Fiorina Stands Her Ground on Planned Parenthood Tapes

[ClydeR]

From today's Meet the Press..


CHUCK TODD:

You got it. Let me start right in with the Planned Parenthood situation. At the debate, the most recent debate, you described the following scene, claiming it was on a tape: "A fully-formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.'" Since then, when asked about the claim, your campaign has attacked Planned Parenthood, but there is no tape. There is no evidence that the scene you described exists. Are you willing now to concede that you exaggerated that scene?

CARLY FIORINA:

No, not at all. That scene absolutely does exist. And that voice saying what I said they were saying, "We're going to keep it alive to harvest its brain" exists as well. Here's the thing. Yesterday I was at a football game--

CHUCK TODD:

So you saw that moment on the tape?

CARLY FIORINA:

Yes. And I would challenge Planned Parenthood. Here's the deal. Yesterday, I was protested by Planned Parenthood people who were throwing condoms at me. I don't know what that has to do with this. They're trying to distract the American people from the hideous reality that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses alive to harvest their brains and other body parts. That is a fact.

Planned Parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. It is happening in this nation. And taxpayers are paying for it. Planned Parenthood desperately wants everyone to think this isn't going on. Because when Americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified. This goes to the character of our nation and it must be stopped.

More... (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-september-27-2015-n434466)

No one has proven that it's not on the tape.

[Androidpk]

So she gets called out on her blatant lie and still insists it's the truth..

[Candor]

I have this wild and crazy idea that someone's first political office should not be as President of the United States. That disqualifies Firoina (as well as Trump and Carson) in my book. While advising high level government officials is good, I still think a person needs to have actual experience holding a significant office (senator, representative, high level federal or state position) before becoming President.

[~Rocktar~]

I have this wild and crazy idea that someone's first political office should not be as President of the United States. That disqualifies Firoina (as well as Trump and Carson) in my book. While advising high level government officials is good, I still think a person needs to have actual experience holding a significant office (senator, representative, high level federal or state position) before becoming President.

Because that helped so much with Obama?

[Whirlin]

There's also the fact that $0 of government money donated towards planned parenthood is spent on abortions due to the Hyde ammendment, and abortions account for 3% of the services offered by planned parnethood.

[Androidpk]

There's also the fact that $0 of government money donated towards planned parenthood is spent on abortions due to the Hyde ammendment, and abortions account for 3% of the services offered by planned parnethood.

Why are you trying to confuse people with facts??

[Taernath]

So she gets called out on her blatant lie and still insists it's the truth..

The tape exists but not in the way Fiorina is claiming. It has no context or audio, and is essentially stock footage that anti abortion groups are using to push their agenda.

[Viekn]

There's also the fact that $0 of government money donated towards planned parenthood is spent on abortions due to the Hyde amendment

While technically true, if the government helped subsidize my life by providing me with food stamps, that would free up some of my money to buy heroin with, correct? So unless I'm mistaken, that logic has never made sense to me.


and abortions account for 3% of the services offered by planned parnethood.

Their website does say that, so let's assume that's true. If so, that is a fairly small amount compared to the other good that they do. And I do believe it's in the best interest of our nation for those other services to be offered so I agree with subsidizing them. But since it's tax payer dollars being used to subsidize and some people, no matter what "blocks" may be in place, don't want ANY of their money to go to an organization that provides abortion services, I think you have to address that.

If the abortion services offered is such a low percentage of what they do, they should just stop doing it all together. But I realize there would have to be a replacement service offered by some other institution, albeit not tied to the government or in any way subsidized by tax payers.

[Parkbandit]

There's also the fact that $0 of government money donated towards planned parenthood is spent on abortions due to the Hyde ammendment, and abortions account for 3% of the services offered by planned parnethood.

lolwut?

That is honestly the dumbest excuse ever... and I'm pro-choice.

[Parkbandit]

While technically true, if the government helped subsidize my life by providing me with food stamps, that would free up some of my money to buy heroin with, correct? So unless I'm mistaken, that logic has never made sense to me.

Exactly.

It's not actually called logic.. it's called blindly regurgitating talking points.

[Androidpk]

Regardless of how you want to split hairs this is just another example of GOP candidates shooting themselves in the foot.

[Parkbandit]

Regardless of how you want to split hairs this is just another example of GOP candidates shooting themselves in the foot.

The only people "splitting hairs" is the people who use such retarded arguments. "But absolutely ZERO government funds went to abortion, even though the government gave us a half a billion dollars. That money is in a secret lockbox specially marked "Do Not Use This Money For Abortions" so there is no way they could.

As far as the GOP goes.. Fiorina is just the flavor of the month. We all know Rubio will be the eventual candidate. :)

[Wrathbringer]

The only people "splitting hairs" is the people who use such retarded arguments. "But absolutely ZERO government funds went to abortion, even though the government gave us a half a billion dollars. That money is in a secret lockbox specially marked "Do Not Use This Money For Abortions" so there is no way they could.

Parkbandit is correct.

[Buckwheet]

Is a tax credit, government funds?

[kutter]

Maybe someone knows this but I sure as heck cannot find it and the PP website is very cryptic in how it provides info. So Abortion is only 3% of the total PROCEDURES that it performs, ok I get that, but as a percentage of its total budget how much is spent on it? I cannot find that number anywhere. And for those of you that say no federal money is spent on it, if a procedure room is built and you can use it for something other than an abortion as well as abortion, does that mean that federal money was not used to you? Because it seems pretty plain that at least some percentage of it was used to facilitate abortions. If you want to think the Hyde amendment prevents the use of Federal dollars to aid in performing abortions, I have a nice bucket of sand for you.

Oh and before you start railing on how I am just another neocon, I happen to be pro-choice, but I find abortion abhorrent, but I do not think the Government should be allowed to tell someone, and that means man or woman, what they can or cannot do with their bodies, must be my libertarian streak coming out.

[Parkbandit]

Is a tax credit, government funds?

As much as a reduction in the price of gas is a kickback from Big Oil.

[Viekn]

Maybe someone knows this but I sure as heck cannot find it and the PP website is very cryptic in how it provides info. So Abortion is only 3% of the total PROCEDURES that it performs, ok I get that, but as a percentage of its total budget how much is spent on it?

**wait, that's not right, because I used the amount people pay for the procedure and not how much PP subsidizes that particular procedure or how much overhead is attributed to it. Probably impossible to figure out ourselves.

If you use total number of abortions performed using this site: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ which they said was 332,278 in 2009, and the PP abortion info site: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures that says in-clinic abortions can cost up to $1,500 but be less than that, and you used a number that was say...75% of that amount just as an average, so $1,125, that's $373,812,750 that PP used on abortions in 2009.

That same fact check site references PP's total governmental funding to be 363.2 million in 2009 which was approximately 1/3 of it's budget, so 363.2 x 3 = 1.08 billion. So 373 million / 1.08 billion gets you 34% of their total funding is used on abortions.

Hopefully my math is somewhat correct. It's probably not, which is why I stopped taking any math courses once I passed college algebra in 12th grade.

[Buckwheet]

I was just wondering if there would be outrage if doctors used the available tax credits to open uppractices that also, happened to perform abortions. Since you can get a number of tax credits to start a medical practice.

[Shaps]

You would think by this point, a reasonable compromise could be found, ie..

1. Abortion is legal
2. Any sane person can admit that a fetus after 5+ months, is a developing human.
3. Make it law, that after 5+ months of development (that's over 50% of the pregnancy time for all the try hard pro-choice people), that the baby must be carried to term. That gives the expectant mother, 5 months to consider getting an abortion. 5 months should be plenty. You should not be able to make it to 6, 7, 8 months and then decide you want to kill a fetus that could survive outside the womb.

Of course people will say what they will, but you would think some common sense could come into such a divisive argument.

[kutter]

Hopefully my math is somewhat correct. It's probably not, which is why I stopped taking any math courses once I passed college algebra in 12th grade.

Your math looks pretty good to me, interesting what happens when you actually look at how much they spend as versus how many they say they perform as a percentage of all the procedures they perform. Something tells me they were intentionally cryptic in how they portray that piece of information.


You would think by this point, a reasonable compromise could be found, ie..

1. Abortion is legal
2. Any sane person can admit that a fetus after 5+ months, is a developing human.
3. Make it law, that after 5+ months of development (that's over 50% of the pregnancy time for all the try hard pro-choice people), that the baby must be carried to term. That gives the expectant mother, 5 months to consider getting an abortion. 5 months should be plenty. You should not be able to make it to 6, 7, 8 months and then decide you want to kill a fetus that could survive outside the womb.

Of course people will say what they will, but you would think some common sense could come into such a divisive argument.

One of the things I find interesting about this thought process, which I could probably support as a reasonable compromise, is that no one seems to scream when a near term mother is murdered with her child and the suspect is charged with a double homicide. Thirty-eight states currently have fetal homicide laws, I do not see anyone railing against that? How is there not a double standard?

For me it was always 24 weeks which is the point at which a fetus has a better than 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.

[Methais]

I have this wild and crazy idea that someone's first political office should not be as President of the United States. That disqualifies Firoina (as well as Trump and Carson) in my book. While advising high level government officials is good, I still think a person needs to have actual experience holding a significant office (senator, representative, high level federal or state position) before becoming President.

Because the last senator that became president did such a great job and all.

[Astray]

I don't know much about fetuses (except that they are afraid of clowns despite not knowing what a clown is) but what are you going to do with fetus organs? Is that a legit market of some kind? The baby organ black market?

[Shaps]

Your math looks pretty good to me, interesting what happens when you actually look at how much they spend as versus how many they say they perform as a percentage of all the procedures they perform. Something tells me they were intentionally cryptic in how they portray that piece of information.



One of the things I find interesting about this thought process, which I could probably support as a reasonable compromise, is that no one seems to scream when a near term mother is murdered with her child and the suspect is charged with a double homicide. Thirty-eight states currently have fetal homicide laws, I do not see anyone railing against that? How is there not a double standard?

For me it was always 24 weeks which is the point at which a fetus has a better than 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.

If someone murders a pregnant woman, killing both her and her unborn child.. then yes they should be charged with a double murder. Because it goes to the mothers intent was to have the child, thus creating a life/human/baby/whatever definition you want to call it for the legal scholars out there.

Arguing the semantics about something like that is callous in my view, as legal scholars try to parse the definition of what to call/categorize a murdered mother and child.

[Shaps]

I don't know much about fetuses (except that they are afraid of clowns despite not knowing what a clown is) but what are you going to do with fetus organs? Is that a legit market of some kind? The baby organ black market?

I think fetal tissue research is a valid line of scientific inquiry. I think fetuses researched on should be limited to children that are miscarried/die in the womb/situations in order to save a mother's life/etc. (with parental consent of course).

I understand that aborted fetuses are available as well, but when a company (and Planned Parenthood is a company), has an interest in the selling of the parts AND has the ability to influence a womans decision, thus potentially leading to a choice of abortion.. then I think there is a conflict of interest.

At a minimum, the aborted fetuses should only be donated for research.. WITH the consent of the woman having the abortion.. not sold for profit.

[Viekn]

If someone murders a pregnant woman, killing both her and her unborn child.. then yes they should be charged with a double murder. Because it goes to the mothers intent was to have the child, thus creating a life/human/baby/whatever definition you want to call it for the legal scholars out there.

Arguing the semantics about something like that is callous in my view, as legal scholars try to parse the definition of what to call/categorize a murdered mother and child.

Bear in mind I am not taking a side in this instance...

So in your example, the mother has every right to kill the child and not face any consequences. But if someone else comes along and kills the mother and child, that person faces consequences for killing the child as well? That makes no sense. Unless I read your response a different way and you actually agree with that fact not making sense.

[Shaps]

Bear in mind I am not taking a side in this instance...

So in your example, the mother has every right to kill the child and not face any consequences. But if someone else comes along and kills the mother and child, that person faces consequences for killing the child as well? That makes no sense. Unless I read your response a different way and you actually agree with that fact not making sense.

It makes no sense in my view either... but we as a society allow legal abortion, which people call a woman's right to choose.

We as a society do not allow murder. It also goes to intent. The woman did not make the choice to have the child murdered, when they are both murdered.

I could keep going but this is a circular argument. Common sense should tell us.. if someone kills a mother carrying a child.. it's a double murder. We're a society so fucked up right now, that we actually are having a conversation on how to define and make the argument that it's not a double murder. Insanity.

[Androidpk]

I don't know much about fetuses (except that they are afraid of clowns despite not knowing what a clown is) but what are you going to do with fetus organs? Is that a legit market of some kind? The baby organ black market?

Medical research.

[Androidpk]

Shaps, they aren't sold for profit. There are costs involved and if money is exchanged that is why. Unless you want even more taxpayer's money involved.

[Shaps]

People don't like saying what things really are.

Abortion is the killing of an unborn child.

We, as a Nation, have decided that it is a womans right to choose if she wants to kill that unborn child or not.

The states have decided legally what they choose to define a "child/human" as, and at what stage of pregnancy it's actually a living being (whether thats at 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. months).. and at what points it's considered "wrong" to kill the unborn child.

Some places have decided that unless that unborn child can "survive on it's own outside the womb", that it's not really a child and thus at 8+ months a woman can still decide to kill the child.

But, that is what the legal system says.. so it's what we live under. Want to change it, then have to elect the right people.

[Shaps]

Shaps, they aren't sold for profit. There are costs involved and if money is exchanged that is why. Unless you want even more taxpayer's money involved.

Costs involved to put a dead baby in a box and ship it? I suppose a cooler and bag of ice is expensive. Well and the gas for the truck too.

That's fine. You seem to think it's okay for them to sell the dead fetuses, without the womans consent or knowledge, to research companies that make a profit off of whatever they discover.

And I thought all the arguments were that tax payer money didn't fund the abortions that Planned Parenthood conducts, so why should I worry about more taxpayer money going to the selling of those body parts that result from abortions?

[Androidpk]

You think electing "the right people" is going to make abortions stop from happening? Nah. I say increase funding to Planned Parenthood. Make abortions even more readily available to those that want one. There's already too many people on this planet.

[Taernath]

sell the dead fetuses, without the womans consent or knowledge, to research companies that make a profit off of whatever they discover.

[citation needed]

[Androidpk]

[citation needed]

Glenn Beck

[Taernath]

Glenn Beck

[brain needed]

That guy has really gone off the deep end since he was on Fox. I saw his site the other day and it was a bunch of chemtrail Obama is the Antichrist shit. Maybe he was always like that, just more low key.

[Astray]

I think fetal tissue research is a valid line of scientific inquiry. I think fetuses researched on should be limited to children that are miscarried/die in the womb/situations in order to save a mother's life/etc. (with parental consent of course).

I understand that aborted fetuses are available as well, but when a company (and Planned Parenthood is a company), has an interest in the selling of the parts AND has the ability to influence a womans decision, thus potentially leading to a choice of abortion.. then I think there is a conflict of interest.

At a minimum, the aborted fetuses should only be donated for research.. WITH the consent of the woman having the abortion.. not sold for profit.

Stem cells came to mind but you can harvest those from alive or dead specimens (I think, recalling as much as I can on the topic). Anyways, I just find the idea of taking a fetus and going "It needs to be living so I can harvest the organs" absurd.

Unless you are immediately selling off the organs in (I think) a couple of hours, there's no need to keep the fetus alive.

[Androidpk]

[brain needed]

That guy has really gone off the deep end since he was on Fox. I saw his site the other day and it was a bunch of chemtrail Obama is the Antichrist shit. Maybe he was always like that, just more low key.

I think he just realized there is a lot of money to be made by acting like a raving lunatic. The far right eat his shit up and ask for second helpings.

[Shaps]

Glenn Beck

You're an idiot.

How about an actual consent form from Planned Parenthood. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-center-for-choice/forms-and-instructions

I don't see anything on there saying, "thanks for letting us sell your baby parts to another company for for-profit research.. you're cool with that right? ___ sign here"

[Shaps]

You think electing "the right people" is going to make abortions stop from happening? Nah. I say increase funding to Planned Parenthood. Make abortions even more readily available to those that want one. There's already too many people on this planet.

Then lets just fund more wars and stop with ROE.. we can whittle down the population pretty quickly.

Or shoot, lets just stop sending food and medical aid to third world countries and let them die off. Should open up some nice real estate.

Why don't we just not give medical care to anyone over 75, it's not like they're working anyways so screw 'em. Could probably cull the population down by a few %.

We should probably kill anyone with an IQ less than 100, and anyone over a BMI of 20% too.. I mean the fat and stupid should probably not reproduce in society anyways if we want to survive as a species.

There are all types of ways to reduce the number of people on the planet. **hands you a nail gun** Get to popping those brain stems.

[Taernath]

You're an idiot.

How about an actual consent form from Planned Parenthood. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-center-for-choice/forms-and-instructions

I don't see anything on there saying, "thanks for letting us sell your baby parts to another company for for-profit research.. you're cool with that right? ___ sign here"

Because that's a consent form for the procedure itself. The tissue donation form is separate.

[Shaps]

Because that's a consent form for the procedure itself. The tissue donation form is separate.

[citation needed]

[Taernath]

[citation needed]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=planned+parenthood+tissue+donation+form

[Shaps]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=planned+parenthood+tissue+donation+form

I don't run Javascript. So either post a link to the Planned Parenthood document itself or attach it here. Thanks.

[Taernath]

I don't run Javascript. So either post a link to the Planned Parenthood document itself or attach it here. Thanks.

http://replycandy.com/wp-content/uploads/Mike-Tyson-Seriously-Meme.jpg

It's not going to hack you, swear on me mum.

[Shaps]

http://replycandy.com/wp-content/uploads/Mike-Tyson-Seriously-Meme.jpg

It's not going to hack you, swear on me mum.

Should be easy for you to click your own google search and post a link or document. Get hopping, and I'll ensure that you won't hack me.. swear on your mums bum too.

[Taernath]

You asked for a source, I provided about 62,500 results in 1 second.

I posit that my obligation is done.

[Shaps]

You asked for a source, I provided about 62,500 results in 1 second.

I posit that my obligation is done.

One of them was a Glen Beck link. Therefor you must support Glenn Beck. Hence you must be a crazy right wing zealot that only watches Fox News, listens to Rush Limbaugh, and has a TEA party sticker in his window.

Also most of the google links are to monetary donation forms for Planned Parenthood. Trying to find a real Planned Parenthood tissue donation form is near impossible. Wonder why that is. Hmmm...

[Shaps]

You asked for a source, I provided about 62,500 results in 1 second.

I posit that my obligation is done.

Love arguments like this too.. I provide a factual document/link to the actual organization we're discussing.

You.. post a google search.

Suppose that is how debates are done these days. I'll be sure to follow you on Twitter too.

[Whirlin]

While technically true, if the government helped subsidize my life by providing me with food stamps, that would free up some of my money to buy heroin with, correct? So unless I'm mistaken, that logic has never made sense to me.

Your example makes perfect sense if we were talking about individuals and corporations.

When we're in the non-profit space, there are fund provisioning guidelines with non-profit accounting regulations on how to manage funds that are donated for restricted purposes. To collect public funds and retain non-profit status, funds that are delivered for an expressed purpose must be utilized for that specified purpose. The reason that PP is able to produce the 3% figure is that they are required to ammortize out the overhead costs associated with buildings and other structures towards those utilized for abortion services versus other services, to ensure no public funding is allocated towards overhead costs associated with those efforts.

I understand where you and PB are coming from saying that restricted donations still allow for more liberal allocation of unrestricted resources towards whatever objectives the non-profit has. However, I think it's a leap to argue that a reduction of restricted donations will be more likely to reduce the rate of execution of something that is being performed out of discretionary funds rather then the service offerings being offered out of the funded operations.

[Shaps]

Separate note on this conversation:

I don't think people should be paying for other peoples abortions anyways. Or contraception. As sex is a concious act that a person chooses to perform (not talking cases of rape/incest of course).

It's like me saying.. Drinking is legal.. I choose to drink.. Therefore, the Government should pay for my alchohol using tax payer funds.

Or.. driving is legal.. I choose to drive.. Therefore, the Government should pay for my gas using tax payer funds.

One does not have to drink.. one does not have to drive.. one does not have to have sex. These are all concious choices we make as adults, and therefore should be able to manage the associated costs ourselves.

Seems that train of thought these days is considered "radical" though.

Guess it all comes down to.. how much power do we really want to give the Government.. which in reality is you willing to give up your personal control to other human beings. So look at your neighbor, and ask yourself.. Would you let them make all your choices for you if they paid your electric bill?

[Shaps]

And great points btw Whirlin.

[Whirlin]

And great points btw Whirlin.

I understand where you're coming from as well... To me, it's a balancing act between the rights of the woman and the rights of the child. While it can begin with a conscious act, life (heh) can happen! Anticipated relationship turning into a one-week stand or something, broken contraceptive, abuse, etc, etc. There are circumstances and assumptions made that may turn out to be erroneous.

Then there's the detriment on the woman who is forced to carry the child for 9 months, and forced to go through the act of childbirth. My wife was so sick during her first trimester that she lost 10% of her body weight. Second trimester was relatively smooth sailing, and I think now that she's entering the third, she hasn't slept much more than a few hours each night from not being able to get comfortable, and her overall quality of life is greatly diminished. I think it's almost cruel and unusual punishment to force someone to go through that due to assumptions being vetted out as erroneous in the future. And that's all before the potentially life-threatening act of giving birth.

There's a safety concern as well. If something cannot be obtained legally, people will seek it illegally, usually with higher risks. It's not like making abortions illegal will cause them to not never occur anymore. People will just take much more drastic and dangerous means to abort a pregnancy. I'd argue that we'd likely see a higher suicide rate (although, arguably murder-suicide) in expecting mothers, and a higher rate of dangerous infections and other types of diseases from people seeking out backroom medical operations.

Lets carry that forward into evaluating that child's life. Foster Care tends to lead towards more empoverished and higher crime rate individuals which end up having an overall negative impact on a society. High rates of sexual crimes against foster children, abuse, and poverty really don't set up the children to have the highest quality of life. People like Viekn use their food stamps to free up their money for crack! If you told me nothing out, statistically, Veikn is likely to be a child of foster care! This also costs taxpayers much more money! Take a look at Texas' expenses since they effectively shut down abortions in their states and how much more they're now spending on child care!

Lastly, there is the medical research aspect... This is not a prevailing reason, but more of a fringe benefit towards making the most of a bad situation. We've seen an extraordinary amount of research and medical breakthroughs in the last few years as a result of stem cell research. I know this topic has gone on for the last page or two, so I won't spend anymore time on it.

[Shaps]

All excellent points and much appreciated Whirlin.. finally something other than the cliche retorts a few on here like to provide.

First, I wish your wife well and hope everything goes smoothly and the baby is healthy. Congratulations for you two.

Secondly, I agree with a lot of the secondary-tertiary effects your talking about and agree.

Why I said at the very start.. you would think a reasonable solution could be reached, while not perfect for either side.. is a compromise of what both sides are pushing for.

As long as abortion is legal (and I agree that it should be).. I also think a reasonable deadline (5-6 months) should be put on when an abortion can take place (outside of the mothers well being of course). Seems reasonable to me, but I'm sure someone will argue differently.

[Shaps]

close your anus, please. Everyone is beginning to complain about the smell. Thanks.

A wonderful, nameless, notification sent with a nice red tag attached.

People who do such, really put a smile on my face. Nice knowing that internet trolls exist in our community.. just as a reminder that Gemstone players are people too.

[Shaps]

"your poop aperature seems to be malfunctioning"

Ahh.. another nameless reputation comment. Such class.

It's sad really.. the nameless, disenfranchised, internet troll.. Actually feel pity for them. Not even brave enough to put their name to a comment on the internet. The fear they have inside must be profound. We should all feel pity for them and their situation.

[ClydeR]

If you use total number of abortions performed using this site: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ which they said was 332,278 in 2009, and the PP abortion info site: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures that says in-clinic abortions can cost up to $1,500 but be less than that, and you used a number that was say...75% of that amount just as an average, so $1,125, that's $373,812,750 that PP used on abortions in 2009.

It depends on the meaning of "cost" doesn't it? Is cost the charge to the patient or the expense incurred by the provider?

[ClydeR]

As far as the GOP goes.. Fiorina is just the flavor of the month. We all know Rubio will be the eventual candidate. :)


If so, then abortion will be a big issue in the election, for reasons I have already explained (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?97580-Rape-and-Abortion).

[ClydeR]

That guy has really gone off the deep end since he was on Fox. I saw his site the other day and it was a bunch of chemtrail Obama is the Antichrist shit. Maybe he was always like that, just more low key.

Beck has always been a Mormon.

[Viekn]

It depends on the meaning of "cost" doesn't it? Is cost the charge to the patient or the expense incurred by the provider?

Correct. I realized as I was getting in the car that when looking at the provider side of it that cost is probably not what the patient is charged. I tried doing some research later about what typical private (meaning not through Planned Parenthood) abortions cost and it almost seemed like the costs are almost the same no matter where you go, it just really depends on what stage of pregnancy and what state you are in. With that in mind (if it's more or less correct), I wonder how much, if much at all, funding that goes to Planned Parenthood is used by them directly on abortion services. Obviously there is overhead that can be attributed. Though that doesn't change the fact that no matter if $0 of any funding that is provided to PP goes to abortion services, I understand the fact that someone would not want any of their money going to the overall organization that even provides those services.

[drauz]

[citation needed]

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PP-Mar-Monte-tissue-consent.pdf

I believe that is the link he was speaking about.

[Shaps]

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PP-Mar-Monte-tissue-consent.pdf

I believe that is the link he was speaking about.

Thanks Drauz. Yea, I found that one myself after digging some. Oddly, I could not find a actual consent form on any Planned Parenthood site. As the one linked was actually posted by the same organization that posted the videos.

Any idea why they would have the procedure forms prominently displayed on their websites, but not a tissue donation form?

[drauz]

**wait, that's not right, because I used the amount people pay for the procedure and not how much PP subsidizes that particular procedure or how much overhead is attributed to it. Probably impossible to figure out ourselves.

If you use total number of abortions performed using this site: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/ which they said was 332,278 in 2009, and the PP abortion info site: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures that says in-clinic abortions can cost up to $1,500 but be less than that, and you used a number that was say...75% of that amount just as an average, so $1,125, that's $373,812,750 that PP used on abortions in 2009.

That same fact check site references PP's total governmental funding to be 363.2 million in 2009 which was approximately 1/3 of it's budget, so 363.2 x 3 = 1.08 billion. So 373 million / 1.08 billion gets you 34% of their total funding is used on abortions.

Hopefully my math is somewhat correct. It's probably not, which is why I stopped taking any math courses once I passed college algebra in 12th grade.

From the little research I did the cost seems vary wildly depending on the state. Some as low as $400, while I think $1500 is the highest, no complication, for an abortion.

Here is a decent article about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/

[drauz]

Thanks Drauz. Yea, I found that one myself after digging some. Oddly, I could not find a actual consent form on any Planned Parenthood site. As the one linked was actually posted by the same organization that posted the videos.

Any idea why they would have the procedure forms prominently displayed on their websites, but not a tissue donation form?

I saw a part that asked if you were handed this AFTER you already signed the consent form for the abortion itself. Probably a legal issue.

[Shaps]

I saw a part that asked if you were handed this AFTER you already signed the consent form for the abortion itself. Probably a legal issue.

Interesting. Will have to dig into that aspect a bit more. Thanks.

[Latrinsorm]

Their website does say that, so let's assume that's true. If so, that is a fairly small amount compared to the other good that they do. And I do believe it's in the best interest of our nation for those other services to be offered so I agree with subsidizing them. But since it's tax payer dollars being used to subsidize and some people, no matter what "blocks" may be in place, don't want ANY of their money to go to an organization that provides abortion services, I think you have to address that.I think we can agree that wars are paid for to a great degree by tax payer dollars, and that some tax payers are universally anti-war. Should the government address that as well?
If you want to think the Hyde amendment prevents the use of Federal dollars to aid in performing abortions, I have a nice bucket of sand for you.Does the bucket of sand have any enhancive properties? What's the STR/DU?

[drauz]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/01/25/jury-indicts-sting-videos

[Methais]

Daleiden was also charged with attempting to purchase and sell human organs, a misdemeanor.

I like how attempting to buy and sell human organs is just a misdemeanor.

http://www.geeksandcleats.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/nick-young-confused-face.png