Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"She admits the abortion center provides a high volume of fetal remains to biologic companies and discusses how abortion practitioners at this facility are able and willing to alter abortion procedures in order to ensure intact remains that can then be sold to biologic companies."

This is my point. If they are able to alter abortion procedures to ensure intact remains, what's the big freaking deal about altering the procedures to allow survival of the child?

If the issue is just money, I'm sure that something could be provided for handling, etc.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I have not seen stats regarding the safety of delivering an intact dead fetus (like the one that the Partial Parenthood doctor was joking about sending by mail. Seems yo me that it would be more dangerous that a live birth, eswpecially if rigor mortis had set in.

That's intuitively safer in a medical setting, because if any possible complication presents itself there's no need to balance the interest in keeping it intact against the safety of the procedure.
How's that any different than my proposal where if there's a complication, the first priority is the physical safety of the mother?

A woman's right to her body here means she can pay to have the fetus extricted, in a procedure that minimizes physical harm to her. It doesn't mean she should be able to put a hit on the baby, or (as in 2 New York cases) that the doctor gets to strangle a surviving baby on the table.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How's that any different than my proposal where if there's a complication, the first priority is the physical safety of the mother?
Because you've already started down the road with a higher risk procedure that it not as easy to divert from? At that point you've already compromised the safety of the mother far more than you would have if you started assuming you were going to abort the pregnancy.

quote:
A woman's right to her body here means she can pay to have the fetus extricted, in a procedure that minimizes physical harm to her.
Exactly. Which is why putting her at risk by choosing any procedure intended to result in a live birth, without her full knowledge and consent, is bad practice. You can choose minimal risk or live birth, not both.

quote:
or (as in 2 New York cases) that the doctor gets to strangle a surviving baby on the table.
something that is already illegal, presuming the child is viable and not going to die painfully of its deformities in short order, thus completely moot.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
This is my point. If they are able to alter abortion procedures to ensure intact remains, what's the big freaking deal about altering the procedures to allow survival of the child?

The former is a trivial change within a given procedure has no effect on risk, the latter is a change to a different procedure that has a huge effect on risk.

You're being snookered by a very dishonest use of the phrase "change the procedure" to blur an important distinction here.

[ September 01, 2015, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The former is a trivial change within a given procedure has no effect on risk, the latter is a change to a different procedure that has a huge effect on risk"

There you go again ... Broad pronouncement without adressing facts. So i ask you again, how specifically is the procedure different for delivering an intact dead baby, as opposed to delivering a live one? Why is it necessary to slice and dice the living baby via d&x, but not when an intact dead fetus is desirable",

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"or (as in 2 New York cases) that the doctor gets to strangle a surviving baby on the table.
something that is already illegal"

Is it?. The New York courts found strangulation a perfectly legal form of "abortion". legality aside, thaat's the moral company one keeps if one demands that a mother's "wishes" be consulted as to whether a surviving fetus be allowed to live. Her right to her own body gives her at. much right to elect extrication procedure. If she's signed up ok to squeeze out a dead baby, no need to change procedure if baby turns out alive. That is, if you honestly believe (as I do) that the choice is based on personal body sosovereignty.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is it necessary to slice and dice the living baby via d&x, but not when an intact dead fetus is desirable
Size, viability, intent to preserve developmental point. Inducing labor to attempt a live birth vs a DnE, where there's no need to be concerned about incidental damage in the process, never mind that the dead fetus is not going to be as large as a full term baby. The vacuum pump that's used for a DnE is not going to be very compatible with A fully developed fetus, which is part of why it's not used beyond the second trimester, with the only procedural "change" being going from "just suck it all out" to "see if you can aim it right to do the least damage to what you're sucking out". A difference that poses no change in risk at all to the woman undergoing the procedure, but just requires a little more care and attention on the part of the doctor performing it.

If you're thinking if IDX/DnX, used for late term abortions in the third trimester, (The latter half of the second trimester, 20-26 or 27 weeks, counts as a "late term abortion", which is why DnE is associated with it) the big difference is the in the fact that the first step of an IDX is to reduce the fetus's cranial circumference, (which is to say, crush its skull) so that it comes out without additional stress. Again, a process that is not conducive to attempting a live birth.

And the key difference lies in "is desirable" vs "is a priority". If you have "attempt to get it out alive" as a priority then you have to go with a caesarian or labor induction, both distinctly higher risk than DnE or IDX, which both involve initial steps that make post-extraction viability exceptionally unlikely, and are impossible to start with if you have making a live extraction as even a partial priority.

quote:
The New York courts found strangulation a perfectly legal form of "abortion".
Meaning, apparently, that the babies in question were already non-viable, and the alternative would have been to let them die over a few hours or days of their deformities. All I can do is guess here, since you're talking ambiguously and only expanding the details your offering on these asserted cases as suits your argument
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I toyed with that label, but it seemed too whimpy to me. After all, Radical Conservatives are far more loud and influential than your brand of Conservatism.

Not sure what "brand" that would be. I'm moderate than anything else.
quote:
(Just look at how ACORN was disbanded based on rumor and innuendo.)
This seems to be the latest piece of revisionist history. ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations. Happens in all kinds of contexts.
quote:
While your brand of Conservatism may be in the majority, it is neither the face nor the driver of the ideology. The Radicals are getting the press and calling the shots, choosing the representatives, and steering your movement away from calm reasoning toward ideological purity. [Frown]
If that were true, with all the claims about RINOS not being electable, and blah blah blah by extreme conservatives, would the last candidates of the Republican Party really have been Romney, McCain and Bush? Not a murder's row of conservative role models. Would Trump be the front runner today?

No. The extreme conservatives are very vocal and they have a bigger pull on the R's than the D's (which by the way DO IN FACT have them too - e.g. WV) by percentage, but they don't control the party. The media finds it easier to pretend they do though, nothing fires up liberals faster than claiming that any Republican anywhere is nothing but a Huckabee clone waiting to happen, when the reality is there are far more that are Republicans for fiscal and economic issues and pay lip service to the social conservative issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
By the way, it appears that several states have in fact conducted investigations and determined either that no law was violated, or that there wasn't any violation worth trying to prove. That is exactly the kind of result I was looking for.
In other words, you were looking for PP to be drained of money and resources for specious investigations (note that they're being conducted in states where not tissue donation is done, and even in states where no abortions are performed) even though routine inspections showed no evidence of wrongdoing?
That is in no "other words" for what I said or was looking for. Nor is it even remotely reasonable in a country where EVERYONE is subject to regulatory compliance and the incurrence of expenses (even private citizens have to incur expenses in connection with an audit), to claim that there is somehow a special burden being imposed.
quote:
I think it's absurd to say that any tip from someone whose known to be actively trying to slander and harass someone should be respected- that turns the law into a tool to perpetuate harassment, as happened in these cases.
Well except that law enforcement is discretionary, and they are perfectly capable of evaluating the weight a tip should receive.
quote:
And that's just on credibility, not even getting to the fact that the "tip" showed no evidence of wrongdoing, and in fact supported the notion that they're acting in complete compliance with the law.
Which is an overstatement, there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance, and plenty to imply they were not carefully or accurately doing so.
quote:
And initial investigations should have been focused on determining what just coming to light now- specifically that the "unedited" video was actually edited to try to create a false impression of scandal, even though it failed even there to anyone but those looking for an excuse to cry scandal.
Well of course the video should have been investigated. It's also possible that the editing and releasing of the video could be deemed actionable slander, is it not? I've got no favorites here, let the authorities hold them accountable.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations.
Well, no. That's the Republican line, but it's a lie.

quote:
there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance
This is also a lie. Every single thing the PP reps say in the videos makes it clear that they are consciously making an effort to comply with the law, and actively avoiding doing anything that might break the law -- even when egged on by the professional liars behind the camera.

[ September 04, 2015, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations. Happens in all kinds of contexts.
As far as I recall, Tom is right. ACORN was never proven to have done anything criminal. But it funding was pulled before the situation was determined, based on edited videos which were shown to be manipulated.

The fact that you seem to believe that something criminal occurred shows that the Radical Conservatives have been successful, at least with you. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
that were true, with all the claims about RINOS not being electable, and blah blah blah by extreme conservatives, would the last candidates of the Republican Party really have been Romney, McCain and Bush? Not a murder's row of conservative role models...
...the reality is there are far more that are Republicans for fiscal and economic issues and pay lip service to the social conservative issues.

True, but consider what the first acts of the Conservative House was this year: limiting abortion. Hardly a fiscal or economic issue.

And that's the thing, they have to pay more than lip service, but actually throw them a bone, or more. And they are insisting on getting more meat on that bone. And the Republican Party currently cannot afford to lose them. So they will (and do!) have more influence than their numbers would indicate.

quote:
Would Trump be the front runner today?
Actually, Trump fits the definition of a Radical Conservative pretty nicely. Plays fast and loose with the facts and truth; takes no prisoners; plays to his constituates prejudices; considers anyone who criticizes him a "loser." He lies to your face, and doubles-down if you call him on it. He actually confirms my suspicions rather than refute them. [Frown]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Why is it necessary to slice and dice the living baby via d&x, but not when an intact dead fetus is desirable
Size, viability, intent to preserve developmental point. Inducing labor to attempt a live birth vs a DnE, where there's no need to be concerned about incidental damage in the process, never mind that the dead fetus is not going to be as large as a full term baby.
[Eek!] [Eek!]

Did Pyr just claim that D&X is usually performed on "full term bab[ies]"

Damn, Pyr. With friends like you, Partial Parenthood hardly needs enemies. You've evidently swallowed the extreme Pro-lifer description of facts. According to NARAL's own stats, D&X is usually performed between the fifth and seventh month.

"Baby" doesn't describe some late fetal stage of development. Fetus is what it is before birth, and Baby is what it is after live birth. If a fetus born or extricated alive at 4 months, it's a "baby." If a fetus stays in the uterus for over 10 months (I was in for 11) it's still a fetus until birth.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Actually, Trump fits the definition of a Radical Conservative pretty nicely. Plays fast and loose with the facts and truth; takes no prisoners; plays to his constituates prejudices; considers anyone who criticizes him a "loser." He lies to your face, and doubles-down if you call him on it. He actually confirms my suspicions rather than refute them. [Frown]

What do you expect from someone who entered the ring at the Clintom's request? He's not a radical conservative; he's Clinton's freaking Ringer.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations.
Well, no. That's the Republican line, but it's a lie.
And you're just meme blasting now. Trying to subvert people's memories with partial trues. What I said is literally true, they didn't have effective institutional controls, and they had staff that were caught in illegal and inappropriate contexts. What you have on your side is pretty much just propaganda, citing to conviction rates (irrelevant) and counting on poor memory (subversion).
quote:
quote:
there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance
This is also a lie. Every single thing the PP reps say in the videos makes it clear that they are consciously making an effort to comply with the law, and actively avoiding doing anything that might break the law -- even when egged on by the professional liars behind the camera.
Maybe you should watch it again. You're completely overstating the case, the video's show they thought compliance was a joking matter. Not that they took it seriously. You're back to asserting that one needs proof worthy of conviction to investigate something, which if the correct standard would mean no more convictions or investigations.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
ACORN paid the price for failing to have institutional controls that prevented abusive and criminal situations. Happens in all kinds of contexts.
As far as I recall, Tom is right. ACORN was never proven to have done anything criminal.
Which is of course a half truth. Whether anyone bothered to try and get a conviction is not a measure of whether criminal activity occurred. And whether criminal activity is proven is hardly the correct standard for whether an organization should be receiving federal funding.
quote:
But it funding was pulled before the situation was determined, based on edited videos which were shown to be manipulated.
Not in any relevant way. Plus the videos had nothing to do with the election law violations that they also had staff engaged in.
quote:
The fact that you seem to believe that something criminal occurred shows that the Radical Conservatives have been successful, at least with you. [Frown]
The "fact" that you think an organization that had no controls in place to prevent it's staff from election law violations, and in fact had a compensation system in place designed to cause false registrations, and had staff members caught on camera telling "pimps" how to get treatment for their underaged hookers, was somehow shut down before the truth came out, shows how easy it is to rewrite history and reality with a meme and a willing audience. Propaganda works.

Is there NO level of reality you guys won't try and dispute?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And whether criminal activity is proven is hardly the correct standard for whether an organization should be receiving federal funding.
But here's the interesting question: if ACORN was not in fact criminally encouraging and enabling voter fraud, on what grounds should its funding have been pulled?

quote:
You're completely overstating the case, the video's show they thought compliance was a joking matter.
I joke frequently with people about HIPAA regulations, and joked frequently about FERPA when I worked at a college. Is it your contention that I do not take these regulations seriously?

quote:
Is there NO level of reality you guys won't try and dispute?
I mourn for the Seriati who used to post here, who was not completely swallowed by the machine. What happened to you, man?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
And whether criminal activity is proven is hardly the correct standard for whether an organization should be receiving federal funding.
But here's the interesting question: if ACORN was not in fact criminally encouraging and enabling voter fraud, on what grounds should its funding have been pulled?
Interesting flip of duty of proof. On what grounds should it have been receiving funds in the first place?

I already laid out the case for why they should have had their funding pulled. A voter registration group that has no controls in place to prevent, and in fact has a compensation structure that encourages, fraudulent registration. There's no reason TO fund such a group. Make the grants available for groups that act properly.

But even more basically, there shouldn't be an entitlement at all, funding should be tied to serving governmental goals and this kind of garbage directly frustrates those goals.
quote:
quote:
You're completely overstating the case, the video's show they thought compliance was a joking matter.
I joke frequently with people about HIPAA regulations, and joked frequently about FERPA when I worked at a college. Is it your contention that I do not take these regulations seriously?
I heard a comedian once make a joke about fruit, is it your contention that fruit is no laughing matter? Lol. I couldn't care less about your position on HIPAA, nor is it relevant. The implications of these statements were more than grounds to investigate.

But yeah if your "jokes about HIPAA" were say about how you've looked up client records of celebrities, you'd get investigated and have earned it. You know they also arrest you if you joke about having a bomb in your suitcase at the airport.
quote:
quote:
Is there NO level of reality you guys won't try and dispute?
I mourn for the Seriati who used to post here, who was not completely swallowed by the machine. What happened to you, man?
Just annoyance with putting forward reasonable responses and having to wade through illogical response after illogical response. Go back on this thread, read the whole thing, I put a lot of effort into putting forward logical arguments and all I got back were avoidances, non sequitors, illogical statements, emotional arguments not supported by facts, and oh yeah back handed calls for banning (or for like ummm... not banning) based on unsupported assertions of bad faith.

I find that in the run up to elections this kind of garbage always happens, people seem to lose the ability to separate their beliefs from their arguments.

Too much whitewashing for me to be happy. Honestly, what fault's are you admitting too at all from the positions you agree with?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
On what grounds should it have been receiving funds in the first place?
*sigh* See, I can't tell whether the new version of you means this question seriously or not. Because here's the thing: if we're going to go after every single federally-funded program with trumped-up charges and fake scandals in order to demand that they justify their federal funding or have it yanked, the Randbots have won. Literally all they have to do is secretly film a couple dozen people, pick the three or four who say something that can be willfully misinterpreted by someone wanting to fluff up outrage, and then say, "Hey, prove to us that you really deserve this money other legislators previously decided you deserved." And that would just be sad.

quote:
A voter registration group that has no controls in place to prevent, and in fact has a compensation structure that encourages, fraudulent registration.
Except that both of these are untrue. There WERE in fact controls in place to prevent/minimize fraudulent registrations, and deliberately soliciting fraudulent registrations was grounds for dismissal -- and criminal prosecution, actually. What you are recalling are the lies that never got retracted by conservative "news" sites.

quote:
The implications of these statements were more than grounds to investigate.
See, you keep saying this, and every time you say it I see someone like Glenn Beck sticking his hand up your butt and moving your jaw like a puppet. What implications were there, exactly?

quote:
But yeah if your "jokes about HIPAA" were say about how you've looked up client records of celebrities, you'd get investigated and have earned it.
And yet, if I said it in a clearly sarcastic tone, something like "Yeah, I spend most of my day looking up pics of Angelina Jolie's breast surgeries" would be interpreted by sane people familiar with human interaction as a joke and not an admission of guilt. Because that's how people actually talk, Seriati.

quote:
Go back on this thread, read the whole thing, I put a lot of effort into putting forward logical arguments...
To be fair, I don't see any logical arguments from you, here. I see intentional arguments, but nothing logical.

[ September 06, 2015, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
In other words, you were looking for PP to be drained of money and resources for specious investigations (note that they're being conducted in states where not tissue donation is done, and even in states where no abortions are performed) even though routine inspections showed no evidence of wrongdoing?

That is in no "other words" for what I said or was looking for. Nor is it even remotely reasonable in a country where EVERYONE is subject to regulatory compliance and the incurrence of expenses (even private citizens have to incur expenses in connection with an audit), to claim that there is somehow a special burden being imposed.
But were not talking about the regular audit and inspection process here. Were talking about a special investigation that disregards that process and effectively doubles the cost despite not having any substantial grounds aside from political axe grinding to be conducted.

The way you're trying to conflate the special investigations being called in response to the video with routine inspections that are already occurring and that confirm compliance is absurd, especially since they're almost all happening in states where tissue donation isn't

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

Did Pyr just claim that D&X is usually performed on "full term bab[ies]"


I said no such thin. PLease do not make such outrageously false statements, it's not conducive to good discussion.

quote:
According to NARAL's own stats, D&X is usually performed between the fifth and seventh month.
Indeed. In the third trimester, like I said in that very message if you weren't so actively and disingenuously misrepresenting me.

quote:
"Baby" doesn't describe some late fetal stage of development. Fetus is what it is before birth, and Baby is what it is after live birth.
Indeed, and is what it would be if the woman was forced to undergo a live birth procedure like you're tying to force against her will.

quote:
If a fetus born or extricated alive at 4 months, it's a "baby." If a fetus stays in the uterus for over 10 months (I was in for 11) it's still a fetus until birth.
Good. Now that you're clear on that actualyl respond to what I said instead with those facts in mind instead of misrepresenting my position.

Forcing a woman into labor to attempt a live birth is a very different procedure than a DnX, which involves putting the fetus into a breach position, evacuating the brain, and crushing the skull before removing it. The two procedures are completely incompatible from the start, so there is no way to induce labor, then abort to a DnX, especially since the induction of labor, in and of itself represents a massive increase in risk.

And given the nature of a DnX, if a fetus is extracted and still has enough brain matter for its lungs to reflexively operate, then it seems that strangulation is perfectly reasonable instead of trying to resuscitate an otherwise brainless vegetable or simply allowing it to drift along for an indeterminate amount of time until the reflexes fade.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I already laid out the case for why they should have had their funding pulled. A voter registration group that has no controls in place to prevent, and in fact has a compensation structure that encourages, fraudulent registration. There's no reason TO fund such a group. Make the grants available for groups that act properly.
They had controls in place. In fact, the primary reason that the issue was traceable to ACORN is because it was ACORN's controls that flagged the questionable registrations. It got milked for finds by its contractors, to be sure, but that should have been a purely internal issue. ACORN itself followed the law scrupulously. both by submitting the questionable registrations, which it was legally required to do, once it was in possession of them, and by flagging them as questionable, in compliance with the law to help make sure that they were investigated and discarded by the election boards that actually had the legal authority to do so.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which is an overstatement, there was nothing that supported the notion they were acting in complete compliance, and plenty to imply they were not carefully or accurately doing so.
Except of course that everything in the video except the false assertions made about what it showed supported the fact that they were complying the law, and even actively resisting the attempts of the people shooting it to try to trap them into violations. It's _only_ the misleading assertions of the people who made the videos and misleadingly edited them that suggested wrongdoing, something that the videos themselves actively debunk. Heck, even you keep deceptively trying to recast the ballpark quote followed by resistance to the actors to up the price as "negotiation", despite the clear fact that PP was refusing to negotiate and the actors were negotiating in reverse; trying to bid up the quote rather than bid it down as they would have in an earnest negotiation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jindal is trying to defund PP in Louisiana. His argument to the court is that there are 2,000 other licensed professionals in the state who have and can provide the services PP does. A judge reviewed the list and pointed out that it included "hundreds of entries for specialists such as ophthalmologists; nursing homes caregivers; dentists; ear, nose, and throat doctors; and even cosmetic surgeons". He said,
quote:
"It strikes me as extremely odd that you have a dermatologist, an audiologist, a dentist who are billing for family planning services," said the judge, John deGravelles, who will determine in the next week whether it is legal for the state to end Planned Parenthood's Medicaid contracts. "But that is what you're representing to the court? You're telling me that they can provide family planning and related services?
The state revised the list and came back with 29 names

This raises a serious point in addition to the usual Keystone Kops behavior of another Republican seeking to become the President. Why is it that any of those other 1971 "professionals" have used medical insurance billing codes for family planning? Jindal is apparently not interested in the answer to that question.

[ September 11, 2015, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why is it that any of those other 1971 "professionals" have used medical insurance billing codes for family planning?
Speaking as someone who does a lot of work with medical coding, I would not be at all surprised if these professionals either a) had at least one legitimate family planning PX at some point in their career, perhaps as an internist; or b) fat-fingered a code and recorded at least one PX as a family planning visit. And if Jindal's people just pulled every single provider of any role attached to a family planning event, without filtering on specialty or frequency, this is the sort of thing they'd get.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, of course I do. But miscoding is so freakishly easy to do that I don't see a reason to assume fraud. I once audited a hospital in Kentucky that was showing nearly 90% of their profit coming from routine checkups, which turned out to be a single lazy coder putting everything -- including heart transplants -- under the same ICD9. It was only by analyzing the secondary codes attached to the primary visit that they were able to resolve the problem.

Edited to add: this was in response to a post, now vanished, that asked whether I didn't think this could also be evidence of fraud.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New video drop.
quote:
The video highlights conversations with Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA; Dr. Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for PPFA; and Deborah VanDerhei, National Director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers (CAPS) at PPFA.

“We’ve just been working with people who want particular tissues, like, you know, they want cardiac, or they want eyes, or they want neural,” says Dr. Westhoff to a prospective fetal organ buyer. “Certainly, everything we provide–oh, gonads! Oh my God, gonads. Everything we provide is fresh.” Westhoff continues, “Obviously, we would have the potential for a huge P.R. issue in doing this,” before offering to introduce the buyers to “national office abortion people” from Planned Parenthood.

Deborah VanDerhei is the National Director for CAPS, an influential committee within Planned Parenthood that drives abortion policy across the organization. VanDerhei refers to payments for fetal tissue as “donation for remuneration,” which carries the connotation of financial reward or benefit without regard for actual expenses. VanDerhei explains, “I have been talking to the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, we’re trying to figure this out as an industry, about how we’re going to manage remuneration, because the headlines would be a disaster.”


Making big money on fresh baby parts. Gotta keep it secret because it's illegal.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see nothing about "big money" in your cited material, only managing what money comes in with recognition that some people would jump on what they do and try to demonize them. Can you be specific about what in this quote is either secret or illegal?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, there's this deceptive line where they try to change the meaning of what she said to fit their agenda:
quote:
VanDerhei refers to payments for fetal tissue as “donation for remuneration,” which carries the connotation of financial reward or benefit without regard for actual expenses.
Where she's talking about figuring out how to get paid for the labor done they try to spin it as pulling in money without regard to specific services provided.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's a howler. It "carries that connotation"? Says who? The denotation is covering expenses.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I fully give that some people may mean profit by it, but it doesn't fit the context here, unless you want to impute that meaning on her words.

I mean, when you break it down, either it conforms to to other more direct assertions that they just cover costs with the charges, or for some reason it doesn't and she feels like it would be useful to send up a dog whistle here to someone that there is a profit margin while otherwise claiming that there isn't.

The latter case only makes sense if you've already concluded that they must be profiting and thus need to find ways to interpret her words to conform to that expectation, despite lack of any actual motivation to actually have tried to encode that meaning.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Yeah, that's a howler. It "carries that connotation"? Says who? The denotation is covering expenses.

Says who? The lady trying to get enough money out of the deal to buy a Lamborghini ?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, point taken: you're just trolling.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It should be noted that G# has previously said that, no, he does not believe she was speaking seriously of her intent to purchase a Lamborghini. This is more a reminder to G# than anyone else.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And now, in about 2 weeks, the radical Conservatives in Congress are talking about shutting down parts of the government over these unproven (and probably untrue) allegations. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I mean, when you break it down, either it conforms to to other more direct assertions that they just cover costs with the charges, or for some reason it doesn't and she feels like it would be useful to send up a dog whistle here to someone that there is a profit margin while otherwise claiming that there isn't.

There's definitely a profit margin. Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit. However, it's an accounting matter as to whether you have sufficient direct variable costs plus any overhead you can properly attribute to it to sufficiently cover any such gains, or whether you have an incompetent accountant and can't manage to do so.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit.
What's baffling to me is that you clearly have heard the term "direct variable cost," but then go on to suggest that they're fictional -- invented by creative accountants -- and not wholly unavoidable costs like, say, storage and shipping.

From an accounting perspective, categorizing any return on fetal tissue as profit before factoring in direct costs associated with that cost object would be highly improper.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I mean, when you break it down, either it conforms to to other more direct assertions that they just cover costs with the charges, or for some reason it doesn't and she feels like it would be useful to send up a dog whistle here to someone that there is a profit margin while otherwise claiming that there isn't.

There's definitely a profit margin. Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit. However, it's an accounting matter as to whether you have sufficient direct variable costs plus any overhead you can properly attribute to it to sufficiently cover any such gains, or whether you have an incompetent accountant and can't manage to do so.
You're confusing revenue and profit. It's revenue, certainly, but it's only profit if it cannot be properly correlated to covering such costs; that's core to what profit is- net revenue in excess of costs of production. You can only get to calling it "profit" by conflating it with revenue and actively ignoring associated marginal costs, especially when the the ultimate bill is, as very explicitly stated many times over, assessed directly based on the marginal costs of providing the service.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Says who? The lady trying to get enough money out of the deal to buy a Lamborghini ?
How many $75 donations does it take to buy one?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
OK, point taken: you're just trolling.

No, not at all. Just because you can't defend it doesn't mean it's trolling. She clearly expected to make money, a lot of money, the kind of money that could be used to buy a very expensive car. Not that she intended to buy one, just that she intended to make enough off the deal to do it if she wanted too. Trying to focus on the car as if that was a literal purchase she intended to make is being intentionally misled.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many $75 donations does it take to buy one?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1