Jophiel wrote:
So you're going to say Locke's numbers are "bogus and useless" and refuse to show some real numbers of your own?
WTF? I
already did this Quote:
Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion.
Even someone as obtuse as you should be able to see how one might mistakenly repeat this statistic by saying that "Over 90% of what planned parenthood does is abortion". Especially, if you've just heard other people repeating the statement and didn't go back and check the source yourself. It was a staff writing/research error. Nothing more.
Quote:
As stated, your precious little "LifeNews" article linked back to the sheet saying "3%" and I've yet to see a detailed breakdown that says anything different, just some people claiming that it really isn't so.
Sigh. Except that the 3% number is irrelevant to the point being made. The point is that pregnant women go to planned parenthood overwhelming for abortion services. And the same fact sheet bears out the numbers that I quoted earlier:
Quote:
The new document the abortion organization posted shows Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to merely 7,021 women and referred only 977 women for adoption services. These numbers were a 25 percent drop in prenatal care clients and a whopping 59 percent decline in adoption referrals from the 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. The abortion business helped only 9,433 prenatal clients in 2008, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007 — showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.
As a result, Kyl is correct because 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008.
How does that equate in your mind to refusing to show any numbers? You just don't want to talk about the numbers that Kyl was referring to. You want to jump up and down and talk about total "number of services". And as I (and
this other article I linked earlier have said, those numbers are really irrelevant for the purpose of determining what "planned parenthood does".
I'll point out again that this is like saying that a gas station doesn't primarily "sell gas", because if we simply count up the number of individual items sold and count them equally, gas sales account for only a tiny percentage of "total sales". Of course, if we look at dollars spent, that number is much higher. And if we look at the reason the station exists, we'd clearly figure out that it's not there to sell cigarettes or gum, but to sell gas. Just as the reason planned parenthood exists is to provide abortion services. Those other things are added after the fact. Some would argue added precisely so that they can make the sorts of "we're necessary for women's health" argument they are making now.
Quote:
Funny how the numbers you think are worth something are the ones with the least amount of supporting evidence but still the ones that match your ideology the most.
What!??? The numbers I'm talking about
come from the exact same Planned Parenthood fact sheet as the numbers you're talking about. How can they have less supporting evidence? Once you get past the fact that Kyl misstated, and understand where that number comes from, there is no argument against it. It's absolutely factually true. 97.6% of pregnant women who receive care from Planned Parenthood receive an abortion. That's what Kyl was trying to say.
Which is why the whole 3% number is irrelevant.
Quote:
Quote:
I've been very clear where the statistic Kyl was quoting came from.
Does Senator Kyl know that you're making sh
it up on his behalf? You think he wasn't capable of offering a proper clarification if this was the case?
Given his staff's incredibly lame answer, obviously not. What do you want me to say here? I have no interest in arguing that Kyl is an articulate and intelligent person who understands every detail of every single thing he is asked to vote on in Congress. My argument is that he didn't do proper research, repeated a statement incorrectly, and made a fool out of himself in the process, but that this does not eliminate or weaken the basic argument he was making: That Planned Parenthoods clear bias in terms of pregnancy care options should make us question subsidizing about 1/3rd of their entire operating budget via federal dollars, given that we're supposed to have laws prohibiting federal funding of abortion. Regardless of how you calculate abortion procedures in relation to a total number of services, abortion services is what planned parenthood is known for and is what brings people in the door and what they get much of their private donations for (another 1/4th of their budget btw). How do you separate those?
This is why my argument earlier in this thread was that Planned Parenthood could easily spin off its non-abortion business and keep separate books. That would end the debate entirely. But unless someone imposes some kind of restriction on planned parenthood itself, this isn't going to happen.