Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

Vanus,

I'm pretty sure that God would be as against sterilizing women against their will as he is about abortion. And I'm pretty sure God doesn't appreciate being used in political debate, after all, he did create the people who made separation of church and state a law.

On an unrelated note, I'm kind of surprised about how adamant you are defending the Republican party. Are you rich? Because if you aren't then the republicans hate you (but they do appreciate your vote).

Movie was better (anything with Kurt Russell is better than anything without him).

First series had Macgyver. Your argument has been invalidated with a rubber-band, a paperclip, and a belt buckle.

This is a lie.

It ain't bogus, and that's why it is sticking What's not is your insistence that the senator did not lie, your blatant attempt to ignore that his own office admitted he was lying, and you huffing and puffing about what classifies as a service or what doesn't.


Nor are STI checks, birth control prescriptions, pap smears, or cancer screenings, right? Oh, but... but... the condoms! Even discounting condoms - they are less than 6% of the total "services rendered" - you're still on about them being abortions only and a front for other health services?
L
O
L


Only one kidding himself is you. Nor even Kyl's office tried to spin like you. YOU'VE been very clear what statistic he meant. 90%... that's close to 97%... that must be what he meant. Not that he was lying... except he was. They admitted it, dude - you just know better than the senator what he meant. Obviously.



So... what aisle are the stirrups in for the pap smears at Walgreen's again? I can never seem to find them >_<

Dammit... the one offering free puppies, or free candy? I can never remember!

It's sticking because every liberal media source and pundit are repeating it over and over and over and over, and you parrot what they say. Like I said, repeating an irrelevant statistic over and over doesn't make it meaningful.



He said "over 90%", which last I checked included 97%.



Who's "they"? The liberal pundits and media you parrot who have interpreted this whole thing in a way so as to maximize the hay they can make over it? Imagine that! Falling over themselves to paint a Republican in the worst light possible while ignoring the more relevant issue at hand. I can't believe they'd do such a thing! Oh wait! This is what they do, isn't it?

I've heard that exact phrase "over 90%" many times and from many different sources. That's why I knew exactly what he was referring to when I first heard about what he'd said. Even if he himself did not know the source of the number, it was pretty freaking abundantly clear that's what he statement was meant to refer to. The fact that he and his staff failed to do sufficient checking to make sure their wording was correct was stupid, not because the core point he was making was wrong, but because conservative politicians should know by now that the slightest misstatement will be jumped upon by a liberal media just looking for ways to discredit and attack them.

They should have done more checking and gotten the statement right. That was his mistake (his staff really). And when pressured on it, they should have responded with a more intelligent answer than the one they gave. Honestly, all this says is that his staff should be fired for being freaking idiots. Again though, it does not eliminate the more important point, which is that Planned Parenthood's primary purpose for existence is to provide abortion services. Hence the name "Planned Parenthood".

Is anyone actually arguing otherwise? Absent the abortions, they'd just be any of a number of other health care organizations out there and no one would care about this.




I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

WTF? I already did this



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.



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:




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.



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.





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.

So the numbers Locke is citing from the published report are "bogus and useless" but Ms. Johnson's numbers and claims (which are without cite beyond her own word) are gospel to you because... why?

Oh, right. Because they're what you wanted to hear. Ms. Johnson offers no support for her claim that every contraception visit is recorded separately (a claim PP says is false) but you'll say that Locke is using "bogus and useless" numbers because Ms. Johnson claims they're bogus.


You could start by admitting that you're just making up an excuse on his behalf because you don't want to admit that he lied, despite his own admission that he was using false numbers to make a point.

Doesn't matter what the person said, Gbaji decided on an even BETTER excuse for them so that's what they REALLY meant!

Don't retreat, instead reload!!

Yeah, except he's losing :D

Cite, please.

Planned Parenthood gave it to me :(