facepalm of the day

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we're to take the word of people with heavily edited videos and made up stuff?
is that what you're saying?
based on what should the people you keep citing be believed?

It's all in the transcripts. The full length videos are online, too. If you can't believe Deborah Nucatola, MD, Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who can you believe?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

It's all in the transcripts. The full length videos are online, too. If you can't believe Deborah Nucatola, MD, Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who can you believe?

You mean the transcripts reported as not truthful? As accurate as the doctored footage?
Hmm, you'd think there'd be an actual case by now. I mean, even missouri said nothing to see. How odd.
Why do you suppose that is?

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/video-fea...orina-released

keep throwing poo, something bound to stick.


and these groups and their videos seem to all have something in common.

The videos were found to be highly edited, splicing together stock footage with surreptitiously recorded conversations and photos used without permission of the owner

there are cuts in the video that make it difficult to tell definitively what’s happened

in response to questions about the discrepancies she’s largely pivoted to what she says is the bigger issue — that the practice of keeping fetuses alive to harvest their organs does exist, and taxpayers are footing the bill for the practice at Planned Parenthood.

The release of the full Center for Bio-Ethical Reform video does not, however, put the controversy to rest.

There is no sound to the video, and David Daleiden, who created the Center for Medical Progress videos targeting Planned Parenthood, has said he used the clip of the fetus to illustrate a procedure he had been told about by a medical technician, layering the sound of the latter over the visuals of the former. (and isn't this the video of a miscarriage, as confirmed by the mother?)


but...those who wish to believe will do so no matter what.

and will believe there is criminality. when you see PP charged, tried and convicted, come back to me. then we'll talk.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So it's PP's loss leader? Taking them at their word, it's all good as long as PP doesn't profit? Okay.


Which part?

This part, where you said, "Do you know if PP kills babies who have been born alive, and sells their organs?"

The problem with this statement is that you're asking someone to prove a negative. It's a fallacy in informal logic. To use another example, "Do I know if OldDog has non-consensual sex with farm animals?"

There is about as much evidence that OldDog has non-consensual sex with farm animals as there is evidence that "PP kills babies who have been born alive, and sells their organs." One statement is just as ridiculous as the other.

In the long excerpt of dialogue you pasted, the only person who used "harvest" in terms of an organ was the undercover sting person. The PP person didn't say it. The majority of what the PP person said was, if specific tissue is requested, we can tailor, to some extent, how the procedure goes, in an attempt to get the tissue requested.

Of course, what the PP person did say, and which I strongly support, is, "I’d rather this actually get used for something, so I think, as much as the patients, the providers absolutely want to help."

The patients agree to donate the tissue. It can't be done without their consent. Because they think vaccinations and treatments for blindness and diabetes are important.

If you've ever received a polio vaccine, you have personally benefited from fetal tissue research.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This part, where you said, "Do you know if PP kills babies who have been born alive, and sells their organs?"

The problem with this statement is that you're asking someone to prove a negative. It's a fallacy in informal logic. To use another example, "Do I know if OldDog has non-consensual sex with farm animals?"

There is about as much evidence that OldDog has non-consensual sex with farm animals as there is evidence that "PP kills babies who have been born alive, and sells their organs." One statement is just as ridiculous as the other.

In the long excerpt of dialogue you pasted, the only person who used "harvest" in terms of an organ was the undercover sting person. The PP person didn't say it. The majority of what the PP person said was, if specific tissue is requested, we can tailor, to some extent, how the procedure goes, in an attempt to get the tissue requested.

Of course, what the PP person did say, and which I strongly support, is, "I’d rather this actually get used for something, so I think, as much as the patients, the providers absolutely want to help."

The patients agree to donate the tissue. It can't be done without their consent. Because they think vaccinations and treatments for blindness and diabetes are important.

If you've ever received a polio vaccine, you have personally benefited from fetal tissue research.

and regarding the highlighted part, i believe the mmr vaccine as well.

and here's a cnn article, which discusses that fetal tissue research has gone on since the 30's..and that with advances in stem cell research, lab work, etc, fetal tissue use might be on its way out....but not because it hasn't proved useful. and it definitely has.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and regarding the highlighted part, i believe the mmr vaccine as well.

and here's a cnn article, which discusses that fetal tissue research has gone on since the 30's..and that with advances in stem cell research, lab work, etc, fetal tissue use might be on its way out....but not because it hasn't proved useful. and it definitely has.

And of course none of the right wingers talk about PP's main mission, which is providing health care, regardless of ability to pay. A friend of mine on FB commented when she was laid off from her job, so no health care, and found a lump in her breast (barely a year after her mom died from breast cancer), it was PP that saw her right away and got her in for a mammogram. A friend of her, in the comment thread below her post, said he was raped at 15 and needed HIV testing and a bunch of other medical tests done, and his family was unable to afford anyplace other than Planned Parenthood. He said the PP staff treated him with dignity and provided him with all the services he needed.

This is what the right wingers want to take away from people. Specifically, poor people, because eff the poor, amirite?

[jms62]

You lost me pope

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-meeting-in-dc

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And of course none of the right wingers talk about PP's main mission, which is providing health care, regardless of ability to pay. A friend of mine on FB commented when she was laid off from her job, so no health care, and found a lump in her breast (barely a year after her mom died from breast cancer), it was PP that saw her right away and got her in for a mammogram. A friend of her, in the comment thread below her post, said he was raped at 15 and needed HIV testing and a bunch of other medical tests done, and his family was unable to afford anyplace other than Planned Parenthood. He said the PP staff treated him with dignity and provided him with all the services he needed.

This is what the right wingers want to take away from people. Specifically, poor people, because eff the poor, amirite?

hey, plenty more serfs to take their place.
seriously, even the CBO showed that if PP lost their funding, it would end up costing taxpayers MORE money than it does now....because someone would have to pick up the slack, and apparently medicaid reimbursement costs more.
but hey, like jeb said, we don't need to spend half a billion bucks on women (he completely disregarded PP providing care to men, too, but i'm sure he hasn't got a problem with money spent on men).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

You lost me pope

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...-meeting-in-dc

yeah, i saw that.
of course, had she wanted to be a priest he'd have shunned her.
and i saw the other day that he said people like her had a 'religious right to refuse service'. nope, not here, mr pope.
a lot of people really appreciated it when he said 'who am i to judge?'. and then he meets with this crackpot?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i saw that.
of course, had she wanted to be a priest he'd have shunned her.
and i saw the other day that he said people like her had a 'religious right to refuse service'. nope, not here, mr pope.
a lot of people really appreciated it when he said 'who am i to judge?'. and then he meets with this crackpot?

Not to mention, I think according to Apostolic beliefs (her particular branch), the Pope is going to Hell.

I smell a remake of the Odd Couple! "Can a celibate leader of a major denomination who likes to kiss babies that dress like him and a four-times married woman who won't do her job share an apartment without driving each other crazy?"

(I hate to admit it, but I'd watch the sh*t out of that show.)

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/federal-h...ers-set-expire

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And of course none of the right wingers talk about PP's main mission, which is providing health care, regardless of ability to pay. A friend of mine on FB commented when she was laid off from her job, so no health care, and found a lump in her breast (barely a year after her mom died from breast cancer), it was PP that saw her right away and got her in for a mammogram. A friend of her, in the comment thread below her post, said he was raped at 15 and needed HIV testing and a bunch of other medical tests done, and his family was unable to afford anyplace other than Planned Parenthood. He said the PP staff treated him with dignity and provided him with all the services he needed.

This is what the right wingers want to take away from people. Specifically, poor people, because eff the poor, amirite?

That's funny. The Congressional House Republicans passed a measure that wouldn't only defund PP, but would redirect its funding to community health centers around the country. There are around 700 PP clinics, but around 9000 CHCs. Many of them even perform mammograms instead of sending their patients in to other clinics or health centers that do. Of course, they don't lobby and donate large sums of money to pro abortion Democrats through their "outreach" arms as does PP. And their leaders didn't pledge to turn their clinics into "the largest kick-butt political organization." Because wymen!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

That's funny. The Congressional House Republicans passed a measure that wouldn't only defund PP, but would redirect its funding to community health centers around the country. There are around 700 PP clinics, but around 9000 CHCs. Many of them even perform mammograms instead of sending their patients in to other clinics or health centers that do. Of course, they don't lobby and donate large sums of money to pro abortion Democrats through their "outreach" arms as does PP. And their leaders didn't pledge to turn their clinics into "the largest kick-butt political organization." Because wymen!

what about the part where if the feds defund pp, it would end up costing taxpayers more than keeping all as is? cbo report is out there, that's what they found.
and it's pro choice, not pro abortion. a lot of pro choicers don't like that it occurs, but they're not trying to force their opinions onto other people and their personal lives.
just like it's anti-choice, not pro-life....because a lot of anti choicers don't give a rats behind about lives. and truly, the oddest in the group...people who are protesting on monday, after having had their own abortion the week before. or the supposed pro life pols who encourage mistresses to get abortions, because they don't want their shenanigans getting exposed.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

That's funny. The Congressional House Republicans passed a measure that wouldn't only defund PP, but would redirect its funding to community health centers around the country. There are around 700 PP clinics, but around 9000 CHCs. Many of them even perform mammograms instead of sending their patients in to other clinics or health centers that do. Of course, they don't lobby and donate large sums of money to pro abortion Democrats through their "outreach" arms as does PP. And their leaders didn't pledge to turn their clinics into "the largest kick-butt political organization." Because wymen!

Uh huh. Engage long enough and a person's honest attitudes start to emerge.

To the meat of what you said- you mean 9000 community health clinics that do not have the staff or facilities to address an influx of people who need reproductive health care. Let's hear from an actual person who actually deals with actual reproductive health care, rather than right-wing GOP congress critters, shall we?

"If Planned Parenthood tomorrow went away, there's a good number of patients just in my service area that no longer have a doctor or no longer have a place to go for OB/GYN services," said Mark DeFrancesco, a physician in Waterbury, Connecticut, who is president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published an op-ed this month opposing efforts to end Planned Parenthood funding. "If they start calling my office, it's going to be, 'Well, we could take you but it might be two, three months down the road.' If they call other places, it might be, 'We can't even take you.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e333e54b844e

Planned Parenthood is a vital source of health care for women and men in this country. Defunding it would be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of people.

As for them performing abortions:

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Uh huh. Engage long enough and a person's honest attitudes start to emerge.

To the meat of what you said- you mean 9000 community health clinics that do not have the staff or facilities to address an influx of people who need reproductive health care. Let's hear from an actual person who actually deals with actual reproductive health care, rather than right-wing GOP congress critters, shall we?

"If Planned Parenthood tomorrow went away, there's a good number of patients just in my service area that no longer have a doctor or no longer have a place to go for OB/GYN services," said Mark DeFrancesco, a physician in Waterbury, Connecticut, who is president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and published an op-ed this month opposing efforts to end Planned Parenthood funding. "If they start calling my office, it's going to be, 'Well, we could take you but it might be two, three months down the road.' If they call other places, it might be, 'We can't even take you.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e333e54b844e

Planned Parenthood is a vital source of health care for women and men in this country. Defunding it would be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of people.

As for them performing abortions:

and here's a take on what would occur, from the wash. post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...ment-spending/

The Congressional Budget Office said in a new report on Thursday that cutting off the women’s health organization from federal money would actually increase public spending by an estimated $130 million over 10 years.

The centers serve more than 40 percent of women who receive birth control from safety-net providers in 18 states, according to a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health organization, and more than half of such women in 11 states.


The office’s math: Halting federal funds to Planned Parenthood would shrink spending by $520 million in the short run -- but, over the first decade, it would cost taxpayers an additional $650 million.

[Danzig]

this guy to be next speaker?! ha. he needs to polish his presentations, especially when his party is claiming a legit investigation, not just a hatchet job...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politi...ker/index.html

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy said on Fox News. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Uh huh. Engage long enough and a person's honest attitudes start to emerge.

Why, yes. They do. As well as what they're really about.

Approximately 9,000 CHCs are spread across the country, and outnumber PP facilities 12 to 1. They exist in nearly every congressional district. They provide more comprehensive health services than PP, including mammograms. They serve over 23 million individuals, regardless of ability to pay. What don't they do? They don't do abortions. In addition to the CHCs, there are more than 2,000 pregnancy care centers nationally (CareNet, Heartbeat, NIFLA), available to help women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. The caveat? They don't do abortions.

The graph that Danzig referred to as being misleading because it had no "y" axis? I notice than no one disputed the figures, which came from PP's own annual reports. From 2009 to 2013, cancer-screening and -prevention programs dropped by about half, prenatal services dropped by more than half, and breast exams dropped by 41 percent, all while government funding increased. Pregnant and want PP's help? According to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-14 report, out of total services for pregnant women (adoption referrals, prenatal services, abortion), abortion made up over 94 percent. Prenatal care made up only about 5 percent of pregnancy services. Meanwhile PP's abortion numbers have gone up every year, as shown in Danzig's graph.

This article is four years old
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011...ised-to-fight/
but still shows, even more considering how their funding has increased, what PP and its supporters are about.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Why, yes. They do. As well as what they're really about.

Approximately 9,000 CHCs are spread across the country, and outnumber PP facilities 12 to 1. They exist in nearly every congressional district. They provide more comprehensive health services than PP, including mammograms. They serve over 23 million individuals, regardless of ability to pay. What don't they do? They don't do abortions. In addition to the CHCs, there are more than 2,000 pregnancy care centers nationally (CareNet, Heartbeat, NIFLA), available to help women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. The caveat? They don't do abortions.

The graph that Danzig referred to as being misleading because it had no "y" axis? I notice than no one disputed the figures, which came from PP's own annual reports. From 2009 to 2013, cancer-screening and -prevention programs dropped by about half, prenatal services dropped by more than half, and breast exams dropped by 41 percent, all while government funding increased. Pregnant and want PP's help? According to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-14 report, out of total services for pregnant women (adoption referrals, prenatal services, abortion), abortion made up over 94 percent. Prenatal care made up only about 5 percent of pregnancy services. Meanwhile PP's abortion numbers have gone up every year, as shown in Danzig's graph.

This article is four years old
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011...ised-to-fight/
but still shows, even more considering how their funding has increased, what PP and its supporters are about.

er...they dispute the graph, with arrows pointing in ways to make people go 'oh' without paying attention to the actual numbers...to make it seem other than what it is.

and birth rates and abortion rates have dropped over the last years, in all demographics. teens, immigrants...due to more birth control availability and better education about the same.
so...yeah, go ahead and cut PP. and then get back to me on those numbers when they change in the wrong direction.

regarding preventive care, did it drop due to more people getting Medicaid and obamacare?
what are the numbers in the states that didn't expand medicaid? are they like texas, with the most uninsured? horrible health care, preventive care, etc?

what part of this:

over the first decade, it would cost taxpayers an additional $650 million

do you not understand?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Why, yes. They do. As well as what they're really about.

Approximately 9,000 CHCs are spread across the country, and outnumber PP facilities 12 to 1. They exist in nearly every congressional district. They provide more comprehensive health services than PP, including mammograms. They serve over 23 million individuals, regardless of ability to pay. What don't they do? They don't do abortions. In addition to the CHCs, there are more than 2,000 pregnancy care centers nationally (CareNet, Heartbeat, NIFLA), available to help women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. The caveat? They don't do abortions.

The graph that Danzig referred to as being misleading because it had no "y" axis? I notice than no one disputed the figures, which came from PP's own annual reports. From 2009 to 2013, cancer-screening and -prevention programs dropped by about half, prenatal services dropped by more than half, and breast exams dropped by 41 percent, all while government funding increased. Pregnant and want PP's help? According to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-14 report, out of total services for pregnant women (adoption referrals, prenatal services, abortion), abortion made up over 94 percent. Prenatal care made up only about 5 percent of pregnancy services. Meanwhile PP's abortion numbers have gone up every year, as shown in Danzig's graph.

This article is four years old
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011...ised-to-fight/
but still shows, even more considering how their funding has increased, what PP and its supporters are about.

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?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Approximately 9,000 CHCs are spread across the country, and outnumber PP facilities 12 to 1. They exist in nearly every congressional district. They provide more comprehensive health services than PP, including mammograms. They serve over 23 million individuals, regardless of ability to pay. What don't they do? They don't do abortions. In addition to the CHCs, there are more than 2,000 pregnancy care centers nationally (CareNet, Heartbeat, NIFLA), available to help women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. The caveat? They don't do abortions.

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 (well, not poor women, anyway. Their own wives and daughters, well, that's different). We have seen what happens to access to women's care in Texas, when PP clinics shut down:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9373721...somewhere-else

In fact, this article has pretty clear stats on what happens whenever PPs shut down and the result has always been the same- a lot of women lose access to health care and go without.

From an economic standpoint, PP is considerably more efficient at delivering reproductive care than these community centers. The fact that you are pointing to a lack of mammogram machines in the clinics stands out as a misunderstanding of reproductive health care. So, let me shed some light- mammography machines are f*cking expensive to acquire and f*cking expensive to maintain. Economically, it's much more efficient for PP clinics to refer patients to a large hospital or facility that has one and has a department devoted to doing them all day long, rather than spend the money acquiring and maintaining one themselves. It saves patients money, and it saves the federal government money. That way they can spend more of those dollars on more inexpensive things, like Pap smears and birth control:

I assure you, all of those community health centers are not outfitted with mammography machines, either. They also don't have the staff or space or resources to deal with the sheer number of patients PP sees. From the article:

"To put it another way: Planned Parenthood clinics comprise only 10 percent of publicly funded contraceptive clinics — but see 36 percent of patients who use the government birth control programs. Their clinics have developed a specialty in this area, and are particularly tailored toward providing reproductive health care. The other clinics that see fewer birth control patients, however, don't have that specialty — and experts say they'd struggle to absorb additional patients."