5th Planned Parenthood Video Released

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010

Oh.

Here are four ways public funds can pay for abortions:

1. Health insurance exchanges developed through Obamacare provided participants with coverage at reduced or subsidized rates, but the plans were supposed to prohibit coverage for abortions. Those insured were required to use personal funds to pay for abortions instead of through the insurance plans.

Yet a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of 18 health insurance companies in the exchange programs showed they didn't actually follow through on this requirement, according to the National Review. Abortions were paid, often without any itemization of expenditures reported.

It's the old saying "we try harder".

So is Newsmax a reliable source or not? You guys keep going back and forth.

President Obama extended the protections of the Hyde Amendment to the ACA Executive Order13535

But, it sounds to me that instead of investigating Planned Parenthood, you guys should be going after the Insurance Companies for breaking US law ... I wonder why that's not happening.

Oh, that's right, they give millions each year to your buddies in Congress!

For anyone that is actually interested, here's the actual GAO report.

You'll find that the Newsmax "summary" and the actual report are much, much different.

I wasn't surprised by that.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Criminals always find ways to break laws.

You don't have to tell me! ... they also find ways to make laws, although not very many this year: United States Congress

a reply to: Phoenix

that SOP for most other programs.

That's not true, if I am not mistaken. Could you provide something to validate that claim?

Arguing pedigree of the videos in no way changes the breaking of existing federal law and PP along with its supporters doing their level best to deny that is to be expected however it doesn't change the facts as presented.

What facts have been presented? The "pedigree" of the video is important because they are made in a way to imply that laws are being broken, but it appears that it does not prove it.

a reply to: JuJuBee

Would you prefer women of low income status to resort to the old method of the back alley abortions? Women are going to have abortions whether they're illegal or not so wouldn't you rather they do it safely? Making it illegal again won't stop it, just like any other crime. Just because murder, drinking and driving, drugs, prostitution are illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen everyday somewhere in America.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT

You and Xuenchen have "tagged up" on the Released Video posts?

Interesting. Splitting up the work, eh?

"Interesting"? If you say so.
Must be another conspiracy.

a reply to: xuenchen

So? It's still required that we PROVE in a court of law that a law was broken. You know that thing that says "innocent until proven guilty"? Conservatives are always going on about following the Constitution. Well why is it ok to circumvent it for this issue?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Phoenix

Hyde Amendment

I will admit that my would be why should the People pay for a "third-party" accounting when there is no evidence of any wrong doing?

I'm not as fond of wasting the government's money on investigations as those on the right seem to be.

Guess, huh? If that's your best guess, you should keep your day job, LOL. Certainly stay out of the stock market.

Do you have any evidence of Planned Parenthood breaking the law, specifically, under the Hyde Amendment?

While we're here, do you support abortion in the case of incest, rape, danger to the pregnant woman's life?

Thanks for your answers if you choose to make them.

I'd trust Planned Parenthood more than a bunch of known fraudulent and huckstering anti-choice zealots who commit identity fraud, theft and anything else because they think the law doesn't apply to them.

I'm waiting for them to call it a religious exemption.

The claim of no wrong doing is convenient if one flat out ignores federal law and what is depicted in videos. I'd use the word incredulous to describe that belief.

Kinda like guessing the market will top 24,000 and ignoring all contrary positions - yup I'll pass.

Re Hyde Amendment, you're asking me to prove a negative but an accounting would answer that question conclusively for both of us.

Danger to the womans life.

Its obvious that the videos have shown a willingness to skirt federal law at a minimum if not outright break them, regardless of bias for PP and personal beliefs its justified to stop funding and investigate PP.

1 or 2 but maybe 3 were coaxed into self incrimination . But These are Drs not some gullible slouches they should know how to discuss delicate matters . Now we have 5 videos with self incrimination. And being directors as well . This one is from another part of the country. I believe there is a pattern here.

One quote a Dr. stated about body parts increase our revenue stream . That does not sound like reimbursement of costs. That sounds like making money. The term ( increase our revenue stream) is almost always tied to for profit endeavors . Any one who has EVER worked with a nonprofit organization knows certain terms are off limits sale (unless raffle tickets ) and increase our revenue stream even trade or exchange can get a nonprofit in trouble.

And the lawyers never advised them to ALWAYS refer to the tissue exchange for any compensation as REIMBURSEMENT OF COST ? That I cant believe .


A standard definition of a sale the exchange of an item or services for compensation . ( irs uses this) It doesn't have a qualifier for profit.

Nothing to see move along.

(standard caned response) ( cleverly edited videos ) (just lump of cells) (not a baby) (donated to science )

When political ideology is involved . 2+2= What ever the party line says it is.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, the matter should be presented to a federal grand jury. In the mean time funding should be frozen until either a no bill is determined or PP is cleared of allegations.

a reply to: Phoenix

The edited videos are hit pieces. I've watched the full length videos, and have heard no evidence of wrong doing on the part of Planned Parenthood or its affiliates, however, the fraud on the part of the "investigators" gets more clear with every video released.

Can you point to the video that you feel provides evidence that Federal funds are being used for abortions in defiance of the Hyde Amendments? Thanks.

You've already shown you're not very good at guessing, but you wanted to prove it further. Okay.

I'm specifically not asking you to "prove a negative" (which is possible, btw, contrary to mundane opinion).

I am asking for evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Planned Parenthood in regards to the Hyde Amendments (there are more than one.)

"Danger to the woman's life" is justification for abortion. Awesome, thank you.

No, that is NOT obvious from the videos, regardless of bias for anti-abortion zealots and known criminals.

Speaking of investigations, do you think that Planned Parenthood, et. al. deserves an actual investigation of alleged wrong-doing, or should the US Congress just act tyrannically based on Youtube videos (or the equivalent thereof)?

PS: Is the fetus in the case of danger to the mother's life NOT worthy for some of his or her "right to life"?

How do you make the choice about which human lives and which one dies?

/shiver

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, the matter should be presented to a federal grand jury. In the mean time funding should be frozen until either a no bill is determined or PP is cleared of allegations.

Why should thousands of American's healthcare be "frozen" until some baseless, fraudulent video evidence is reviewed further.

There have been multiple investigations of these same charges before and EVERY TIME the discovery was that it wasn't happening.

And why a grand jury investigation rather than Congress? Isn't the question a matter of Congressional funding?

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So reverting to calling someone "brainless" which in many cases is exactly how these live babies end up dead by the way and claiming confirmation bias after calling them idiots is typical of a mindset that justifies killing babies and parting them out as if they were a wrecked automobile for profit.

Of course PP is going to claim by accounting tricks and verbiage that no profit is made, to do otherwise would result in federal charges.

So where is the ACTUAL federal investigation that proves wrong doing? If it is SO obvious that there were laws broken, WHY is the pro-life camp skipping a DOJ investigation and going straight to Congress to get what they want?

The motivation to avoid charges does not give me the warm fuzzies enough to accept anything PP and its supporters say at face value period.

Why are you accepting what CMP says at face value? What makes them so trustworthy?

Stop the funding and do a full investigation and if PP is cleared of all controversy then reconsider any continued taxpayer support - that SOP for most other programs.

So you are advocating considering PP guilty until proven innocent? Why is that? It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Why the exception for THIS issue?

Arguing pedigree of the videos in no way changes the breaking of existing federal law and PP along with its supporters doing their level best to deny that is to be expected however it doesn't change the facts as presented.

Actually it means everything. You should study some legal law.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Federal dollars free up PP funds to provide abortions and the Hyde amendment is but a red herring anyway as that's not the allegation of the videos.

However I do want to point out that claiming cutoff of federal funds is akin to stopping PP from offering abortions then it kind of proves the point about federal funding does it not.

The claims about no access to other services is also BS because they are available at community heath centers, but of course no abortions there.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree, the matter should be presented to a federal grand jury. In the mean time funding should be frozen until either a no bill is determined or PP is cleared of allegations.

This is called guilty until proven innocent and the legal system doesn't work that way.

So where is the ACTUAL federal investigation that proves wrong doing? If it is SO obvious that there were laws broken, WHY is the pro-life camp skipping a DOJ investigation and going straight to Congress to get what they want?

Short answer, DOJ is full of progressive leftists led by a president who supports PP and all they do.

Being a conspiracy site and going wayyyyyy out there what if the whole thing is a false flag event to gin up women's vote for democratic candidate for president by invoking false war on women mantra.

On a more serious note since this is such a politically divisive issue an investigation is warranted.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is called guilty until proven innocent and the legal system doesn't work that way.

Just like the "temporary" injunction.

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Gryphon66

Federal dollars free up PP funds to provide abortions and the Hyde amendment is but a red herring anyway as that's not the allegation of the videos.

However I do want to point out that claiming cutoff of federal funds is akin to stopping PP from offering abortions then it kind of proves the point about federal funding does it not.

The claims about no access to other services is also BS because they are available at community heath centers, but of course no abortions there.

So you're dispensing with the semblance of conversation based on evidence and going right to your rather obviously biased beliefs. Fair enough.

Who claimed that "cutoff of federal funds is akin to stopping PP from offering abortions"? Certainly not me.

And now we go from your beliefs to gross assumptions (that are wrong and provably so, btw) about the availability of healthcare. The majority of "Federal funds" that go to Planned Parenthood get there through Medicaid. Medicaid exists for those who have no where else to go for their care, and such providers are scarce.

But, you made the claim. Care to prove that thousands if not millions of Americans would not be deprived of healthcare ?

originally posted by: Phoenix
On a more serious note since this is such a politically divisive issue an investigation is warranted.

I'm not opposed to it. Though I have a question for you, if the investigation comes back and finds PP did no wrong doing (like all previous investigations have), are you going to drop it then or are you going to whine and blame the results of the investigation on the DOJ being full of "progressive leftists"?

What if an investigation comes back and says that Center for Medical Progress actually broke the laws in this controversy and THEY need to be held criminally liable? Are you going to agree with that verdict or will we hear a bunch of crap about "progressive leftists" from you?

I mean if the investigation came back saying that PP DID violate some laws, then I'll admit when I'm wrong. I've done this in the past and I'm ready to do it now, but until that is the case I recognize all the other GREAT stuff that PP provides for women across the country and won't let some overly biased and extremist organization try to slander PP's name like this. Though if PP really was at fault, then that is on them.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is called guilty until proven innocent and the legal system doesn't work that way.

Just like the "temporary" injunction.

No it isn't like that at all. Why don't you read up on why the injunction was placed in the first place? Actually, you know what, read up on what an injunction even IS first.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is called guilty until proven innocent and the legal system doesn't work that way.

Just like the "temporary" injunction.

I would ask if you have any actual evidence about that status, but I know you don't.