What? Your final question doesn't make sense. If you could explain why subsidized abortions and free speech are related in a coherent way, I could "answer" whatever this question nis.Originally Posted by Illusions
What? Your final question doesn't make sense. If you could explain why subsidized abortions and free speech are related in a coherent way, I could "answer" whatever this question nis.
I think he said earlier that this might not be about money or big government so much as it is about making a [meaningless] statement.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Less than 3% of their services go toward providing abortions. There are NO federally subsidized abortions, except in cases of rape or incest. You seem quite comfortable limiting access to Family Planning for millions of women by defunding Planned Parenthood, as if it's an unavoidable consequence of making pro-lifers "comfortable".
What good is a legal choice when there are no actual providers? You do realize how many clinics have been shut down, and Planned Parenthood is one of the last remaining providers in about 85% of all counties in the US?You, however, seem to have a conniption and are calling me an asshole because I believe that a legal choice is still a legal choice even if the government doesn't pay for it.
You won't admit the GOP is catering to its far right pro-life wing, by introducing bills to re-define rape, incest, killing abortionists, or defunding all of Planned Parenthood. You won't you admit it's an asinine approach to fix a budget, prevent accidental pregnancy, reduce the need for abortions, let alone reduce the future number of people who will need to tap the social safety net.
Pretty much this.
. . .
Doesn't really resonate. If you're against abortion, $90 million of your taxpayer dollars going to a national network that provides abortions is hardly meaningless.
Sure, it's also a statement. But, as I've said before, when the government funds medicine things get political and everyone starts making meaningless statements.
You realize you're contradicting yourself, right? On one hand, you are trying (and failing) to portray abortion as a tiny portion of what Planned Parenthood does. On the other hand, you're saying that Planned Parenthood should continue to be funded so because it's a significant provider of abortions.Less than 3% of their services go toward providing abortions. There are NO federally subsidized abortions, except in cases of rape or incest. You seem quite comfortable limiting access to Family Planning for millions of women by defunding Planned Parenthood, as if it's an unavoidable consequence of making pro-lifers "comfortable".
What good is a legal choice when there are no actual providers? You do realize how many clinics have been shut down, and Planned Parenthood is one of the last remaining providers in about 85% of all counties in the US?
You won't admit the GOP is catering to its far right pro-life wing, by introducing bills to re-define rape, incest, killing abortionists, or defunding all of Planned Parenthood. You won't you admit it's an asinine approach to fix a budget, prevent accidental pregnancy, reduce the need for abortions, let alone reduce the future number of people who will need to tap the social safety net.
So which is it?
And for the 50th time, I support funding abortions and I support funding Planned Parenthood.
Looks like you're the one being contradictory. Or refusing to acknowledge the facts:
1) The Hyde Amendment prevents Planned Parenthood from accepting Medicaid -or- Military coverage as payment for abortions. The only exceptions are cases of rape or incest.
2) 66% of PP's services are "medical". That includes things like PAP smears, pelvic exams, fitting diaphragms, treating STDs, doing blood work, breast exams, cervical and uterine procedures. Only 3% within those total medical services are D & Cs for pregnancy termination [aka abortions].
3) Most payments for abortions would be out-of-pocket cash or insurance claims; within that 3% is a smaller fraction of Medicaid or Military payment but only for rape or incest cases.
3) PP has become a significant provider of abortions by default, because so many states saw their other providers shut down by pro-life extremists. Even so, it's still only 3% of PP medical services.
*sigh* Abortions aren't federally funded except for rape and incest! However, PP gets 1/3 of its money from government grants etc....97% of that is used for Family Planning, education, health screenings!And for the 50th time, I support funding abortions and I support funding Planned Parenthood.
You keep saying you "understand" what the GOP is trying to limit and/or defund with tax dollars, even though they're also trying to remove tax deductions for private insurance plans that cover abortion costs.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure! But the GOP would make it practically impossible for any woman to find the service---let alone rape/incest victims in the Military or on Medicaid---also buy insurance for it, or even use Planned Parenthood for Family Planning.
And once again, just because specific dollars don't go to abortion doesn't mean the significant federal funding of Planned Parenthood isn't a crutch to allow them to subsidize abortions. Plus we have no idea what proportion of their abortions are classified as rape/incest. Nonetheless, I think this is a good thing that they do this. And, nonetheless, it doesn't make them any less of a legitimate political target for anti-abortion activists.
We do know only 3% of their services are for ANY abortion. What way can they "subsidize" abortions outside the Hyde Amendment? Are you accusing PP of fraud now?
They're using the legislature to restrict/eradicate a legal medical service.Nonetheless, I think this is a good thing that they do this. And, nonetheless, it doesn't make them any less of a legitimate political target for anti-abortion activists.
That's not contradicting at all, if abortions are, say, 3% of all the things that PP does, that makes it a tiny portion of what they do. But if that 3% of their activities provides 90% of all abortions in the USA that also makes them a significant provider of abortions.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
GGT is either being deliberately obtuse or she's trying to deceive you, Flixy.
Abortion is 3% of the "services" they offer. They are counting each individual "service" no matter how insignificant it is. "Services" include handing out free condoms at a high school or performing a pregnancy test. These are much less significant than performing an abortion, and Planned Parenthood is very careful to not disclose the amount of money actually spent on abortions.
I'm not saying it's fraud at all, or even wrong. It's just that we should recognize that abortions are a big part of Planned Parenthood does. This is why Planned Parenthood is an important organization.
Just saying that it isn't a contradicting statement. I obviously can't comment on whether they spend a lot of money on abortions (nor do I care, I approve of them offering this). But it isn't a contradiction
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Her contradiction was saying that abortion isn't a big part of what they do, yet they are the only abortion provider for so much of America. The numbers don't add up on each side of that equation.
Medical services are specific and coded by procedure or type. D & C, D & E, PAP tests, cervical cone biopsies, treatment of genital warts, inserting an IUD, fitting a diaphragm, ultrasounds, mammograms.....Abortion is 3% of the "services" they offer. They are counting each individual "service" no matter how insignificant it is. "Services" include handing out free condoms at a high school or performing a pregnancy test. These are much less significant than performing an abortion, and Planned Parenthood is very careful to not disclose the amount of money actually spent on abortions.
Handing out condoms are community/education services. Pregnancy tests aren't necessarily coded as a medical procedure since you can get those OTC. A blood test would be "medical".
I think you're making stuff up.
It's only 3% of their medical services! They can't bill Medicaid or the Military for abortions unless they're the result of rape or incest. If they're using federal funds for abortions that aren't result of rape or incest, that would be violating the Hyde Amendment as well as billing fraud.I'm not saying it's fraud at all, or even wrong. It's just that we should recognize that abortions are a big part of Planned Parenthood does. This is why Planned Parenthood is an important organization.
Exactly.
And yet in their annual report, they break-out all of those activities -- including contraception distribution -- as "services" in the same bucket.
They seem to be pretty clearly putting everything they do in the "services" bucket. And that's fine. This isn't your traditional nursing/medical organization.
But Planned Parenthood spends $180 million/year on "medical services". Do you really believe they spend only 3% of that ($5 million) annually on tens of thousands of abortions across the entire country? That's ludicrous.
And it also doesn't negate the issue of federal funding opening up more of their privately-raised funds for abortion (and giving them financial cover to solicit charitable funds for abortions).
And all of this is fine by me, you're the only one trying to claim Planned Parenthood isn't heavily involved in providing abortions. While also claiming they are the only place to go for abortions across the nation.
services
[/QUOTE]
If you don't believe them in defining "medical services", that's just short of calling them fraudulent.
Do you realize that all reimbursements are medically coded?
Stop making stuff up.
Now YOU are being deceptive and duplicitous. If they don't accept Medicaid or Military insurance payment for abortions, except in the cases of rape or incest....they meet the Hyde Amendment.And it also doesn't negate the issue of federal funding opening up more of their privately-raised funds for abortion (and giving them financial cover to solicit charitable funds for abortions).
For someone who claims to support the right to choose, legal abortions, and Planned Parenthood services for Family Planning...... you sure are bending over backward to defend the GOP trying to undo all those things.
Why don't you put this to a test then, if you think this is "just my unfounded opinion".....and find readily available abortion services. Start in Kansas.
How in the fuck is this a contradiction?
Being the only place for something doesn't mean its the majority of their business.
Thats like claiming the itouch is Apple's core business, or that Ford survives off of Shelby sales.
Even if you went off of the fuckwits numbers earlier in the thread of 300,000 abortions, that comes out to about 120 million based on private sector expenses, and according to GGT's report, Planned Parenthood has expenses of 864 million. So.... 14% at likely the worst.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Time for some facts.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abort..._abortion.htmlLegal abortion is not widely accessible to women in the U.S.
The Supreme Court confirmed women's right to choose abortion in 1973, and the courts have upheld that finding in subsequent cases. But access to abortion has been severely eroded. The most recent survey found that 88% of all U.S. counties have no identifiable abortion provider. In non-metropolitan areas, the figure rises to 97%. As a result, many women must travel long distances to reach the nearest abortion provider.
But distance is not the only barrier women face. Many other factors have contributed to the current crisis in abortion access, including a shortage of trained abortion providers; state laws that make getting an abortion more complicated than is medically necessary; continued threats of violence and harassment at abortion clinics; state and federal Medicaid restrictions; and fewer hospitals providing abortion services.
Shortage of Abortion Providers
In 1973 the Supreme Court struck down state laws that had criminalized abortion. Doctors working in hospital emergency rooms and ob-gyn units before that time knew first-hand about the medical devastation that women suffered as a result of self-induced abortions or black market abortions performed by unlicensed practitioners. Today, many of those doctors are retiring. The younger physicians replacing them have little direct experience with the consequences of illegal abortions and the public health benefits of ensuring that safe abortions remain available.
Even those young doctors who are committed to providing safe abortions to their patients may have trouble getting the training they need. A survey in 1998 revealed that first trimester abortion techniques are a routine part of training in only 46% of America's ob-gyn residency programs. About 34% offer this training only as an elective, and 7% provide no opportunity at all for young doctors to learn to provide safe abortions.1
In 1996, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the agency responsible for accrediting medical residency programs, took steps to correct this problem. It now requires ob-gyn residency programs to include family planning and abortion training for their students. It is too soon to tell whether this will result in better preparation of ob-gyns in the future to provide safe abortion services, but it is clear that doctors who do not get this training are not in a position to provide the full range of care that their patients will need.
Restrictive Legislation
National polling consistently shows that the majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose, but many legislators are committed to bringing an end to legal abortion and have passed laws that have drastically diminished access to abortion. These include:
Parental Consent or Notification Laws which are now enforced in over half the states can violate the privacy of young women by forcing them to involve their parents in their decisions, even when they have strong objections to doing so. As a result, some women to travel to other states that do not require parental involvement; others have resorted to illegal abortions rather than comply with a legal requirement that puts them in jeopardy.
Mandatory Waiting Periods require women to wait some period of time (up to 24 hours) between a state mandated counseling appointment and their abortion. Many of these laws require the counseling be done in person rather than on the phone. These laws imply that women come to abortion clinics without having seriously considered their options. As a result of these waiting periods, a woman's abortion is often delayed much longer than 24 hours, particularly if she has to take time off from work, arrange for child care, travel a long way, and perhaps stay overnight in a distant city. These factors can significantly increase the cost as well.
Biased Counseling Laws require that clinic personnel lead their patients through detailed, state prescribed "scripts" that promote childbearing. Abortion providers have long been at the forefront of developing and delivering sound and effective options counseling to their patients. They consider these scripts "biased" because they contain information that is designed to frighten and dissuade women from having abortions. These coercive scripts are completely incompatible with the goal of true informed consent.
Clinic Violence and Disruption
Medical professionals who provide abortion services do so at a tremendous risk to their safety. Since 1993, three doctors who provided abortions have been murdered, and five others have been shot at by anti-abortion zealots in the U.S. and Canada. A clinic escort and three clinic employees have been murdered, and several other clinic staff have been shot. Violence against providers also includes bombings, arson, vandalism, burglary, illegal blockades, threats, and harassment.
Frivolous malpractice lawsuits against abortion providers are also generated by anti-abortion extremists who want to keep providers from offering abortion services. These lawsuits are rarely justified, but they are used unfairly to discredit the reputations of providers and frighten patients.
Funding for Abortion
The cost of a first trimester abortion has increased only slightly since 1973 (see Abortion Facts: Economics of Abortion), but many women still cannot afford the fee. The Hyde Amendment denies federal Medicaid funding for abortions except in specific, rare circumstances, and most states have similar laws restricting financial help to women who need abortions. More than 2/3 of women must initially pay for their abortions themselves - only 13% of abortions are paid for with a state's public funds,2 and only 13% are covered by a woman's private insurance at the time of her abortion.3 A small number of women may be reimbursed by insurance after their abortion.
**The result is that too many women who need abortions must wait while they raise funds, postponing their abortions until later in their pregnancies, when the costs of these more complicated abortion procedures are higher. For the women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not have insurance that covers abortion, the legal right to have an abortion does not guarantee that they will have access to it.**
Declining Number of Hospitals Providing Abortion Services
Today, about 95% of women who need abortions have them in clinics or in private doctors' offices where costs can be kept low without increasing health risks.
This pattern of abortion service delivery represents a significant shift away from hospital provided abortion care, which was far more common in the early years after the laws criminalizing abortion were struck down. "According to the American Hospital Association, there were 5,801 hospitals in the United States in 2001. However, a 2001-2002 study by the Guttmacher Institute identified only 603 hospitals that provided abortions in 2001."2 This has serious implications for abortion access. Women in rural areas where there are no abortion clinics, and low-income women who depend on hospital emergency services for medical care, are left unserved when hospitals do not provide abortions. When hospitals do not offer abortions, young physicians they train have no opportunity to learn to provide safe abortions.
What is Being Done to Improve Abortion Access?
The National Abortion Federation's Access Initiative Project was created specifically to address the escalating problem of limited access to abortion in the U.S.. The Access Initiative Project works with medical residency programs, educational institutions, health care associations, legal experts, public policy organizations, and interested individuals to ensure that qualified clinicians are able to get the training they need to provide safe abortions and that women can continue to have access to the quality health care they deserve.
References
Almeling R, Tews L, and Dudley S. Abortion Training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs, 1998. Family Planning Perspectives, 2000, 32(6):268-271 & 320.
Guttmacher Institute. Facts in Brief: Induced Abortion. January, 2003.
Henshaw SK, and Finer LB. The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States, 2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003, 35(1):16-24.
Statistical information in this fact sheet is based on research by The Guttmacher Institute and other members of the National Abortion Federation.
Abortion isn't a medical service? Eh? My point -- made over and over -- is that just because they aren't using federal funds for abortion doesn't mean the federal funds don't allow them to use their other income stream to subsidize abortions.
Once again, you seem to be the only one who is denying this is the case. I support their arrangement, but it's useless to pretend that abortion isn't part of what Planned Parenthood does. It's not like all the people who protest at Planned Parenthood offices have the wrong address.
I'm saying exactly that the math doesn't add up. Planned Parenthood isn't both divested from playing a significant role in providing abortions, while also being a significant providers of abortions.How in the fuck is this a contradiction?
Being the only place for something doesn't mean its the majority of their business.
Thats like claiming the itouch is Apple's core business, or that Ford survives off of Shelby sales.
Even if you went off of the fuckwits numbers earlier in the thread of 300,000 abortions, that comes out to about 120 million based on private sector expenses, and according to GGT's report, Planned Parenthood has expenses of 864 million. So.... 14% at likely the worst.
If we use the 300k number, the range is between $140 million - $350 million. Planned Parenthood spends $120 million/year on "medical expenses." We have no idea what proportion of that is spent on subsidized abortions. And obviously none of it comes directly from their federal funding. But I think it's silly to deny that they are a major abortion provider with significant federal support.
≠
again, just because planned parenthood is a major supporter of abortions doesn't mean abortion is a significant (in time, visits [abortions count for less than 2% of planned parenthood visits], or expense) part of what they do.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-24-2011 at 03:50 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
By Planned Parenthood's own numbers, they performed 328,000 abortions last year. There were about 1.2 million abortions in the US in 2008, so Planned Parenthood is involved in about ~1/3 of US abortions.
Using all the cost numbers we've talked about here, that means abortions constitute a massive amount of Planned Parenthood's medical expenditures.
Obviously we would all like to see a slightly more "fragmented" market for abortion services, but I see no reason to try and stuff Planned Parenthood's role under the rug. Bravo to them for continuing to provide these services for decades in a difficult political climate.
Last edited by Dreadnaught; 02-24-2011 at 12:39 PM.
Going with some friends to a rally organized by Planned Parenthood. I don't think I've been to a protest since 2003.
I'm unsure if I should take this as just commenting about something happening in your personal life related to the thread topic, or as something more along the lines of "See, I'm not racist, some of my friends are black..."
. . .
Why? As I've said, I support funding Planned Parenthood.
I was disappointed at the unseemly high proportion of the signs were made by municipal unions, and how many of the signs were actually about how municipal unions need to "fight" for their "rights". Trying to link these issues is disgusting.
And I can assure you the other signs were all about abortion.
Helped my friends sell a ton of t-shirts though.
Finally, a comprehensive article.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...latedstories:2A Christian activist had two fetuses called as witnesses—the latest sign of a nationwide attack on abortion rights. Michelle Goldberg on why the religious right’s grip on the GOP is as strong as ever.
It sounds like an Onion headline. “In-the-womb Ohioans testify for Heartbeat Bill,” said a press release from Janet Porter, the Christian right activist who arranged for two fetuses, one nine weeks old, to offer “expert testimony” before the Health Committee of the Ohio House of Representatives Wednesday. They were shown via ultrasound projector, for legislators in a packed room to “see and hear their beating hearts,” as Porter wrote.
Farcical as it seems, what’s going on in Ohio is actually quite serious. The Heartbeat Bill, or H.B. 125, is a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade, and it’s part of a fusillade of anti-abortion legislation being introduced all around the country. H.B. 125 would ban abortion as soon as a heartbeat can be detected, as early as 18 days after conception, and rarely later than six weeks. It currently has been co-sponsored by 50 members of the Ohio House, more than half the total, and similar bills are being considered in Oklahoma, Texas, and Georgia. It’s just the latest bit of evidence that the Republican Party is as firmly in the grip of the religious right as ever.
Ever since the Tea Party roared onto the national stage in 2009, the conventional wisdom has been that it’s all about economics. Again and again, we’ve heard that the social issues once dominating right-wing politics have lost their salience, with social conservatives publicly fretting about the ostensibly libertarian bent of the new movement. Yet now that the Tea Party-fueled GOP is in power across the country, it has made curtailing abortion rights and family planning a preeminent goal.
In 2010, Republicans campaigned on Tea Party themes of economic austerity and small government, but they’re using their power to step up intrusions into the private lives of American women.
At the federal level, of course, Speaker Boehner signaled the importance of abortion by taking up H.R. 3, “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which he declared “one of our highest legislative priorities.” An early version of the bill made news for attempting to narrow the government’s definition of rape, apparently in an attempt to exclude more abortions from insurance coverage. Less attention has been paid to the fact that the bill would jettison current tax breaks for health insurance plans bought by individuals and small business if those plans include abortion coverage, as 87 percent of plans do. Higher taxes, fewer choices – this is not libertarianism.
Then, last month, 240 out of 241 House Republicans voted for the Pence Amendment, which would strip Planned Parenthood, America’s leading provider of reproductive health care, of federal funding. This wasn’t about fiscal discipline. Even if one disregards the overwhelming evidence that investments in family planning save the government money down the road, the Pence Amendment wouldn’t cut spending, it would simply divert it elsewhere. The amendment was clearly meant to punish Planned Parenthood for providing abortions. “You see, I don’t believe that God can continue to bless America while we’re killing 4,000 babies every day,” Georgia Republican Paul Broun said during the debate over the measure.
At the state level, things are even worse. Nebraska is considering a bill that would make killing someone in defense of a fetus “justifiable homicide,” which some see as sanctioning the murder of abortion providers. South Dakota legislators shelved similar legislation after a national uproar, but are poised to pass a bill requiring women seeking abortions to first visit a so-called crisis pregnancy center, anti-abortion outfits that are usually run by religious groups and staffed by volunteers with no medical training.
In Florida, Republicans have filed bills to ban insurance coverage for abortion and to prevent abortions after 20 weeks unless a woman’s life is at stake. Indiana has a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks and requiring that women seeking abortions be told that the procedure can cause breast cancer and infertility, even though neither claim is true. The Texas Senate recently passed a bill requiring doctors to conduct a sonogram 24 hours prior to an abortion and to explain the fetus’ development in detail. Georgia Republican Bobby Franklin recently introduced a bill that would require police investigations of all miscarriages.
What’s happening nationwide is the inverse of the phenomenon Thomas Frank described in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? Frank argued that conservatives used divisive social issues to win votes for unpopular economic policies. “The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off,” he wrote. “Vote to stop abortion, receive a rollback in capital gains taxes.”
There may be a backlash for this bait-and-switch among some independent voters, but probably not from most Tea Party activists. That’s because there was always plenty of overlap between the Tea Party and the Christian right, and the two movements keep moving closer together. Poll after poll shows that the Tea Party is far more socially conservative than the rest of America. In October, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that half of people who identify themselves members of the Tea Party also self-identify not just as Christian conservatives, but as members of the Christian conservative movement. Almost two-thirds of Tea Party supporters want to ban abortion in most cases, and only 18 percent support gay marriage. “Americans who support the Tea Party movement are more likely to identify as white evangelical Protestants than the general population,” the survey found. A majority of Tea Party members say that America is a Christian nation.
In Congress, many of the freshmen Republicans swept into office in November with Tea Party support are firmly rooted in the religious right. Ann Marie Buerkle, a Tea Party favorite from upstate New York, may have run on tax cuts and health care repeal, but she’s also a former spokesperson for the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. Daniel Webster, who defeated liberal fire-breather Alan Grayson in Florida, is a fundamentalist Baptist associated with the rigidly patriarchal Institute for Basic Life Principles, which teaches followers to “[r]eject the concept of working mother…God designed a wife to find her fulfillment by being a helpmeet to her husband.” Vicky Hartzler from Missouri once backed a state amendment that would allow women who have abortions to be charged with murder. She’s the author of a book for aspiring Christian politicians, “Running God’s Way,” which, she’s said, contains “the basic steps for campaigning as outlined in God’s Word.”
The same is true at the state level. John Kasich, Ohio’s new Republican governor, has closely aligned himself with the Tea Party. Human Events called him the “embodiment of a small government-low tax conservative,” and he spoke little about abortion on the campaign trail. But his record is firmly anti-abortion, and at Fox News, where he worked as a host and commentator until 2007, he regularly fanned the culture war flames. “Right now, at least 180 public schools are using your tax dollars to distribute the morning after pill to teenage girls,” he warned on The O’Reilly Factor. He demagogued against the late abortion provider Dr. George Tiller for not reporting the pregnancies of his underage patients to the police: “[I]f you've got kids, allegedly 10- and 12-year-old who had an abortion, who were probably raped by members, perhaps, of their own family. And we're not going to get to the bottom of it?” Janet Porter, the facilitator of fetal testimony, has an endorsement from Kasich on her website: “Janet’s public speaking abilities coupled with her personal integrity and her sheer enthusiasm make her a great spokesperson. She is a real inspiration!”
When the Tea Party and the GOP talk about freedom from government interference, they’re assuredly not talking about women’s bodies. They may view forcing people to buy health insurance as an intolerable violation of their liberty. But forcing women to bear children against their will is as high on the conservative agenda as ever.
Click for hyper-links.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
