Twist in Planned Parenthood Saga--Does it Change Anyone's Mind?

[jimmy eat jazz]

Ok, so after a grand jury investigation Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any wrong doing with regards to the tapes that came out some months back purporting to show PP engaging in elicit sale of fetal body parts, among other things. But, in an unexpected twist, the Grant Jury indicted the creators of said tapes for fraud and for elicit purchase (or attempt to purchase) fetal body parts.

What seems clear here is that PP is not guilty of engaging in the elicit sale of fetal body parts, and that, thus, the tapes that came out were indeed heavily edited (as many claimed they were) to give the false impression that it was.

So, the question is, does this change anyone's mind, NOT with regards to abortion, but with regards to PP? Given that the outrage expressed by some here was in specific response to these tapes, and the belief that PP trafficked in fetal body parts for profit, now that this belief has been shown to be wrong, are you now willing to reconsider your perceptions of PP?

While I'm at it, I would like to pose two related questions for those who consider themselves anti-abortion and/or anti-PP and who favor shutting down or yanking public funding to PP.

1. If by shutting down PP, or by yanking public funding of PP, it resulted in a significant reduction of reproductive services to poor women (or more generally women without or with limited access to reproductive services), would you still favor shutting down PP or yanking its public funding?

2. If by shutting down PP, or by yanking public funding of PP, it resulted in an increase in abortions because poor women (or more generally women without or with limited access to reproductive services)suffered reduced access to family planning services, would you still favor shutting down PP or yanking its public funding?

And, since some who hate PP also buy decry the rate of illegitimacy and absent father babies, a further question:

3. If by shutting down PP, or by yanking public funding of PP, it resulted in an increase in illegitimate or absent father babies because poor women (or more generally women without or with limited access to reproductive services)suffered reduced access to family planning services, would you still favor shutting down PP or yanking its public funding?

 

[Gameface]

Ok, so after a grand jury investigation Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any wrong doing with regards to the tapes that came out some months back purporting to show PP engaging in elicit sale of fetal body parts, among other things. But, in an unexpected twist, the Grant Jury indicted the creators of said tapes for fraud and for elicit purchase (or attempt to purchase) fetal body parts.

What seems clear here is that PP is not guilty of engaging in the elicit sale of fetal body parts, and that, thus, the tapes that came out were indeed heavily edited (as many claimed they were) to give the false impression that it was.

So, the question is, does this change anyone's mind, NOT with regards to abortion, but with regards to PP? Given that the outrage expressed by some here was in specific response to these tapes, and the belief that PP trafficked for profit in fetal body parts, now that this belief has been shown to be wrong, are you now willing to reconsider your perceptions of PP?

Not mine.

I was strongly in favor of PP before the tapes. I was strongly in favor of PP after I saw the tapes. I am strongly in favor of PP now.

 

[fishonjazz]

Not mine.

I was strongly in favor of PP before the tapes. I was strongly in favor of PP after I saw the tapes. I am strongly in favor of PP now.

This is how I feel too.

All the planned parenthood haters are/were dumbasses

 

[b_line]

Same as the fish game here.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I have less respect for them. I like organizations that sell dead babies for cash. It is called being resourceful. I mean, why throw away a perfectly useful dead baby when you can sell it?

 

[♪alt13]

I have less respect for them. I like organizations that sell dead babies for cash. It is called being resourceful. I mean, why throw away a perfectly useful dead baby when you can sell it?

I'm also very disappointed. It's pretty hard to find fresh dead baby. Imitation dead baby sucks. Srsly soy is a ****in bean, it ain't never gunna taste like the real thing.

 

[Archie Moses]

1. Yes, the videos were edited and propagated to conform with an agenda. If the guy who made them broke laws making them, I have no problem with him being indicted.
2. It still doesn't change the fact that PPH employees were caught on camera saying incriminating things, regardless if they were set up to do so. It's like a prostitute saying cops can't set up stings on them because they were set up to break the law.
3. There have been many former PPH employees and high ranking ones that have come out and said how PPH breaks the law. This always gets brushed under the rug. Yes, there should be evidence to prove it, but it doesn't mean what they say is completely false.
4. Abortion is controversial. If you're pro-abortion, that's your right and there are many reasons as to why abortion can be beneficial. That said, why does tax payer's dollars have to go to an organization that performs them? They should be separated and performed at a non-government funded facility, plain and simple.
5. Yes, according to audits, tax payer's money haven't gone into abortions. That said, money is fungible. It's completely naive to think that PPH's abortions don't benefit from tax payer's money.

Just my two cents.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

1. Yes, the videos were edited and propagated to conform with an agenda. If the guy who made them broke laws making them, I have no problem with him being indicted.
2. It still doesn't change the fact that PPH employees were caught on camera saying incriminating things, regardless if they were set up to do so. It's like a prostitute saying cops can't set up stings on them because they were set up to break the law.
3. There have been many former PPH employees and high ranking ones that have come out and said how PPH breaks the law. This always gets brushed under the rug. Yes, there should be evidence to prove it, but it doesn't mean what they say is completely false.
4. Abortion is controversial. If you're pro-abortion, that's your right and there are many reasons as to why abortion can be beneficial. That said, why does tax payer's dollars have to go to an organization that performs them? They should be separated and performed at a non-government funded facility, plain and simple.
5. Yes, according to audits, tax payer's money haven't gone into abortions. That said, money is fungible. It's completely naive to think that PPH's abortions don't benefit from tax payer's money.

Just my two cents.

Do you agree or disagree that abortions are part of a complete package of women's reproductive services?

Granted, many people oppose abortions, some on non-religious grounds, but the large majority on religious grounds (or are religious folks drawing on religious beliefs). Do you feel comfortable allowing religious belief to dictate the types of health services you receive or that are provided more generally to others? I'm assuming you are uncomfortable about it, as would many of our religious friends (e.g., the most ardent evangelical seeking to legislate his/her religious beliefs on society would, no doubt, be horrified at any attempt to legislate the beliefs of other faiths(or Christian beliefs of the non-fundamentalist variety). Why do we give so much deference to this clear intrusion of religion on health care service delivery in this ONE case but recoil of the thought of allowing religion to intrude on the provision of other healthcare services.

 

[Archie Moses]

Do you agree or disagree that abortions are part of a complete package of women's reproductive services?

Granted, many people oppose abortions, some on non-religious grounds, but the large majority on religious grounds (or are religious folks drawing on religious beliefs). Do you feel comfortable allowing religious belief to dictate the types of health services you receive or that are provided more generally to others? I'm assuming you are uncomfortable about it, as would many of our religious friends (e.g., the most ardent evangelical seeking to legislate his/her religious beliefs on society would, no doubt, be horrified at any attempt to legislate the beliefs of other faiths(or Christian beliefs of the non-fundamentalist variety). Why do we give so much deference to this clear intrusion of religion on health care service delivery in this ONE case but recoil of the thought of allowing religion to intrude on the provision of other healthcare services.

I'm not sure what point your trying to prove with your first question.
Do you really think that people who are against abortions are solely against the taking of life/abortions based off of religious beliefs alone? What if, just what if, there are people that feel the taking of life (according to science) is wrong?

 

[sirkickyass]

It still doesn't change the fact that PPH employees were caught on camera saying incriminating things, regardless if they were set up to do so. It's like a prostitute saying cops can't set up stings on them because they were set up to break the law.

I think the situation here was much closer to entrapment than a sting operation. That's the real issue.

4. Abortion is controversial. If you're pro-abortion, that's your right and there are many reasons as to why abortion can be beneficial. That said, why does tax payer's dollars have to go to an organization that performs them? They should be separated and performed at a non-government funded facility, plain and simple.
5. Yes, according to audits, tax payer's money haven't gone into abortions. That said, money is fungible. It's completely naive to think that PPH's abortions don't benefit from tax payer's money.

Honest question not meant to be an attack: How many people do you know that have had an abortion? And if some, would you describe that process as being too difficult for them or too easy?

 

[Archie Moses]

To answer your question, Kicky (it didn't come across as an attack and I actually appreciate you being level headed in your post.) I'd say, no more than 5 that I know had them. Never discussed how easy it was with them because I know it wasn't.
My oldest brother impregnated a girl he was dating. This was unbeknown to him. She had an abortion and then told my brother about it. My brother had been sober for a year and was killing it. During his sobriety, he got into stand up, headlined at Wiseguy's and even went on comedy tours. I was beyond proud of him and so was pretty much everyone that knew him. When he found out that she aborted his kid, he couldn't deal with the stress or anxiety of it (always wanted a kid, but couldn't ever get his ex pregnant- which didn't help his marriage at all when he was married) and relapsed. He died two weeks later.

 

[sirkickyass]

To answer your question, Kicky (it didn't come across as an attack and I actually appreciate you being level headed in your post.) I'd say, no more than 5 that I know had them. Never discussed how easy it was with them because I know it wasn't.

I guess I should have asked something else a little more specifically. It sounds as if you're aware of some people you know who have had them but weren't particularly intimately involved.

I know lots of people who have, for various reasons, had the procedure performed. In every instance, the stories of trying to acquire one are just horrible. Not only do they make you go through the process of having to actually go the doctor (this is a bigger barrier than people realize, but think about all the times your stubborn relatives didn't want to go get something checked out), but they are doing it when they are emotional and flooded with hormones. Then they have figure out where to go, in which in many areas is very difficult. There might only be one or two places in the whole state. Then they sometimes have to cross a picket line and have strangers scream at them about their medical decisions. Then they have to have a consultation with a doctor who has to read them a list of reasons that they are a terrible person because the fetus has fingernails or a heartbeat. Then, in many states, they have to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound performed where they are told to look at a screen and told that something on that screen is their child. Oh, and then they don't even get to have the abortion today because the state says they have to go home and think about what they've done.

That means going back through the screaming people they don't know. Going home, feeling like crap because they just got put through a state-mandated guilt trip. Then they get to go through the whole trip and picket line again just so they can have a medical procedure done that also makes them feel terrible. Even the "take a pill" version makes them go through hell for the whole next day while they bleed everywhere and suffer extreme nausea. Surgical procedures are worse. Then, they get periodic reminders of it their whole life if they were foolish enough to let the wrong people know.

All of the above is, in many states, the best case scenario. If you're poor and don't have access to reliable transportation or the funds necessary to receive an abortion, then you're just ****ed or your'e left to do things that are much riskier.

My point here is really pretty small: we're talking about real people who have to make real decisions about their lives. They don't make any funding decisions about how money gets distributed inside organizations. They're just looking for healthcare. And, fundamentally, when you spend all your time trying to stop Planned Parenthood from doing what they're doing, the people you're actually hurting are those women who are already having a **** time in the best case scenario. It's a level of abstraction that makes some people feel good to say they are "saving babies" but that removes all other life, and all other consequences of life, from the equation.

Abortion will always be controversial, but that doesn't give everyone a right to endlessly argue that no dollar can ever be commingled with another dollar that might have been used in an abortion related procedure. The process of government is understanding that it serves everyone, and not just you. I have a lot of objections about faith-based organizations that receive funding and the questionable things they do. But I'm not going to try and manipulate videos to make them seem to be monsters for political gain. And that's what happened here. Sometimes we have to accept that we will not be benefiting from every funding decision that government makes.

My oldest brother impregnated a girl he was dating. This was unbeknown to him. She had an abortion and then told my brother about it. My brother had been sober for a year and was killing it. During his sobriety, he got into stand up, headlined at Wiseguy's and even went on comedy tours. I was beyond proud of him and so was pretty much everyone that knew him. When he found out that she aborted his kid, he couldn't deal with the stress or anxiety of it (always wanted a kid, but couldn't ever get his ex pregnant- which didn't help his marriage at all when he was married) and relapsed. He died two weeks later.

Obviously this is a tough subject for you. If abortion is complex, then suicide is even more so.

All of that said, and I promise I'm not trying to be insensitive, it sounds to me like your brother had a lot of stuff going on and it wasn't just about any single incident. I know, I know, it's shocking to note that a comedian was actually kind of depressed.

There aren't really good guys and bad guys in these kinds of situations. Just people who are all muddling around trying to figure out what the best thing to do is. I'm sorry your family suffered through a worst case scenario. But that, to me, isn't really a story about abortion. It's a story about depression and mental illness, and abortion is a guest star.

I return regularly to a small set of humanist ideas when we talk about the big issues. When I read stories like that one I keep returning to the concept that "to make others unhappy is a crime. To make yourself unhappy is where all crime starts." You and yours were victims of a great crime.

All that being said, what separates us as civilization from the cold world is the existence of empathy. Crime does not excuse anyone from the burdens of needing to empathize with others. We must still live in this world. Have some pity for everyone involved, but don't try to act like the real evil involved in these situations is that money is too fungible and we need to make it harder and more expensive for people by traipsing them to different locations. That's about form, rather than the needs of people who are just doing the best they can.

/polemic

 

[fishonjazz]

To answer your question, Kicky (it didn't come across as an attack and I actually appreciate you being level headed in your post.) I'd say, no more than 5 that I know had them. Never discussed how easy it was with them because I know it wasn't.
My oldest brother impregnated a girl he was dating. This was unbeknown to him. She had an abortion and then told my brother about it. My brother had been sober for a year and was killing it. During his sobriety, he got into stand up, headlined at Wiseguy's and even went on comedy tours. I was beyond proud of him and so was pretty much everyone that knew him. When he found out that she aborted his kid, he couldn't deal with the stress or anxiety of it (always wanted a kid, but couldn't ever get his ex pregnant- which didn't help his marriage at all when he was married) and relapsed. He died two weeks later.

That sucks dude.

What a bitch for telling him she had an abortion after the fact. Sounds like she was intentionally trying to hurt him

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'm not sure what point your trying to prove with your first question.
Do you really think that people who are against abortions are solely against the taking of life/abortions based off of religious beliefs alone? What if, just what if, there are people that feel the taking of life (according to science) is wrong?

The point of the first question is this: IF we agree that abortion services are an important part of the full package of women's reproductive services, then this should, I would think, influence our perceptions about the appropriateness of activism to deny women access to the full range of legal, legitimate reproductive services.

I believe I conceded that there is a non-religious basis for opposing abortion, but my point is that opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly religiously driven. (Similarly, there are some who invoke non-religious reasons to oppose homosexuality, but the vast majority of activism against gays is religiously driven.) That being the case, how comfortable do we feel about the prospect that healthcare services provided to women (or conceivably men) are determined by religious belief, with the understanding that, even many anti-abortion activists, would balk at some other religious tradition determining what health care services we receive, with the understanding that if we open the door to allowing religious belief to answer these questions, we are apt at one point to be on the other side of the issue than the religious folks?

 

[GVC]

I believe I conceded that there is a non-religious basis for opposing abortion, but my point is that opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly religiously driven. (Similarly, there are some who invoke non-religious reasons to oppose homosexuality, but the vast majority of activism against gays is religiously driven.) That being the case, how comfortable do we feel about the prospect that healthcare services provided to women (or conceivably men) are determined by religious belief, with the understanding that, even many anti-abortion activists, would balk at some other religious tradition determining what health care services we receive, with the understanding that if we open the door to allowing religious belief to answer these questions, we are apt at one point to be on the other side of the issue than the religious folks?

Not a fan of outlawing blood transfusions or mandating female genital mutilation?

 

[Nate505]

Not mine.

I was strongly in favor of PP before the tapes. I was strongly in favor of PP after I saw the tapes. I am strongly in favor of PP now.

Same here. My wife went to PP before our son was born. I was shocked, just shocked, that they actually cared about her and the baby's health and didn't try to push an abortion on us every 5 seconds. Just shocked!

 

[candrew]

Yeah - definitely changed my mind.

And while we're at it, next time we catch a couple of white collar criminals we should stop funding the Commerce Department and then blow up Wall Street.

 

[The Thriller]

I have seen this written a few times recently.

Who's pro abortion?

I know of many people who are pro choice. I don't know of many who are pro abortion.

 

[The Thriller]

If you're pro life, then you should love PP.

The vast majority of their services go towards the health care and education of people who would be screwed otherwise.

What better way to prevent abortion than to provide the education, birth control, and planned parenthood that PP provides?

If you want people to have abortion, then lets get rid of PP, stick with abstinence only sex education, cut health care, and make it impossible for the poor to obtain birth control. Lets follow the Palin Family way of education. It's been working out marvelously for Bristol.

 

[Gameface]

If you're pro life, then you should love PP.

The vast majority of their services go towards the health care and education of people who would be screwed otherwise.

What better way to prevent abortion than to provide the education, birth control, and planned parenthood that PP provides?

If you want people to have abortion, then lets get rid of PP, stick with abstinence only sex education, cut health care, and make it impossible for the poor to obtain birth control. Lets follow the Palin Family way of education. It's been working out marvelously for Bristol.

Was about to give you a like, then you had to bring petty politics and low blows into it. You have got to know the whole R vs D thing makes WWE look respectable, right? I mean, there's nothing more fake than the good guys vs the bad guys when it comes to politics. They're all phony little slime balls. Getting caught up in their act is childish.