Cecile Richards admits that 86% of Planned Parenthood’s (non-government revenue) is from abortions

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: rnaa


And, just as an aside, the Congressional Clown Car Committee hearings into Planned Parenthood would be a whole heck of a lot more respectable if they would let their star witness, the President of Planned Parenthood answer one of their questions. Just one. One question without talking over her so she can get out the answer to the question they asked. She spent 5 hours in the witness chair and was not allowed to answer one question. Not one.

Of course - the hearing is not about investigating Planned Parenthood - it's just an excuse for the politicians to pontificate to their base.

And don't forget to waste tax payer money. Republicans LOVE wasting tax payer money on frivolous Congressional investigations. I imagine that when this investigation doesn't turn up any wrong doing, there will be five more right behind it just like Benghazi and all the other investigations that didn't turn up squat.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

You can't get a mammogram without a doctor's referral. Planned Parenthood provides referrals to radiology offices so their patients can get mammograms, so yes, their services DO have something to do with mammograms.

That's really funny because I just this morning that is a lie.

a reply to: kaylaluv
they also refer them to charity groups and such that will help with the financial costs of those mammograms and possibly might even provide some funding themselves.

a reply to: rnaa

Rnaa, we're on the same side of this argument against nonsense, and you are correct that 0% of government funds pay for abortion, but a correction/clarification: PP does perform abortions in most states, not just a few. They don't, however, provide abortions at most of their health centers.

In some areas, the nearest provider is hundreds of miles away. Many gynecologists in private practice, university medical centers and hospitals also provide abortions, but that's generally for those who can afford to pay out of pocket, or can afford private insurance which will cover them.

Another point for those on the "shut the nation down over planned parenthood" side - the most highly skilled & experienced providers of IUDs and abortions are the doctors at planned parenthood.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Shouldn't you add that it is 86% of non government funding?

Since abortions are not paid for by the gov but by out of pocket and are expensive would it not make sense they that number would be high since they don't really charge you for much else?

If anyone is interested the interview starts at about 50 min on the stream, and not really much a of a question and answer, Lummins doesn't really let her answer.

Better source then what seems to just be tweets about it.

•17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds—virtually all from the state (AGI).
www.abort73.com...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Since abortions are not paid for by the gov but by out of pocket and are expensive would it not make sense they that number would be high since they don't really charge you for much else?

It's a shell game where they shuffle the tax dollars around--but in the end, the result is the same: The tax dollars allow PP to stay in business while performing abortions. Whether or not each individual tax dollar is spent on janitorial services for the clinic or for the abortion procedure is irrelevant, as it all goes to the same overall outcome.

Anyone who still claims that tax dollars don't provide funding for abortions is either lying or incapable of seeing the big picture.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

so why can't the same be said about all those faith based organizations out the sucking up taxpayer money while spreading religious dogma? that money is just as spongable as the money going to planned parenthood. and gee, they even have the priviledge of discriminating by choosing to hire those with similar beliefs, not hiring gays, ect.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

so why can't the same be said about all those faith based organizations out the sucking up taxpayer money while spreading religious dogma? that money is just as spongable as the money going to planned parenthood. and gee, they even have the priviledge of discriminating by choosing to hire those with similar beliefs, not hiring gays, ect.

Well, for one, it can be said about those organizations, but they don't really suck up taxpayer money as much as get to keep all of their money because they are tax-exempt. I think that their tax exemption needs to end, as it seems all are political at times, and most appear to be more of a business than a church these days.

As for private businesses--I'm all for them being allowed to hire whomever they want to, because it's their business, not the taxpayers' or the federal govt's business.

But both of these topics are off-topic, so let's not go down this tangential road.

The bottom line to me, though, is that NO PRIVATE BUSINESS should be subsidized with federal dollars prior to a service being rendered to the individual.

Even Pro-Lifers Embarrassed By Planned Parenthood Hearing, Call It ‘GOP Freak Show’

Lying with Charts

Actually, though, the number has increased only about 2 percent per year since 2006. How did this happen? Well, it turns out that Americans United for Life, which made the chart, decided to ignore the y-axis.

Here's a pictorial representation of the chart the GOP presented as showing the # of cancer screenings vs # of abortions. Notice the chart the GOP presented doesn't have a Y axis, so it's meaningless.



Looks awful, right? It appears that, while planned parenthood used to do fewer abortions than cancer screenings, they now do MANY more abortions than cancer screenings! Oh! NOes!

But notice the numbers don't have any relation to each other. Here's an accurate visual representation of the data:



And while cancer screenings HAVE decreased, one reason is that the cancer screening standards have changed over the years and fewer women are getting them.

And as far as the services Planned Parenthood provides, there's this boring chart:

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Then I guess a baby gets born and doesn't get chucked into a meat grinder.

Yep. Baby Grinders. Off to heaven they go just like your story book of lies says.

So what are you complaining about. Just more pure souls for your God who isn't there.

I don't tolerate lies .. so a book of lies isn't something I would read.

You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

or maybe it isn't?

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

Why just the ladies? The man involved is JUST as responsible for the bun in the oven. But who EVER blames men for abortion? NO ONE! It would be easier if he just kept it in his pants...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Why just the ladies? The man involved is JUST as responsible for the bun in the oven. But who EVER blames men for abortion? NO ONE! It would be easier if he just kept it in his pants...

So, with that notion in mind, would you be okay with all abortions having to be signed off by the father in question prior to the procedure? I mean, while the process of creating the baby is half of the responsibility of the man, so would go the logic that the life growing inside the woman is half the responsibility of the man, too, even if by natural process only the woman can bring the child to full term.

Or--and I assume that you'll go this route, but I'll be pleasantly surprised if you do not--is the man only responsible for the "bun" if the "oven" wants to birth the child, and other than that, he has no say for the first two trimesters as to what the mother wants to do with the child that is 50% his creation and DNA?

ETA: Also, why did your other thread get trashed?

originally posted by: [post=19867458]xuenchen

According to "reports", she claims that PP doesn't do mammograms.

And, according to reports on TWITCHY, 86% of PP's revenues are from abortions.

Can't confirm yet, but the hearings are live and transcripts will be up soon I think.

LOL...Why bother with actual facts or anything...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Since abortions are not paid for by the gov but by out of pocket and are expensive would it not make sense they that number would be high since they don't really charge you for much else?

if you would have actually watched the hearing you would have heard her testify that the agency does provide abortions for people who cannot afford, which all you have to do is claim, knowing how many people do that already claim they can't afford something to get a cheaper or price of free. Now while the money she claimed came from private donors, she does clarify that any difference in funds comes directly from the federal money, also the polictical contributions was enough for me to grab my pitchfork. I don't need to hear anything else on this issue. I watched the entire thing. Funny how rep Cummings changes his time when he find outs about the money at the end..

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

Why just the ladies? The man involved is JUST as responsible for the bun in the oven. But who EVER blames men for abortion? NO ONE! It would be easier if he just kept it in his pants...

How the hell is that ?

Remember ?

It's a woman's body she can do what she wants.

NOW a man is just 'responsible'.

Can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer


You know .. it would be much easier if the ladies just kept their legs closed than it is to actually chuck a baby into a meat grinder.

Your vulgarity aside...

The Anti-Choice platform is comprehensive in their denial of women's rights concerning their own bodies.

It doesn't matter if "the ladies kept their legs closed" as they oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, with that notion in mind, would you be okay with all abortions having to be signed off by the father in question prior to the procedure?

No. While the process of creating the baby is half of the responsibility of the man, he has no responsibility in carrying and bearing the child. Only the woman can bring the child to full term.

I do support a male abortion, in which the man is absolved of all financial responsibility and rights, however. As long as the decision is made early in the pregnancy, with enough time for the woman to decide if she wants to do it on her own, or have an abortion.

originally posted by: Indigo5
LOL...Why bother with actual facts or anything...

I know, right? It's hilarious!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I like the idea of each male baby being temporarily sterilized, with it only being reversed when both the man and the woman who want to have a baby together sign off on paperwork agreeing to take responsibility for the child that gets filed with the government.