New Undercover Video of Planned Parenthood

[Sparko]

The cost to perform the procedures is not the same as the cost to store. I don't know the cost for every procedure offhand, but some can be labor intensive and, therefore, expensive. Most options are significantly less.

The salient points are that reimbursements are legal and they were talking about the usual costs about that. Briefly, of course.

Also, your abortion numbers are misleading. The clinics she's responsible for does around 60 2nd trimester abortions per year. She isn't a national director

She also does late abortions and others. And she is not the only doctor in the clinic that does them. The LA clinic is one of the largest in the country. You are trying to downplay it. She talked about personal payment and changing procedures to make the fetuses more valuable. If she was talking about fixed prices, then she would have said she had to look up the costs, not haggle based on what the bio company was paying other clinics and what was fair. That is clear in the video. Your attempts to ignore that and to be some sort of apologist for PP are glaringly obvious to everyone reading this thread.

[seer]

It just amazes me. Liberals will argue till they are blue in the face that a Christian baker should be forced by law to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage, but will defend the killing of unborn babies and the harvesting of their body parts. Their moral compass has ossified. It is no less than moral insanity.

[Sparko]

"goes to" abortion? How much does abortion bring in?

around $1500 from the mother wanting the abortion, plus a portion of the grant and donation money, and apparently some for selling off the babies after they kill them for experiments. Sounds pretty lucrative to me.

[Cow Poke]

around $1500 from the mother wanting the abortion, plus a portion of the grant and donation money, and apparently some for selling off the babies after they kill them for experiments. Sounds pretty lucrative to me.

They are independently wealthy.

Source: Susan B Anthony List

More taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood equals more abortions, fewer adoption referrals. Claims that taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood results in fewer abortions are false. From 2000 to 2009, Planned Parenthood saw an 80 percent increase in taxpayer funding, receiving $202 million in 2000 and $363 million in 2009. In 2000, Planned Parenthood performed 197,070 abortions while making 2,486 adoption referrals. In 2009, they performed 332,278 abortions and made just 977 adoption referrals. That means an 80 percent increase in taxpayer funding resulted in a 69 percent increase in the number of abortions and a 61 percent decrease in the number of adoption referrals.[vii]

Planned Parenthood is an independently wealthy entity. According to its latest annual report, it has nearly one billion dollars in net assets.[ii] Data shows that over the last nine years, Planned Parenthood has taken in over $500 million in profits.[iii]

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

What irks me is that it is a "baby" when a woman wants it but only a "collection of cells and tissue" and "part of the woman's body that she can do whatever she wants to" when it is not wanted. Most normal women and doctors will talk about "how your baby is doing" when they come in for tests and examinations. But PP and women who want abortions never refer to a "baby" even when it is near birth.

[Papa Zoom]

"goes to" abortion? How much does abortion bring in?

51 percent of PP's yearly income comes from abortion. PP preforms 40% of all abortions in the US. How about prenatal services? A whopping .028 percent. PP's claim that only 3% of their many service is for abortion. That number is much higher. If a car dealership says they aren't in the new car selling business because they do a greater percentage of repair work than they do selling new care, we'd laugh at such a suggestion. The fact is, PP is the largest abortion provider in the US.

Nearly 46 percent of PP's annual income comes from the tax payer.

[Starlight]

It just amazes me. Liberals will argue till they are blue in the face that a Christian baker should be forced by law to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage, but will defend the killing of unborn babies and the harvesting of their body parts. Their moral compass has ossified. It is no less than moral insanity.

It's pretty simple seer. Liberals have a strong moral code of treating other people well. And they get very upset at conservatives when conservatives start putting things that aren't people (eg "the institution of marriage") ahead of the wellbeing of people. So liberals will consistently advocate for better healthcare, better education, better social security, more human rights... all the things involved in actually caring for people and treating them well. And they'll get upset at conservatives who half the time don't seem to care in the slightest about other people and seem to have no empathy whatsoever and who advocate on a regular basic for purely evil and immoral political policies like cutting needy people off benefits, reducing the funding for healthcare and education, putting non-violent offenders in prison for decades, executing people, denying people basic rights to marriage, and all kinds of other things that demonstrably hurt people in obvious ways. And then the conservatives have recently seized randomly on something else that isn't a person - a fetus - and claimd that those must be protected at all costs, regardless of what effect this has on actual people (eg the mother), and the liberals once again roll their eyes at the conservatives who can't seem to understand the basic concept of morality. It is no less than insanity, evil, and stupidity.

[Leonhard]

Liberals have a strong moral code of treating other people well.

I like that you put people in italics, because that's something that liberals are going to treat as an ugly grey zone for the forseeable future. Peter Singer, et. al. arguing about post-birth abortion, and for the culling of the elderly population who is becoming a strain on resources. All in the interest of maximizing happiness, of course.

And they get very upset at conservatives when conservatives start putting things that aren't people (eg "the institution of marriage") ahead of the wellbeing of people.

Implied assumption, the entire marriage debate was precisely about what marriage is. I don't deny gay people marriage. A homosexual man may marry a woman just as much as I do. However if he partners up with another man, and holds a ceremony and vows to be at that person's side to the end of time. Aside from that, there's no marriage, because what has happened is the point of marriage has become divorced from procreation. As soon as one divorces the point of sex from marriage, and allow contraception, all these other things, abortion and gay wedding follow as natural progressions.

So liberals will consistently advocate for better healthcare, better education, better social security, more human rights...

Except of course freedom to disagree in good conscience. Also thanks for catching up to something Jesuits and the Catholic Church have been advocating for for centuries in one form or another.

And they'll get upset at conservatives who half the time don't seem to care in the slightest about other people and seem to have no empathy whatsoever and who advocate on a regular basic for purely evil and immoral political policies like cutting needy people off benefits, reducing the funding for healthcare and education, putting non-violent offenders in prison for decades, executing people ... and all kinds of other things that demonstrably hurt people in obvious ways.

We're talking about abortion here, not the conservative political platform. You're poisoning the well.

And then the conservatives have recently seized randomly on something else that isn't a person - a fetus - and claimd that those must be protected at all costs, regardless of what effect this has on actual people (eg the mother), and the liberals once again roll their eyes at the conservatives who can't seem to understand the basic concept of morality. It is no less than insanity, evil, and stupidity.

Except of course that the Catholic Church have been universally against the cruel evil of abortion in all its forms, originally in the form of parents killing their children outright, also when they later found poisons to be used for that. Very recently in light of the growing evil of abortion, it was declared that you cannot be a Catholic participate in the evil of abortion. So someone like Nancy Pelosi, is latente sententia excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

And I like your idea that this was something done randomly. How do you figure that? Do you have any idea how the prolife movement got started, and where it came from? Have you actually read the papal encyclicals and the reasoning behind them? In Scholastic metaphysics, for over a century it was considered fact that the human being is present even at fertilization. And this was from purely natural reasoning, without bringing in religious reasons at all, though the Church have those as well.

[Papa Zoom]

Liberals have a strong moral code of treating other people well.

except if you're a black conservative or a conservative woman. Then the liberals show their true colors of intolerance. Liberals are tolerant of "other people" as long as those others completely agree with their point of view. There are plenty of examples of liberal hate and intolerance. You won't hear about these things on the liberal MSM because of course, there's no bias there.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/8-...erally-117439/

Here's a quote from liberal pundint Kirsten Powers: "The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card."

Kirsten Powers

More from Powers: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...rant-left.html

... and the liberals once again roll their eyes at the conservatives who can't seem to understand the basic concept of morality. It is no less than insanity, evil, and stupidity.

And thanks for demonstrating exactly what Powers points to. You marginalize an entire group of people because you don't happen to like what they believe. And not only do you marginalize them, you call them insane, evil and stupid. Nice. So much for your claim that "Liberals have a strong moral code of treating other people well. " Or maybe marginalizing others with whom you disagree and calling them vicious names is your idea of treating people well.

[Cow Poke]

It's pretty simple seer. Liberals have a strong moral code of treating other people well.

Unfortunately, they always seem to want to do it with other people's money.

[rogue06]

What irks me is that it is a "baby" when a woman wants it but only a "collection of cells and tissue" and "part of the woman's body that she can do whatever she wants to" when it is not wanted. Most normal women and doctors will talk about "how your baby is doing" when they come in for tests and examinations. But PP and women who want abortions never refer to a "baby" even when it is near birth.

Considering their support for partial birth abortions and, for some of them, after or post birth abortions, I would say even later.

[rogue06]

It's pretty simple seer. Liberals have a strong moral code of treating other people well.

Sort of ironic coming from someone who has announced his support for parents being allowed to terminate their babies several weeks after they're born.

[Cow Poke]

Sort of ironic coming from someone who has announced his support for parents being allowed to terminate their babies several weeks after they're born.

Small children would, of course, be a notable exception.

[RumTumTugger]

I like that you put people in italics, because that's something that liberals are going to treat as an ugly grey zone for the forseeable future. Peter Singer, et. al. arguing about post-birth abortion, and for the culling of the elderly population who is becoming a strain on resources. All in the interest of maximizing happiness, of course.

Leonhard Starlight agrees with Peter Singer. He believes and has said it would be ok to kill a 3 month old baby when she is not perfect. of course he is going to try and use the false dichotemy between human beings and people so he can dehumanize who ever he wants to.

Implied assumption, the entire marriage debate was precisely about what marriage is. I don't deny gay people marriage. A homosexual man may marry a woman just as much as I do. However if he partners up with another man, and holds a ceremony and vows to be at that person's side to the end of time. Aside from that, there's no marriage, because what has happened is the point of marriage has become divorced from procreation. As soon as one divorces the point of sex from marriage, and allow contraception, all these other things, abortion and gay wedding follow as natural progressions.

starlight and his ilk have to put it the way he does so he can falsely demonize the opponents of changing the definition of marriage so he can dehumanize them

Except of course freedom to disagree in good conscience. Also thanks for catching up to something Jesuits and the Catholic Church have been advocating for for centuries in one form or another.

par for the course for liberals of Starlights ilk he and his ilk do not know the meaning of the word freedom or tolerance for that matter.

We're talking about abortion here, not the conservative political platform. You're poisoning the well.

also par for the course for Starlight and his ilk.

Except of course that the Catholic Church have been universally against the cruel evil of abortion in all its forms, originally in the form of parents killing their children outright, also when they later found poisons to be used for that. Very recently in light of the growing evil of abortion, it was declared that you cannot be a Catholic participate in the evil of abortion. So someone like Nancy Pelosi, is latente sententia excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

but to starlight and his ilk who call evil good abortion is good being against abortion is evil.

And I like your idea that this was something done randomly. How do you figure that? Do you have any idea how the prolife movement got started, and where it came from? Have you actually read the papal encyclicals and the reasoning behind them? In Scholastic metaphysics, for over a century it was considered fact that the human being is present even at fertilization. And this was from purely natural reasoning, without bringing in religious reasons at all, though the Church have those as well.

yes starlight and his ilk to dehumanize the unborn babies which is why he ignores what the latin word fetus means all so that they can call evil good.

you are talking the person who thinks is to okay to kill a 3 month old baby because they have not developed their thought processes enough.

[Tassman]

Interesting how a collection of cells can suddenly become a human heart, human liver, human lung, when money is involved. The undeniable fact here is that when we're talking about the unborn we're talking about the lives of human beings. Killing the unborn has nothing to do with "reproductive health."

In Jewish law, and remember Jesus was a Jew, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. An unborn child has the status of "potential human life".

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion

Obviously, one respects the human potential of the fetus and abortions are not to be undertaken lightly, but the emotive talk about "murdering babies in the womb" is misplaced. It is a fetus until birth and only at birth does it have has personhood and rights.