Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

Abortion's legal in the U.S. correct? So why does it matter if PP uses federal money for abortions? Who else gets to dictate how and when their taxes are spent?

In 1977, for the first time the Hyde Amendment passed, making it illegal to use federal funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to perform abortions except in certain specific types of cases. It continues to be amended to every federal funding bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

 

[Amused to Death]

Abortion's legal in the U.S. correct? So why does it matter if PP uses federal money for abortions? Who else gets to dictate how and when their taxes are spent?

In 1977, for the first time the Hyde Amendment passed, making it illegal to use federal funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to perform abortions except in certain specific types of cases. It continues to be amended to every federal funding bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Yeah I'm aware of the Hyde Amendment - just not sure of the need for it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

me me me!

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

 

[Reaper]

People actually thought that video was real?

The fake ID makes the Video not real???

 

[tommyboy]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

If you read the actual things that article is "based" on, you'll probably realize that it's terrible writing, failed understanding of legal documents and the legal process, and an incomplete understanding not only of the Hyde Amendment, but also the sources of Medicaid funding.

Of course, for the publication whose current top headline is "Obama's Chief of Staff Admits They Want Tyranny", it's not the worst thing I've read by the Federalist.

except for this one thing Planned Parenthood admitted:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue

you can read more about the topic of planned parenthood funding/expenditures here https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/09/a-comprehensive-guide-to-planned-parenthood-funding

and even you know that 41% of their budget is fungible cash. So you can say "hey, they don't use the money on abortions directly" but in reality when 2 out of every 5 dollars is coming from you and me the taxpayer, that money is being used to fund abortions which provides the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue.

 

[General Malaise]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding

There's overwhelming support for federal funding for Planned Parenthood, right?

But if I'm reading this article correctly, you would say that because they perform abortions, and you don't like abortions (even though they are legal), they should get no federal money? Who would pick up the slack for the rest of the services they provide?

I'm pro legal abortion, just don't think we should be compelled to pay for it. I also don't think we should be compelled to pay for your birth control.

You'd rather women - especially poor women - did not have access to reproductive health services?

they do. and its free or extremely cheap. search the web dude, this isn't hard to figure out.

you are presenting an either/or strawman argument, when in fact there are several options for low income women to get reproductive health services at little to no cost, besides Planned Parenthood..

And they don't use Fed Money for abortions... so why even more strawmen arguments based upon your "beliefs" instead of their health?

You have audits (federal even) and we know abortions only make up 3% of what they do, as a fact.

So move along.

41% of their revenue comes from the Feds, it would be impossible for them not to use the money for abortions, they provide 1/3rd of all the abortions in the united states.

Why do you care so much?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

If you read the actual things that article is "based" on, you'll probably realize that it's terrible writing, failed understanding of legal documents and the legal process, and an incomplete understanding not only of the Hyde Amendment, but also the sources of Medicaid funding.

Of course, for the publication whose current top headline is "Obama's Chief of Staff Admits They Want Tyranny", it's not the worst thing I've read by the Federalist.

This is like watching Ivan Drago pulverize Apollo Creed. Tommyboy, stay down man. Stay down. You're getting eviscerated here.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

If you read the actual things that article is "based" on, you'll probably realize that it's terrible writing, failed understanding of legal documents and the legal process, and an incomplete understanding not only of the Hyde Amendment, but also the sources of Medicaid funding.

Of course, for the publication whose current top headline is "Obama's Chief of Staff Admits They Want Tyranny", it's not the worst thing I've read by the Federalist.

except for this one thing Planned Parenthood admitted:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue

you can read more about the topic of planned parenthood funding/expenditures here https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/09/a-comprehensive-guide-to-planned-parenthood-funding

and even you know that 41% of their budget is fungible cash. So you can say "hey, they don't use the money on abortions directly" but in reality when 2 out of every 5 dollars is coming from you and me the taxpayer, that money is being used to fund abortions which provides the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue.

Here's a stumper: if abortions provide the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue, why doesn't that revenue pay for the abortions in your view?

And if you'd like to read more about planned parenthood funding/expenditures, you can do so here in their annual report: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6714/1996/2641/2013-2014_Annual_Report_FINAL_WEB_VERSION.pdf

You do understand that the federal government doesn't just send 41% of the budget to Planned Parenthood at the beginning of the year and say "here's the money!" right? They reimburse Planned Parenthood for services and provide grant money for specific expenditures.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

If you read the actual things that article is "based" on, you'll probably realize that it's terrible writing, failed understanding of legal documents and the legal process, and an incomplete understanding not only of the Hyde Amendment, but also the sources of Medicaid funding.

Of course, for the publication whose current top headline is "Obama's Chief of Staff Admits They Want Tyranny", it's not the worst thing I've read by the Federalist.

except for this one thing Planned Parenthood admitted:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue

you can read more about the topic of planned parenthood funding/expenditures here https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/09/a-comprehensive-guide-to-planned-parenthood-funding

and even you know that 41% of their budget is fungible cash. So you can say "hey, they don't use the money on abortions directly" but in reality when 2 out of every 5 dollars is coming from you and me the taxpayer, that money is being used to fund abortions which provides the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue.

Here's a stumper: if abortions provide the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue, why doesn't that revenue pay for the abortions in your view?

Or this one.... Why Donald Trump Is Like A Venereal Disease.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14/4-ways-planned-parenthood-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/

If you read the actual things that article is "based" on, you'll probably realize that it's terrible writing, failed understanding of legal documents and the legal process, and an incomplete understanding not only of the Hyde Amendment, but also the sources of Medicaid funding.

Of course, for the publication whose current top headline is "Obama's Chief of Staff Admits They Want Tyranny", it's not the worst thing I've read by the Federalist.

except for this one thing Planned Parenthood admitted:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue

you can read more about the topic of planned parenthood funding/expenditures here https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/09/a-comprehensive-guide-to-planned-parenthood-funding

and even you know that 41% of their budget is fungible cash. So you can say "hey, they don't use the money on abortions directly" but in reality when 2 out of every 5 dollars is coming from you and me the taxpayer, that money is being used to fund abortions which provides the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue.

Here's a stumper: if abortions provide the majority of Planned Parenthood revenue, why doesn't that revenue pay for the abortions in your view?

Or this one.... Why Donald Trump Is Like A Venereal Disease.

I actually think that's probably a very well-researched piece.

 

[chauncey]

The level of ######ry around here is amazing.

 

[General Malaise]

The level of ######ry around here is amazing.

What's this word supposed to be? Tomfoolery? Sourcery? Strategery?

 

[tommyboy]

I think your being obtuse. I'm at lunch, when I get back I'll spell it out more clearly. I don't think it's that hard to understand

 

[Henry Ford]

I think your being obtuse. I'm at lunch, when I get back I'll spell it out more clearly. I don't think it's that hard to understand

Yeah, I don't either. And yet, here we are.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I think your being obtuse. I'm at lunch, when I get back I'll spell it out more clearly. I don't think it's that hard to understand

*your're

 

[trogg78]

I think your being obtuse. I'm at lunch, when I get back I'll spell it out more clearly. I don't think it's that hard to understand

*your're

*yeir

 

[tommyboy]

ok Henry, I own a business and i have multiple sources of income. I also work for a corporation and draw a salary. So not only does my business have multiple sources of income streams, my family (through me as the sole breadwinner) has multiple sources of revenue.

If I were to pretend for a moment that I was Planned Parenthood, and identified 40% roughly of my income stream coming from the side business and 60% of the remaining revenue coming from the corporate salary, lets just imagine that for a minute. Lets say that my wife also identifies that I have this 60/40 split in my income.

One day I come home and my wife says you know that 40% of revenue that you get from the side business, that money can't go to paying for your gambling and drinking and car buying and weed smoking. That money can only be used for other things this family needs. If you need to do all that other stuff take it out of your corporate salary, you jerk.

Well of course I say "hey, no problem". You know why? I'm assuming you do.

If you need me to spell it out more I will.

 

[sho nuff]

Throw the damn towel!!!

 

[matuski]

ok Henry, I own a business and i have multiple sources of income. I also work for a corporation and draw a salary. So not only does my business have multiple sources of income streams, my family (through me as the sole breadwinner) has multiple sources of revenue.

If I were to pretend for a moment that I was Planned Parenthood, and identified 40% roughly of my income stream coming from the side business and 60% of the remaining revenue coming from the corporate salary, lets just imagine that for a minute. Lets say that my wife also identifies that I have this 60/40 split in my income.

One day I come home and my wife says you know that 40% of revenue that you get from the side business, that money can't go to paying for your gambling and drinking and car buying and weed smoking. That money can only be used for other things this family needs. If you need to do all that other stuff take it out of your corporate salary, you jerk.

Well of course I say "hey, no problem". You know why? I'm assuming you do.

If you need me to spell it out more I will.

Your inability (I am thinking refusal) to grasp the factual concepts laid out for you is impressive.

I have no clue what it is you are trying to say here, or what your income sources/being whipped has to do with PP, but lets keep this going.

Spell it out more please.

 

[tommyboy]

sure.

I made the comment that 41% of PP funding comes from the feds and that PP provides about 1/3rd of all the abortions in the US, and therefore it would be impossible for PP not spend federal money on abortion services. Henry mocked me for that claim and referred me to PP budget (which of course will show zero federal dollars spent on abortions because its against the law).

I then posted a link http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue where the President of Planned Parenthood was asked in congress about PP non federal revenue stream is 86% from abortion services. So if you do the math, 59% of the PP budget is non federal, and 86% of that stream comes from abortion then = 50.74% of PP income comes from abortion. Henry then posted PP's budget again, ignoring the point I'm making.

if half your revenue comes from a service, you are substantially in that service business. So if half your revenue comes from abortion and the other 40% comes from the feds and 10% comes from donations, and I tell you its against the law to spend fed money on abortion or abortion related business you'll say ok, no big deal. Because to you the business operator it makes zero difference what budget item you want to list it under, its just revenue and how you break it down on your accounting ledger is completely irrelevant. So you tell your accountants to put that money into equipment, put it into fundraising, put it into real estate,put it into salaries, put it into marketing but for gods sake don't put into the abortion services column. This just ignores the elephant in the room that your primary business is abortion so any and all money that is either donated, charged or granted from the feds is primarily used to provide abortions which is your#1 money maker.

Which is just accounting gimmicks. At the end of the day you're in the business of abortion so even if you earkmark the fed money to non abortion ledger items on your balance sheet, you're still using the 41% of your overall revenue to stay in the business of providing abortions. Or to look at it in reverse, if you were to REMOVE the 41% of federal revenue from you operating income stream, you would be severely negatively impacted in your ability to provide abortion services at the same level as before.

regardless of all that. I still don't care that Planned Parenthood provides abortions, i mean if they don't then someone else will right because there's a market for it and its legal, and I want it to stay legal. Yes I want it to stay legal. I just once, again, don't think that I the taxpayer should be compelled to donate to Planned Parenthoods business, which once again is primarily funded by abortion and federal money.

 

[sho nuff]

Dude...you are only making yourself look worse.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Oh my...

 

[cosjobs]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding

There's overwhelming support for federal funding for Planned Parenthood, right?

But if I'm reading this article correctly, you would say that because they perform abortions, and you don't like abortions (even though they are legal), they should get no federal money? Who would pick up the slack for the rest of the services they provide?

I'm pro legal abortion, just don't think we should be compelled to pay for it. I also don't think we should be compelled to pay for your birth control.

You'd rather women - especially poor women - did not have access to reproductive health services?

they do. and its free or extremely cheap. search the web dude, this isn't hard to figure out.

you are presenting an either/or strawman argument, when in fact there are several options for low income women to get reproductive health services at little to no cost, besides Planned Parenthood..

And they don't use Fed Money for abortions... so why even more strawmen arguments based upon your "beliefs" instead of their health?

You have audits (federal even) and we know abortions only make up 3% of what they do, as a fact.

So move along.

41% of their revenue comes from the Feds, it would be impossible for them not to use the money for abortions, they provide 1/3rd of all the abortions in the united states.

Tommy, sometimes you need to back up, examine the facts and not post anything.

PP is reimbursed by the feds for a portion of services (other than abortions) to women. They are also a nonprofit. They also get a lot of money from donors. The amount spent on abortions is significantly less than the amount contributed from not governmental sources.

 

[The Football Freak]

sure.

I made the comment that 41% of PP funding comes from the feds and that PP provides about 1/3rd of all the abortions in the US, and therefore it would be impossible for PP not spend federal money on abortion services. Henry mocked me for that claim and referred me to PP budget (which of course will show zero federal dollars spent on abortions because its against the law).

I then posted a link http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue where the President of Planned Parenthood was asked in congress about PP non federal revenue stream is 86% from abortion services. So if you do the math, 59% of the PP budget is non federal, and 86% of that stream comes from abortion then = 50.74% of PP income comes from abortion. Henry then posted PP's budget again, ignoring the point I'm making.

if half your revenue comes from a service, you are substantially in that service business. So if half your revenue comes from abortion and the other 40% comes from the feds and 10% comes from donations, and I tell you its against the law to spend fed money on abortion or abortion related business you'll say ok, no big deal. Because to you the business operator it makes zero difference what budget item you want to list it under, its just revenue and how you break it down on your accounting ledger is completely irrelevant. So you tell your accountants to put that money into equipment, put it into fundraising, put it into real estate,put it into salaries, put it into marketing but for gods sake don't put into the abortion services column. This just ignores the elephant in the room that your primary business is abortion so any and all money that is either donated, charged or granted from the feds is primarily used to provide abortions which is your#1 money maker.

Which is just accounting gimmicks. At the end of the day you're in the business of abortion so even if you earkmark the fed money to non abortion ledger items on your balance sheet, you're still using the 41% of your overall revenue to stay in the business of providing abortions. Or to look at it in reverse, if you were to REMOVE the 41% of federal revenue from you operating income stream, you would be severely negatively impacted in your ability to provide abortion services at the same level as before.

regardless of all that. I still don't care that Planned Parenthood provides abortions, i mean if they don't then someone else will right because there's a market for it and its legal, and I want it to stay legal. Yes I want it to stay legal. I just once, again, don't think that I the taxpayer should be compelled to donate to Planned Parenthoods business, which once again is primarily funded by abortion and federal money.

http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/annual_report_final_proof_12.16.14_/0

It looks like of their 1.3 billion yearly budget, they utilize about 77 million in revenue, while the rest comes from donations. Even if we assumed that was all from abortion, that's .6% of their yearly intake. You averaged out numbers without taking into account the relevant total amounts to balance the percentages against the whole. Keep in mind, a lot of their services are covered by said donations as they offer care to communities (like STD treatment and family planning). Their operating budget goes well beyond what they take in.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Freak... the next time, and there will be a next time, he will go forth as if he never heard the truth. Its sad.

 

[tommyboy]

sure.

I made the comment that 41% of PP funding comes from the feds and that PP provides about 1/3rd of all the abortions in the US, and therefore it would be impossible for PP not spend federal money on abortion services. Henry mocked me for that claim and referred me to PP budget (which of course will show zero federal dollars spent on abortions because its against the law).

I then posted a link http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue where the President of Planned Parenthood was asked in congress about PP non federal revenue stream is 86% from abortion services. So if you do the math, 59% of the PP budget is non federal, and 86% of that stream comes from abortion then = 50.74% of PP income comes from abortion. Henry then posted PP's budget again, ignoring the point I'm making.

if half your revenue comes from a service, you are substantially in that service business. So if half your revenue comes from abortion and the other 40% comes from the feds and 10% comes from donations, and I tell you its against the law to spend fed money on abortion or abortion related business you'll say ok, no big deal. Because to you the business operator it makes zero difference what budget item you want to list it under, its just revenue and how you break it down on your accounting ledger is completely irrelevant. So you tell your accountants to put that money into equipment, put it into fundraising, put it into real estate,put it into salaries, put it into marketing but for gods sake don't put into the abortion services column. This just ignores the elephant in the room that your primary business is abortion so any and all money that is either donated, charged or granted from the feds is primarily used to provide abortions which is your#1 money maker.

Which is just accounting gimmicks. At the end of the day you're in the business of abortion so even if you earkmark the fed money to non abortion ledger items on your balance sheet, you're still using the 41% of your overall revenue to stay in the business of providing abortions. Or to look at it in reverse, if you were to REMOVE the 41% of federal revenue from you operating income stream, you would be severely negatively impacted in your ability to provide abortion services at the same level as before.

regardless of all that. I still don't care that Planned Parenthood provides abortions, i mean if they don't then someone else will right because there's a market for it and its legal, and I want it to stay legal. Yes I want it to stay legal. I just once, again, don't think that I the taxpayer should be compelled to donate to Planned Parenthoods business, which once again is primarily funded by abortion and federal money.

http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/annual_report_final_proof_12.16.14_/0

It looks like of their 1.3 billion yearly budget, they utilize about 77 million in revenue, while the rest comes from donations. Even if we assumed that was all from abortion, that's .6% of their yearly intake. You averaged out numbers without taking into account the relevant total amounts to balance the percentages against the whole. Keep in mind, a lot of their services are covered by said donations as they offer care to communities (like STD treatment and family planning). Their operating budget goes well beyond what they take in.

you lost me there, show your math please.

ETA: I'm look at page 23 fyi

 

[Steve Tasker]

sure.

I made the comment that 41% of PP funding comes from the feds and that PP provides about 1/3rd of all the abortions in the US, and therefore it would be impossible for PP not spend federal money on abortion services. Henry mocked me for that claim and referred me to PP budget (which of course will show zero federal dollars spent on abortions because its against the law).

I then posted a link http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-non-government-planned-parenthood-revenue where the President of Planned Parenthood was asked in congress about PP non federal revenue stream is 86% from abortion services. So if you do the math, 59% of the PP budget is non federal, and 86% of that stream comes from abortion then = 50.74% of PP income comes from abortion. Henry then posted PP's budget again, ignoring the point I'm making.

if half your revenue comes from a service, you are substantially in that service business. So if half your revenue comes from abortion and the other 40% comes from the feds and 10% comes from donations, and I tell you its against the law to spend fed money on abortion or abortion related business you'll say ok, no big deal. Because to you the business operator it makes zero difference what budget item you want to list it under, its just revenue and how you break it down on your accounting ledger is completely irrelevant. So you tell your accountants to put that money into equipment, put it into fundraising, put it into real estate,put it into salaries, put it into marketing but for gods sake don't put into the abortion services column. This just ignores the elephant in the room that your primary business is abortion so any and all money that is either donated, charged or granted from the feds is primarily used to provide abortions which is your#1 money maker.

Which is just accounting gimmicks. At the end of the day you're in the business of abortion so even if you earkmark the fed money to non abortion ledger items on your balance sheet, you're still using the 41% of your overall revenue to stay in the business of providing abortions. Or to look at it in reverse, if you were to REMOVE the 41% of federal revenue from you operating income stream, you would be severely negatively impacted in your ability to provide abortion services at the same level as before.

regardless of all that. I still don't care that Planned Parenthood provides abortions, i mean if they don't then someone else will right because there's a market for it and its legal, and I want it to stay legal. Yes I want it to stay legal. I just once, again, don't think that I the taxpayer should be compelled to donate to Planned Parenthoods business, which once again is primarily funded by abortion and federal money.

http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/annual_report_final_proof_12.16.14_/0

It looks like of their 1.3 billion yearly budget, they utilize about 77 million in revenue, while the rest comes from donations. Even if we assumed that was all from abortion, that's .6% of their yearly intake. You averaged out numbers without taking into account the relevant total amounts to balance the percentages against the whole. Keep in mind, a lot of their services are covered by said donations as they offer care to communities (like STD treatment and family planning). Their operating budget goes well beyond what they take in.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ff/ffa1e089b8328988dde39800fc003bca6a6d488d32e64900b2f7791d70b967e4.jpg

 

[Henry Ford]

ok Henry, I own a business and i have multiple sources of income. I also work for a corporation and draw a salary. So not only does my business have multiple sources of income streams, my family (through me as the sole breadwinner) has multiple sources of revenue.

If I were to pretend for a moment that I was Planned Parenthood, and identified 40% roughly of my income stream coming from the side business and 60% of the remaining revenue coming from the corporate salary, lets just imagine that for a minute. Lets say that my wife also identifies that I have this 60/40 split in my income.

One day I come home and my wife says you know that 40% of revenue that you get from the side business, that money can't go to paying for your gambling and drinking and car buying and weed smoking. That money can only be used for other things this family needs. If you need to do all that other stuff take it out of your corporate salary, you jerk.

Well of course I say "hey, no problem". You know why? I'm assuming you do.

If you need me to spell it out more I will.

Let's say your business, which I assume makes textbooks for people who believe in dinosaurs, started also making hand-sewn cozies for beer cans. And in order to do that, you'd need a Kickstarter campaign to get started. You raise $1.5 million for hand-sewn beer cozies.

Then you sell the cozies. You get money in from those beer cozies. Those cozies are making a lot of money. Can you identify what money you spend on the cozies? Can you identify what money came in from the cozies?

I don't need you to spell anything out more. I need you to understand basic accounting principles.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's see if this works better.

Your mother gives you $500 to buy a sofa. She says, specifically, "I want you to have a sofa. But I do not want my money going toward the Trump campaign, tommy!"

If you accept her $500 and her terms, does that mean you're not allowed to ever donate to Trump, or just that you have to go spend her $500 on a sofa, and then you can do as you wish with the other money you have?

 

[tommyboy]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

 

[sho nuff]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

I don't think you do understand.

We get they do abortions there. You know, a legal activity.

There are plenty of places getting grants and funds that do other things that are not so moral or are of questionable behavior (however you want to put it).

Does not make them ineligible for taxpayer money coming to them.

Do I believe PP can do that many abortions without tax payer money? yes...because they are getting paid to do that by others...what you will lose is other services for women.

Your tax money isn't paying for it...but you keep acting as if it is.

 

[General Malaise]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

I don't think you do understand.

We get they do abortions there. You know, a legal activity.

There are plenty of places getting grants and funds that do other things that are not so moral or are of questionable behavior (however you want to put it).

Does not make them ineligible for taxpayer money coming to them.

Do I believe PP can do that many abortions without tax payer money? yes...because they are getting paid to do that by others...what you will lose is other services for women.

Your tax money isn't paying for it...but you keep acting as if it is.

Precisely.

And it ain't just women, folks. I supplied Millsaps College with enough condoms in the 90s through PP to prevent babies and STDs for tens and tens of people. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

 

[matuski]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

Your posts keep conflating this stuff as though it isn't being put to you in the simplest of terms.

Why? Are you misrepresenting this concept on purpose or is there something you still don't understand?

 

[joffer]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

I don't think you do understand.

We get they do abortions there. You know, a legal activity.

There are plenty of places getting grants and funds that do other things that are not so moral or are of questionable behavior (however you want to put it).

Does not make them ineligible for taxpayer money coming to them.

Do I believe PP can do that many abortions without tax payer money? yes...because they are getting paid to do that by others...what you will lose is other services for women.

Your tax money isn't paying for it...but you keep acting as if it is.

i don't get it.

 

[Henry Ford]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

No, it's not that you won't donate to Trump if you don't take the $500, tommy. It's that you won't have the new couch. And what your mom wants - and what we all want, what everyone should want - is that new couch for you. That's why mom pays for the couch in the first place. For all her kids, not just you. They all get reimbursed for couches. They can just walk up and say "mom, I bought a new couch, here's the receipt, please give me the $500" and she gives them the money. If they go donate to Trump later, it's not HER money they're using for Trump. That money ONLY reimburses the amount on the sofa receipt.

N'est-ce pas?

 

[Henry Ford]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Whatever, just move on.

I find it hilarious that I want abortion to stay legal but just don't want to have my tax money pay for it and all the liberals are ####ting bricks in here.

I don't think you do understand.

We get they do abortions there. You know, a legal activity.

There are plenty of places getting grants and funds that do other things that are not so moral or are of questionable behavior (however you want to put it).

Does not make them ineligible for taxpayer money coming to them.

Do I believe PP can do that many abortions without tax payer money? yes...because they are getting paid to do that by others...what you will lose is other services for women.

Your tax money isn't paying for it...but you keep acting as if it is.

These women deserve couches, too, Tommy. They deserve couches, too.

 

[CBusAlex]

I understand and there's no need to be condescending. What is the problem with you being unable to admit that our tax money whether it's earmarked to go to medical services or abortion still supports a company that performs 1/3 of all the abortion in the US. If its no big deal, just take away the 41% tax money they get and they'll still provide 330,000 abortions next yr, right?

Do you really believe that pp can perform 330k abortions per yr without 41% tax funding from us?

Well apparently that's the only other thing that makes them any damn money, so yes. If anything, they'll perform more.

 

[fatness]

David Daleiden, activist from secret Planned Parenthood videos, charged with 15 felonies

David Daleiden, the anti-abortion activist with roots in Davis, and an alleged co-conspirator were charged Tuesday for falsifying their identities and using a fake bioresearch company to covertly record videos of themselves trying to obtain fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood.

The 15 felony charges were brought by Attorney General Xavier Becerra against Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress.

Daleiden was indicted on felony charges last year in Texas for using a phony government ID. He also was involved in several civil lawsuits.

Becerra’s charging documents contend Daleiden and Merritt filmed more than a dozen people in Los Angeles and San Francisco without first receiving their consent.

Becerra alleges that Daleiden in 2013 took documents from StemExpress, a Placerville biotech firm specializing in stem cell procurement for scientific research, using a password from a terminated employee.

The next year, the state contends Daleiden and Merritt posed as employees from the firm BioMax to access a National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco, where they secretly recorded speakers, vendors and attendees.

They also pretended to work for BioMax later in 2014 and 2015 in Century City, Pasadena, El Dorado and San Francisco, recording their private meetings with various health professionals, according to the charging document.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Oh hell yeah Xavier.  Wish I could send him some extra tax dollars to show my appreciation for an AG finally hitting back on these idiots.  

Get James O'Keefe next.  

 

[General Malaise]

Bye Felicia.

 

[[scooter]]

"Just because the videos were obtained illegally, that doesn't mean that they were fake!"

- Sincerely,

People Who Refuse To Believe Anything Negative About Trump Because The Information Was "Illegally" Leaked

 

[fatness]

James O’Keefe Hit by Group He Stung With Million-Dollar Lawsuit

Conservative provocateur James O’Keefe III will be hit with a million-dollar lawsuit on Thursday, sources behind the filing tell The Intercept.

The lawsuit accuses O’Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, with breaking local and federal wiretap laws and running afoul of other statutes, dubbing him and two colleagues “modern-day Watergate burglars.”

O’Keefe operative Allison Maass posed as a progressive activist, using an elaborate cover story and falsified documents to win an internship with the Democratic campaign consultants Democracy Partners.

“Basically O’Keefe and Maass were modern-day Watergate burglars. They used fraud to get Maass a position as an intern at Democracy Partners so they could steal documents and secretly videotape conversations,” said Joe Sandler, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. “There is no question that, in doing so, they violated federal and D.C. law and should be held liable for the damages suffered by our clients as a result.”

O’Keefe’s scheme involved having a man claiming to be a potential donor to the Democratic group Americans United for Change ask Robert Creamer, a principal at Democracy Partners, if his niece, going by the name Angela Brandt, could do volunteer work. Brandt was in fact Maass.

Maass, much like the burglars who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters ahead of the 1972 campaign, pilfered a large cache of documents. Maass also secretly filmed interactions with Democracy Partners staff.

O’Keefe worked closely with the right-wing local news chain Sinclair Broadcast Group in rolling out the videos produced from the sting. President Trump’s top adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner had struck a deal during the campaign with Sinclair that exchanged access for favorable coverage.

 

[Quez]

James O’Keefe Hit by Group He Stung With Million-Dollar Lawsuit

poor Bob Creamers good name got dragged through the mud by O'Keefe

 

[General Malaise]

O’Keefe worked closely with the right-wing local news chain Sinclair Broadcast Group in rolling out the videos produced from the sting. President Trump’s top adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner had struck a deal during the campaign with Sinclair that exchanged access for favorable coverage.

What a wonderful family.  Really, just splendid scruples and standards.