I'm a libertarian. Why should I support them at all? People will get whatever services they want on the free market, if not via PP then via competitors.

PP is part of the left-wing political machine, founded by a eugenicist and deeply in bed with the Democrats.

Let them compete in the free market just like every plumber, carpenter, software engineer and accountant. The gov shouldn't be subsidizing them.

Assuming we all think that government funding of cancer screenings, contraception, STD's, and "other women's health services" is both a good thing and a valid use of government(aka taxpayer) money...

Why should it go to PP? Why not to the other clinics that do NOT perform abortions?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against cancer screenings, but even in affluent DC suburbia, there's a cheap walk-in clinic that covers much of that. I can't be certain they aren't on the government dole (they are probably required to take Medicare or something), but it's just a health clinic. For that matter, Target has a health clinic that can do a good chunk of that (basically, much of that is a nurse, a blood draw, and send it off to LabCorp or similar).

I have no problem with any individual or company supporting PP, that is freedom of speech via wallet. I just don't get why it should be supported by taxpayers.

Having been a patron of PP, I still give a small contribution here and there when I can. Back in the day, PP was where I got my birth control, without my parents' knowledge, btw, so I wouldn't HAVE to avail myself of their abortion services. Ferpetesakes, I don't care if they are in bed with the Dems, PP provides much needed services that a LOT of women would otherwise not be able to get! And they don't ask which party you belong to, either.

The 3% figure is misleading. By revenue, it's somewhere between 30 and 40%.

Yes, but a lot of those services are because that gets them government grants.

And access. And authority.

Take those away, and that pie chart changes radically.

abortion services made up a mere three percent of the services performed in 2011, while 95% of the services provided included STD testing and treatment, cancer screening and prevention, and contraception:

"Mere 3%". Right. Did they STD check everybody who had an abortion? Yup. So Abortion Percent of "services" just went from 100 to 50!

Wait, did they also counsel on contraception! 33% if they did!!

I mean, it's great and all the other things they're doing.

But it's really playing - hard - with numbers and ignoring the issue, in order to call people who disagree with PP's abortion business names.

If they aren't fudging their numbers, like the way Unix-Jedi suggests then it should be easy to make cut that minor sliver off of their programs, if it actually were only 3%.

Gov't shouldn't be in the charity buisness, no matter how good it may be. Partially bcause of the moral arguments it created.
The same friends who will argue that no gov't money goes to abortions, ae the same ones who say money given to religious groups who run homeless shelters and job training programs are using the money to promote religion.
Can't have it both ways, money is fungible, in both situations. Money given to PP does support abortion, just as money given to religious based job training supports religion.

If individuals want to give to PP and religious homeless shelters, more power to you, but gov't should not.

When Obamacare kicks in, PP can close shop, correct? They'll be superfluous. Unless, of course, there's still to many poor black babies, then they'll need to stick around for awhile.

Why should I support them at all? People will get whatever services they want on the free market, if not via PP then via competitors..

Many of the people who go to PP do not have the luxury of shopping around on the free market for competitors. When I was underinsured for six months, I found 0 other providers located near me who would provide me services on a sliding income-based scale.

Haggling with health care providers takes time.
PP was like, "OK, you only make this much. So you only pay this much."

It was less than half the cost of the same service offered by other clinics.

For those in even more rural areas, I imagine the choices are even fewer.

PP kept me healthy and employable when I had little money and great need for their services. And they were located on a bus route and open for a couple hours after I got off work.

I'm not saying they are the best option for everyone in every case in every city. But they are a fantastic organization that offers the flexibility and low costs that are difficult to find elsewhere. So I donate to them. Before I could afford to donate to them, I volunteered for them. I'm all for competition between health care providers, but, since PP offered me the most competitive services, I want to give them more fuel to continue doing so.

FWIW, I also donate to a Catholic charity that provides free daycare for the kids of low-income parents. I'm passionate about giving women reproductive choice AND helping parents who already have kids stay employed so they can support them. PP does the former, the Catholic charity (which I also volunteered for, so I KNOW they do good work) does the latter.

Wait...do you mean Planned Parenthood?

Quoting from the linkie:

The Planned Parenthood clinic in Dover has temporarily suspended surgical abortions while the Wilmington affiliate has closed completely for cleaning and re-staffing, according to Planned Parenthood statements to the media and on their website. At least three employees, one thought to be troubled abortionist Eric Schaff, have quit or been fired since dangerous conditions at the facilities were exposed.

Does PP not inspect their own facilities, and keep them to the highest standard for an out-patient surgical facility?

"Does PP not inspect their own facilities, and keep them to the highest standard for an out-patient surgical facility?"

In Dover or in every PP clinic?

If they provide other services, why are those other services provided only for women? They should include men also if they want support. And if they are getting government money and still excluding men(and even if they are not getting government money) they are definitely guilty of discrimination against half the population that needs their "services".

Planned Parenthood also provides services for men.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/men-4285.htm

If they provide other services, why are those other services provided only for women? They should include men also if they want support.

Planned Parenthood provides sexual health services to men and women, which you'd know if you'd done a simple google search instead of telegraphing your uninformed opinion as fact.

huh, their federal funding was signed by that republican-woman-hating-SOB Richard Nixon? huh, who'da thunk it?

It's a quasi- type group that makes me queasy...
IF they get federal funds, then they should split their abortions operation off into it's own foundation so that there is a certainty that the funding is pure.

But they won't do that, because they ARE pushing an agenda. If the abortion group stood alone, that would expose it to scrutiny, and they certainly don't want that.

And IF abortions are such a small part of what they do anyway, this should be EASY, right?

Except it's not. As has been mentioned the 3% number is a cipher. 3% of what? 3% of phonecalls, or contacts? 3% of information?

They do 300K abortions per year or 25% of all abortions per year in the US. [per Guttmacher 1.2m per year]

Somehow that seems more... than 3%. Cribbing from wiki, after I checked the links:
"Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S.[6] In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions (for comparison, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the US in 2008[84]), from which it derives about $164,154,000, or 15% of its annual revenue as of their 2008-2009 calculations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

The question is, so what? Some stuff they do is good, particularly in terms of health, and education...
Some of it is stuff you don't want your government paying for.

Pro-choice people are COUNTING on the fact that you don't want to lose the good parts... which puts pro life people in a particular bind.

Importantly PP's lobbying efforts under the guise of "Reproductive Rights" suffer NO mention of pro life. Certainly this is the shadow of their eugenics past.

Oh, and "Reproductive Rights"? Yeah, well not for men. If my wife decided she wants to abort my child, she doesn't need my consent. And everything PP has ever lobbied for reinforces that idea. The idea that a child needs no parent consent when that child has been statutory raped and they'll just keep quiet? Yeah they're pushing that too.

Lets not pretend that this is some white knight organization, and everyone who has another opinion is a knuckle dragging neanderthal, shall we?
The fed should insist that the abortion unit split off or divest funding.

And THEN, everybody wins. Pro life people who like the other services, can know that their tax dollars are spent appropriately.
The pro choice people can fund the abortion provider portion to their heart's content, without interference. They'll prolly knock it outta the park.

And IF it can't survive without Federal Funding, then we know that everything for years has been a LIE on this subject.

And that 8 Million abortions provided by PP in the 40+ years since fed funding started, were all done in my name and with my money.

I'll be curious to see how Obamacare fits into all of this. Very interested.

full disclosure: I dun like abortions, because there isn't much satisfactory evidence for WHEN we are alive, and when we are human. That said, it's an individual thing, made that way by the laws, laws that so far haven't been changed.

The inconvenient fact that we can't scientifically point to a moment in time and say "THIS, this is the beginning of human life. To kill after this is murder..." Bothers me a lot.
But both sides, pretty much say "SHUT UP!" over that question.

Counting "services" rather than "dollars". Sadly, the rubes will never notice.

Next PP should claim they prevent 200,000,000 unwanted pregnancies per condom dispensed and compare the tiny, insignificant count of tiny, insignificant corpses to that. It's negligible, negligible I tell you!

And negligence is what they demand, and what they got from those entrusted with their oversight.

Even Mussolini got the trains to run on time. A boon to those using them, I'm sure, but not a reason to endorse or support Mussolini in general. Same thing here.

One should expect government personnel to be honest and truthful.

That's about the most ridiculous air-headed argument that I've ever seen. And I'm not even talking about the skewed stats. Just the prima facia argument.

Lets use your argument theory in some other ways and see what happens:

Anyone want some cow poop brownies? Only 3% cow poop... the rest is delicious chocolate.

Hey - I only murdered 3% of my neighbors. Other than that, I take care of the poor and am a really nice guy.

I only cheat on my wife 10 days a year. Other than that I'm the best husband you can imagine.

As a company comptroller, I only embezzle 3% of the corporate funds. Otherwise, I'm as responsible and frugal with my employers revenues.

Get the point?

The abortion argument hinges on one thing: When does life begin?

If you believe life begins at conception, then you believe all abortion is murder. If you believe life begins at birth, then you believe all abortion is ok. If you believe something in the middle, you support reasonable limits to abortion.

The only thing that's clear in the abortion debate is this: whatever you believe, any other opinion is awful, and nobody is going to change your mind.

Even if you are in favor of abortion (as I am, reluctantly), you still need to make arguments that are based on fact. Publishing a Media Matters story about Planned Parenthood and taking it face value is irresponsible. And you know it.
The numbers are cooked to promote a political agenda.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/05/false-abortion-is-only-3-of-planned-parenthoods-services/

This suggests a market-based solution: An "everything that PP does except abortions" (or, for other markets, "everything except abortions and contraception"), to compete for the money of people who don't particularly like those two things.

See where the money goes, rather than suggesting people must support the full pie despite not liking one slice at all, because the others are so great.

Me, I don't give a damn about it. At all. So they're not getting my money, because apathy, not because abortions.

(I'm with Amy in that PP is not so much "about abortions" as "about population control"; contraception works just as well for that end.

Abortions are arguably there as much as anything, to provide an incentive for the Left to donate given the current identification of Abortion as a Progressive Cause; every time the Conservatives attack PP over it?

Goldmine.*

* This is also why the "everything-but-abortions" model will never be started from the Progressive side or as a splinter from PP; it cuts off a giant source of attention and funding.)

Rather than filtering money thru planned parenthood, wouldn't a better solution be to make contraception, including RU 486 over the counter, and then let Medicaid, public health, and private medical care pick up the rest of the mission?

I don't see a first trimester abortion as a horrible sin, but think, like the Supreme Court , that questions out to be raised in the second trimester, and very serious screening should be done before any abortion or early delivery is done in the third trimester.
As far as rape and incest are concerned: Every single one of us alive today, at some point in our genetic line is the direct or indirect product of both rape, and incest.

This does not make me or you less valuable as a human being, and I really wish feminists would stop beating this drum as a justification for late term abortion.

Amy, the entire argument rests on your use of the word: "MOSTLY".

unfortunately, that only works IF you accept the idea that a contact to ask advice about proper use of a condom IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE to a full abortion.

Honestly, I think they should change the name of "Planned Parenthood" to "People who wipe up after dumb idiots too stupid to be having sex".
(The only case this doesn't apply to is rape victims or cases where birth control fails.)

They do some good work, but I fail to see the need for them.If you are a responsible person, STD's (or STI's, have we gotten THAT PC now?) and unplanned pregnancies are not an issue. If you're responsible, the most you'll get is an orgasm.

Teenage Pregnancy? Your parents can support it, cause they were too stupid and lazy to monitor who and what their kid was doing, and obviously too morally bankrupt to give their kid values and responsibility.

Otherwise, your doctor can take care of it.

"As far as rape and incest are concerned: Every single one of us alive today, at some point in our genetic line is the direct or indirect product of both rape, and incest."

HUH?

What the fuck kinda fork is in your family tree?

@George,
I hate to tell you this, but federal food safety regulations do allow for a small percentage of crap in your food.

Re Eugenics: Eugenics is good, and you all support it every day. Its used in breeding livestock for food, in agriculture to breed hardier crops to avoid famine, and by your parents to choose who they wanted to fuck and have kids with. You support it every time you buy a new pet, you support it every time you choose 'Del Monte' canned vegetables over the generic brand or 'Black Angus' beef over holstien. People need to stop conflating eugenics and genocide.

Re where life at begins:
According to the bible life doesnt begin until first breath,
According to science life doenst begin until around week 25.
According to no scientific or religious authority does life begin at conception, and I chalange everyone who believes so to show some sort of proof to that effect

There is no evidence life begins at conception, and even if it did TRILLIONS of fertilized eggs have failed to implant or self abort due to hundreds of issues.

Making god the greatest abortionist of all, and how can any believe condemn a man for emulating god?

"As far as rape and incest are concerned: Every single one of us alive today, at some point in our genetic line is the direct or indirect product of both rape, and incest."

HUH?

What the fuck kinda fork is in your family tree?"

The same Cromagnons, and Neanderthals who were in YOUR family tree, only apparently, my particular ancestors were a lot smarter.

Do you honestly think that 20 thousand years ago, cavemen were going out on "dates" and then having consensual sex after tea and cookies?

Wars were common, rape was common, and incest in small groups was almost unavoidable.
Genetic history is messy and more unsavory evidence of our origins comes to light every day.

I wish to God, your special kind of historical idiocy was restricted to Canadians, but sadly, it is quite common in the US too.

What the fuck kinda fork is in your family tree? -- wtf at May 8, 2013 4:58 PM

If you look at this: http://dna.ancestry.com/ you'll see that apparently a large amount of the tests come out as a dog's breakfast of regions and origins.

"Get the point?"

Yes, George, we get the point - some people are so stupid they equate abortion with murder.

> Being libertarian doesn't mean not giving money to
> others -- it means not wanting the government
> (funded by taxpayer dollars) to do it.

☑

> But it's really playing - hard - with numbers and
> ignoring the issue, in order to call people who
> disagree with PP's abortion business names.

½ ☑

It's hard not to believe Unix is right about this.

> Planned Parenthood also provides services
> for men.

☑

> The abortion argument hinges on one thing:

Says who? I don't think it's hinged. I think it's a not-great response to a situation that can ruin lives & families with consequences streaming until the end of time.

> If you believe life begins at conception, then you
> believe all abortion is murder.

Guess again, Comment-Breath! I believe the lives of humans commence with their conception. I simultaneously believe that abortion is almost always unnecessary death, yet is could only in the rarest (but still indistinguishable) cases be called "murder."

> nobody is going to change your mind.

My mind changed about three times in the first two decades, and then stabilized in this present condition of oracular wisdom and Salomonic decency. Hear my words and follow me... There is no higher truth. In your heart you know this is true.

> I don't see a first trimester abortion as a
> horrible sin

Me neither, but over the course of our lifetimes, science has kept moving the transition point back and back and back. Gosnel offends us for very good reasons.

> What the fuck kinda fork is in your family tree?

Seriously, how old are you? Do you understand how old this species is, or how dynamic human standards of conduct have been?

> Genetic history is messy and more unsavory
> evidence of our origins comes to light every day.

Exactly. Exactly.

See also February 6, 2006 6:50 AM.

Here's a link to Margaret Sanger's thought provoking book The Pivot of Civilization. I recommend reading the whole thing:

http://www.archive.org/stream/pivotofcivilizat00sanguoft#page/n7/mode/2up

Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which later evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She was not an advocate of abortion. She advocated sex education and birth control to free women (and men) from the consequences of unrestrained sex and to decrease the fecundity of the unfit.

I think her rationale for promoting sex education and birth control are still a strong inspiration for the work of Planned Parenthood, which today includes abortion.

One of the first directors of the American Birth Control League, appointed by Sanger, was Lothrop Stoddard. The views,goals and recommendations described in Sanger's book, Pivot of Civilization, are very similar to Stoddard's views in one of his books, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, which was published about the same time:

http://archive.org/stream/risingtideofcolo00stod#page/n5/mode/2up

lul, cite where the bible says life begins at breath? Because I seem to recall a lot of "I knew you even in the womb" lines.

And do tell how science has decided life begins at 25 weeks? I'm sure the parents of the 23 and 24 weekers in every level 3 NICU in the country would be interested to know their child is not alive. Do you volunteer to make the rounds and pitch them all in the trash? Do you have any medical training at all? No? Then feel free to stop telling us false facts about what science says.

Swiss, you are human at conception. What else would you be, a cow? As for alive, a beating heart seems like a good clue to me.

I want people to stop having children they can't afford and that then I have to pay for either to feed, house, medicate or because of shitty parenting that leads to incarceration.

I was watching the news with my parents and these moms were protesting the fact that the school district was cutting the breakfast program. They were screaming how are we going to feed our kids? We can't afford to give them breakfast.

The irony is they were pregnant AND had babies in their arms.

I'm all for Planed Parenthood.

Only 3 percent of TSA screenings are molestation or theft, so OK then.

Not one cent.

When they stop getting 45% of their funding from government subsidies, and when they stop fudging their numbers to cover for the fact that they perform about 25% of all of the abortions in the US and actually provide (note that I said "provide," not "refer out for") exactly zero cancer screenings, I'll consider donating.

In the meantime, abortion isn't a question of murder, or of when life begins; it's a question of the unnecessary and irresponsible ending of potential. Actions have consequences - actions like sexual intercourse. Being irresponsible about engaging in it, then asserting some kind of "right" to be free of the consequences, is the height of immaturity. Especially considering that the "consequence" is a potential human.

I really don't think that this is hard to understand. People just claim that it is to excuse behavior which is almost always inexcuable, i.e. abortion without a medical justification.

"Do you honestly think that 20 thousand years ago, cavemen were going out on "dates" and then having consensual sex after tea and cookies?"

No, but thankfully, we don't have all that much in common with them anymore, at least not to the point where we'll be affected by it much.....well, maybe you will with the sloped forehead and all...
Neanderthal.....gimme a break!

@ Jim, same thing, I thought he was talking recent like medieval times recent....which did happen with the kissing cousins and all, more widespread than most people know but not as wide spread and recent as he was implying. They knew about blood in the "forbidden degree".

"Seriously, how old are you? Do you understand how old this species is, or how dynamic human standards of conduct have been?"

I think I understand it a little bit better than you, methinks....

Don't worry about my age Crid, everyone gets old, you don't have to worry about it.

"it's a question of the unnecessary and irresponsible ending of potential."

I wonder what Ayn Rand had to say about that argument?

"To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives"

> irresponsible ending of potential.

280 sperm per ejaculation; most pregnancies begin and end without anyone being aware of them.

What are your metrics for responsible "ending of potential"?

The abortion argument hinges on one thing: When does life begin?

Nah. Life begins at conception. Lots of things are alive and we don't give a crap about them, like the sourdough starter sitting on my counter. The more important question is, does it matter?

"Anyone want some cow poop brownies? Only 3% cow poop... the rest is delicious chocolate."

Posted by: George at May 8, 2013 2:22 PM

Based on your point, the fact that we have insect parts (which likely includes insect poop), should be unacceptable. But it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels

Listen, there's rape in our families and there bugs in our food. M'kay? Food comes from dirt, and souls come from worse things than that. It's a "human condition" thing. We need to keep the proportions under control....

But people who're deluded about who we are or what were supposed to be made of shouldn't be writing the standards.