Planned Parenthood's Problem vs. Capitalism

[cheri1122]

I don't buy into the idea that women & minorities vote Democrat so much, cause if they did, the Republicans would be an endangered species.
Anyway, they [the Repubs] can continue to disregard the needs of half the population, [and the fiscal consequences of women failing to get preventive care] and see where it gets them, if they want to be stupid. We can't stop them - yet.

 

[cheri1122]

Newman didn't do any bombing. Neither did the other ones you listed. Yes, they used harassment methods, but none of them bombed anyone. Sullenger doesn't belong to CMP, so she is irrelevant.

"Newman didn't do any bombing". That makes him ok, then, huh? He is PRESIDENT of the group that did bomb clinics, and continues to use the harassment methods I listed, and more - but you think he's an upstanding citizen?
The reason Sullenger isn't an official part of CMP is her pesky little conviction for attempting to bomb a clinic - real pro life dedication, there. The fact that she released the vids says she is part of the group, even if they won't list her officially.
These are terrorists, pure and simple. Leopards don't change their spots.

 

[muttly]

"Newman didn't do any bombing". That makes him ok, then, huh? He is PRESIDENT of the group that did bomb clinics, and continues to use the harassment methods I listed, and more - but you think he's an upstanding citizen?
The reason Sullenger isn't an official part of CMP is her pesky little conviction for attempting to bomb a clinic - real pro life dedication, there. The fact that she released the vids says she is part of the group, even if they won't list her officially.
These are terrorists, pure and simple. Leopards don't change their spots.

Upstanding citizen? I didn't allude that he was. Just that he didn't do any bombing. He was the head of OR when one of its members did a bombing. The act was condemned by the organization.
I just questioned if the people in CMP did any of the bombing, as was claimed. Now Sullenger 'released the vids'? I thought you said she released the 'news' about the videos?

 

[skyraider]

Meanwhile , back at the womb, a fetus awaits his or her fate on the table.......vacuumed or stainless. The Lord is his or her Shepard...

 

[davekc]

http://robertreich.org/post/85556159055

Maybe facts like these have something to do with Obama's resolve.
Also the fact that many [maybe even most] PP locations don't even do abortions - the one I went to for years didn't. Also too, the women who have used PP will defend it fiercely, because it is a place where they feel welcome and cared for, in their own neighborhood, at a price they can afford, and that's something no other doctor's office or clinic provides.
I'm not even going to try to dispute Turtle's numbers, but I will say that what happened when Texas defunded PP is indicative of what the Republicans are ignoring: the effort to replace women's services has not been a success. Women can't find the services they need, and poor women can't pay for them. [Obamacare does NOT mean everyone now has decent insurance, and many who have insurance can't pay the deductible, so it's only good for emergencies].
While men argue about theories and dollars and ideologies, women will keep dying because they aren't getting actual care. That makes me sick, and it should make you sick too.

If they are poor, their insurance is free or pretty close. That was the whole point of Obamacare. Preventive services are available without paying the deductible. Not really convinced people are dying because there isn't a PP nearby. They can still exist, but I don't think they need taxpayer money since taxpayers are subsidizing their healthcare already in addition to paying their own. Private funding can support abortions if people want that. I do agree with you though, money shouldn't go to faith based initiatives any more than it should go for abortion services.

 

[RLENT]

Planned Parenthood’s 3 percent figure has been gobbled up by the media and liberals (redundant, sorry) as proof positive that Planned Parenthood isn’t really about abortion.

The selection and use of your wording appears to be an attempt to appeal to emotion - specifically emotions that some have wrt to "the media" and "liberals" ...

Well played ... unfortunately it would be logically fallacious if true ...

But if you take even a cursory look at Planned Parenthood’s own data, that claim begins to stink like the load of crap it is. Depending on where you get your numbers, Planned Parenthood performs somewhere between 27 and 40 percent of ever abortion performed in America.

... of every abortion performed in America ?

How does that work exactly ... they have mobile abortion crews on call - that swoop in anywhere, anytime to lend a hand during every abortion procedure performed in America ?

Even at the low end of 27%, that's a significant market share, if you will. Ford or GM would kill for that.

Sure ... but that's largely irrelevant to whether or not abortion constitutes PP largest or primary activity.

Think of it like this: some large corporation manufactures a variety of products or provides a number of services. It's entirely possible that they may have significant market share with one particular product or service ... and yet only have that particular product or service constitute a small portion of their business.

So your diatribe on "market share" kinda smells like red herring to me ... at least in the context of what PP is "really all about" ...

That would also be logically fallacious ...

The fact is that 51 percent of Planned Parenthood’s yearly clinic income, their only self-sustaining revenue source other than federal money and the private funding, comes from abortion, more than 300,000 abortions.

51 percent eh ?

That sounds really awesome and highly significant ... but how does it really figure into the big scheme of things, since clinic income isn't PP's only source of revenue ?

I guess that a couple of relevant questions would be:

What is the source of that data ?

What percentage does that revenue, coming directly from providing abortions, constitute of PP's total revenue ?

They state they performed "11 million services during nearly five million clinical visits." If that's true, then their abortion numbers start to creep, jump actually, to more than double at 6.6 percent of clinic visits were for abortions.

Sure ... but then PP has not asserted (as far as I know) that the 3 percent figure was in relations to clinical visits ... but rather to total individual services provided.

In other words, 6.6 percent of all visits to Planned Parenthood result in an abortion.

Which does nothing whatsoever to refute their assertion that only 3 percent of the total services they provide are abortions.

BTW: Kind of a low number, percentage-wise ... if they're "all about abortion" ...

But at any rate, if one divides 327,000 (approximate no. of abortions provided) by 11,000,000 (approximate no. of total services provided) one gets the following magic number: .02972 ...

IOW: just under 3% ...

Seems like they are majorly off purpose ... if they are spending 97.1 percent of their efforts doing something other than abortions ...

Looking closer, Planned Parenthood claims that all those “services” it provides only go to 3 million women.

Actually, if you look, they also claim to provide services to men ...

(Unforced error for either: A. imprecise statement construction, or B. assuming that PP only provides services for women)

So by it’s own admission, 11 percent of the women that visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in any given year obtain an abortion there.

Or put another way: 89 percent of the women that visit PP do not receive an abortion ...

Of course, that doesn't account for the men that visit them ...

This actually seems to refute the case that you appear to be trying to make: that PP is "all about" abortion ...

(They did refer people for adoptions, though, a whopping 0.0076 percent of the time).

I'm not entirely sure what the significance of that is ... it could be due to a variety of factors (no interest on the part of their clientele in adoption, for example) ... other than PP's own philosophical outlook or agenda ...

The math on their prenatal services shows unambiguously that they had just over 5,000 prenatal clients and performed an average of 6 prenatal services per client, versus well over 300,000 abortions. So either they're plugging in wrong numbers that contradict each other in the annual reports, of they're criminally incompetent.

Explain how that (highlighted in bold) is ...

According to PP's own annual reports, over the last 8 years their income has exceeded their expenses by an average of $90 million a year.

And what is the significance of that ... other than to perhaps offer up something, in an attempt to demonize them ?

PP doesn't provide much in the way of women's health other than abortion, despite their claims.

That statement is simply ludicrous on it's face ... since to make it, one is required to completely and willfully ignore the other services that they do provide:

STI/STD Testing & Treatment
STI Tests, Women and Men - 3,727,359
Genital Warts (HPV) Treatments - 38,612
HIV Tests, Women and Men - 704,079
Other Treatments - 547
Subtotal: 4,470,597

Contraception
Reversible Contraception Clients, Women - 2,131,865
Emergency Contraception Kits - 1,440,495
Female Sterilization Procedures - 822
Vasectomy Clients - 4,166
Subtotal: 3,577,348

Cancer Screening and Prevention
Pap Tests -- 378,692
HPV Vaccinations - 34,739
Breast Exams/Breast Care - 487,029
Colposcopy Procedures - 32,334
LEEP Procedures - 2,095
Cryotherapy Procedures - 684
Subtotal: 935,573

Other Women’s Health Services
Pregnancy Tests - 1,128,783
Prenatal Services - 18,684
Subtotal: 1,147,467

The total of which constitute over 10,000,000 individual services delivered.

Is it your position that the above - with the exception of those services provided to men - are not services relating to women's health ?

Or is it your position that PP did not provide the above services in the amounts that they claim ?

If the latter, do you have any direct evidence to support that claim ?

 

[RLENT]

You were more ambitious in putting the numbers out there. Couldn't do it on my phone. But it really is, "follow the money". lol

In order to be an "honest broker" and "follow the money" one actually has to do some research then accurately represent what one finds ...

Doing that very definitely does not include taking a specific number that PP provided (number of abortions), given in a particular context (as a percent of total services provided) and then using that number in a different context to claim that PP has somehow fudged their numbers ...

Aka: Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle ...

BTW, please let us alll know when you have access to a regular computer again (other than your phone) ... we await your extensive research on "following the money" wrt PP's finances ... lol ...

 

[Moot]

... of every abortion performed in America ?

How does that work exactly ... they have mobile abortion crews on call - that swoop in anywhere, anytime to lend a hand during every abortion procedure performed in America ?

Planned Parenthood has joined forces with UberFetus. One call does it all. Or to borrow Serv Pro's line: "Like it never even happened."

 

[skyraider]

Abortion at your driveway, Sprinters could do 2 women at once, wow, mobile service , convenient ugh? Kind of makes it that warm and home like atmosphere people like, maybe UPS could get in on it......yep, abortion at your door.wow.

 

[cheri1122]

If they are poor, their insurance is free or pretty close. That was the whole point of Obamacare. Preventive services are available without paying the deductible. Not really convinced people are dying because there isn't a PP nearby. They can still exist, but I don't think they need taxpayer money since taxpayers are subsidizing their healthcare already in addition to paying their own. Private funding can support abortions if people want that. I do agree with you though, money shouldn't go to faith based initiatives any more than it should go for abortion services.

First: not everyone has insurance, Obamacare or not. Second: poor people who have Medicaid insurance can't get appts at many private doctors, which is their only option, because they live in an area that's "underservrd" by traditional providers. It doesn't seem likely that a bare bones insurance policy would be any more welcome to doctors than Medicare. Half of PP clinics are in such areas, and they're the only option for low income women. [And men]
It's funny, that the people who won't permit public funding of abortion have no problem with funding "crisis Pregnancy Centers", which are known for flat out lying to women, trying to scare them with ridiculous claims about abortion. But that's perfectly ok with some people, because: who cares?

 

[Turtle]

The selection and use of your wording appears to be an attempt to appeal to emotion - specifically emotions that some have wrt to "the media" and "liberals" ...

Well played ... unfortunately it would be logically fallacious if true ...

It may appear that way to you, perhaps because you have certain emotions about Planned Parenthood yourself, I don't know, but the criteria for any logical fallacy is that it must be used in an attempt to win an argument, which my sentence does not, nor was it designed to do. The statement was made because liberals and the media both have used the 3 percent figure to claim Planned Parenthood isn't really about abortion, and I used the wording I did because my opinion is that the media is chiefly liberal and so are liberals.

... of every abortion performed in America ?

Yes, every. I do apologize about the typo. It isn't my first, and it won't be my last, but I assure you it was not intentional.

How does that work exactly ... they have mobile abortion crews on call - that swoop in anywhere, anytime to lend a hand during every abortion procedure performed in America ?

No, just 27 to 40 percent of them.

Sure ... but that's largely irrelevant to whether or not abortion constitutes PP largest or primary activity.

Largely, yes, but not completely.

Think of it like this: some large corporation manufactures a variety of products or provides a number of services. It's entirely possible that they may have significant market share with one particular product or service ... and yet only have that particular product or service constitute a small portion of their business.

OK, I thought of it like that, and I agree, it's entirely possible, especially because of mergers and acquisitions. It's not very likely for a corporation that hasn't acquired other companies to have a such a scenario. It's it is possible. More likely, however, because of the market share of that product, it's probably their core business.

So your diatribe on "market share" kinda smells like red herring to me ... at least in the context of what PP is "really all about" ...

That would also be logically fallacious ...

Diatribe? Really? A bitter, sharply abusive attack or criticism? On "market share?" Uhm, no. They do a really lot of abortions and claim that abortion isn't what they are about. I don't buy their claim. Apparently you do, and that's fine. But I don't.

51 percent eh ?

That sounds really awesome and highly significant ... but how does it really figure into the big scheme of things, since clinic income isn't PP's only source of revenue ?

It figures into the grand scheme of things by being 51% of their clinical income, and clinical income is their only source of self-sustaining income.

I guess that a couple of relevant questions would be:

What is the source of that data

Planned Parenthood Annual Reports, same as all of the numbers I posted.

What percentage does that revenue, coming directly from providing abortions, constitute of PP's total revenue ?

37 percent.

Sure ... but then PP has not asserted (as far as I know) that the 3 percent figure was in relations to clinical visits ... but rather to total individual services provided.

That's the only way to get that number down to 3 percent.

Which does nothing whatsoever to refute their assertion that only 3 percent of the total services they provide are abortions.

That's correct. It wasn't intended to refute their assertion of 3 percent in relation to total service. I have never questioned their 3 percent assertion in relation to total services performed. But the way they worded their 3 percent statement is done so intentionally to minimize the importance of abortions to the organization's livelihood and very existence.

BTW: Kind of a low number, percentage-wise ... if they're "all about abortion" ...

Clearly, you've bought into their spin, as well. The posting of their laundry list of services twice in the same thread shows how much importance you give to that list.

But at any rate, if one divides 327,000 (approximate no. of abortions provided) by 11,000,000 (approximate no. of total services provided) one gets the following magic number: .02972 ...

IOW: just under 3% ...

Seems like they are majorly off purpose ... if they are spending 97.1 percent of their efforts doing something other than abortions ...

That's the thing, they aren't spending 97.1 percent of their efforts doing something other than abortions. The laundry list sure makes it appear like the do, but the list itself is propaganda. Do you have any idea how many of those separately listed services are all performed at exactly the same time and exactly the same amount or effort with a single finger prick not unlike a diabetes test?

Actually, if you look, they also claim to provide services to men ...

Wow! They do? I'm surprised I didn't see that! Thanks for pointing that out to me!

(Unforced error for either: A. imprecise statement construction, or B. assuming that PP only provides services for women)

Then complain to Planned Parenthood, because the 3 million women figure comes from their reports.

Or put another way: 89 percent of the women that visit PP do not receive an abortion ...

Not really, as my comments weren't about percentages that don't, but rather about percentages that do.

Of course, that doesn't account for the men that visit them ...

That's mainly because Planned Parenthood doesn't include men in the numbers of their women's services. They do however include men in the numbers of men in their male services.

This actually seems to refute the case that you appear to be trying to make: that PP is "all about" abortion ...

Not really.

I'm not entirely sure what the significance of that is ... it could be due to a variety of factors (no interest on the part of their clientele in adoption, for example) ... other than PP's own philosophical outlook or agenda ...

It's the latter. If they aren't all about abortion, or if abortion was just a minor almost insignificant part of what they do, they have little reason to refrain from referring for adoption unless their philosophical agenda says otherwise.

Explain how that (highlighted in bold) is ...

6 prenatal visits is woefully inadequate, as the minimum recommended number is 10, and the most have 14-15. If they're only averaging 6, then either their numbers are wrong, or they don't spend nearly enough time and effort on prenatal visits. I could allow the smaller average number being that low because so many of those are aborted, but if that were true they wouldn't be prenatal services, they would be preabortion services.

And what is the significance of that ... other than to perhaps offer up something, in an attempt to demonize them ?

Other than to demonize them, none whatsoever.

That statement is simply ludicrous on it's face ... since to make it, one is required to completely and willfully ignore the other services that they do provide:

Hardly. In fact, the more you pay attention to those services, what they are and what they actually entail, and the costs to provide those services, the statement becomes the opposite of ludicrous.

Is it your position that the above - with the exception of those services provided to men - are not services relating to women's health ?

Nope. They relate to women's health just fine.

Or is it your position that PP did not provide the above services in the amounts that they claim ?

Nope. I'm sure they did provide them.

If the latter, do you have any direct evidence to support that claim ?

It's not the latter. On abortion, Planned Parenthood has their nose to the grindstone. On all those other services, considering how easy it is to perform them, most are given a quick olé and a Medicaid cha-ching and then they refocus on what they do best. .

 

[cheri1122]

There are probably several reasons for the low number of prenatal visits, considering much of their clientele is very low income. Many women living in poverty tend to be uneducated, don't subscribe to conventional medical ideas about prenatal visits, can't get there as often as required, or don't confirm a pregnancy until it's at least halfway through, because they've borne children already, and don't see any real need an official diagnosis of their condition. They'll wait until it's further along to begin the medical supervision.
The remark about the "quick ole and a Medicaid cha ching" is unfounded. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding PP clinics to be far more caring than any expensive doctor's office - including the 2 different pricey Ob/gyns who delivered my daughters. That's one reason women support PP: they never make us feel like it's all about the green. And the vids only underscore that, because there were many remarks by Dr Nucatello about how it isn't about the $, and they don't profit from tissue donations. That's what the critics don't see, or just don't believe: PP treats women like they matter, not like they are just another body to deal with.

 

[Turtle]

You're using probably and possibly interchangeably.

You'll need to define "many" because it will take a really lot of them to skew the numbers that low. Also, many women that go to Planned Parenthood don't fit into any of those reasons you listed.

The "quick olé and a Medicaid cha-ching" has nothing to do with how caring or thorough the care might be. It is humor more than anything, but there's also a large tinge of truth to it. Which do you think requires more time, effort and focus: Counseling someone on abortion/performing an abortion, or drawing a vial of blood and sending it off to the lab for an ELISA test? An ELISA test takes like 3 minutes from swipe-swipe with the cotton ball to the quick olé and the $134 Medicaid cha-ching. Quick, easy, relatively painless, done with a smile and soothing words, and there's all the caring required. It's not quite the same kind of olé you'll get when peeing in a cup at Concentra, but the time and effort it takes them to do it is about the same.

An ELISA test, incidentally, is considered to be 7 separate "services" even though all of them are performed at the same time in the lab with a single procedure. They have a lot of multi-test services like that.

 

[davekc]

The combination of services makes what they provide open to interpretation. That is done by design. Since we have a family medical clinic, most numbers I hear are somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. Not the three percent. They may get closer to some hard numbers if they investigate what they are doing.
Keeping in mind that she is a pro-life supporter, Marsha Blackburn provides some numbers but I have no idea what her source is? 898 abortions a day is a bunch.
http://blackburn.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=YPAIBXGWSECND2DKWXYYCHJEAQ
My issue is not PP by itself, but how it is ran and I'm not seeing a reason for taxpayers funding it.

 

[Turtle]

898 abortions a day is a bunch

Market share, baby!

It's not so bad when you consider they have more than 700 clinics.

898 x 365 = 327,770 which is right there with Planned Parenhood's numbers.

 

[davekc]

Market share, baby!

It's not so bad when you consider they have more than 700 clinics.

898 x 365 = 327,770 which is right there with Planned Parenhood's numbers.

True. But by their own admission, not all provide that service. Not sure what that ratio is? "Market share" is right. lol

 

[Pilgrim]

The combination of services makes what they provide open to interpretation. That is done by design. Since we have a family medical clinic, most numbers I hear are somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. Not the three percent. They may get closer to some hard numbers if they investigate what they are doing.
Keeping in mind that she is a pro-life supporter, Marsha Blackburn provides some numbers but I have no idea what her source is? 898 abortions a day is a bunch.
http://blackburn.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=YPAIBXGWSECND2DKWXYYCHJEAQ
My issue is not PP by itself, but how it is ran and I'm not seeing a reason for taxpayers funding it.

Here's another article that breaks down the PPH numbers, and how through creative accounting they bundle and un-bundle their services/activities to arrive at their desired percentages. The percentage that counts according to the article is this: 94% of pregnant women that make visits to PPH clinics end up getting abortions.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/29/...o-went-to-planned-parenthood-got-an-abortion/

On the other hand - as Turtle mentioned in an earlier post - they performed zero mammograms, in spite of claims that allude to the contrary. Not a single PPH clinic is licensed to do this. One can't help but wonder how their bottom line would change if they provided mammograms instead of abortions.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/03...mammogram-facilities-planned-parenthood-runs/

 

[cheri1122]

The combination of services makes what they provide open to interpretation. That is done by design. Since we have a family medical clinic, most numbers I hear are somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. Not the three percent. They may get closer to some hard numbers if they investigate what they are doing.
Keeping in mind that she is a pro-life supporter, Marsha Blackburn provides some numbers but I have no idea what her source is? 898 abortions a day is a bunch.
http://blackburn.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=YPAIBXGWSECND2DKWXYYCHJEAQ
My issue is not PP by itself, but how it is ran and I'm not seeing a reason for taxpayers funding it.

What happened when Texas defunded PP shows why it is in the taxpayers' best interests to keep PP going: there simply aren't enough clinics to handle the demand. Half of PP's clinics are in 'underserved' areas - lose them, and women have zero options. Even in the places where there are clinics, they cannot handle the additional demand, as women in Tx are finding out.
If taxpayers can pay for abstinence only education [the funding for which was recently increased!] that includes the bogus "Pregnancy Centers" that refuse [on religious grounds] to even discuss abortion, [although they list themselves under 'abortion services' in the Yellow Pages], then taxpayers can contribute to women's health care that actually works. If for no other reason than because it saves money in the long run.

 

[RLENT]

... Other than to demonize them, none whatsoever. ...

Glad to see that you're at least willing to come clean on what your true agenda is ...

For a moment there I thought you might be attempting to offer an objective and dispassionate analysis of the matter ...

 

[Turtle]

Glad to see that you're at least willing to come clean on what your true agenda is ...

For a moment there I thought you might be attempting to offer an objective and dispassionate analysis of the matter ...

It's not my true agenda. It was a sarcastic response to a ridiculous question. Ridiculous, because if you couldn't already discern the significance of the statement, me taking the time to explain it wouldn't help much, what with considering the adversarial and dismissive tone of your questioning throughout your post.