Planned Parenthood's Problem vs. Capitalism

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
"Disturbing" is how they refer to the 'tone' of the discussions, where PP docs believe they are speaking to people in the business of purchasing fetal tissue. Like any other profession that deals with what most people consider 'gruesome', the docs may sound as if they have little or no feelings of sensitivity towards the subject of their work - when they are speaking in private, among their peers. I'm sure it's the same with firefighters [didn't they coin the term 'crispy critter'?] and I know for a fact that nurses do it as well. Never in public, or within hearing of patients & families, but familiarity makes "yucky" just a day at work.
For the political reasons clear in this witch hunt, there's no way an organization as highly regulated and closely watched as PP would knowingly violate the law - the idea is preposterous. They [PP] know exactly how many people would love to put them out of business, and they are neither stupid nor greedy.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There is no dispute that the whole thing is agenda driven. That doesn't mean the information is false. When they say edited, (I haven't seen the three or four hours worth of tape) so I don't know. So the question becomes, did they say those things or not? I haven't heard anyone say that part is false. That is where their problem is going to be. Even NBC (who is generally left leaning) said that their review was disturbing. So have to see what happens with their investigation. They have been investigated in the past, but I don't believe for these allegations.
These investigations are just beginning, and they're happening at the state level. Three states have moved to defund PPH and thirteen states have launched investigations into the practices at PPH clinics within their borders - not exactly "crickets".

http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/13/3-states-defund-and-13-states-investigate-planned-parenthood/

Another factor is the MSM's lack of coverage of PPH's abortion activities and the numbers involved - especially within the black population. Once the general public becomes more informed about this story their attitude toward PPH is likely to change.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
So the question becomes, did they say those things or not?
For most of the hot-button allegations, the question really becomes, did they say those things in the context in which they were presented? There's no question things were said, but anyone who has seen a Michael Moore movie knows how easy it is to create a completely different context to change the meanings of statements.

Taking things out of context happens all the time in the media, especially print media.

Chief Of Police:
We don't think this is a serial killer. If he was an experienced murderer, he would have worked much faster.
Newspaper: CHIEF OF POLICE: KILLER ISN'T WORKING FAST ENOUGH!

It happens in TV news, a lot. There's a breathtakingly stellar example of that where Andrea Mitchell selective edited a Romney speech about private sector innovations (Wawa specifically) that made him look like an out-of-touch idiot, and then drove the point home by mocking him on air. Someone posted a split-screen video of the edited and unedited video to YouTube, which made Mitchell look like, well, not good, and she was forced to address it on the air the next day. She did so with incredible contempt, never did apologize, and later in a joint statement with MSNBC said “[MSNBC and Mitchell] did not edit anything out of order or out of sequence and at no time did we intend to deceive our viewers [with the editing].” True enough, nothing was reordered, and the editing didn't deceive. It was Mitchell's comments that did the deceiving, not the edits. Because it wasn't reordered out of sequence, Mitchell and MSNBC claims it wasn't taken out of context, but if you view the split screen video it becomes blatantly obvious that they created a new context with the edited video.

That's more or less what the video edits in the Planned Parenthood video do, they create and present the comments in a different context in which they originally stated.
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
For most of the hot-button allegations, the question really becomes, did they say those things in the context in which they were presented? There's no question things were said, but anyone who has seen a Michael Moore movie knows how easy it is to create a completely different context to change the meanings of statements.
But, but Michael Moore is a professional. I think he even has a license to do what he does. Besides, everybody loves Mikey.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
For most of the hot-button allegations, the question really becomes, did they say those things in the context in which they were presented? There's no question things were said, but anyone who has seen a Michael Moore movie knows how easy it is to create a completely different context to change the meanings of statements.

Taking things out of context happens all the time in the media, especially print media.

Chief Of Police:
We don't think this is a serial killer. If he was an experienced murderer, he would have worked much faster.
Newspaper: CHIEF OF POLICE: KILLER ISN'T WORKING FAST ENOUGH!

It happens in TV news, a lot. There's a breathtakingly stellar example of that where Andrea Mitchell selective edited a Romney speech about private sector innovations (Wawa specifically) that made him look like an out-of-touch idiot, and then drove the point home by mocking him on air. Someone posted a split-screen video of the edited and unedited video to YouTube, which made Mitchell look like, well, not good, and she was forced to address it on the air the next day. She did so with incredible contempt, never did apologize, and later in a joint statement with MSNBC said “[MSNBC and Mitchell] did not edit anything out of order or out of sequence and at no time did we intend to deceive our viewers [with the editing].” True enough, nothing was reordered, and the editing didn't deceive. It was Mitchell's comments that did the deceiving, not the edits. Because it wasn't reordered out of sequence, Mitchell and MSNBC claims it wasn't taken out of context, but if you view the split screen video it becomes blatantly obvious that they created a new context with the edited video.

That's more or less what the video edits in the Planned Parenthood video do, they create and present the comments in a different context in which they originally stated.

No dispute there. That is why since I hadn't seen the unedited version, I didn't know to what extent they changed things. One thing for sure, it appears that the damage has been done.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The core issue is not really what was said in these videos, in or out of context; it's what PPH is actually doing, and whether or not they're profiting from the sale of aborted fetuses and their various tissues and parts. These people are not stupid, and they're not going to admit outright to what they d*mn well know is a criminal enterprise. The only way to tell what these clinics are doing and how they take directions from the Mother Ship of PPH is through an in-depth investigation of their activities with the involvement of forensic accountants & auditors that can tell whether or not PPH is cooking their books. According to their latest annual report they performed a LOT of abortions, made a very healthy profit and received a staggering amount of federal taxpayer dollars in addition to all their other sources of income (as detailed in previous posts). The states are already starting to look into their operations and begin their own defunding processes. However, it will likely take an in-depth federal investigation to tie all the financial loose ends together and make a case against them. That's not going to happen so long as Barack Hussein Obama is POTUS with his lackeys running the DOJ and the IRS.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The core issue is not really what was said in these videos, in or out of context; it's what PPH is actually doing...
What they are doing is performing abortions. For most people who are anti-abortion, that's more than enough to want them shut down, and many will use whatever they can, real or imagined, fact or fiction, to do it.

...and whether or not they're profiting from the sale of aborted fetuses and their various tissues and parts.
There's no evidence they are profiting from the sale of any tissues. In fact, there is more evidence that shows they are not. The unedited video shows Planned Parenthood refusing several times offers to sell tissues at prices above the costs they incur to obtain, handle, store and transfer the tissues to research labs. Further, records of the labs and bank records show no tissues are being transferred at a profit.

The states are already starting to look into their operations and begin their own defunding processes.
And so far every state that has completed their investigation has found no wrongdoing. The states that have defunded or are in the process of defunding Planned Parenthood are doing so not because of wrongdoing, but because of politics. Arkansas is a good example, where Huckabee ordered a thorough investigation, and when it came up empty he decided to defund it anyway.

Clearly they are cooking the books, though, as every dollar they receive in taxpayer funds frees up a dollar to be put towards abortions. When people say Planned Parenthood doesn't use tax dollars for abortion, they are either deluded or lying. When Planned Parenthood says they will have to close their doors if federal funding disappeared, they're lying through their teeth, because their own books show they use taxpayer money solely for the eleventy million non-abortion services, and the other half of their income to perform the mammoth 3 percent of the rest of their business. If taxpayer money dried up, they can simply move the private funding from their 3 percent abortion business to the other 97 percent of their business and move right along like nothing has happened. I mean, 3 percent is nothing, hardly noticeable, right? It's not like there aren't other abortion clinics around. There are. Planned Parenthood isn't the only abortion game in town, not by a long shot. If defunded, they'll just have to concentrate on the remaining 97 percent of their business. And if they are unable to do that, they we know for sure that they've been using tax dollars to fund abortions.

I say it's a slam dunk. Defund them all. Allow Medicaid payments for actual services performed, but do away with the Pell grants and Title X funding completely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
The core issue is not really what was said in these videos, in or out of context; it's what PPH is actually doing, and whether or not they're profiting from the sale of aborted fetuses and their various tissues and parts. These people are not stupid, and they're not going to admit outright to what they d*mn well know is a criminal enterprise. The only way to tell what these clinics are doing and how they take directions from the Mother Ship of PPH is through an in-depth investigation of their activities with the involvement of forensic accountants & auditors that can tell whether or not PPH is cooking their books. According to their latest annual report they performed a LOT of abortions, made a very healthy profit and received a staggering amount of federal taxpayer dollars in addition to all their other sources of income (as detailed in previous posts). The states are already starting to look into their operations and begin their own defunding processes. However, it will likely take an in-depth federal investigation to tie all the financial loose ends together and make a case against them. That's not going to happen so long as Barack Hussein Obama is POTUS with his lackeys running the DOJ and the IRS.

Funny thing, there are 6 states investigating PP: TX, SC, AZ, KS, MO, and OH, but there are only 3 states in which PP participates in tissue donation: CA, WA, OR. Not one of the investigating states even has cause to suspect PP of wrongdoing in their state - but they do have one thing in common: conservative Republican governors. Both Jindal and Hutchinson said "This organization does not represent the values of the people of our state." I guess the people of their states don't value health care much, [but we don't know, because the governors provide nothing to show what the people think], because another thing they have in common is their abysmal record of healthcare ranking, as 4 of the 6 states that have cut funding for PP are in the bottom 10. LA: 48th, AL:41st, MS: 50th, AR: 49th.
There is just one Republican governor who isn't putting his personal ideology ahead of the people he is paid to represent: Butch Otter, of Idaho, said "There is no evidence that a crime has been committed, there are no grounds for a legal investigation." That's a good and honest man, telling the truth, no matter what is 'correct', according to his party.
The rest of them are spending money they constantly claim to be short of, in order to impose their ideology on the citizens of their states, which is indefensible. Just like the fictitious 'Center for Medical Progress', if the law and the citizens don't go along with your beliefs, just declare black is white, and swear you have proof. While everyone argues over whether it is or isn't proof, you get what you wanted.
Defunding PP is the stupidest of bad ideas I've heard in a long time. Depriving women of contraception and STD and screening services can only result in more unwanted pregnancies, more STDs, more cancers. The nonsense about other health centers taking up the slack is just that: nonsense. PP serves a clientele that other clinics aren't interested in: low income, uninsured. Rural. Moreover, women like PP, even when [as I did] they have private insurance. We don't have to deal with patronizing, condescending, judgmental people [male docs] and that's a benefit we could use more of, not less.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
If they are defunding planned parenthood based on those original findings and videos (which they want to), then they should be turned over with the proper review. If you are going to make the allegations, should be able to stand behind them.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
If they are defunding planned parenthood based on those original findings and videos (which they want to), then they should be turned over with the proper review. If you are going to make the allegations, should be able to stand behind them.

Problem is, the "they" who want to defund PP [conservative Republicans, mainly], aren't the same "they" who are demanding CMP turn over documents that shed more light on their operations. AFAIK, the only government official investigating CMP is the California Attorney General - all the others have chosen to investigate PP instead. And now that 5 or 6 states have completed their investigations without finding any wrongdoing, are those Governors apologizing for wasting taxpayer money by jumping to unfounded conclusions? Or even admitting they did?
CMP is a small group of antiabortion extremists, with a history of engaging [as individuals - CMP the fake company was created just for this 'sting'] in every dirty tactic imaginable, up to and including bombing clinics. That such people have the slightest credibility is mind boggling - especially among public officials who have staff to research for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Just my opinion but they should pull the title funding and let them continue the Medicaid portion in light of the latest review. Lot of waste it appears with PP. Of course the argument would be that money is wasted elsewhere, but that doesn't address what they are doing. Also don't think PP should be funding projects and programs overseas with taxpayer money. Again just my opinion. What needs to happen is a thorough review of their finances and then proceed from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver

I think it's very telling that Daleidan, who has devoted his life to the 'pro life' cause, refers to a fetus as a "creature" in his reply to a question.
Because he's off guard, trying to defend the use of an image specifically to mislead people, caught in the act by someone who doesn't buy his "but" rationalizations for lying, [a novel experience for people who surround themselves with an echo chamber], he inadvertently blurts out an actual thought, rather than his prepared responses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT
Top