Planned Parenthood leaked video (1 Viewer)

[RBM]

There have been two full investigations now and they have found no wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood doesn't sell body parts. They dont even perform abortions in most states.

There has been lie after lie after lie about this.

Thought you were more civilized than this Tim.

Where am I wrong here?

I guess there are two kinds of people in the world...those that are sickened by seeing people negotiate the sale of dead baby body parts, and those that shrug it off as if it's no big deal.

there's also:1. The sensible people in this thread

2. The group that includes you

So that's at least 4 kinds

Lol that's rich.

 

[timschochet]

There have been two full investigations now and they have found no wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood doesn't sell body parts. They dont even perform abortions in most states.

There has been lie after lie after lie about this.

Thought you were more civilized than this Tim.

Where am I wrong here?

Where are you wrong? Your implication they have nothing to do with abortions that happen from women that go there. Not to mention your comment about "most states".

I never implied that. And the statement is true.

 

[timschochet]

There have been two full investigations now and they have found no wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood doesn't sell body parts. They dont even perform abortions in most states.

There has been lie after lie after lie about this.

PP clinics were investigated? Link?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/30/indiana-finds-no-planned-parenthood-abortion-violations-after-undercover-videos/

INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana on Thursday cleared Planned Parenthood facilities that perform abortions in the state of any wrongdoing in the handling of fetal tissue.

Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, on July 16 ordered an investigation of Planned Parenthood facilities in Indianapolis, Bloomington and Merrillville to see if organs from aborted fetuses were being sold. He was among a number of conservative lawmakers around the country who have called for investigations after an anti-abortion group circulated a video it made secretly showing some of its national officials discussing how they obtain organs from aborted fetuses for research. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortions, has said its donations of fetal tissue for research are legal.

The Indiana Department of Health said in a statement Thursday that an investigation found no evidence of any laws being broken. Health department inspectors investigated the Indiana facilities on July 21.

Letters from the health department to the three Indiana facilities dated Tuesday and released to the media by Planned Parenthood said the agency had completed its investigation into the Planned Parenthood facilities that perform abortions in Indiana. The letters said the agency was "unable to find any non-compliance with state regulations. Therefore, no deficiencies were cited." The letters say the complaint is closed.

The state has the authority to license and regulate abortion clinics and to inspect them, the Health Department said. Federal law prohibits the buying and selling of human body parts or trafficking in tissue from an aborted fetus.

"We are pleased this unfounded complaint is resolved," said Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

She said the Indiana facilities don't participate in tissue donations.

Planned Parenthood, which gets more than $500 million of its $1.3 billion annual budget from federal and state programs, has been under fire since the release of videos by the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress. Pence said when he ordered the investigation that Indiana residents should be troubled by the allegations after the video went viral.

Planned Parenthood has asked the government's top health scientists at the National Institutes of Health to convene a panel of independent experts to study the issues surrounding the little-known branch of medicine.

Cockrum said Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky holds "compliance with all laws and regulations as an imperative."

 

[timschochet]

Massachusetts also had an investigation with the same results (or non-results.)

 

[BeaverCleaver]

There have been two full investigations now and they have found no wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood doesn't sell body parts. They dont even perform abortions in most states.

There has been lie after lie after lie about this.

Thought you were more civilized than this Tim.

Where am I wrong here?

Where are you wrong? Your implication they have nothing to do with abortions that happen from women that go there. Not to mention your comment about "most states".

I never implied that. And the statement is true.

Yes you did. This is another example of you living in your world inside your head.

 

[timschochet]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

 

[shader]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think most rational, open-minded people would agree that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, but if you aren't sickened even a little bit by these videos, then there is something wrong with you. This should not be a left vs a right thing.

 

[RBM]

I think most rational, open-minded people would agree that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, but if you aren't sickened even a little bit by these videos, then there is something wrong with you. This should not be a left vs a right thing.

 

[Mister CIA]

Anyone here a fan of setting aside their political differences and meeting in the middle to endorse a commitment to reducing the number of abortions with the use of reasonable measures?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Anyone here a fan of setting aside their political differences and meeting in the middle to endorse a commitment to reducing the number of abortions with the use of reasonable measures?

That's already my position anyway. I tend to be a centrist on many issues, and in the case of abortion, it should absolutely be legal, but there should also be reasonable, sensible restrictions.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

Just stop Tim.

 

[timschochet]

I think most rational, open-minded people would agree that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, but if you aren't sickened even a little bit by these videos, then there is something wrong with you. This should not be a left vs a right thing.

I don't think this is unreasonable. But the videos were apparently heavily edited. And the people behind them want a complete defunding of Planned Parenthood. And it looks like Congress is willing to shut down the government in order to see this happen. So of course such tactics are going to result in pro-choice people like me going into full defense mode; what do you expect?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think most rational, open-minded people would agree that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, but if you aren't sickened even a little bit by these videos, then there is something wrong with you. This should not be a left vs a right thing.

I don't think this is unreasonable. But the videos were apparently heavily edited. And the people behind them want a complete defunding of Planned Parenthood. And it looks like Congress is willing to shut down the government in order to see this happen. So of course such tactics are going to result in pro-choice people like me going into full defense mode; what do you expect?

From you? Irrational, knee jerk replies.

 

[njherdfan]

Anyone here a fan of setting aside their political differences and meeting in the middle to endorse a commitment to reducing the number of abortions with the use of reasonable measures?

I think everyone would support a reduced number of abortions. But I also think a big way of reducing the number of abortions is by funding groups like PP that provide free contraceptives to poor women.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Anyone here a fan of setting aside their political differences and meeting in the middle to endorse a commitment to reducing the number of abortions with the use of reasonable measures?

I think everyone would support a reduced number of abortions. But I also think a big way of reducing the number of abortions is by funding groups like PP that provide free contraceptives to poor women.

Wait...you want to reduce abortions by giving money to the group that profits off of them?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Anyone here a fan of setting aside their political differences and meeting in the middle to endorse a commitment to reducing the number of abortions with the use of reasonable measures?

I think everyone would support a reduced number of abortions. But I also think a big way of reducing the number of abortions is by funding groups like PP that provide free contraceptives to poor women.

Wait...you want to reduce abortions by giving money to the group that profits off of them?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I think most rational, open-minded people would agree that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, but if you aren't sickened even a little bit by these videos, then there is something wrong with you. This should not be a left vs a right thing.

I don't think this is unreasonable. But the videos were apparently heavily edited. And the people behind them want a complete defunding of Planned Parenthood. And it looks like Congress is willing to shut down the government in order to see this happen. So of course such tactics are going to result in pro-choice people like me going into full defense mode; what do you expect?

They released unedited videos as well. This "highly edited" narrative is only used to try and deflect.

 

[Fennis]

I personally see little issue with the number of abortions, but if people have a desire to reduce them, by having their churches provide free/low cost contraceptives I am supportive of that. Providing additional sex education would also be very beneficial.

OTOH, I would strongly oppose a ban on using fetal tissue for medical research, which sounds like the direction this may go.

 

[njherdfan]

Anyone here a fan of setting aside their political differences and meeting in the middle to endorse a commitment to reducing the number of abortions with the use of reasonable measures?

I think everyone would support a reduced number of abortions. But I also think a big way of reducing the number of abortions is by funding groups like PP that provide free contraceptives to poor women.

Wait...you want to reduce abortions by giving money to the group that profits off of them?

And then responses are like that are why we're back to square one!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

 

[Hang 10]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

Right. It's 3% of their services provided. Isn't that the relevant number? I mean who cares about revenue? Would pro-life people be happier if they charged less for abortions so it comprised less of their revenue? If they just gave them away for free then it would be 0% of their revenue! That argument is so silly that I just assumed they meant "services."

 

[timschochet]

Thanks Hang10! My error; I meant 3% of services provided.

 

[Hang 10]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

Right. It's 3% of their services provided. Isn't that the relevant number? I mean who cares about revenue? Would pro-life people be happier if they charged less for abortions so it comprised less of their revenue? If they just gave them away for free then it would be 0% of their revenue! That argument is so silly that I just assumed they meant "services."

No, what percentage of their revenue is the relevant number since that's what was questioned.

 

[jonessed]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

Right. It's 3% of their services provided. Isn't that the relevant number? I mean who cares about revenue? Would pro-life people be happier if they charged less for abortions so it comprised less of their revenue? If they just gave them away for free then it would be 0% of their revenue! That argument is so silly that I just assumed they meant "services."

Shader specifically mentions revenue and the videos are largely about selling tissue. Revenue would be the important number here I would think.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

Right. It's 3% of their services provided. Isn't that the relevant number? I mean who cares about revenue? Would pro-life people be happier if they charged less for abortions so it comprised less of their revenue? If they just gave them away for free then it would be 0% of their revenue! That argument is so silly that I just assumed they meant "services."

Shader specifically mentions revenue and the videos are largely about selling tissue. Revenue would be the important number here I would think.

Selling tissue is not revenue from providing abortions. The 3% figure on services provided is widely circulated so it was safe to assume that's what was meant. And analyzing their revenue stream as a critique would make no sense for the reasons I explained (it would imply that pro-lifers would feel better about them if they gave away free abortions), so I have no idea how it would be an important numbers.

 

[culdeus]

I think they have come out with the best videos they had and nobody really gives a ####. I am not super pro choice or anything at all (If you could stop the skull crush abortions I'd be fine with that, but I think this represents a really small number) and nothing in these videos have shown me anything that disgusts me in the least. It's what I expect people to do with this tissue.

Many modern medicines came from human tissue, insulin used now was sourced from a living braindead donor that was effectively killed in the process, a human donor that has gone on to basically give diabetics a normal lifespan. One that was cut short by decades before.

I expect to donate my tissue, and I expect doctors to profit off of it and my family won't get a cut. I still don't get the outrage over selling baby tissue for a profit I just don't. Nothing here that's been said has changed that for me in the slightest.

Women will always have abortions, may as well get something useful out of it.

 

[jonessed]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

Right. It's 3% of their services provided. Isn't that the relevant number? I mean who cares about revenue? Would pro-life people be happier if they charged less for abortions so it comprised less of their revenue? If they just gave them away for free then it would be 0% of their revenue! That argument is so silly that I just assumed they meant "services."

Shader specifically mentions revenue and the videos are largely about selling tissue. Revenue would be the important number here I would think.

Selling tissue is not revenue from providing abortions. The 3% figure on services provided is widely circulated so it was safe to assume that's what was meant. And analyzing their revenue stream as a critique would make no sense for the reasons I explained (it would imply that pro-lifers would feel better about them if they gave away free abortions), so I have no idea how it would be an important numbers.

Shader specifically mentions revenue. It's quite clear. Not only did you assume he meant something other than what he said, but you then criticized him based on that assumption. You were in the wrong.

I think your assumption that only pro-lifers are concerned with their revenue stream from abortions and selling the resulting fetal tissue is off base.

Instead of discussing topics based on your assumptions why don't you just discuss them based on what people are actually saying.

 

[jonessed]

I think they have come out with the best videos they had and nobody really gives a ####. I am not super pro choice or anything at all (If you could stop the skull crush abortions I'd be fine with that, but I think this represents a really small number) and nothing in these videos have shown me anything that disgusts me in the least. It's what I expect people to do with this tissue.

Many modern medicines came from human tissue, insulin used now was sourced from a living braindead donor that was effectively killed in the process, a human donor that has gone on to basically give diabetics a normal lifespan. One that was cut short by decades before.

I expect to donate my tissue, and I expect doctors to profit off of it and my family won't get a cut. I still don't get the outrage over selling baby tissue for a profit I just don't. Nothing here that's been said has changed that for me in the slightest.

Women will always have abortions, may as well get something useful out of it.

I don't want government funded non-profits profiting off of abortions. It seems some the most desired tissue is from late-term abortions (more intact and complete organs) and that's just not something I want to see more of.

I understand that others feel differently and those feelings seem rational to me. There are a lot of different angles in this. It's unfortunate so many assumptions and generalizations are being made.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Shader specifically mentions revenue. It's quite clear. Not only did you assume he meant something other than what he said, but you then criticized him based on that assumption. You were in the wrong.I think your assumption that only pro-lifers are concerned with their revenue stream from abortions and selling the resulting fetal tissue is off base.

Instead of discussing topics based on your assumptions why don't you just discuss them based on what people are actually saying.

Shader was responding to tim, who clarified that of course he meant "services" rather than "revenue." It was simple application of common sense, for the reason I described- their discussion didn't make sense otherwise. I'm sorry that bothers you.

 

[jonessed]

Shader specifically mentions revenue. It's quite clear. Not only did you assume he meant something other than what he said, but you then criticized him based on that assumption. You were in the wrong.

I think your assumption that only pro-lifers are concerned with their revenue stream from abortions and selling the resulting fetal tissue is off base.

Instead of discussing topics based on your assumptions why don't you just discuss them based on what people are actually saying.

Shader was responding to tim, who clarified that of course he meant "services" rather than "revenue." It was simple application of common sense, for the reason I described- their discussion didn't make sense otherwise. I'm sorry that bothers you.

You're welcome.

 

[jonessed]

I personally see little issue with the number of abortions, but if people have a desire to reduce them, by having their churches provide free/low cost contraceptives I am supportive of that. Providing additional sex education would also be very beneficial.

OTOH, I would strongly oppose a ban on using fetal tissue for medical research, which sounds like the direction this may go.

That seems like quite a leap from where we are now. What leads you to this conclusion?

 

[shader]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

There is a difference in services and revenue.

Obviously the NUMBER of abortions are going to be a small percentage of the overall services they do, when many of the services are cancer/HIV screenings and testings.

 

[shader]

Planned Parenthood refers a lot of women to abortion clinics. In big cities, they often perform the abortions themselves, but in most states they don't .That's why only 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. Also, no government funding that PP receives is used for abortions.

These are the facts. Sorry if they upset you.

I don't believe 3% of their revenue comes from abortions. It's a lot more than that.

Yeah, Tim. You can't fool shader with your independently confirmed statistics. Just like those aborted fetuses, he wasn't born yesterday.

That link doesn't mention revenue.

Right. It's 3% of their services provided. Isn't that the relevant number? I mean who cares about revenue? Would pro-life people be happier if they charged less for abortions so it comprised less of their revenue? If they just gave them away for free then it would be 0% of their revenue! That argument is so silly that I just assumed they meant "services."

Can you read?

 

[shader]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

 

[timschochet]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

 

[Amused to Death]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Does it matter to you that none of their public funding goes towards abortions? The public funding is for women's health and contraception. If you cut that off, wouldn't it follow that there would be more abortions (whether at PP or elsewhere)?

 

[jonessed]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Does it matter to you that none of their public funding goes towards abortions? The public funding is for women's health and contraception. If you cut that off, wouldn't it follow that there would be more abortions (whether at PP or elsewhere)?

Only if you assume the funding doesn't go to another group.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

And additionally, as I pointed out, they could reduce the revenue number by shifting their spending to subsidize cheaper or even free abortions, which I assume would not lessen your outrage as it would result in more abortions. It makes absolutely no sense for a pro-life person be outraged about PP taking in a certain percent of revenue from abortion. If you are opposed to PP as a pro-life person wouldn't your outrage be centered on the extent to which they provide abortions, not how much money they make from them? Especially since no federal funding goes to those abortion services anyway? It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Hang 10]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Right, you don't know what the numbers actually are. You can stop right there. But if you want to speculate wildly, I can just as easily make the assumptions that they don't release the revenue numbers because shader is right about it being PP's cash cow.

 

[jonessed]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Why would it be counterintuitive to make higher profits on a lower volume, but more complex procedure/product?

 

[timschochet]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Right, you don't know what the numbers actually are. You can stop right there. But if you want to speculate wildly, I can just as easily make the assumptions that they don't release the revenue numbers because shader is right about it being PP's cash cow.

You can make any assumptions you want. But some are going to make sense and some aren't. It doesn't make sense to me that if 3% of the services are from abortion, that abortion is going to be the main source of revenue, which is how I would define the word "cash cow." But if you think it DOES make sense, then please explain it to me. Perhaps there's something I'm not considering here.

 

[Soonerman]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Does it matter to you that none of their public funding goes towards abortions? The public funding is for women's health and contraception. If you cut that off, wouldn't it follow that there would be more abortions (whether at PP or elsewhere)?

Not really.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

 

[timschochet]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Why would it be counterintuitive to make higher profits on a lower volume, but more complex procedure/product?

Of course not. But 3% of services? That's too low for a "cash cow."

(Also, I want to reiterate that Planned Parenthood doesn't make any kind of "profit".)

 

[Amused to Death]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Does it matter to you that none of their public funding goes towards abortions? The public funding is for women's health and contraception. If you cut that off, wouldn't it follow that there would be more abortions (whether at PP or elsewhere)?

Only if you assume the funding doesn't go to another group.

So again I'll ask; why defund and not just prosecute if there has been any laws broken? Didn't Tim post an article that the investigation in one state found no wrong doing. If this was a rogue facility or limited to a few people, it doesn't make sense to me to defund the entire organization.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Right, you don't know what the numbers actually are. You can stop right there. But if you want to speculate wildly, I can just as easily make the assumptions that they don't release the revenue numbers because shader is right about it being PP's cash cow.

OK, let's assume he's right. Wouldn't that be a good thing from a pro-life standpoint, or at worst a neutral thing? That would mean they are taking in lots of money from abortions while performing relatively few of them and then using that money to fund their much more significant efforts (97% of their services) to address other women's health issues, including (drumroll please) efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus future abortions. Plus you can rest assured that no federal funding goes to providing abortion services anyway. I can't see how that would possibly be problematic for the pro-life side.

 

[Hang 10]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Right, you don't know what the numbers actually are. You can stop right there. But if you want to speculate wildly, I can just as easily make the assumptions that they don't release the revenue numbers because shader is right about it being PP's cash cow.

You can make any assumptions you want. But some are going to make sense and some aren't. It doesn't make sense to me that if 3% of the services are from abortion, that abortion is going to be the main source of revenue, which is how I would define the word "cash cow." But if you think it DOES make sense, then please explain it to me. Perhaps there's something I'm not considering here.

Show me percentages of their other services and maybe we can draw some conclusions but until then, your 3% doesn't mean ####.

 

[timschochet]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Does it matter to you that none of their public funding goes towards abortions? The public funding is for women's health and contraception. If you cut that off, wouldn't it follow that there would be more abortions (whether at PP or elsewhere)?

Not really.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

I think this is a reasonable article. I would want to read more from the other side before reaching a conclusion, but this guy's evidence makes sense to me.

And I agree with his final point as well. I can't speak for other "pro-choice" people, but I don't personally accept the idea that abortion is some sort of "necessary evil". I regard abortion, in many instances, as a moral good. I'm not interested in the arguments over what are the best way to reduce abortions; I don't want to see them reduced.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Much of the outrage from many (in this thread and elsewhere) against PP is that abortion is their "cash cow". The Services number is irrelevant if this argument has any relevance. Revenue would be far more important.

Shader, I erred, and I apologize for the confusion.

That being said, if only 3% of PP's services are abortion-related, then it seems sort of counterintuitive to me that abortion would be their "cash cow." I don't know what the numbers actually are, but that doesn't make much sense.

Right, you don't know what the numbers actually are. You can stop right there. But if you want to speculate wildly, I can just as easily make the assumptions that they don't release the revenue numbers because shader is right about it being PP's cash cow.

You can make any assumptions you want. But some are going to make sense and some aren't. It doesn't make sense to me that if 3% of the services are from abortion, that abortion is going to be the main source of revenue, which is how I would define the word "cash cow." But if you think it DOES make sense, then please explain it to me. Perhaps there's something I'm not considering here.

Show me percentages of their other services and maybe we can draw some conclusions but until then, your 3% doesn't mean ####.

Here are some numbers for both services provided and revenue. Unfortunately they don't break down the 23% of revenue from "non-government health services" in further detail, but obviously you can assume the revenue from abortions is under 23%. Whether that's a "cash cow" or not is up to you, I guess. Although as I said before I'm not sure why it matters.