Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#1827 Sep 15 2015 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If the GOP can't even manage the most basic requirements of governance as the majority, what's the argument for keeping them in power?
Wasn't Obama in the same position when he first took office and pretty much failed to do much of anything during that period?

I should probably remember this more clearly, but I don't really pay much long term attention to you heathens below the 49th.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1828 Sep 15 2015 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, there was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act. Minor things.

More to the topic though, we didn't have any shutdowns because the Democratic Congress couldn't pass a spending bill. That came with the GOP house of 2013.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1829 Sep 15 2015 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I don't really pay much long term attention to you heathens below the 49th.
Well that's a problem, you're paying long term attention to Sarah Palin.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1830 Sep 15 2015 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
**** no, she's the West coast's problem. I'm in bed asleep by the time their news airs.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1831 Sep 15 2015 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Jophiel wrote:
More to the topic though
WTF? You expect us to stay on topic? This place has really gone downhill.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1832 Sep 15 2015 at 4:36 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Government shut down! Except for parks, the military, Congress, schools, everything ...
Don't underestimate the value of parks!
#1833 Sep 15 2015 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Planned Parenthood hasn't committed any crimes. If you feel that they have, the burden is on you to prove it prior to using that as an excuse to cut funding.


Yes, I'm sure those who are in bed with PP politically are so sure that they couldn't have committed a crime, that there's no reason to even bother to investigate! That's an insane legal standard Joph. It's pretty difficult to conduct a proper investigation when half of our political system is actively fighting against it. The sheer volume of spin in the media on this is staggering.

The simple fact is that to anyone who can read, the transcript from the video does clearly show the doctors in question effectively admitting to violating the laws regarding tissue donation. They admit to telling doctors which procedures to use to maximize yield (even when not the normal procedure). They admit to shopping around to set prices (rather than calculating their own expenses). They suggest (but admittedly don't outright admit) that it would be better to earn more money, because even if it's not technically profit, any dollars they get for the tissues can be redirected to other important things that PP does (so basically, they're a protected non-profit, so the rules don't apparently apply to them). Repeatedly, they say things like "well, if the doctor is reasonable, then we can do this, or that, or the other thing", strongly suggesting that by "reasonable", they mean "willing to skirt the law, look the other way, or just not ask questions". They repeatedly talk about involving the doctors who are performing the procedures in discussions about the value of tissue from the aborted fetuses. You know, and if they're "reasonable", they'll do things in a way which can get you the tissues you want/need. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

All of those are illegal. It's really hard to read the transcript (the full one, which was edited in the video, not to hide stuff, but because it's a really long conversation) without getting the clear impression that the doctors at PP know exactly what the law is and how to appear to be within the letter of the law, while doing everything they can to violate the spirit of said law. Why this is relevant is because if you just do an outside audit, everything will appear on the up and up. The kinds of violations we're talking about are more decision based. Why does a doctor chose this procedure over that one? Why does he (or someone in the office) schedule a procedure for one day instead of another? How do they set their prices? They'll all seem "reasonable" if you just look at a data sheet, because they've been careful to make it appear that way. But, as you well know (cause we had this discussion already), doctors performing abortions are not supposed to even know whether there will be tissue donated from the fetus being aborted. Precisely because it may influence his/her actions during the procedure. PP clearly violates that rule. It's admitted in the transcript. One doctor directly states that if he knows that someone (like the fake company pretending to be in the market for parts) wants a particular part, he'll make changes to how he does the procedure. Of course, not in a way that might harm the patient, but that's not something that can be determined objectively. Which, again, is why the law is written the way it is.


The issue isn't whether PP has violated the law, but whether the law will actually prosecute them. Right now, PP is such a protected organization, tied to some strong political and ideological causes, that they seem to almost be immune to legal problems. Again, just the sheer volume of attacks against those who dared to engage in a sting operation tells us everything we need to know. The need to leap to the assumption that there's nothing to this, and it's all just partisan politics, absent actually looking at the facts, is astounding. If any other organization did something remotely similar to this, they'd be under investigation immediately, any privileges removed, etc. But not PP. Might want to ask why that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1834 Sep 15 2015 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I just read that screed from gbaji and apparently he forgot that the "NO ABORTION" crowd is also the "NO CONTRACEPTIVE" crowd, making the separation of "abortion clinic" PP sector inseparable from the "not abortion clinic" PP sector.


They are not the same crowd. Not remotely. While I'd assume that all anti-contraceptive people are also anti-abortion, the opposite is absolutely not even in the same ball park. The only overlap going the other way would be forms of contraception that essentially induce an early stage abortion (so like the morning after pill). That's the one thing the no-abortion crowd might still oppose in terms of contraceptive service. But that's a likely a small percentage of the no-abortion crowd to start with.

And you're forgetting all the folks (like me) who are pro-choice, but not pro-abortion and who find the tactics and methods that PP uses extremely questionable on that ground.


Oh. Just because I'm sure no one will bother to find or read the transcript, here's just one small bit:

Quote:
Buyer: So it sounds like, it’s more something if you had in the back of your mind-

PP: Yes. So if I know if somebody’s in the clinic, and there’s something
that’s specific they’re trying to collect, I’ll keep it in the back of my mind,
but I’m not going to say no, I’m not going to do this case now, I don’t have
enough dilation to do that. But we do the best we can with the situation that
we have. Like I said, it’s just a kind of a consent issue, the idea is they’re
now not getting the standard of care, like everyone else.

Buyer: But from our end I’m just thinking the consent issue, the staffing, the time,
it makes it more complex.

PP: Yes.

Buyer: Well, that’s good to hear.

Buyer: What would you say is the degree of a difference I guess you can make,
if you have it in the back of your mind-

Buyer: We need liver and we prefer, you know, an actual liver, not a bunch
of shredded up—

PP: Piece of liver.

Buyer: Yeah. Or especially brain is where it’s actually a big issue, hemispheres
need to be intact, it’s a big deal with neural tissue and the progenitors, because
those are particularly fragile. If you’ve got that in the back of your mind, if you’re
aware of that, technically, how much of a difference can that actually make if you
know kind of what’s expected or what we need, versus—

PP: It makes a huge difference. I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for
that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance,
so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting
step of the procedure is the calvarium, the head is basically the biggest
part. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It’s very rare to have a
patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate all the other parts
intact.

Buyer: To bring the body cavity out intact and all that?

PP: Exactly. So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your
graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that,
you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we
know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush
below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.
And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change
the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex
presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case,
unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact
calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s
dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can
evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps
that can be taken to try to ensure—

Buyer: So they can convert to breach, for example, at the start of the—”

PP: Exactly, exactly. Under ultrasound guidance, they can just change the
presentation.

Buyer: Okay.



That, in case you weren't following, is a doctor at PP admitting that he will change the procedure in order to preserve tissues that a potential buyer wants. Earlier in the transcript, he talks about "keeping it in the back of my mind" while performing a procedures if he knows there's someone on-site looking for a specific part.

There's like dozens of such admissions in the transcript. There isn't even a question of violation here. The only cover that PP has (aside from massive political and left leaning media cover) is that they can claim that these doctors were just the only people doing this, or they somehow misspoke (dozens of times). Again, I find it hard for anyone to defend this. Forget about your stance on abortion/choice/whatever. These guys are absolutely breaking the law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1835 Sep 15 2015 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The simple fact is that to anyone who can read, the transcript from the video does clearly show the doctors in question effectively admitting to violating the laws regarding tissue donation.

No, they don't. That you need to qualify this by saying "effectively" shows that you're probably aware of this but it's not the answer you actually want to give.
Quote:
The issue isn't whether PP has violated the laws

Of course it is. Show REAL evidence that they have. Not "effectively" evidence. Show that choosing placement of an instrument is actually a change of procedure rather than a legitimate choice within the procedure by the physician. Show that the reimbursements were actually profit. Show that the tissues were used in federally funded research since that's the only research covered by the law you're claiming was violated. You know, a real standard of evidence and not just what you want to be true because it works for you politically. You know, we have this silly thing in this country where you are presumed innocent before being proven guilty. Granted this doesn't apply to personal opinions but I think it might still be a reasonable standard when speaking of legislative action to "punish" an organization.

The fact that the best you can come up with "You just know it's true and maybe they didn't REALLY break the law but they maybe-sorta-broke it by wanting to break it but... POLITICS!!" speaks volumes.

The fact that you're using that to justify cutting funding to an organization your party desperately wants to make an example out of speaks even more.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1836 Sep 15 2015 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That, in case you weren't following, is a doctor at PP admitting that he will change the procedure in order to preserve tissues that a potential buyer wants

Detail exactly what the procedure is that he is changing. Show evidence that the doctor is actually changing the procedure rather than making choices within the normal operation of the procedure. If the procedure is, for instance "Use forceps to remove the fetus" then where the forceps are placed does not constitute a change of procedure. If the procedure is "place the forceps only at this specific location" then you perhaps have an argument. and, for the love of God, don't give me some bullshit about "you know it's true" or "It's always like this" or whatever nonsense you use to dance around your lack of evidence. If you can't give me chapter and verse than just admit that you can't do it and shut up.

I'll note yet again that the prohibitions against changing procedure or method only apply to tissue being used for federally funded research. What PP was doing was donating the tissue to middlemen who would then sell it to universities, research facilities, etc. Unless the middlemen were getting federal research funding, it's unlikely that this prohibition would even apply, weak as your argument already is.

Edited, Sep 15th 2015 7:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1837 Sep 15 2015 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Maybe I'm just suffering from a case of the stupids tonight, but how can one be pro-choice but not pro-abortion, assuming "not pro-abortion" means you're anti abortion?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#1838 Sep 15 2015 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Maybe I'm just suffering from a case of the stupids tonight, but how can one be pro-choice but not pro-abortion, assuming "not pro-abortion" means you're anti abortion?

That made sense about 75% of the way through and then it sort of went off the rails.

Tackling everything up to the second comma, it's much like "I disagree with what you have to say but I'll defend your right to say it". You're in favor of the freedom of choice even if your preference differs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1839 Sep 15 2015 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You know, we have this silly thing in this country where you are presumed innocent before being proven guilty.
In Kentucky you're innocent even after being proven guilty. Multiple times.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1840 Sep 15 2015 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That, in case you weren't following, is a doctor at PP admitting that he will change the procedure in order to preserve tissues that a potential buyer wants

Detail exactly what the procedure is that he is changing.


Sorry. Need to make a minor correct. She. Not he. The procedure, clearly mentioned is an abortion where the doctor admits to changing the position of the fetus to breech in order to make it easier to obtain an intact brain. Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is a complete violation of the law.

Quote:
Show evidence that the doctor is actually changing the procedure rather than making choices within the normal operation of the procedure.


Now you're playing the same game you did last time we had this conversation. Any change to the procedure is a change to the procedure. Changing the procedure so as to move the fetus into a breech position is clearly going to require additional effort and risk to the patient (the woman having the abortion, since someone got confused about that last time). If the fetus would normally come out one way, and you have to actually make an effort to adjust its position, you're changing the procedure (or the method, or whatever. Can we agree that sufficient language exists in the law to cover this?). You're seriously reaching to argue otherwise. Remember that the intent of the law is to ensure that doctors do not face a conflict of interest situation where the desire to obtain tissues may negatively impact the health of their patient. Even the slightest change could have that negative effect. Which is why the HHS guidelines for this very issue say that the doctor performing the procedure should not be aware that tissue collection is an issue in the first place. While not the law itself, those guidelines exist to help doctors ensure that they not in violation of the law.

In this case, not only did the doctor know that the patients fetuses were subject to tissue collection, but actively modified the method of extraction so as to protect the desired tissue.

Quote:
If the procedure is, for instance "Use forceps to remove the fetus" then where the forceps are placed does not constitute a change of procedure.


That's an extremely narrow interpretation of the law Joph. A ridiculously narrow one. And one which, incidentally, significantly reduces the protection to the patient that this law was expressly written to provide. If using the forceps in one manner increases risk to the patient compared with another, but happens to also increase the amount of usable tissue recovered, are you seriously arguing that this wouldn't violate the law? Of course it would. Your proposed standard would effectively make it impossible to actually violate the law. How would anyone ever be able to prove that a doctor "changed the procedure"?

You have to have a usable test. You don't. In this case, we do. The doctor admitted to making decisions about how to perform an abortion based on what tissues a buyer wanted from the fetus. What's next? You gonna argue with me over what the definition of "is" is?

Quote:
If the procedure is "place the forceps only at this specific location" then you perhaps have an argument.


No. If any procedure is defined that narrowly, you'd have an argument. But they aren't. Which is why the distinction you're trying to make is silly. The law in question clearly must apply to more than just the name of the procedure, otherwise, it has no weight at all. There's a hundred different ways to do a D&E. Some are presumably more or less dangerous to the woman than others. And some are presumably more or less likely to produce usable tissue. And guess what? In most cases, the methods that are more likely to produce usable tissue are more likely to be dangerous to the woman. Which, presumably, is precisely what the law in question is talking about. Saying "well, he performed a D&E, so it doesn't matter *how* he performed it" is ridiculous.

But just because it's funny, here's the same doctor explaining this very thing later:

Quote:
Buyer: So, when you’re- when you know, in the back of your mind you’ve got X,
Y, and Z organs that need to be procured and we want them to be reasonably
intact, and you convert to breech, are you saying that pretty much, I mean there’s
no guarantees with any of this, but we can pretty much count on having you
know, the major areas, torso, thorax, abdomen intact-

PP: I’ll actually collect what you want sometimes, and put it aside.

Buyer: Oh, so you actually do the-

PP: If I see it. Why not? I’m right there. Oh, for sure, I mean to me, I don’t know,
it makes the procedure that much better, like I’ve done something better. Like I
said, I think that forming a relationship with the providers, like you did at NAFF
because that was a lot of providers. the providers as much as the patients want
to do this. I think they would all love to participate in something like this. It just
adds another level of interest to what they’re doing. You know, everyone has a
different technique, so that's the thing. There’s definitely local variance, like
no two people do a C-section the same way, no two people do a hysterectomy
the same way. No two people do a D&E the same way. With that said, If you
maintain enough of a dialogue with the person who’s actually doing the
procedure, so they understand what the end-game is, there are little things,
changes they can make in their technique to increase your success.

Buyer: Even though they have a set way that they do it, they’re open to
changing that?

PP: Reasonable, if they’re reasonable people, sure. I’m mean there’s
always going to be that one person who’s like: “This is my thing I’ve been
doing it for one-hundred years-


You're trying to apply a ridiculous standard. Oh. And anyone have any doubts about what the "end-game" she's talking about here. I'll give you a hint: It's collecting tissue. I'll also point out that while I haven't read through the entire thing, it's worth noting that I have yet to find a single point where she puts the health of the woman ahead of the "end-game". In a couple spots, she jokes about "well, we're not going to do something crazy like <this> to get tissues, but where we can we do <something not as silly as this>" (paraphrase obviously). But she doesn't make any sort of effort to say clearly "we're not going to ever put a patient at greater risk to get you tissue". Now maybe she's just working the business side of this, but it does come off as cold and odd. Her priorities seem a bit skewed.

Quote:
I'll note yet again that the prohibitions against changing procedure or method only apply to tissue being used for federally funded research. What PP was doing was donating the tissue to middlemen who would then sell it to universities, research facilities, etc. Unless the middlemen were getting federal research funding, it's unlikely that this prohibition would even apply, weak as your argument already is.


Or the research facilities themselves. You can't launder your way out of the legal restrictions by just hiring a third party to transport stuff for you. Also, my understanding is that the law when written was an exception to the existing law, which made it illegal to use such tissue for any research or medical purposes at all. So this law is saying "when the Secretary is supporting research (ie: funding it), then it's legal, but only under these circumstances". Making it legal for strictly regulated government funded research in this area, doesn't magically make it legal for completely unregulated research by wholly private parties. Cause that would also be really ridiculous.

You kinda have to look at the history of the law itself.

Edited, Sep 15th 2015 6:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1841 Sep 15 2015 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
You're trying to apply a ridiculous standard

You mean a standard where you actually show how the law was violated? Yeah, if I had absolutely zero evidence, I'd probably try a line like that as well.

Again, show me chapter and verse how the procedure is done. Oh, you can't -- because your own friggin' cite says that physicians have latitude in how they conduct the procedure. Seriously, I know you're never going to admit this but your argument is just hilariously weak and shows a huge lack of knowledge in how physicians operate.
Quote:
You can't launder your way out of the legal restrictions by just hiring a third party to transport stuff for you.

PP wouldn't be "hiring a third party", you idiot. The "third party" is REIMBURSING PP for the costs of collecting and preserving tissue; PP isn't paying them. PP gets zero money from the end user.

Edited, Sep 15th 2015 9:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1842 Sep 15 2015 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
According to Gbaji logic, if I legally purchase Vicodin from my pharmacist and then sell it to high school students, my pharmacist broke the law. He's not allowed to hire me to sell Vicodin! I mean, he actually did the exact opposite but... Guilty!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1843 Sep 16 2015 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Jophiel wrote:
According to Gbaji logic,
That Kentucky should lose all it's federal funding?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1844 Sep 16 2015 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,394 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
According to Gbaji logic,
That Kentucky should lose all it's federal funding?
But then we'll have to get our chicken from Georgia or something. Smiley: frown
#1845 Sep 16 2015 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Also, my understanding is that the law when written was an exception to the existing law, which made it illegal to use such tissue for any research or medical purposes at all.

Nope. Your "understanding" is 100% wrong.
Congressional Quarterly Research, speaking about the lifting of the NIH moratorium, wrote:
The NIH moratorium did not affect privately funded research in the United States. And fetal tissue transplantation research continues in more than a dozen other countries around the world.

Bush administration officials and anti-abortion groups depict the NIH funding moratorium as a limited one. The current director of the NIH, Dr. Bernadine Healy, says the agency allotted $8 million to other fetal research for fiscal 1990. Healy, who headed a research clinic in Cleveland, was a member of the special NIH commission and joined in its recommendation to approve funding fetal tissue transplant research. As NIH director, however, she has fallen in place behind the moratorium, promising senators in her confirmation hearing to support and enforce it.

That was in 1991 about your "existing law" which was then changed in 1993 so that the NIH could begin funding research with the restrictions noted. But private research was never affected.
gbaji wrote:
Making it legal for strictly regulated government funded research in this area, doesn't magically make it legal for completely unregulated research by wholly private parties.

Well, this is easy then: Show me the law making a blanket prohibition for any research. I mean, you're insisting that they broke the law so you should at least be able to give me the exact law that they broke, right? Hint: it's not this one which applies to NIH federal grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.

Can you do this? Can you do any of this? Or are you going to break down and start resorting to appeals to emotion again since the facts are 100% against you in this case? Again, you're insisting that funding be cut because Planned Parenthood broke the law. How about you make a real case for this for once? Because showing a complete ignorance of medical procedures and the NIH law isn't a very compelling argument.

Edited, Sep 16th 2015 11:17am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1846 Sep 16 2015 at 11:09 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Jophiel wrote:
How about you make a real case for this for once?
Because those inflections and implications he's learned to ignore when reading, watching, or listening to any sort of news or opinion source are really compelling here.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1847 Sep 16 2015 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You're trying to apply a ridiculous standard

You mean a standard where you actually show how the law was violated?


No a standard where you determine whether what has been shown actually indicates whether the law was violated. You're basically saying "well, he admitted to breaking into the home, an taking stuff, but that doesn't prove that he broke the law!!!". Ridiculous.

Quote:
Again, show me chapter and verse how the procedure is done. Oh, you can't -- because your own friggin' cite says that physicians have latitude in how they conduct the procedure.


And also says that the physician admitted to altering how she performed the procedure in order to maximize tissue recovery. And also admits to instructing other physicians to alter how they do the procedures so as to also maximize tissue recovery. I'm just baffled at how you can argue that this doesn't violate a rule that says:

Quote:
no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue


She clearly violated that restriction.

Quote:
Quote:
You can't launder your way out of the legal restrictions by just hiring a third party to transport stuff for you.

PP wouldn't be "hiring a third party", you idiot. The "third party" is REIMBURSING PP for the costs of collecting and preserving tissue; PP isn't paying them. PP gets zero money from the end user.


Sigh. I was talking about the research company, not PP. You said that even if the research company was funded by the government, this didn't count because the company actually buying the tissue from PP and transporting it to that company was not (or at least, that's what I assumed you meant). If you meant something else, then please clarify. Obviously, I thought that line of reasoning was totally flawed, which is why I said it was flawed. If you meant something else, then I'll respond to that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1848 Sep 16 2015 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you think the research company violated the law, shouldn't you be throwing your inept hissyfit about them and not about Planned Parenthood? Because, in either case, PP didn't break the law.

Even if some federally funded research facility was colluding with some broker, the crime would be on them for purchasing the tissue without the correct paperwork, not on PP for legally donating tissue to the non-federally funded broker.

Your poor understanding of medicine aside, you must first cross this hurdle of evidence since no change of procedure would be a crime unless it's federally funded.

Edited, Sep 16th 2015 4:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1849 Sep 16 2015 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Also, my understanding is that the law when written was an exception to the existing law, which made it illegal to use such tissue for any research or medical purposes at all.

Nope. Your "understanding" is 100% wrong.


No, it's not.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Making it legal for strictly regulated government funded research in this area, doesn't magically make it legal for completely unregulated research by wholly private parties.

Well, this is easy then: Show me the law making a blanket prohibition for any research. I mean, you're insisting that they broke the law so you should at least be able to give me the exact law that they broke, right? Hint: it's not this one which applies to NIH federal grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.


Ok.

Quote:
Can you do this? Can you do any of this?


Of course I can.

Specifically, section 46.204 covers research involving pregnant women and fetuses. It clearly states that there can be no risk imposed to the fetus itself for the purposes of research. There's a section that covers dead fetuses, which we could assume to include fetuses killed as a result of an abortion, but it seems like a heck of a loophole in the law to say that someone choosing to have an abortion can include as part of that decision the fact that the tissue from the aborted fetus will be used for research. The PP doctor states in the transcript that many women she gets approval from feel better about their choice knowing this, not sure how much of that is projection on her part, but still, it's clear that she's making a direct link between the decision to abort, and the use of the tissues for research once the fetus is dead. Again, heck of a loophole to have a buyer for a research organization speaking with a doctor who performs the abortions, and them discussing how best to obtain permissions to get tissues, and how best to perform the procedures to get the tissues desired.

I'll also point out that this section contains the same prohibition against the researchers being involved in any such decisions about timing, method, or procedures used. So the practice of having employees of the research company on site orchestrating with the doctors ways to best obtain the desired tissues, would appear to be in violation of this law.

And again, this assumes that no government funding is involved. Which we haven't determined. Either way, her cavalier discussion of modifying her methods in order to obtain the needed tissues should be in violation of one or the other of these laws. The reality is that the reason no one's being charged with a crime (or even investigated) is that these are federal laws, and the DoJ would have to chose to act, and Obama has established a precedent of selective enforcement of laws. Which is super problematic on it's own, but in this case basically represents a desire to protect an organization that is a sacred cow to his own party. Period. If this was some other organization violating a similar law, absent such political connections, they'd certainly be under investigation.

Edited, Sep 16th 2015 3:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1850 Sep 16 2015 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you think the research company violated the law, shouldn't you be throwing your inept hissyfit about them and not about Planned Parenthood? Because, in either case, PP didn't break the law.


Um... Because the restrictions to the doctor performing the abortion apply if the research the tissues were obtained for is funded by the government. Get it? So if the research company receives funding (technically "support" according to the legal language), then they fall under this section of the law, and making decisions about how to perform an abortion violates the law.

Of course, as I show above, even if the research if wholly private, the same restrictions regarding the timing, method, and procedure apply. So... Still in violation. I suppose you could use a loophole by saying that the researcher wasn't directly performing the abortion, but having a third party do it (PP in this case), but, as I said earlier, that's a heck of a loophole to use, and probably wouldn't fly legally. Doubly so if PP doctors are actively consulting with representatives from the research companies and them making such decisions based on requests from said representatives. Which the transcript clearly shows the PP doctor admitting to doing.

Quote:
Even if some federally funded research facility was colluding with some broker, the crime would be on them for purchasing the tissue without the correct paperwork, not on PP for legally donating tissue to the non-federally funded broker.


No. It just means that the research is federally funded, which means whatever process was used to obtain the materials for said research falls under the law. PP is still bound to compliance for the law in question. Both laws, in fact. The person performing the abortion would be in violation of the laws regarding performing of abortions. The research company would *also* be in violation for colluding with the doctor to do so, but that doesn't get PP off the hook. Let's not recall that this was a sting operation designed to show the degree to which PP and these companies operate together to obtain tissues in violation of the law. And an objective observer should conclude that they succeed in doing just that.

Quote:
Your poor understanding of medicine aside, you must first cross this hurdle of evidence since no change of procedure would be a crime unless it's federally funded.


A. You haven't shown that the research wasn't federally funded.

B. The same restriction applies to non-federally funded research.

So... You lose?

Edited, Sep 16th 2015 3:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1851 Sep 16 2015 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Can you do this? Can you do any of this?

Of course I can.

Ok. Were you going to? Because what you linked to was regulations that pertain to "the protection of human subjects in research supported or conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services", i.e. federally funded or conducted research.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (58)