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 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
For Pete's peace of mind:
quote:
At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.

Note, even that the request tend to originate from the patient in the first place. I mean there's probably a checkbox somewhere that offers the option, which then necessitates additional consent forms to be filled out in regard to the process.

Also it's worth noting that the techniques used to separate fetal tissue before removing it tend to be, where relevant, among the lowest risk procedures, with the only complication being laws passed by ginning up moral outrage to prevent it and forcing doctors to switch to slightly higher risk procedures to satisfy political efforts to complicate the process.

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 
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html

Is the specific applicable law with this qualification explicitly allowing the processing fees that PP charges:
quote:
The term valuable consideration' does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.'.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
That her safety may be compromised in an effort to obtain viable organs?
What makes you think that the woman's health and safety will be compromised? .
My basic understanding of the concept of "conflict of interests" and the fact that i studied, aced, researched and litigated analogous coi, ie attorney conflict of intetests. For example, lawyers used to get clients to sign away confidentiality and publicity rights to "defray" the costs of their criminal defense. Many lawyers, most notably the one defending John D Lee of the mountain meadows massacre, got rich by writing made up books and signing them in the names of their executed former clients. Such waivers are now deemed unethical and cause for disnarment because the coutse of yhe criminal defense tends to get altered so that the attorney can write a more bombastic story.

I received waivers to tell stories about some clients but i acquired them AFTER the defense was complete, ergo defense not compromised by prospective profitability.

If someone wants to claim that the analogy isnt good, please explain the defect.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
It would seem to me that an defense attorney has quite a bit more lattitude in how to structure their defense than an abortion doctor/technician has in removing a fetus. And the consequences of not adhering to that procedure are well known.

So while there is a bit of lattitude in the procedure to remove a fetus, I don't believe they need to go beyond the common bounds in order to obtain the tissue they are asked for.

Besides, it's not like they're liable to make a ton of cash doing it (despite what Rafi may proclaim). [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, the person performing the procedure never sees any money for the additional service - that goes directly to Planned Parenthood. And notwithstanding Rafi's position, there are costs to defray, so the potential for PP to profit would be only a fraction of the numbers quoted earlier, a fraction which might even be negative.

So we're left with the unlikely and undocumented case of PP pressuring its employees to act in certain ways in order to make an additional profit of on the order of dollars (or possibly tens of dollars) or of the employees taking it upon themselves to increase the margins of their employer.

So conflict of interest is almost certainly not an issue, at least not based on the arguments presented to-date.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 
TomDavidson, please pay attention. THIS is how one makes an honest coherent rebuttal to an analogy:

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
It would seem to me that an defense attorney has quite a bit more lattitude in how to structure their defense than an abortion doctor/technician has in removing a fetus. And the consequences of not adhering to that procedure are well known.

Excellent point, Wayward. Kudos. But that's an issue of degree of wrong, idnit?
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 
"Also, the person performing the procedure never sees any money for the additional service"

Really? They aren't compensated for their time? More work = employability and more job security.

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 
This thread got me interested in what the price of an abortion from Planned Parenthood actually is. PP's site isn't helpful, they're claiming they are down because of malicious attacks, honestly sounds more like they're trying to make a political point to me.

From the web it's sounds like the actual cost of the in office procedure (which is the one that would provide tissue) runs from $400 to $750. $100 additional dollars is highly material to a transaction of that size. If it was a $3000 procedure, not so much.

Accounting is a tricky thing, it is clear that they are making a choice to do this through a fee. They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so. If they did so, there would be no question of profit.

Even arguing that they do the procedures on a subsidized basis below cost doesn't really help because it just evokes the us of federal money to improperly subsidize abortions.

In any event, the fetal tissue is going to be produced as a result of the procedure, whether or not they sell it, so as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick and not a real approximation of whether a fee includes gross margin increases over the incremental costs. It is purely a matter of paper work whether any particular margin over incremental costs is "profit" but the rational view would be that it is fact profit.

If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue it's almost certainly indefensible, and likely illegal.

There's no reason they couldn't do this in a cost neutral manner that complied with law, there's also no reason they should get a free pass for choosing to do it in a manner that does violate law just because you believe they have an important mission. Lots of people with important missions have to comply with the law.

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:
$100 additional dollars is highly material to a transaction of that size.
Indeed. Which is also why the additional cost of the procedure is relevant. If they are doing a $750 abortion and charge $100 for tissue retrieval, and it costs them an additional $90 to store and ship that tissue, they are "making" an additional $10 on that transaction.

quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
How would they do that? As those charges are variable, and those receiving the tissues are not actually doing the shipping or cutting or collection themselves, how would they do that without stating a price? If you wanted to buy a brain from Planned Parenthood, how would you know how much it would cost you if they didn't tell you?

quote:
as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick
Not true. The additional overhead comes from the shipping and storage costs. It is not particularly easy to ship a liver intact.

quote:
If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue...
You'll note that this is a mischaracterization of what is said in that video.

quote:
There's no reason they couldn't do this in a cost neutral manner that complied with law...
There's no reason to believe this isn't what they're doing.
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 Pete at Home:
Excellent point, Wayward. Kudos. But that's an issue of degree of wrong, idnit?

Only if you accept the unsupported assertion that there's a statistically significant difference in level of risk.

Given the choice between two equally safe places to cross the street, it might take me slightly longer to walk one block further down the road, cross the street at the next light and then walk back up the block if I want to see something at the far end of the block, but it doesn't appreciably change my level of risk in crossing the street.

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:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
That's logically impossible. "You're responsible for the costs we incur to do these things, but we can't charge you for them"?

Or are you suggesting that if a research facility wants a tissue donation, then the procedure and necessary on-site processing must now be conducted at that facility, using that facility's personnel instead? Charging them for the associated costs is how "making the responsible for the costs" works.

quote:
Even arguing that they do the procedures on a subsidized basis below cost doesn't really help because it just evokes the us of federal money to improperly subsidize abortions.
Only if you're trying to be deceptive, since PP has more funding sources than just federal money. The organization choosing to subsidize it out of its general operating budget, not out of separately accounted Federal funds, doesn't imply that it's being Federally subsidized, only specious accusations of such do.

quote:
If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue it's almost certainly indefensible, and likely illegal.
More delicate tissue takes more time and effort to preserve and prepare properly, especially if collected in a way that does not meaningfully affect the risk of the procedure. Presenting recouping the costs of a more expensive process as a bounty is exceptionally deceptive.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
We should also remember that abortions account for about 3 percent of the services Planned Parenthood does.

So selling tissues is really a miniscule part of their operation.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 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 
A defense that boils down to "they don't do it often" is not a defense. It's a rationalization. Commiting a feloy cannot be excused by saying you only do it now and then.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If they don't do it often, and we are talking a couple bucks of profiteering... It's a pretty good defense against, "look at what these monsters are doing for profit!"

That it happens at all, and that outrages people, I get. It's not however the smoking gun to put a stop to abortions or end planned parenthood for good. That said, the media is playing along nicely, so I don't know how it will go.

Could do some damage to their rep, or it could raly the troops like gun sales spiking in the face of stricter gun law proposals. Either way it's good news I suppose so... TOOT TOOT All aboard the hype train!

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."
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:
[QUOTE]They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
How would they do that?
You and Prytolin both seem hung up on this issue, though it's actually a simple one to account for. PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage. It happens all the time across many areas of the business world, including for perishable items. I'm not convinced, by the way, that the analogy to tissues used for transplants is the correct one, that tissue has to be still living to make the process viable. I seriously doubt that EVERY donative use of these tissues has that same immediacy and requirements for containment and storage.

In any event, it's not PP's problem, its the person who takes the tissue if PP makes it available at that persons cost. PP is CHOOSING to be involved more than the minimum they would have to be. Given the specific rules on human tissues, they should be limited to the incremental expenses period.
quote:
As those charges are variable, and those receiving the tissues are not actually doing the shipping or cutting or collection themselves, how would they do that without stating a price?
The done retains a company to collect the tissues. There are plenty of medical transport companies that could handle it.
quote:
If you wanted to buy a brain from Planned Parenthood, how would you know how much it would cost you if they didn't tell you?
By law you can't "buy a brain" from PP. You understand that right? But the simple answer, is again, if you didn't want to pick it up yourself (which should be free) you'd pay want the medical transport company charged you.
quote:
quote:
$100 additional dollars is highly material to a transaction of that size.
Indeed. Which is also why the additional cost of the procedure is relevant. If they are doing a $750 abortion and charge $100 for tissue retrieval, and it costs them an additional $90 to store and ship that tissue, they are "making" an additional $10 on that transaction
Which is inappropriate and solely a result of their agreeing to incur the $90 cost and bill it back. A choice they are making.
quote:
quote:
as an accounting matter allocating any overhead or other costs is a bookkeeping trick
Not true. The additional overhead comes from the shipping and storage costs. It is not particularly easy to ship a liver intact.
We have a different definition of "Not true". Everything I said is true, what you're referring to is an incremental cost, not overhead, and is something that is appropriate to offset under the law.
quote:
quote:
If the third video is true and they paid bounties for collecting higher value tissue...
You'll note that this is a mischaracterization of what is said in that video.
I didn't watch the video, I've only read quotes. Are you asserting that the employee did not claim her compensation increased for recovering high value tissue intact?
quote:
quote:
There's no reason they couldn't do this in a cost neutral manner that complied with law...
There's no reason to believe this isn't what they're doing.
Actually there is. There's reason to believe they are not doing this in a cost neutral manner simply based on the gotcha videos. That doesn't make it true though, it should be investigated.

What there is "no reason" to do is to dismiss it out of hand because you agree with their mission.
quote:
quote:
They could easily require that those wishing to collect the tissues be responsible for the collection, storage and direct costs without the charge if they choose to do so.
That's logically impossible.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating the same with a logical proof. Please do, you are so far off from correct here it would be amusing to watch you flounder at it.
quote:
"You're responsible for the costs we incur to do these things, but we can't charge you for them"?
PP doesn't have to incur the costs in the first place. They could give the tissue to the donee's agent straight from the procedure and be done with it. They're choosing to facilitate the process, which is not something they have to do. It's a motive speculation as to WHY they are choosing to do it (and that's true for both YOU and the otherside),
quote:
Or are you suggesting that if a research facility wants a tissue donation, then the procedure and necessary on-site processing must now be conducted at that facility, using that facility's personnel instead?
No never said that nonsense.
quote:
Charging them for the associated costs is how "making the responsible for the costs" works.
No one has to incur costs and charge them out. That's a choice.
quote:
quote:
Even arguing that they do the procedures on a subsidized basis below cost doesn't really help because it just evokes the us of federal money to improperly subsidize abortions.
Only if you're trying to be deceptive, since PP has more funding sources than just federal money. The organization choosing to subsidize it out of its general operating budget, not out of separately accounted Federal funds, doesn't imply that it's being Federally subsidized, only specious accusations of such do.
You've launched how many tirades against dark money organizations with better accounting than PP? Lol.

There is no doubt that federal dollars subsidize abortions in any organization that mixes abortions and federal grants. It's nothing but an accounting trick that makes it appear otherwise. Luckily for them, such accounting tricks are legal and respected. But that doesn't mean you get to pretend that it's anything more than an accounting trick.

You guys are too emotional on this.

[ July 30, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

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:
PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage.
Think about what you're saying. You're telling me that PP is going to contact "interested parties" to tell them, "Hey, we're going to be aborting two late-term babies this week. Do you want anything?" And if they say yes, the group that says yes is going to line up a storage facility, a technician to do the extraction, and a shipping firm? Forgive me, but I don't think you've actually given that due consideration; it's patently ridiculous.

quote:
By law you can't "buy a brain" from PP. You understand that right?
Sure. Of course, that's a meaningless legal distinction, meant only to salve the conscience of idiots. The meaningful distinction is that PP cannot net non-negligible profit from the sale of organs. That the word "sale" is being waved around like a wand (or treated like the third rail on a subway) is just a relic of human stupidity.

quote:
Which is inappropriate and solely a result of their agreeing to incur the $90 cost and bill it back.
You're familiar with the way non-profits calculate profit, right? I have no doubt that many of their $100 charges actually cost them $90; I'm also sure that many of their $100 charges cost them $110. To avoid having to do the ridiculously inefficient and wasteful nickel-and-diming approach you suggest -- which would only waste tissue and cost everyone involved more money -- they have to be willing to accept a certain amount of arbitrary value (either positive or negative.)

quote:
There's reason to believe they are not doing this in a cost neutral manner simply based on the gotcha videos.
No, there isn't. All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

quote:
There is no doubt that federal dollars subsidize abortions in any organization that mixes abortions and federal grants. It's nothing but an accounting trick that makes it appear otherwise.
Interesting. How do you feel about political donations from 501(c)s? Would non-political funding given to such an organization really be nothing but an accounting trick meant to subsidize political donations?
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:
A defense that boils down to "they don't do it often" is not a defense. It's a rationalization. Commiting a feloy cannot be excused by saying you only do it now and then.
True, except that they haven't committed any crime. You really should stop saying that. It's getting to the point of being libelous. [Roll Eyes]

The point was, at $30 - $100 each, from a procedure that is maybe 3 percent of the total work the organization does, there ain't nobody going to be buying Lamborghinis anytime soon, even if they made 100 percent profit (instead of, at best, breaking even). [Smile]

But it has been clearly established by now that these videos are a bunch of lies created by splicing together pieces. Why we are still discussing such obvious fabrications is beyond me.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 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[ Everything I said is true, what you're referring to is an incremental cost, not overhead, and is something that is appropriate to offset under the law.[/quote]
And, is, very specifically, all that they're billing for. Different types of processing and shipping cost different amounts, from cost of extraction to different storage and preservation, so any given sample incurs a different incremental cost.

Even if the recipient offered to be on call to pick it up, is would still need to be processed by PP for transport and stored till they could come to retrieve it. IF they make the more rational choice of using a medical transport company (assuming that it wasn't processed in a way that could use standard shipping) then they still would need to reimburse PP for arranging the shipment when needed, since it's PP that would be on the hook to pay for it. The company could set up a complicated reflexive shipping payment scheme, but why, when it's logistically simpler and explicitly legal for PP to take care of handling shipping arrangements and billing them back on an as needed basis.

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:
No one has to incur costs and charge them out.
The tissue is being collected in PP's facility and shipped from it. That means it must incur the costs, since any sue of its facility is a cost to it. You're only right in as much as PP could chose to just eat the cost and not bill it out, bot not that it can somehow magically not incur an incremental cost for procedures that take place in its facilities.
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:
You've launched how many tirades against dark money organizations with better accounting than PP? Lol.
Hoe much does tea cost in China again? Trackable accounting has nothing to do with the process by which private citizens can make anonymous donations to groups that can then spend unlimited amounts of money supporting political campaigns. IF the issue had something to do with knowing who's giving money to PP, that might be relevant, not with accounting to keep direct federal grants separate from other funding sources.

quote:
There is no doubt that federal dollars subsidize abortions in any organization that mixes abortions and federal grants. It's nothing but an accounting trick that makes it appear otherwise.
Only if you speciously define all accounting as "tricks".

It's accounting that makes it clear that its not happening- that's part pf the point of having formal rules of accounting in the first place. It's the legal rules for accounting that explicitly define the fact that federal grant money is not being used. But the only way to call it a trick is to point out that all US dollars are federal money- that it's all, ultimately issues by the federal government or by banks using the accounting rules that it has set down to allow them to create it for lending purposes.

Money is a federal accounting tool; the rules of accounting that it makes for how if can be used aren't tricks- they define its proper and legal use, including definitions of how to keep various accounts separate for the sake of handling federal grants.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Excellent point, Wayward. Kudos. But that's an issue of degree of wrong, idnit?

Only if you accept the unsupported assertion that there's a statistically significant difference in level of risk.


did you forget that i am talking about an ethical conflict of interest, or do you not understand the difference between an ethical conflict of interest or the moral foundation of law?
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 TomDavidson:
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."

While there is evidence of unconscionable acts, and argument for unethical and illegal acts, i have seen no evidence of actual criminality.
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:
PP could inform those interested in the tissue when it would be available, and let the interested parties arrange for collection and storage.
Think about what you're saying.
Lol, you guys continually make mountains out of mole hills, do you have any experience in the private sector? Things a thousand times more complicated than this get done all the time. The medical researchers are highly advanced and bright people, and generally if they are involved in research they are well funded. This is a trivial problem for them to resolve, not a master work of difficulty. More than likely they'd sign an overall delivery agreement with a middle man, a medical transport company that would arrange the pick-ups.
quote:
You're telling me that PP is going to contact "interested parties" to tell them, "Hey, we're going to be aborting two late-term babies this week. Do you want anything?"
Happens all the time, but they wouldn't actually have to do much more than they do today on that front and less overall if the responsibility was on the donee.
quote:
And if they say yes, the group that says yes is going to line up a storage facility, a technician to do the extraction, and a shipping firm?
Only if they are moronic will they fail to line it up ahead of time. Which given they currently line it up with PP ahead of time seems unlikely.

Can I ask you seriously, to at least think about whether an "issue" you are raising has an easy or obvious solution before you throw it out there?
quote:
Forgive me, but I don't think you've actually given that due consideration; it's patently ridiculous.
Maybe you should look at existing medical transport companies before you label an idea "patently ridiculous."
quote:
quote:
By law you can't "buy a brain" from PP. You understand that right?
Sure. Of course, that's a meaningless legal distinction, meant only to salve the conscience of idiots. The meaningful distinction is that PP cannot net non-negligible profit from the sale of organs. That the word "sale" is being waved around like a wand (or treated like the third rail on a subway) is just a relic of human stupidity.
Lol. The sale is illegal, that's the whole point here. I'm glad you reject the semantic difference but that's awful advice for a group that doesn't want to get charged with a felony.
quote:
You're familiar with the way non-profits calculate profit, right?
Yes, I actually understand the accounting and the tax implications. And not just in a vague "I've no doubt" kind of way. And whether it's ridiculous or not, they do pay a lot of attention to specific tax compliance.
quote:
quote:
There's reason to believe they are not doing this in a cost neutral manner simply based on the gotcha videos.
No, there isn't. All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.
And? What they believe isn't relevant, what they said is enough to cause a violation if true (though again this is a factual question and it may not ultimately be something that is actionable).
quote:
Interesting. How do you feel about political donations from 501(c)s?
501(c)(3)'s shouldn't make them. 501(c)(4)'s should keep them within their required limits. Money out, is a bit different than money in though so I'm not sure what you think is analogous there.
quote:
Would non-political funding given to such an organization really be nothing but an accounting trick meant to subsidize political donations?
Who knows what its "meant" to do, but yes any funding going into an organization intent on maximizing its permitted political activity will be subsidized by the non-politically intended contributions it receives.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."

While there is evidence of unconscionable acts, and argument for unethical and illegal acts, i have seen no evidence of actual criminality.
The only evidence is that surgical procedures can put off people who are squeemish. That something looks gross to the untrained eye downstairs make it unconscionable.

[ July 31, 2015, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

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 Wayward Son:
quote:
A defense that boils down to "they don't do it often" is not a defense. It's a rationalization. Commiting a feloy cannot be excused by saying you only do it now and then.
True, except that they haven't committed any crime. You really should stop saying that. It's getting to the point of being libelous. [Roll Eyes]

The point was, at $30 - $100 each, from a procedure that is maybe 3 percent of the total work the organization does, there ain't nobody going to be buying Lamborghinis anytime soon, even if they made 100 percent profit (instead of, at best, breaking even). [Smile]

But it has been clearly established by now that these videos are a bunch of lies created by splicing together pieces. Why we are still discussing such obvious fabrications is beyond me.

Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.

The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.

The entire videos are released and viewable. Dismissing it like you are is itself a lie being pushed by those who rationalize planned parenthoods activities.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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:

All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

That would be true if you consider buying, say a Lamborghini, as something not substantially expensive.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.

The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.

So you are against organ donation full stop? Or you think that the hospitals, doctors, nurses, and techs should only perform transplants pro bono?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.
That is obviously not strictly true, or else every heart-transplant surgeon should be arrested immediately! [Smile] Every medical school with a cadaver should be raided! And every museum with formaldehyde-preserved specimen should be shut down and the buildings burned to the ground! [Eek!]

And every legislator who wrote a law regulating the trafficking of human body parts should be tossed in jail and the key thrown away. [Smile]

You need to re-examine your premise and see exactly when trafficking in human body parts is illegal and how it applies to this situation. Because common sense tells us that no one is making a ton of cash on these pieces of fetal tissue. We even have experts saying that they are not. We have the actual person who is alledged to have said they are making money off of them saying they are not making money off of them. We have other organizations that are buying the tissues from Planned Parenthood and selling them for substantially more. And this is a practice that people have known has been going on for years, if not decades, and no one noticed it until some fly-by-night organization releases some highly-edited videos that blow the lid off of everything?

This is not, and never has been, about "trafficking in human body parts." It has been about abortion, and another lame-ass, badly-done attempt in stopping it by distortion and lies. Because abortion opponents can't get traction from the actual issue, so they have to lie and libel in order to get some attention to their cause. Classic "the ends justify the means" morality. Lying, slandering and breaking the law because ours is the righteous cause. [Roll Eyes]

No laws are being broken, Rafi. The only reason the Right is getting all hot and bothered by all this, the only reason that presidential candidates are calling for investigations, is because they need to keep their base riled up so they can get them to send money and vote in the next election. And they don't care how many people they hurt along the way to do it.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 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 Rafi:
quote:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.

What do you mean "still perform the abortion"? And abortion is a premature termination of a pregnancy. If The woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, then there's no pregnancy to abort.

If woman's body performed a natural abortion, delivering non-viable fetal tissue, then they can still collect, process, and transfer it to a research facility that can benefit from it.

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 Rafi:
quote:

All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

That would be true if you consider buying, say a Lamborghini, as something not substantially expensive.
Exactly how many Lamborghinis are you suggesting PP owns?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.
Except that not making a lot of money at trafficking body parts is specifically what makes it legal for them to traffic in body parts. The text of the law has been linked here already, I believe.
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 
quote:
If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.
I thought for a bit before deciding to elaborate on this.

This is precisely what happened to my wife when she went in for her abortion. She was farther along than we knew or that the doctors determined; assuming she was into her fourth month, they gave her a shot and stuck some chemically-treated sticks of something into her and told her to go back home and wait overnight; by the next morning, she would have dilated enough to make the rest of the process possible.

Except that we knew very early on that something was wrong. The pain was excruciating, by far the worst thing she'd ever felt. The call-in nurse suggested she sit in a warm bath to try to relax her muscles -- but within minutes of helping her into the bath, I heard her shriek. She had "delivered" a stillborn baby.

To make a long story a little shorter, suffice it to say that this is what is being discussed here -- not viable babies being destroyed following a live birth, but dead or dying babies being used for tissue donation (as ours was).

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
Rafi's whole idea here seems to be to repeat the sound bites over and over without engaging with any explanation of how the premises are flawed, statements were taken out of context, details that were left out, etc.

He's doing what this guy fears:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/27/the-memification-of-planned-parenthood/

Sadly, this technique seems to work, but I think it works in one way: keeps the pro-life base riled up. It certainly doesn't foster useful debate.

I suppose it might lead to let's-all-pretend-this-outrage-is-legitimate Republicans in Congress voting to withhold funds from PP, which would be great news for people who need birth control and STD treatments.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The argument here wasn't "they don't do it often" but rather "this is not a major profit center for them, no one is getting rich from it, and there is no motive for criminal behavior here."

While there is evidence of unconscionable acts, and argument for unethical and illegal acts, i have seen no evidence of actual criminality.
The only evidence is that surgical procedures can put off people who are squeemish. That something looks gross to the untrained eye downstairs make it unconscionable.
Spoken like a PR firm for Texan agricultural conglomerate. You know they actually lobby for laws saying that animal rights activists who take and publish pictures of animal cruelty in agriculture are "terrorists"? That's the pool you're swimming in when you make these arguments that people need to be protected from pictures and information that they might misinterpret.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
I don't see anywhere he's saying that people need to be protected from those images -- only, rather, that those images are appeals to emotion.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Trafficking in human body parts is a crime.

The idea that they don't make a lot of money at it is another rationalization, not a defense.

So you are against organ donation full stop? Or you think that the hospitals, doctors, nurses, and techs should only perform transplants pro bono?
I think you need to explore the law around this a little more before you try to draw such a false equivalence
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

If someone delivers before PP can get to them, they still perform the abortion and deliver a "intact specimen" to buyers.

Take a moment to fully visualize the scene that Grinde describes.

What do you mean "still perform the abortion"? And abortion is a premature termination of a pregnancy. If The woman miscarries or has a stillbirth, then there's no pregnancy to abort.

If woman's body performed a natural abortion, delivering non-viable fetal tissue, then they can still collect, process, and transfer it to a research facility that can benefit from it.

Note that the terminology used is "delivered" not miscarried or the other terms you're trying on.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:

All three videos so far make it clear that the people speaking believe that they are not substantially profiting from tissue sales.

That would be true if you consider buying, say a Lamborghini, as something not substantially expensive.
Exactly how many Lamborghinis are you suggesting PP owns?
I dunno if they own any, I just know they're apparently making enough off this to joke about buying one if they wanted it.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ...  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