Another Lie from Planned Parenthood

[JFarrish]

County health offices are present.

People who argue that health care is not an issue for the poor often have not spent much time with them.

Transportation, timeoff from work, child care, doctor access, wait times, and cost…

The poor do rely heavily on county hospital care (and the associated ERs that are vanishing). But because of the hurdles to get care, it occurs in the context of advanced probems.

Preventive care both provides lower costs to society and better health care outcomes (better to detect cancer in screening when you feel fine rather than waiting until abdominal pain and bleeding send you to the county ER instead of your day labor job).

 

[JFarrish]

Do come back to the thread
and watch the video linked above.

IOW, see Post #37.

I did, then I watched the unedited longer video, which several news outlets are posting. There does not appear to be a claim of mammogram services to me, the context appears to be overall preventive care.

Again, this appears to be getting dangerously into territory were unChristian acts are used to try to promote a good. Planned Parenthood web sites make no such claim, transcripts from congressional testimony make no such claim…

Even if we grant that my interpretation is (obviously) not infallible. What does the Catechism (and the Gospel of Matthew) tell us about handling such matters? CCC 2478 seems to suggest that clarification for the remarks should have been sought first, not a ‘sting’ operation based on interpretation and publicised as evidence of the poor character of another.

The 10 commandments stand out from the huge list of instructions in Mosaic law because they are exceptional, mortal sins. As Catholics, we believe that the 8th commandment covers columny and the attack of anothers character (again, see CCC 2478 and the surrounding paragraphs in the Catechism).

 

[JFarrish]

Human-drawn lines of good and evil you say? I remember that Jesus drew the lines of good and evil rather strongly.

Yes, but I’m not Jesus. That is why I call to mind my unworthiness at Mass and try to follow his instructions on how I should behave. He called them his “highest commandments” and the Church cites them as the most fundemental formula for Catholicism (see the Compendium for the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

When you read Luke 18:9-14, who do you see as you and who do you see as planned parenthood? The paradox of the parable is that by identifying someone else as the pharsisee, we become him.

 

[catharina]

I watched the video of the severely cut clip of the President of PP mentioning mammograms, but the clip doesn’t show if she was specifically speaking about Planned Parenthood or health care in general. We need more context before a decision can be made.

First of all - who is WE?
You speaking for an unnamed committee?
You are YOU, correct???

Now I did your homework again.
Here is link to the original exchange,
on the Joy Behar show, a show I have
never watched and will never watch:

youtube.com/watch?v=I82QY65sVSA

Invite your collective “we” to see same.

 

[catharina]

I did, then I watched the unedited longer video, which several news outlets are posting. There does not appear to be a claim of mammogram services to me, the context appears to be overall preventive care.

Again, this appears to be getting dangerously into territory were unChristian acts are used to try to promote a good. Planned Parenthood web sites make no such claim, transcripts from congressional testimony make no such claim…

Even if we grant that my interpretation is (obviously) not infallible. What does the Catechism (and the Gospel of Matthew) tell us about handling such matters? CCC 2478 seems to suggest that clarification for the remarks should have been sought first, not a ‘sting’ operation based on interpretation and publicised as evidence of the poor character of another.

The 10 commandments stand out from the huge list of instructions in Mosaic law because they are exceptional, mortal sins. As Catholics, we believe that the 8th commandment covers columny and the attack of anothers character (again, see CCC 2478 and the surrounding paragraphs in the Catechism).

Fascinating diversion -
but can you ignore the fact that
PP provides how many abortions a year?
Very hard to GET those numbers.

Acc to wiki, that most bland of sites:

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider.[29] In 2008, they reported that contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; and other women’s health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 10%;[30] less than 2% of visits involve abortions.[31] However, "almost all of its services for pregnant women are abortions, according to its own fact sheet published [in March 2011]: It performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, while serving 7,021 prenatal clients and referring 977 parents to adoption services."[32] The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams and some 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the United States.[33]

Based on its own numbers, PP killed one-third of a million babies in 2009.
Are you truly ok with that? If so, WHY?

There can be no doubt that PP “earns” its money from ABORTIONS.
It has no interest in the family planning that results in live babies.

 

[catharina]

Yes, but I’m not Jesus. That is why I call to mind my unworthiness at Mass and try to follow his instructions on how I should behave. He called them his “highest commandments” and the Church cites them as the most fundemental formula for Catholicism (see the Compendium for the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

When you read Luke 18:9-14, who do you see as you and who do you see as planned parenthood? The paradox of the parable is that by identifying someone else as the pharsisee, we become him.

Respond to Post # 35, please.

 

[JFarrish]

Support the above statement.

I have no idea where you are in your biblical and theological studies, so I would strongly suggest the NAB study edition as a good start. It is not poetic, but it is an accurate, Catholic translation and the footnotes and additional material are excellent, particularly the sections on how to approach bible study.

Anyone interested in learning more about the bible should also have Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the New Testment. Fr. Brown’s magnum opus is not worth one read, but periodic re-reads.

As for further reading on cultural contexts of the New Testament, there are so many titles I’m not sure where to begin. I’d highly recommend Fr. Mullen’s “Dinner with Pharisees”. If reading these sorts of books isn’t your thing, Fr. Mullen also has a collection of audio tapes and a study guide called “The Bible Says What?!” In addition to teaching scripture at St John’s seminary, Fr. Mullen does actively preside at parishes in the surrounding area and I’ve been fortunate enough to hear his homilies on several occasions when traveling, a truly gifted teacher.

Bruce Malina, from Jesuit Creighton University has written an excellent little book called “Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea”. It takes seemingly innocent, familiar situations, then explains them in the social context of the time. Malina’s more extensive works are tougher reads.

A very good theologian who writes very accessibly is Lisa Sowle Cahill, from Boston College. Her texts on bioethics are most well known, but she has also written about social structures and the history of the family.

I would highly recommend this type of study. It certainly makes the daily readings at Mass more vivid and powerful. When you hear the ‘Good Samaritan’, you understand the lesson, to a scholar of the difference between the letter of the law and its meaning.

Likewise, when you hear St. Paul’s description of death and rebirth, you can almost see those three steps down and three steps up, representing Jesus time in the tomb. Symbolically reliving His death and resurection as early Christians put the indelible marks on their souls…

But I would also strongly recommend seeking spiritual guidance in your studies from your pastor. Studies in 1st century sociology will take you into secular texts that are worthwhile, but not automatically framed in a Catholic context. Proper perspective on those texts is important.

 

[catharina]

I have no idea where you are in your biblical and theological studies, so I would strongly suggest the NAB study edition as a good start. It is not poetic, but it is an accurate, Catholic translation and the footnotes and additional material are excellent, particularly the sections on how to approach bible study.

Anyone interested in learning more about the bible should also have Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the New Testment. Fr. Brown’s magnum opus is not worth one read, but periodic re-reads.

As for further reading on cultural contexts of the New Testament, there are so many titles I’m not sure where to begin. I’d highly recommend Fr. Mullen’s “Dinner with Pharisees”. If reading these sorts of books isn’t your thing, Fr. Mullen also has a collection of audio tapes and a study guide called “The Bible Says What?!” In addition to teaching scripture at St John’s seminary, Fr. Mullen does actively preside at parishes in the surrounding area and I’ve been fortunate enough to hear his homilies on several occasions when traveling, a truly gifted teacher.

Bruce Malina, from Jesuit Creighton University has written an excellent little book called “Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea”. It takes seemingly innocent, familiar situations, then explains them in the social context of the time. Malina’s more extensive works are tougher reads.

A very good theologian who writes very accessibly is Lisa Sowle Cahill, from Boston College. Her texts on bioethics are most well known, but she has also written about social structures and the history of the family.

I would highly recommend this type of study. It certainly makes the daily readings at Mass more vivid and powerful. When you hear the ‘Good Samaritan’, you understand the lesson, to a scholar of the difference between the letter of the law and its meaning.

Likewise, when you hear St. Paul’s description of death and rebirth, you can almost see those three steps down and three steps up, representing Jesus time in the tomb. Symbolically reliving His death and resurection as early Christians put the indelible marks on their souls…

But I would also strongly recommend seeking spiritual guidance in your studies from your pastor. Studies in 1st century sociology will take you into secular texts that are worthwhile, but not automatically framed in a Catholic context. Proper perspective on those texts is important.

Much more to the point, I have no idea where you are in your studies of anything.

I have degrees in Theology and special studies in Canon Law.
All I asked was that you support your statemnt - not a difficult task.

Want to try again? Please do.

I am asking for your support of your statement.
Provide that, please. Even a few quotes might suffice.

I certainly do thank you and am so terribly sorry to bother you with this request.

 

[Taoist]

First of all - who is WE?
You speaking for an unnamed committee?
You are YOU, correct???

My, your reading comprehension needs improving when you become defensive. ‘We’ was used in the collective sense of those reading this thread.

Now I did your homework again.

It is not my responsibility to find information to support your claim, it is yours, that’s why I asked for more information.

Here is link to the original exchange,
on the Joy Behar show, a show I have
never watched and will never watch:

youtube.com/watch?v=I82QY65sVSA

This is the context I was looking for, thank you, but it is hardly a smoking gun. One word mentioned erroneously in an extemporaneous discussion is not enough to hang PP out to dry and declare them liars. It’s obvious that you are passionate about abortion and are scouring the opposition for the slightest mote of inconsistency to prove your point, but one “GOTCHA!” isn’t enough to go on the warpath and base a campaign to discredit an entire organization without giving them the opportunity to explain their side. What else do you have to support your claim that PP lies about providing mammograms?

 

[catharina]

My, your reading comprehension needs improving when you become defensive. ‘We’ was used in the collective sense of those reading this thread.

It is not my responsibility to find information to support your claim, it is yours, that’s why I asked for more information.
This is the context I was looking for, thank you, but it is hardly a smoking gun. One word mentioned erroneously in an extemporaneous discussion is not enough to hang PP out to dry and declare them liars. It’s obvious that you are passionate about abortion and are scouring the opposition for the slightest mote of inconsistency to prove your point, but one “GOTCHA!” isn’t enough to go on the warpath and base a campaign to discredit an entire organization without giving them the opportunity to explain their side. What else do you have to support your claim that PP lies about providing mammograms?

There is no way that you are entitled to “speak for” all posters.
For one thing, all posters include me and you surely will never speak for me.
Speaking as a “we” is one of the manipulative and irritating things a person
can do when engaging in a discussion. If you want to see ‘defensive,’ wait for it.

If you are uncomfortable with calling them liars (they are liars)
then how are you with calling them killers? They lie, they kill.

End of story.

If you’re fine with that - so be it.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is the LEAD statement of the Joy Behar Show:

Feb 21, 2011 … Tonight we take a special look at the battle brewing in Congress over the proposed elimination of Federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The page link is

joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/21/planned-parenthood-funding-fury/

joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/21/planned-parenthood-funding-fury/

Notice no mention of Title X - either in opening statement OR the actual URL

Ms Richards was talking about PP…When she mentioned mammograms

 

[catharina]

Here is the LEAD statement of the Joy Behar Show:

The page link is

joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/21/planned-parenthood-funding-fury/

Notice no mention of Title X - either in opening statement OR the actual URL

Ms Richards was talking about PP…When she mentioned mammograms

Thanks, kimmie. See ya’.

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks, kimmie. See ya’.

 

[Taoist]

There is no way that you are entitled to “speak for” all posters.

On the contrary, I am entitled to speak for the readers of this thread if it means you need to clarify something. This is not a personal discussion between you and me, it is public, and in such a context it is proper to use ‘we’ when asking a question. Please stop derailing the thread with unrelated issues.

If you are uncomfortable with calling them liars (they are liars)
then how are you with calling them killers? They lie, they kill.

End of story.

If you’re fine with that - so be it.

I am fine with the “killers” part, but not with the “liars” part, but my opinion on which debasing terms you want to use for PP really has nothing to do with the discussion, please stay on topic, which has become you finding more evidence of PP being liars regarding providing mammograms.

 

[catharina]

On the contrary, I am entitled to speak for the readers of this thread if it means you need to clarify something. This is not a personal discussion between you and me, it is public, and in such a context it is proper to use ‘we’ when asking a question. Please stop derailing the thread with unrelated issues.

I am fine with the “killers” part, but not with the “liars” part, but my opinion on which debasing terms you want to use for PP really has nothing to do with the discussion, please stay on topic, which has become you finding more evidence of PP being liars regarding providing mammograms.

You’re given to personal insults
and the related (imaginary) need to speak for others.

Fine. So be it.

For the record, your own need for clarification is unrelated to whether
others might need it too. They can speak for themselves.

I’m certain of it!

 

[catharina]

Planned Parenthood portrays itself as a provider of women’s health services, including mammograms. However, Live Action, a pro-life group (of which I am a member) contacted 30 PP clinics and not one offers mammograms. What are they offering? Abortions, of course!!

"A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.

"In the tapes, a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states, inquiring about mammograms at Planned Parenthood. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells her she will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, KS explains to the caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

For the full story, please click on the following link:

liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim-exposed/

PP has thrown up a smokescreen, changed the subject, portrayed itself as a necessity in the U.S. because it provides women’s health care. The truth is that PP is in the business of performing abortions. PP was founded by Margaret Sanger, a bigot and racist who wanted to wipe out blacks and Catholics. Hitler considered her to be one of his heroes.

PP needs to be stopped. Unfortunately it has the support of our representatives and President Obama. I urge everyone to join Live Action, as I have.

What I find very sad and frustrating is that more people on facebook reply to these stories than Catholic members in CAF. The CCC makes it clear that stopping abortion should be the primary focus in our political lives. Why is that? It’s because all the other problems that need to be fixed in this world, even if they are fixed, mean nothing to a dead baby.

This is about murdering the most innocent of God’s precious lambs - our unborn children.

Now - here we are -
back on track. Yippee.

 

[JFarrish]

Much more to the point, I have no idea where you are in your studies of anything.

It is difficult to presume that you are asking in Christian charity and love when you select loaded phrases. But, then again, it is always easier to study Christianity than to practice it.

However, in brief:

The Pharisees are a complex subject. Much like modern conservatism in the US, it can refer to a political party, social thought, or a religious movement, sometimes more than one, depending on where you are in their roughly 200 year history.

To see why I referred to them as ‘war heros’, see Josephus. To understand why I referred to them as ‘ultra devout’, see their connection to the “Hasidim” movement. They are frequently portrayed negatively in the synoptic gospels, so historical context matters (the Gospel of John portrays them as less homogenous and uniformly wrong).

I compared Samaritans to alien terrorists because the situation was analogous to US fear of Muslims today. They practiced Samaritanism, using the Samaritan Torah. So while they (like Islam) were practicing an Abrahamic religion, they were also claiming to be practitioners of the ‘true’ version of the faith. When ethnoreligious groups meet, there is tension. But you don’t have to take my word for it, see the Old Testament.

As far as tax collectors, the parable refers to a Publican, a Jew who collaborated with the Roman Empire. Essentially a contractor for an occupying force. Tax collector (typically working on a quasi commission low-bid contract type of arrangement) was the rural public perception at that time (the meaning of publican changed dramatically just a few centuries later).

OK, I’ve given you a reading list and a brief elaboration on why I used the analogies I did. I suspect this still isn’t the ‘trap’ you seem to envision, but go ahead and spring it. Even if it misses I promise to lay, mortally wounded, by your rapier wit.

 

[catharina]

It is difficult to presume that you are asking in Christian charity and love when you select loaded phrases. But, then again, it is always easier to study Christianity than to practice it.

However, in brief:

The Pharisees are a complex subject. Much like modern conservatism in the US, it can refer to a political party, social thought, or a religious movement, sometimes more than one, depending on where you are in their roughly 200 year history.

To see why I referred to them as ‘war heros’, see Josephus. To understand why I referred to them as ‘ultra devout’, see their connection to the “Hasidim” movement. They are frequently portrayed negatively in the synoptic gospels, so historical context matters (the Gospel of John portrays them as less homogenous and uniformly wrong).

I compared Samaritans to alien terrorists because the situation was analogous to US fear of Muslims today. They practiced Samaritanism, using the Samaritan Torah. So while they (like Islam) were practicing an Abrahamic religion, they were also claiming to be practitioners of the ‘true’ version of the faith. When ethnoreligious groups meet, there is tension. But you don’t have to take my word for it, see the Old Testament.

As far as tax collectors, the parable refers to a Publican, a Jew who collaborated with the Roman Empire. Essentially a contractor for an occupying force. Tax collector (typically working on a quasi commission low-bid contract type of arrangement) was the rural public perception at that time (the meaning of publican changed dramatically just a few centuries later).

OK, I’ve given you a reading list and a brief elaboration on why I used the analogies I did. I suspect this still isn’t the ‘trap’ you seem to envision, but go ahead and spring it. Even if it misses I promise to lay, mortally wounded, by your rapier wit.

I have no time for traps, fella’.

I’m simply unaccustomed to seeing any poster provide
definitive historical conclusions about ANY group or event
without the support of a source. Can you see that yet?

Give your source.
Quote your source.
Your opinion is only that - opinion.

 

[JFarrish]

Give your source.
Quote your source.
Your opinion is only that - opinion.

Everything that I just stated above can be found in the bibliography already provided. However, your attack is peculiar. My comments where simply expressed as opinion, in the context of a point.

If we were going to have a scholarly debate, then I would ask you of things like why you are being theologically inaccurate in some of your posts when you are, in fact, a trained theologian, hence subject to this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

However, this is not a scholarly discussion and attacking the messenger does not change my basic position.

First, I have asserted that the two commandments of love are a basic formula of Cathocism. Source, try the Compendium of the Catechism from Rome:

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

See Appendix B, Formulas of Catholic Doctrine

Second, I have asserted that bearing false witness remains a grievous sin, as is the related sin of columny. Source, try the Universal Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

See Part III, Life in Christ, section 2, The Ten Commandments. The 8th Commandment is covered in Chapter 2 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, reinforcing my first point) Article 8.

Third, I have asserted that we should correct in the context of love. See CCC 2478 in the article above.

Last, I have asserted that I cannot find evidence that planned parenthood “lied”. The complete interview video from CNN can be found here:

joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/21/planned-parenthood-funding-fury/

I find it very troubling that the ‘proof’ of a lie is a very small fragment of this interview, which appears, to me, to be out of context.

I searched the national planned parenthood site and could find no claims of mammograms. I searched chapter sites and found only this:

plannedparenthood.org/ppsi/free-mammograms-pap-smears-17602.htm

I called the Iowa Department of Public Health today and they confirmed that mammograms had been funded and provided.

CCC 2478 applies to me as well. I have been trying to view this in the most favorable light but it is very, very difficult. I can’t find any evidence of the claim. The ‘proof’ appears to be selectively edited to alter the context of the original statement. And when I dug deeper, I found that, in fact, at least one planned parenthood facility is, in fact, getting low income women access to mammograms.

The 8th commandment and promoting and preserving life and not mutually exclussive. The Catholic faith demands that both be honored.

On a related note, it is difficult to view this pecular line of questioning of yours in a favorable light. The characterizations I used are hardly unusual. It would be common knowledge to any theology student at a Catholic university. A lay person could get the same basic gist searching wikipedia for “pharisee”, “samaritan”, and “publican” (heaven knows my students have):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publican

Note, I haven’t read them - so no vouching for accuracy. Anyone who happens across this and is actually interested in the subject, start with the books mentioned earlier in the thread.

If one were uncharitable, one might presume that you are trying to distract from the legitimate moral question raised and impune my character through innuendo. But those would both be sinful. So, for the moment I will assume that you slept in your scripture and ethics classes while I try to think of a more charitable explanation for this behavior.

 

[catharina]

Everything that I just stated above can be found in the bibliography already provided. However, your attack is peculiar. My comments where simply expressed as opinion, in the context of a point.

**If we were going to have a scholarly debate, **

this is a discussion, not a debate of any kind

then I would ask you of things like why you are being theologically inaccurate in some of your posts when you are, in fact, a trained theologian, hence subject to this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

However, this is not a scholarly discussion and attacking the messenger does not change my basic position.

First, I have asserted that the two commandments of love are a basic formula of Cathocism. The source for that fact is Jesus Christ and prior to His coming, the OT. No one has disagreed with your presentation of the law of love. Source, try the Compendium of the Catechism from Rome:

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

See Appendix B, Formulas of Catholic Doctrine

Second, I have asserted that bearing false witness remains a grievous sin, as is the related sin of columny. Source, try the Universal Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

See Part III, Life in Christ, section 2, The Ten Commandments. The 8th Commandment is covered in Chapter 2 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, reinforcing my first point) Article 8.

Third, I have asserted that we should correct in the context of love. See CCC 2478 in the article above.

Last, I have asserted that I cannot find evidence that planned parenthood “lied”. The complete interview video from CNN can be found here:

joybehar.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/21/planned-parenthood-funding-fury/

I find it very troubling that the ‘proof’ of a lie is a very small fragment of this interview, which appears, to me, to be out of context.

I searched the national planned parenthood site and could find no claims of mammograms. I searched chapter sites and found only this:

plannedparenthood.org/ppsi/free-mammograms-pap-smears-17602.htm

I called the Iowa Department of Public Health today and they confirmed that mammograms had been funded and provided.

The CEO of PP claimed it. The PP sites do not.

CCC 2478 applies to me as well. I have been trying to view this in the most favorable light but it is very, very difficult. I can’t find any evidence of the claim. The ‘proof’ appears to be selectively edited to alter the context of the original statement. And when I dug deeper, I found that, in fact, at least one planned parenthood facility is, in fact, getting low income women access to mammograms.

The 8th commandment and promoting and preserving life and not mutually exclussive. The Catholic faith demands that both be honored.

On a related note, it is difficult to view this pecular line of questioning of yours in a favorable light. The characterizations I used are hardly unusual. It would be common knowledge to any theology student at a Catholic university. A lay person could get the same basic gist searching wikipedia for “pharisee”, “samaritan”, and “publican” (heaven knows my students have):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publican

Note, I haven’t read them - so no vouching for accuracy. Anyone who happens across this and is actually interested in the subject, start with the books mentioned earlier in the thread.

If one were uncharitable, one might presume that you are trying to distract from the legitimate moral question raised and impune my character through innuendo. But those would both be sinful. ** So, for the moment I will assume that you slept in your scripture and ethics classes while I try to think of a more charitable explanation for this behavior.** From this last, one might guess that you have little grasp of charitable discussion.