Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

The reality is that he was not correct. Your wishful conjecture isn't the reality that the rest of the world operates in, sorry to say.

And? So how about they separate the two businesses, so as to make the claim you're making actually true?




No. Kyl was repeating a figure he'd presumably heard from any of a number of conservative sources. Those sources make this argument in exactly the way I'm making it (the percentage of pregnant women who walk through the doors of planned parenthood who end out getting abortions compared to prenatal or adoption care). Kyl presumably did not know the details of that figure, and certainly should have done a bit of research first (or his staff should have).

But that does not change the facts about where that "more than 90%" figure comes from.



Well, here's just one source speaking about this. And I've heard about this report and the numbers contained within it numerous times btw, this just happens to specifically address Kyl's statement:



Now I'm sure some of the services Planned Parenthood does don't count as providing "primary health care" to a client. The point here is that planned parenthood is not necessary to provide those services to the public. Any organization can do it, and lots of other health clinics and doctors do provide them. Blocking funding to planned parenthood for those services would not prevent people from being able to obtain them. They'd just have to go to a health clinic up the street.


The reason some conservatives feel so strongly about this is because women will go there to get condoms and go there to get birth control and go there to get STI checks. And because they've been going there for those relatively minor things, when they get pregnant, they go there for pregnancy counseling. And the concern is that when that happens they are more likely to be steered into planned parenthoods primary business (providing abortion).




Their own reporting system verifies just how many abortions they perform compared to other major services. Handing out condoms and other birth control and referring people for sti tests and breast exams earns them a bunch of government dollars, but isn't even remotely what their business is primarily about. Again, if one didn't bleed into the other, then why not divide the business into two separate organizations? In the private sector, companies are often required to divorce themselves of certain parts of their business in cases where the conflict of interest is far less direct.


If we have a law which prohibits federal health care dollars from funding abortions, doesn't it represent a conflict of interest for an organization who's primary purpose is to provide abortions to get about 1/3rd of its operating budget from federal health care dollars? Some of which surely bleeds over to their abortion work?

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 2:18pm by gbaji

Nothing in that link counters the numbers about the percentage of pregnant women cared for by planned parenthood who receive abortions compared to those who do not. And while he insists that the numbering of "visits" or "care" isn't exaggerated, he doesn't go into any detail about how they count such things. Frankly, that article is long on fluff and short on facts. Except to repeat the "only 3 percent of our services are abortions" number. Um... Ok. Whatever.


I could link to someone just as knowledgeable as your source about planned parenthood. But of course, since she disagrees with your guy, she must be lying, right? Again though, this is still just quibbling over what a "service" is and how they count it. The pregnancy care numbers are not manufactured and no one is disputing them.

Kyl wasn't wrong, he just worded his statement incorrectly. As you can see from that link, he was clearly referencing this quote:



Should he have been more specific? Absolutely. But to say he "lied" is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, my link was actually to someone refuting Ms. Johnson's claims. Wouldn't hurt you to read once in a while.

Gbaji's defense is that Kyl was just inaccurate and made a mistake. Kyl's office admits that Kyl was engaging in hyperbole to make a point, not that Kyl made an error using the wrong set of stats and the wrong phrasing.

The LifeNews articles link back to Planned Parenthood's fact sheet which shows that the overwhelming percentage of its work is in contraception and STD testing/treatment.

It's probably two lies...what he said was a lie, and his office's response explaining it is probably a lie too (you know, so they don't look like idiots).

I'm really wondering how going to Planned Parenthood is not "personal responsibility"? Same thing with abortion - people say "take responsibility"... isn't getting an abortion doing just that? Not taking responsibility would be lying and saying you got knocked up by God or something.

Another way of looking at it - 97% of PP's rendered services are not abortion-related - 35% are about birth control. How can millions of services specifically aimed at being responsible sexually not be "making responsible decisions?" How about the hefty percent that goes toward STI testing - the same thing. Being irresponsible would be ignoring symptoms or being deluded enough to think "Oh, it can't happen to me." And if those services could NOT be accessed due to price constrains, lack of availability, or social stigmatism (all of which would result from shutting down Planned Parenthood), there's not even an argument about personal responsibility. If it someone wanted to make use of these advantages, without them available it would be useless. It's like giving a person a recipe for food and no access to ingredients, then complaining when they starve.

Also, I love gbaji's claim because it is verbatim from a Fox News segment I saw a couple of days ago- except the news commentators then said you can get pap smears and mammograms from Walgreen's. Smooooooooth reporting there.

Gbaji doesn't get his news from anywhere!

Except conservative think tanks, CNS News and LifeNews judging from the last two days.

You're mixing it up with 0%, I'm afraid, provided you're talking about federal funding (which is the only thing relevant). Remember, no federal funding can go directly to the abortion procedure - the only thing affected is the overhead. A doctor can give our condoms, but he also can perform abortions - and he can be paid by federal funds. And it is 100% legal. The women still need to pay for the abortions - or if PP covers them, they cannot do it with federal funding sources.

As an employee in a job that receives federal funding, I'd assume that PP would have the same strict guidelines we have to follow. Failing to use the correct funding source can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars stripped from our budget - it's a very serious matter.


And they don't. Your taxes will never buy RU-486 or any of the instruments used in an abortion.

So what is your answer there? Kill the pregnant woman instead? Accidents happen, and someone will have to pay for them. If the woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, she's taking responsibility for her actions. The other option is having the kid and potentially using social services money from the government - now there's an active use of your tax dollars!

In before gbaji comes in with the idiotic idea of "if it's such a problem, why don't they make a separate organization?" To head it off - tax dollars are spent completely legally and comply with federal rules. There is no problem except for people being upset with those rules. If it's an issue, why not head it off with a law against that type of spending, along the lines of the Hyde amendment (which is what is currently followed, to the T). Such a law has a perfect place, and it's as separate legislation, not an unpopular rider in must-pass budgets.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:18pm by LockeColeMA

trollulz

And if you just repeat that bogus and useless statistic long enough, maybe it'll stick, right?

It's a meaningless statement. It's like saying that 99% of the work I do every day is breathing, since I can count each breath as a single action, while only counting each task I accomplish during the day as one as well. Add in each beat of my heart and we could conclude that only a tiny fraction of my actions during any given work day actually involves doing "work". Most people reject that as an absurd way of calculating things, but when it's convenient, I suppose you'll follow it to the ends of the earth.

Handing out a pack of condoms to someone isn't even remotely on the same plane as performing an abortion. Yet each is counted equally as a "service" in the statistic you are quoting. You can't possibly think that's a fair accounting. But you're doing so anyway.

I've been very clear where the statistic Kyl was quoting came from. That he misstated it is a minor issue. 97.6% of all pregnant women who come to planned parenthood for pregnancy care end out getting an abortion. Can we please not kid ourselves by thinking that PP is anything other than an abortion provider that happens to also provide other services as well?

If you simply count up numbers of single sale items per day by a gas station, you'd conclude that their gas business is only a tiny fraction of what they do. That's clearly not correct either.




Irrelevant argument (yes, you were responding to Varus, so I forgive you somewhat). The point is that those other services are available via numerous other means. I don't think it's wrong to define Planned Parenthood by what it does that other health care providers don't do (or don't do nearly at the same rate). Don't you agree?



All of those other services could be accessed exactly the same whether Planned Parenthood receives that money or not. That's what you're not getting. Those services are performed commonly at health care facilities all over the country. The exact same services which would qualify under medicaid if the person walks through Planned Parenthood's door will qualify under medicaid if the person walked through any other health care facilities door.

Are you actually arguing that without Planned Parenthood no one would be able to obtain birth control, or STI tests, or breast exams? Because that's a huge stretch, right? Yet, that's what's suggested by the crying coming from the left over this.



Yes. But that's not the case here, so WTF?



Ah... The "you're just repeating rhetoric" counter. Would you believe that I honestly have not watched a single bit of Fox News coverage of this issue? I haven't even watched the station in probably two weeks. I'm going through my SG-1 DVDs right now (I'm about a third of the way through season 10 right now in fact!). Haven't been watching much of anything on TV other than stuff I DVR for at least a month or so now.

Has it occurred to you that the reason my arguments match those of the conservatives on Fox News is because that's the conclusion any conservative would reach upon doing any kind of research into the subject at all? I've said this many times in the past. You know why I know this is true? Because people on this forum were accusing me of parroting Fox News before I even knew what channel is was on. I was being accused of repeating things said by people I'd never heard of. I only watch Fox News occasionally today because after years of being accused of parroting them, I figured I ought to actually figure out what cable number they're on and see what the hell people are talking about.


Which is why this particular accusation always makes me laugh. When people who are parroting what other say accuse me of doing the same, it always tickles my irony funny bone.