GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic

It's as if you have no understanding of laws and regulations.

This is getting old kiddo, I think you're just in over your head.

And this is pretty simple stuff, so,... well, yeah. Unlike yourself, I'd prefer to be nice and not just resort to childish name calling.


4/13/2011 11:10 AM

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization that lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care.

The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York where Margaret Sanger opened the country's first birth control clinic. Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942 became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. Since then, it has grown to have over 820 clinic locations in the United States, with a total budget of approximately US $1 billion, and provides an array of services to over three million people.

Planned Parenthood originated in 1916 when Margaret Sanger, already a nationally known birth control advocate, and associates opened the first US birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. It resulted in her being jailed.[3] In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, which became part of the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s, but the title was found too offensive and "against families" so the League began discussions for a new name. [4] By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients.[5] By 1942 [1] the League had become part of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[4]

By 1960, the Federation's grassroots volunteers had provided family planning counseling in hundreds of communities across the country.[5] Planned Parenthood was one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation when it was launched at a conference in Bombay, India in 1952.[6][5]

Following Sanger, Alan Guttmacher became president of Planned Parenthood and served from 1962 till 1974.[7] During his tenure, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of the original birth control pill, giving rise to new attitudes towards women's reproductive freedom.[5] Also during his presidency, Planned Parenthood convinced the federal government to fund domestic and international family planning programs.[5] The Center for Family Planning Program Development was also founded as a semi-autonomous division during this time.[8] The center became an independent organization and was renamed the Guttmacher Institute in 1977.[8]

Faye Wattleton was the first woman named president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1978 and served till 1992.[9] She was the first African-American to serve as president, and the youngest president in Planned Parenthood's history.[10] During her term, Planned Parenthood grew to become the seventh largest charity in the country, providing services to four million clients each year through its 170 affiliates whose activities were spread across 50 states.[11From 1996 to 2006, Planned Parenthood was led by Gloria Feldt.[12][13] Feldt activated the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the organization's political action committee, launching what was the most far reaching electoral advocacy effort in its history.[14] She also launched the Responsible Choices Action Agenda, a nationwide campaign to increase services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve quality of reproductive care and ensure access to safe and legal abortions.[5] Another initiative was the commencement of a "Global Partnership Program" with the aim of building a vibrant activist constituency in support of family planning.[5]

On February 15, 2006, Cecile Richards became president of the organization.[15]



Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare.[34]

In the 2007–08 Annual Report, clinic income totalled $374.7 million and miscellaneous operating revenues $68.9 million.[35] Approximately two-thirds of the revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 16%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for most of the rest.

 

Planned Parenthood regional chapters have been active in the American courts. A number of cases in which Planned Parenthood has been a party have reached the US Supreme Court. Notable among these cases is the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case that sets forth the current constitutional abortion standard. In this case, "Planned Parenthood" was the Southeast Pennsylvania Chapter, and "Casey" was Robert Casey, the governor of Pennsylvania. The ultimate ruling was split, and Roe v. Wade was narrowed but upheld in an opinion written by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens concurred with the main decision in separately written opinions. The Supreme Court struck down spousal consent requirements for married women to obtain abortions, but found no "undue burden" — an alternative to strict scrutiny which tests the allowable limitations on rights protected under the Constitution — from the other statutory requirements. Dissenting were William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Byron White. Blackmun, Rehnquist, and White were the only justices who voted on the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 who were still on the High Court to rule on this case, and their votes on this case were consistent with their votes on the original decision that legalized abortion.[60] Only Blackmun voted to maintain Roe v. Wade in its entirety.

Other related cases include:

  • Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976). This was a constitutionality challenge by Planned Parenthood to a Missouri law encompassing parental consent, spousal consent, clinic bookkeeping and allowed abortion methods. Portions of the challenged law were held to be constitutional, others not.[61]
  • Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983). This was a constitutionality challenge by Planned Parenthood to a Missouri law encompassing parental consent, clinic record keeping, and hospitalization requirements. Most of the challenged law was held to be constitutional.[62]
  • Planned Parenthood v. ACLA (2001). The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) released a flier and “Wanted” posters with complete personal information about doctors who performed abortions. A civil jury and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both found that the material was indeed "true threats" and not protected speech.[63]
  • Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (2003). In this case, Planned Parenthood sued Attorney General Gonzales for an injunction against the enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Planned Parenthood argued the act was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment, namely in that it was overly vague, violated women's constitutional right to have access to abortion, and did not include language for exceptions for the health of the mother. Both the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed,[64][65] but that decision was overturned in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court.[66]
  • Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (2006). This relates to a constitutionality challenge by Planned Parenthood et al. of a 2003 New Hampshire parental notification law related to access to abortion.[67][68] In Sandra Day O'Connor's final decision before retirement, the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts with instructions to seek a remedy short of wholesale invalidation of the statute. New Hampshire ended up repealing the statute via the legislative process.[69]
Recorded stings by pro-life activists
 
Pro-life activists have carried out actions against Planned Parenthood in attempts to substantiate claims that Planned Parenthood did not follow applicable local laws. The groups typically call or visit a Planned Parenthood health center posing as victims of statutory rape,[70] minors who would need parental notification for abortion,[71][72] racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women,[73] or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes.[74] Video and audio recordings of these dialogues show employees being seemingly sympathetic to potentially criminal acts, leading to allegations that the health centers in question are violating the law. None of these stings have led to criminal conviction including the 2011 Live Action recordings.[75] Some Planned Parenthood employees have been fired for not following policies, and the organization has committed to retraining its staff. [73][76] However, an official federal inspection in 2005 by the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services "yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest."[71]

[edit] Court cases

Planned Parenthood has been criticized for withholding court-subpoenaed medical records of patients. Planned Parenthood defended its refusal on the grounds of medical privacy. In Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over the records.[77] In Kansas, redacted copies of the records were turned over pursuant to stringent court-ordered protections.[78] In October 2005, Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violation of a Minnesota state parental consent law.[79]

In 2004, a Kansas-based Planned Parenthood clinic was investigated by Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, regarding possible violations of late-term abortion and statutory rape notification laws. Kline's successor, Paul Morrison, notified the clinic that no criminal charges would be filed following a three year investigation. He said "an objective, unbiased and thorough examination" showed no wrongdoing. Morrison stated that he believed Kline had politicized the attorney general's office.[80]

[edit] Anti-abortion violence

Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence perpetrated or incited by pro-life supporters, including but not limited to bombing, arson, and attacks with chemical weaponry.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] In 1994, John Salvi murdered Shannon Elizabeth Lowney, a receptionist at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Massachusetts.[90]

 

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $360 million in 2009).[36] A coalition of national and local pro-life groups have lobbied the federal government to stop funding Planned Parenthood.[37] Federal legislators have also proposed laws that would ban Planned Parenthood from receiving federal money for any purpose.[38] By law, Planned Parenthood cannot allocate any federal funding for abortions.[37] Some abortion opponents, like Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds, which are inherently fungible, to be re-allocated for abortion.[38][39]

Planned Parenthood is also funded by private donors, with a membership base of over 700,000 active donors whose contributions account for approximately one quarter of the organization's revenue.[35] Large donors also contribute a substantial portion of the organization's budget; donors have included the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Buffett Foundation, Ford Foundation, Ted Turner Foundation, the Cullmans and others.[40][41][42][43] The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's contributions to the organization have been specifically marked to avoid funding abortions.[40] Some, such as the Buffett Foundation, have specifically marked funds for abortion services.[40] Pro-life groups[who?] have advocated the boycott of donors to Planned Parenthood.[44][45]

4/13/2011 11:13 AM
You're an idiot.   Why should I care what you prefer?

If federal funding stopped, do you think any portion of their organization would suffer financially?
4/13/2011 11:13 AM
Suffer financially? Well, if you take away a chunk of existing funding, of course they would suffer financially. Would they be able to make it up in other ways? Probably. So what?

Really, do you think that Planned Parenthood would be able to get away with breaking federal law? Are you fuckin' serious?

4/13/2011 11:16 AM
It's not exactly true to say that "no federal money" is spent on abortions.  It's also a misnomer that abortion is 3% of what they do,  (That number is based on the total number of items, and how those items are counted, bundled or unbundled).  That would be like saying that your house payment of $1000 out of your $5000 income is only 1/15 of what you do (instead of 20%) because it's one of 15 total bills you pay each month.  It doesn't matter that it comprises a bigger portion.  It's all in the counting.  PP's own report shows 3% as the total number of services, which include everything.  Every single birth control perspription fill (3 months given = 3 separate services, for example) is a separate service. 

You can say 3% and be factual, but it matters what your references are.  That number can be changed based on context.  For example, from the most recent Planned Parenthood Report, you can also say that abortions comprise almost 15% of what they do, since 14.91% of their overall revenue ($164,154,000 out of $1,000,800,000) comes from abortion.  Context and reference points matter.

The way federal money is spent on abortions is through Medicaid, which receives federal block grants that go to the states.  It is regulated what abortions can be performed through Medicaid and that varies from state to state.  But it is false to say that "no federal money goes to abortions.  In terms of direct dollars, it's an accounting trick to say that federal money applied directly to abortions does not fund abortions.  Although federal money does not subsidize the procedure and cannot by law, federal money that subsidizes other procedures affects PP's cost of doing business across the board.  So basically the subsidized procedures allow PP to carry less overhead, thereby having an overall effect on the cost of abortions.
4/13/2011 11:22 AM (edited)

"make it up in other way"?    How?  Do they print money? 

No, they would allocate funds differently.  It's accounting.  Look it up. 

This:
Some abortion opponents, like Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds, which are inherently fungible, to be re-allocated for abortion.

I know "fungible" looks like a made-up word to your simple mind but look that one up too.

4/13/2011 11:19 AM
Try and make a point without the silly name calling, ok? That's how 5th graders argue, not adults.

And if the best you can do is prove that federal support frees up funds, then you have to admit that you can not prove in any way that federal dollars are used for abortions. All you prove is that non-federal money is used for abortions, which seems to be a problem for some people and they just need to get over it because there's absolutely nothing illegal about it.

As for how they would make it up, I'm talking about finding alternate sources of funding.


4/13/2011 11:23 AM

Abortion and the Near Shut-Down of the Federal Government

 
As you may know by now, the elements of the Christian Taliban within the GOP almost succeeded in shutting down the Federal government over the issue of abortion.

I believe that the issue of abortion has very little to do with the unborn child and has everything to do with sin.

But now, it should be plain to everyone that the self-identified "social conservatives," the people I refer to as the Christian Taliban, really do not believe that "all life is sacred". The Christian Taliban's adherents overwhelmingly support execution. Not only do they support it, they would like to see capital offenses broadened. For example, I have no doubt that they regard blasphemy as a capital crime, but they keep their mouths shut about it. Not so much about gays, it's not hard to find public statements by the Christian Taliban calling for gays to be executed.

The Christian Taliban's indifference to life goes far beyond that, of course. If they truly cared about the lives of others, you might assume that they would be all in favor of making health care affordable to all. You might assume that they would be in favor of early education programs, such as Head Start. You might assume that they would want to make education as rich and as vibrant an experience for children as possible.

You might assume all that. You would be wrong to do so.

If the Christian Taliban cared about the unborn, you might assume that they would push to make prenatal care available to all mothers. You might assume that they would work to establish programs for prenatal nutrition. You might assume that they would lobby for courses for new mothers on how to care for their children.

You might assume all that. You would be wrong to do so.

The fight over abortion has nothing to do with the babies being aborted, although that is how it has been sold to the sheeple who comprise the grunts of the Christian Taliban. It has everything to do with sin, more specifically, the punishment of sin. The Christian Taliban regards having sexual intercourse for any reason other than baby-making to be a major sin. (For that matter, the Christian Taliban regards having fun as a sin.) If a woman has sex for fun and ends up getting pregnant, than as far as the Christian Taliban is concerned, both the ensuing pregnancy and the years of caring for the child to follow are the Lord's punishment for her immorality.

You might have noticed that the man gets off scot-free, for he just skates away and does not have to participate in the child-rearing. There is a tendency in religions to regard men as weak-minded, emotionally-retarded individuals who cannot be blamed if they act on their baser impulses. That is why the push for modesty in clothing, from attempts to legislate skirt length or prohibitions against married women showing their hair to the hajib and the burka are found across religions.

But I digress.

The concept that "sex for fun is punishable by death" was also seen in the Christian Taliban's active opposition to any spending for AIDS research and prevention, at least until the disease crossed over into the general population. Only then was there interest on their part in funding research. Until then, they were just fine with the idea of a "gay plague".

It goes beyond sex, of course. There have been studies done which show that needle exchange programs do not increase the number of drug users, but they do reduce the transmission of diseases between drug users. The Christian Taliban adamantly opposes needle exchange programs, for they want drug users to die from diseases as punishment for their sins.

The anti-choice crowd don't give a damn about the children. What they do want to see is the mothers punished by having to bear, give birth to, and care for those children. Whether or not those children are born into lives of poverty and crime is not their concern. Their only concern for poor children is ensuring that fewer and fewer social services are available and that they have fewer and fewer opportunities to escape lives of poverty. For the Christian Taliban is all about ensuring that the children pay for the sins of the parents.

All this is why I maintain that the fight over abortion has nothing at all to do with the lives of the fetuses
4/13/2011 11:28 AM
Who is the "Christian Taliban" and how does that have a bearing on the merit of the arguments that I've proposed regarding what a fetus is?  Is your post an attempt to lump all pro-life people into whatever this unknown group you mention?  How about addressing the merits of the several lines of actual discussion going on in this thread...

And you should cite your "work".  A simple google search found a link to your copy/paste.  Are you the actual author of that blog? 
4/13/2011 11:37 AM
He definitely wasn't trying to pawn that off as his own.  I didn't cite my wiki pasting, but I'm fairly sure it was obvious that I wasn't pawning that off as my own.  Perhaps bolding the last line would make it clearer...but it's fairly obvious.
4/13/2011 11:42 AM
 I realize it's obvious.  Many people copyright their work.  Many reserve that right.  For some, they make money based on what they write.  I think it's important, even in a fairly unimportant forum, to cite quotations, especially whole articles.  When I used to blog, I would never mind if a line or two or whatever was quoted.  Have at it.  But when entire articles are reprinted without credit, to me at least, it kinda crosses the line.  It think the blog writer would appreciate the direct traffic to the article.  It's better form to quote and link if possible.
4/13/2011 11:46 AM
Posted by tedco on 4/13/2011 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Try and make a point without the silly name calling, ok? That's how 5th graders argue, not adults.

And if the best you can do is prove that federal support frees up funds, then you have to admit that you can not prove in any way that federal dollars are used for abortions. All you prove is that non-federal money is used for abortions, which seems to be a problem for some people and they just need to get over it because there's absolutely nothing illegal about it.

As for how they would make it up, I'm talking about finding alternate sources of funding.


I can't help it in this case.  You've just proven to be as dense as one can possibly be.   And, as you said when I said the stupid have to use curse words to make a point, they're just words, right?    Don't cry. 

It doesn't take a genius to know that funding one account frees up money for another account.  If PP needs $50 in their birth control and abortion accounts, they can split their $50 evenly between the two.   When the feds drop another $50 into the birth control account, doesn't it stand to reason that they'd transfer $25 to the abortion account so both would be fully funded?   Or is it your position that they'd keep an excess in one account while leaving the other underfunded?
4/13/2011 12:01 PM
Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 3:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 4/12/2011 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antonsirius on 4/12/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
If you're defining a fetus as a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being, then you're faced with an impossible moral dilemma: either you have to deny the fetus its rights, or you have to deny the mother her rights.

I can understand the impulse to protect the one in that equation that can't speak for itself, but I can't share it. I know the mother is a human being; I'm not as sure about the fetus. So I have to side with protecting her actual rights, rather than the theoretical rights of the fetus.
What is it that makes you know the mother is a human being?  And what standard do you apply to her that you cannot apply to the fetus?

I don't define the fetus as a human being.  Science does.  Draw blood or any living tissue from a fetus at any single point in the process and what kind of DNA is it?  Is it living?  Can you differentiate that kind of DNA from the mother's kind of DNA?

If you're defining humanity as beginning at the point of conception - which you were - then science does not at all "define" a zygote or embryo as a human being, any more than a sperm or egg are "defined" as human beings.

But I'm talking about the moral argument. A fetal nervous system isn't developed enough to feel pain until the late second or even third trimester, so you can't make a basic Utilitarian argument against abortion until that point in its development. As for Kant, well, he might be against completely voluntary abortions but in favor of those in the extreme cases (rape, incest, health of the mother endangered), but the Categorical Imperative can be a pretty subjective tool.

Basically put, I have yet to see a moral argument against abortion that's as strong as the moral argument against restricting arbortion.
You never actually answered the questions, but I'll respond to your points...

Regarding definition of humanity.  Perhaps saying "science defines" is a poor choice of words.  Let me restate the point using facts that are scientific.  It is a scientific fact that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a living thing, based on the fact that those organisms meet all of the requirements for life.  Their DNA is entirely human and nothing else.  A zygote/embryo/fetus/baby/teenager is exactly what a human being is at each state if its development.  When a sperm cell and egg cell combine to form the zygote, there is no other biological event that changes it from one kind of being into another.  Aside for implanting itself into the uterine wall, the only thing the zygote/embryo/fetus does, assuming its healthy enough to take in nutrients, expel waste, etc. is grow. 

Regarding the "moral" argument.  Why does pain threshold have anything to do with determining whether or not you are human?  Abortion rights aren't based on that anyway since it is perfectly legal to kill the child right up until birth - but only if you are a doctor hired by the mother.  In many states, it is murder to kill a fetus.  So in our society, it is already accepted by courts that the fetus is a human being - with absolutely no reference to whether or not certain systems are fully developed.  Not to mention that in some humans, some systems don't develop fully anyway.  There are cases of people who do not have the ability feel pain.  Are we justified in killing them?  Is it okay to kill any other human being because their systems aren't fully developed?  When you talk about subjectivity, it seems to me that those who argue against humanity based on any other actual event are the ones being subjective. I'm not being arbitrary, I'm selecting the last biological event to occur relative to the type of living being it is. 

Again, what is it that makes you know the mother is a human being?  And what standard do you apply to her that you cannot apply to the fetus?

4/13/2011 12:33 PM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2011 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tedco on 4/13/2011 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Try and make a point without the silly name calling, ok? That's how 5th graders argue, not adults.

And if the best you can do is prove that federal support frees up funds, then you have to admit that you can not prove in any way that federal dollars are used for abortions. All you prove is that non-federal money is used for abortions, which seems to be a problem for some people and they just need to get over it because there's absolutely nothing illegal about it.

As for how they would make it up, I'm talking about finding alternate sources of funding.


I can't help it in this case.  You've just proven to be as dense as one can possibly be.   And, as you said when I said the stupid have to use curse words to make a point, they're just words, right?    Don't cry. 

It doesn't take a genius to know that funding one account frees up money for another account.  If PP needs $50 in their birth control and abortion accounts, they can split their $50 evenly between the two.   When the feds drop another $50 into the birth control account, doesn't it stand to reason that they'd transfer $25 to the abortion account so both would be fully funded?   Or is it your position that they'd keep an excess in one account while leaving the other underfunded?
Of course they would transfer the money. So what? You can make a case that every dollar allocated indirectly effects every other dollar and how that's allocated. But as long as the federal funding is going to the things it is supposed to go to, how PP spends the rest of their money is no one else's damn business.

But hey, keep moving your goalpost. I'm not going to keep following you down the field.


4/13/2011 1:08 PM
Wow.  Just wow.   You're setting records for dense stupidity.    If, by some minor miracle, you find someone who'll let you pay for sex and they get pregnant, please contact me.  I'll pay them to have an abortion.   And throw in a free vasectomy for you.
4/13/2011 1:16 PM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9...27 Next ▸
GOP psychos obsessed with Planned Parenthood Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.