp’s concern), seeing as how some experts believe that CHCs are better health care providers and yet the government provides around 40% of pp’s funding. As was pointed out earlier, pp doesn’t do mammograms because of the expense relative to the reimbursement rate. The contribution margin for mammograms is extremely low, sometimes even negative, whereas for abortions it’s estimated to be $400-$600 per procedure. And while “right-wingers” are lumped together as being opposed to “women’s rights to contraception,” it’s the left – and pp – who are vehemently opposed to a Republican proposal that contraception be sold as an OTC. Wouldn’t OTC status increase immediate availability to all women? Yes, but pp would stand to lose a lot of money. Women’s interests? Or self-interest?

[Danzig]

i wonder how the 'some experts' figure that chc's are 'better'?
or do they just say that they're better because they don't do abortions?

what really gets me....capitalism is supposed to be so great, except when someone dare make money on certain medical procedures.
but when i say we should have universal health care, oh hell no! that's communism or socialism, or something.

as for 'fallibility' and the argument over right to life, that's been covered.
as the fetus gets further along, things change. read the roe ruling, it'll explain.

[Alabama Stakes]

It's official now with McCarthy dropping from the speakers race. The inmates are in charge of the asylum