Another Lie from Planned Parenthood

[kimmielittle]

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 gave you the direct link to the interview
POST #50

Here is the LEAD statement of the Joy Behar Show:

Quote: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/2011/0…-funding-fury/

Quote: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

I searched the national planned parenthood site and could find no claims of mammograms.

Because they don’t provide them…in some cases they give a voucher…the same type of voucher many charities give. BUT they do not provide mammograms as Ms Richard tried to allude to.

So yes PP deliberately mislead…lied.

And to call attention to it is not bearing false witness - please practice what you are preaching.

 

[Holly3278]

Okay, just because 30 Planned Parenthood clinics don’t offer mammograms doesn’t mean that none of them do. There are a lot more than just 30 Planned Parenthood clinics out there. And besides, where exactly does Planned Parenthood claim to offer mammograms? Is it possible that instead of actually offering them themselves, they give vouchers to women to get them elsewhere? Also, since when could Live Action actually be trusted?

 

[kimmielittle]

Okay, just because 30 Planned Parenthood clinics don’t offer mammograms doesn’t mean that none of them do. There are a lot more than just 30 Planned Parenthood clinics out there. And besides, where exactly does Planned Parenthood claim to offer mammograms? Is it possible that instead of actually offering them themselves, they give vouchers to women to get them elsewhere? Also, since when could Live Action actually be trusted?

I’ll ask you the same:
When can an abortion industry that provides 400,000 yearly abortions actually be trusted?

Read the below thread of mine and see the actually interview done by Ms. Richards

It is from Joy Behar;s actual blog site - so no pro-life cutting was done to it.

 

[catharina]

Okay, just because 30 Planned Parenthood clinics don’t offer mammograms doesn’t mean that none of them do. There are a lot more than just 30 Planned Parenthood clinics out there. And besides, where exactly does Planned Parenthood claim to offer mammograms? Is it possible that instead of actually offering them themselves, they give vouchers to women to get them elsewhere? Also, since when could Live Action actually be trusted?

The CEO of PP claims that PP offers mammograms.
Check the links. This thread is filled with links!

You prefer to trust PP over Live Action … PP, being
the largest abortion provider in the nation??? Suit yourself.

 

[kimmielittle]

Is it possible that instead of actually offering them themselves, they give vouchers to women to get them elsewhere?

It is more than possible - However, you can get the same vouchers value at most Churches - Charities - County Health Departments - Cancer Groups…etc

Ms Richards deliberately tried to make it sound as if PP was the only provider… Because she was addressing this Topic of the Joy Behar Show

"Here is the LEAD statement of the Joy Behar Show:

Quote: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.

 

[JFarrish]

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.

I responded to this at length, but was then cited as an infraction and the post deleted. I’m not going to bother recreating it. One could either read the read the books I’ve already cited, or do what my lazier students do and just search for “pharisee” “publican” or “samaritan” on Wikipedia.

It is also a red herring. I was expressing an opinion, in the context of making a point. That point, and others, remain unanswered.

I contended that the two commandments of love are a basic formula of Catholicism:

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

See appendix B, Formulas of Catholic Doctrine.

I contended that the 8th Commandment covers columny and remains a grievous sin:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

See Part III, Life in Christ,
Section II, The 10 Commandment.
Chapter II, You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself (note my previous point)
Article 8.

I contended that we are to only instruct in love and only after making an effort to understand the thinking and point of view of the one we are instructing:

See CCC 2478 in the previous citation.

And I contended that I could not, myself, see the ‘lie’ that was being supposedly debunked. The original video (as opposed to the edited down video) is here:

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

Googling turned up multiple instances like this:

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

And I called both the CDC and the Iowa Department of Health yesterday to confirm the truthfulness of the claim.

Truth and Protecting and Promoting Life are not either/or propositions. Catholics are required to uphold both.

 

[JFarrish]

Ms Richards deliberately tried to make it sound as if PP was the only provider… Because she was addressing this Topic of the Joy Behar Show

Two points to consider.

First, I posted a link to the entire segment above. The point I took was that Planned Parenthood is in urban areas that are poorly served, so they provide access to services that certain women, particularly poor women, would not otherwise receive. Frankly, this appears to be reasonably true.

You are using the words “tried to make it sound as if…”, IE, true but…

That is a pretty subtle form of lie to accuse someone of. Shouldn’t CCC 2478 apply to all Catholics in making such accusations?

Second, even if we accept your interpratation, what does it say about the ‘debunking’?

The group took a tiny snippet of the same interview and claimed that it stated PP offerred mammogram services directly. Then they ‘debunked’ that claim. How is ‘making it seem’ like offering mammograms morally different from ‘making it seem’ like sole source of vouchers?

If you truly find one instance morally offensive, shouldn’t you find the other offensive as well? If moral outrage is selectively applied, it isn’t morality at all. It is simply an argument of conveneince to attack people we disagree with.

Why I do not approve of questionable attacks like these is that they sacrifice the high ground. You don’t acheive good ends through evil. You acheive good ends by serving God, the only true source of power.

 

[AggieCatholic22]

i know this is way off topic…but has anyone read Abby Johnson’s Book…Unplanned?..just wondering

 

[catharina]

I responded to this at length, but was then cited as an infraction and the post deleted. I’m not going to bother recreating it. One could either read the read the books I’ve already cited, or do what my lazier students do and just search for “pharisee” “publican” or “samaritan” on Wikipedia.

It is also a red herring. I was expressing an opinion, in the context of making a point. That point, and others, remain unanswered.

I contended that the two commandments of love are a basic formula of Catholicism:

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

See appendix B, Formulas of Catholic Doctrine.

I contended that the 8th Commandment covers columny and remains a grievous sin:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

See Part III, Life in Christ,
Section II, The 10 Commandment.
Chapter II, You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself (note my previous point)
Article 8.

I contended that we are to only instruct in love and only after making an effort to understand the thinking and point of view of the one we are instructing:

See CCC 2478 in the previous citation.

And I contended that I could not, myself, see the ‘lie’ that was being supposedly debunked. The original video (as opposed to the edited down video) is here:

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

Googling turned up multiple instances like this:

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

And I called both the CDC and the Iowa Department of Health yesterday to confirm the truthfulness of the claim.

Truth and Protecting and Promoting Life are not either/or propositions. Catholics are required to uphold both.

In response to your definitions of groups in the time of Jesus,
“Originally Posted by JFarrish
Remember, to Jesus’ audience ‘Pharisee’ meant ‘ultra devout keeper of the faith, and a war hero to boot’. Samaritan meant ‘hated pagan terrorist’ and publican (or tax collector) meant ‘child rapist’.”

I had only requested this:
**“Support the above statement.” **

You have not been able to do that in an acceptable way?
Then that’s your answer. Fine.

 

[catharina]

i know this is way off topic…but has anyone read Abby Johnson’s Book…Unplanned?..just wondering

I haven’t read it.

 

[JFarrish]

You have not been able to do that in an acceptable way?
Then that’s your answer. Fine.

I gave you a list of books and sources. I elaborated on what I meant. You could connect the two, fine. For most people that would be acceptable, but you seem to have your own set of standards which you are judging me for not meeting.

OK, let’s try one more time, for the Pharisees, try the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/11789b.htm

After the conflicts with Rome (A.D. 66-135) Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism. The great Machabean wars had defined Pharisaism: another even more terrible conflict gave it a final ascendancy. The result of both wars was to create from the second century onward, in the bosom of a tenacious race, the type of Judaism known to the western world. A study of the early history of Pharisaism reveals a certain moral dignity and greatness, a marked tenacity of purpose at the service of high, patriotic, and religious ideals.

Does ultra devout war hero sound like a stretch? You can, BTW, find a similar description in the NAB Personal Study Edition footnotes, which I recommeded earlier.

Now Samaritan. No entry, so let’s go to the Introduction to the New Testament, Chapter 1, which covers the various ethnic groups at the time of Jesus:

Both Jewish and Samaritan religious leaders taught that it was wrong to have any contact with the opposite group, and neither was to enter each other’s territories or even to speak to one another. During the New Testament period, although the tensions went unrecognized by Roman authorities, Josephus reports numerous violent confrontations between Jews and Samaritans throughout the first half of the first century.

Sounds pretty close to me.

And, last, the Publican. Back to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/12553d.htm

[Publican, in the Gospels, is derived from the publicanus of the Vulgate, and signifies a member or employee of the Roman financial companies who farmed the taxes. From the time of the Republic the Roman State relieved itself of the trouble of collecting the taxes in the provinces by putting up the taxes of each in a lump sum to auction. The highest bidder received the authorization to extort the sum from the province in question. Such a system afforded ample opportunity for rapacious exactions on the part of the company and its officials, and the abuses were often intolerable. On account of these, and more, perhaps, because of the natural though impotent Jewish hatred of the Roman supremacy, those of the Jews who found it profitable thus to serve the foreign rulers were objects of execration to their countrymen. In the Gospel narrative we find them as a class habitually coupled with “sinners” and the “heathen”. The attitude of Christ towards this, as well as other despised classes, was that of an uplifting sympathy. One great reproach cast upon Him by His enemies, the self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees, was His friendship for, and association with publicans and sinners; and consistently with this conduct it pleased Him to choose as one of the twelve Apostles Levi or Matthew the Publican (Matthew 9:9).

Which seems to match my elaboration pretty well. For more information, go to my original reading list. The reason that I used the phrase ‘child rapist’ was to convey the level of hatred we find in surviving contemporary accounts. Today, child rapists are the lowest of the low, even among violent criminals, such where the publicans. As noted above, Jesus was criticized just for speaking with them.

Personally, I think of the Catholic Encyclopedia as a step up from Wikipedia. Not terrible, but not particularly useful or detailed for scholarly work. But since ‘go to these books and read’ doesn’t meet your standard, I used ‘click and read’ where I could.

You do not seem to be interested in responding to the moral issues I have raised, but having invested so much energy trying to answer your unrelated questions, perhaps you can respond to one from me: Since your self stated area of expertise is Canon law, why do you seem to freely interchange the words “murder” and “abortion”?

Murder and providing or procurring a direct abortion are always a “grave moral disorder”:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

But they are not taught to be interchangable offenses. The reason is that we do not have a definitive Church teaching on infussion of the soul:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

See footnote 19.

The laity often makes this mistake, and it is understandable because of the emotions involved. But theologians are generally more careful, because of the special obligations of their vocation:

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

When it comes to canon lawyers, licentiate or doctoral, there is typically more care still. Something about “without distortion, exaggeration, or diminution”…

It’s not a big issue, I’m mostly curious because you seem to be holding me to not-clearly-disclosed scholarly standard but are seemingly speaking in a fairly loose and casual way yourself.

OK, I fibbed. It’s not wholely unrelated. The point I have been making on topic is one of moral consistancy. I am trying to find the moral consistancy between your remarks at learge and your conduct towards me.
[/quote]

 

[catharina]

I gave you a list of books and sources. I elaborated on what I meant. You could connect the two, fine. For most people that would be acceptable, but you seem to have your own set of standards which you are judging me for not meeting.

OK, let’s try one more time, for the Pharisees, try the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/11789b.htm

Does ultra devout war hero sound like a stretch? You can, BTW, find a similar description in the NAB Personal Study Edition footnotes, which I recommeded earlier.

Now Samaritan. No entry, so let’s go to the Introduction to the New Testament, Chapter 1, which covers the various ethnic groups at the time of Jesus:

Sounds pretty close to me.

And, last, the Publican. Back to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/12553d.htm

Which seems to match my elaboration pretty well. For more information, go to my original reading list. The reason that I used the phrase ‘child rapist’ was to convey the level of hatred we find in surviving contemporary accounts. Today, child rapists are the lowest of the low, even among violent criminals, such where the publicans. As noted above, Jesus was criticized just for speaking with them.

Personally, I think of the Catholic Encyclopedia as a step up from Wikipedia. Not terrible, but not particularly useful or detailed for scholarly work. But since ‘go to these books and read’ doesn’t meet your standard, I used ‘click and read’ where I could.

You do not seem to be interested in responding to the moral issues I have raised, but having invested so much energy trying to answer your unrelated questions, perhaps you can respond to one from me: Since your self stated area of expertise is Canon law, why do you seem to freely interchange the words “murder” and “abortion”?

Murder and providing or procurring a direct abortion are always a “grave moral disorder”:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

But they are not taught to be interchangable offenses. The reason is that we do not have a definitive Church teaching on infussion of the soul:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

See footnote 19.

The laity often makes this mistake, and it is understandable because of the emotions involved. But theologians are generally more careful, because of the special obligations of their vocation:

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

When it comes to canon lawyers, licentiate or doctoral, there is typically more care still. Something about “without distortion, exaggeration, or diminution”…

It’s not a big issue, I’m mostly curious because you seem to be holding me to not-clearly-disclosed scholarly standard but are seemingly speaking in a fairly loose and casual way yourself.

OK, I fibbed. It’s not wholely unrelated. The point I have been making on topic is one of moral consistancy. I am trying to find the moral consistancy between your remarks at learge and your conduct towards me.

Thank you for presenting a fairly accrate response to my request.
It took quite a while, but you have done so at last. I welcome it.

I have no plans to answer your questions regarding my stance on anything.
You and I know the nature of your ‘definitive’ post, the one that was removed.
It was uncharitable in the extreme and it attacked only me with a vile insult.

Moderators do NOT pull posts (and issue infractions) for no reason at all.
Since you have mentioned the authority of your explanation in the removed post,
I can only say I read it and I recognized it as a personal and ugly attack on me.

So that concludes our exchange, wouldn’t you say?
You have finally answered in full - in a way that is only mildly insulting.

Good for you.
Thank you.

Edit: I’m hoping that you do recall
mentioning the deleted post
In your own Post # 62?

 

[AggieCatholic22]

I haven’t read it.

its so good!=)…she was the director of a planned parenthood clinic…for 8 years and now shes a pro-life activist=)…after this one particular day at work that changed her life