Donald Trump backs off Planned Parenthood defunding push

[Path_Finder]

Carly Fiorina has commented:

Fiorina slams Trump on Planned Parenthood

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250932-fiorina-slams-trump-on-planned-parenthood

You should post more articles on her; I enjoy hearing her talk whenever she is on.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Here is your answer on the Trump about-face:

And this is from Newsmax. Other more sympathetic polls report up to 62% support for PP. Trump is about winning and success. Remember that. The “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore Trump” is a gimmick, a vote getter, as is leaving PP intact.

Trump is likewise distancing himself from Marco Rubio who said he (Rubio) opposed exceptions for rape and incest in an abortion ban. Trump says he admires Rubio’s position but doesn’t share it basically. (Personally I do think Rubio has to somehow back off - something like 75% of Americans support this exception.) Rubio needs to get himself to “I strongly support no exception but I will accept and support bans with this exception where necessary” - it is better than nothing.

A poll by Hart Research Associates has been questioned/criticised because ‘The poll was conducted on behalf of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:’ dailysignal.com/2015/08/12/pro-lifers-raise-concerns-about-planned-parenthoods-poll-showing-voters-support-the-organization/

Regarding the Monmouth University poll, it is noted in the above article that, ‘According to the Monmouth poll, 53 percent of Americans “have not heard about” the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress.’

I am curious if the poll results would be different if the question mentioned that Planned Parenthood provides abortion in the question, and should federal funding be given to an organisation that provides abortions.

 

[Tomdstone]

But Planned Parenthood do not receive direct funding for abortion now, do they?

Who funds them?

 

[TEPO]

One of the problems with being so outspoken is that over the course of a campaign, he is more transparent, and his position of abortion, for example will be fairly easy to see.

In that case, I wish all politicians were more outspoken. It’s a shame that a political candidates credibility isn’t effected negatively by a lack of transparency. If that were the case, Hillary would rank somewhat low on such a credibility chart.

 

[Charles041]

I was so disappointed to hear Trump’s remarks on Hannity last night…Planned Parenthood doing “good things”…oh no, no, no!!

I wonder if ANYONE will EVER have the courage to stand up to this EVIL organization.

I doubt it. The socialists don’t have another way of keeping population in check and Americans have to many guns for the Chinese system.

Prayer is still our best weapon against PP.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I doubt it. The socialists don’t have another way of keeping population in check and Americans have to many guns for the Chinese system.

Prayer is still our best weapon against PP.

Not sure I get the part about guns and the Chinese system?

 

[Murmurs]

t

Who funds them?

The women who have them.

The latest blast of the Trump shows he’s a kind of Frankenstein’s monster. The conservative media especially online has spent practically decades encouraging its base to embrace trolling and resentment (which Trump is brilliant at), and now its creation has gone haywire and is wrecking the place. From a political (and outside-the-US) standpoint, this is hilarious, because Trump might now be brought down by the one thing that can still harm a conservative (facts sex or abortion). What people aren’t liking, is this:

Let’s say there’s two Planned Parenthoods in a way. You have it as an abortion clinic… Now that’s actually a fairly small part of what they do, but it’s a brutal part, and I’m totally against it and I wouldn’t do that. They also, however, service women… We have to help women… We have to look at the positives…plenty of conservative Republican women [have said] 'Planned Parenthood serves a good function apart from that aspect…

Now obviously unwittingly or otherwise he’s being a bit misleading as abortions ‘service women’ too. But he IS right that PP’s abortions are distinct from other services (which he praised). Women in receipt of Medicaid can use PP for contraception, STI testing and treatment, and screenings, but they pay for abortion out of pocket.

The Abortion Pill…costs up to $800, but often less. // In-clinic Abortion procedures…cost up to $1500 in the first trimester, but often less. The cost is usually more for a second-trimester abortion.

(plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures)

So while we can campaign about abortion (quite reasonably) all we like, I think we’d have more respect from uncritical PP supporters and appear more realistic in the eyes of the general public (which overwhelmingly supports some degree of legal abortion), if we at least got our facts straight. Title X funding is used to subsidize the cost of contraception and doctor visits for uninsured patients.

What his alarmingly means is that Donald Trump is right. (Not about much, but definitely about this). It does a lot of good stuff (free or subsidised reproductive healthcare for women who need it), while also some less good.

One can vituperate that federal funding indirectly supports abortion all one likes, but it’s just not true. If you want to get an abortion out of PP, you pay for it yourself either out of pocket or squeezing money out of an insurance company. Taking away $20 contraceptive pills doesn’t change that. It just makes contraception more expensive (and then look what happens to abortion figures).

Maybe affordable contraception has been just as much a target as abortion all along?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…I am curious if the poll results would be different if the question mentioned that Planned Parenthood provides abortion in the question, and should federal funding be given to an organisation that provides abortions.

Regardless, it’s an indication of how poorly informed people are.

 

[Path_Finder]

t

The women who have them.

The latest blast of the Trump shows he’s a kind of Frankenstein’s monster. The conservative media especially online has spent practically decades encouraging its base to embrace trolling and resentment (which Trump is brilliant at), and now its creation has gone haywire and is wrecking the place. From a political (and outside-the-US) standpoint, this is hilarious, because Trump might now be brought down by the one thing that can still harm a conservative (facts sex or abortion). What people aren’t liking, is this:

Now obviously unwittingly or otherwise he’s being a bit misleading as abortions ‘service women’ too. But he IS right that PP’s abortions are distinct from other services (which he praised). Women in receipt of Medicaid can use PP for contraception, STI testing and treatment, and screenings, but they pay for abortion out of pocket.

(plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures)

So while we can campaign about abortion (quite reasonably) all we like, I think we’d have more respect from uncritical PP supporters and appear more realistic in the eyes of the general public (which overwhelmingly supports some degree of legal abortion), if we at least got our facts straight. Title X funding is used to subsidize the cost of contraception and doctor visits for uninsured patients.

What his alarmingly means is that Donald Trump is right. (Not about much, but definitely about this). It does a lot of good stuff (free or subsidised reproductive healthcare for women who need it), while also some less good.

One can vituperate that federal funding indirectly supports abortion all one likes, but it’s just not true. If you want to get an abortion out of PP, you pay for it yourself either out of pocket or squeezing money out of an insurance company. Taking away $20 contraceptive pills doesn’t change that. It just makes contraception more expensive (and then look what happens to abortion figures).

Maybe affordable contraception has been just as much a target as abortion all along?

Yes, if we got our facts straight.

kpeople:

How many times does it need to be said, that contraception and any of the other services that Planned Parenthood has other than abortion are easily accessible through Non-Planned Parenthood facilities.

Once again, while an anti-abortion stance is claimed, Planned Parenthood-type of propaganda is foisted upon the conversation about an organization that just happens to benefit from receiving over half a billion dollars a year of Federal Government monies.

I find it reprehensible that in a roundabout way, that those against Planned Parenthood have their motives attacked.

Maybe affordable contraception has been just as much a target as abortion all along?

:tsktsk:

If this was so bothersome to people, why are these other non-planned parenthood clinics not protested because of offering contraception??

 

[Murmurs]

Yes, if we got our facts straight.

kpeople:

How many times does it need to be said, that contraception and any of the other services that Planned Parenthood has other than abortion are easily accessible through Non-Planned Parenthood facilities.

You can buy condoms off the shelves in any chemist or supermarket (I presume? I hope to goodness there isn’t anything so mind-blowingly inane as an age restriction on them in the US?), that is true. However you can’t really insert an IUD oneself and certainly can’t self-prescribe pills. Given both methods of contraception are more effective, it’s hardly surprising women might want to use those methods instead. And it’s to the benefit of all that women have access to appropriate and effective and safe contraception, because the alternative is society bearing the cost of the children (one thing that no one can do is legislate away the desire to have sex)

:tsktsk:

Well I’m sorry but when access to contraception is curtailed on the basis of “shut the whole thing down”, then however much one considers abortion itself to be an egregious blight on society, one does begin to wonder sometimes…

 

[Path_Finder]

How about the fact, that Planned Parenthood as in Texas, has refused to provide services of any kind unless they can provide abortions as well? What is the deal with that?? Don’t they care about women’s health??

 

[Path_Finder]

You can buy condoms off the shelves in any chemist or supermarket (I presume? I hope to goodness there isn’t anything so mind-blowingly inane as an age restriction on them in the US?), that is true. However you can’t really insert an IUD oneself and certainly can’t self-prescribe pills. Given both methods of contraception are more effective, it’s hardly surprising women might want to use those methods instead. And it’s to the benefit of all that women have access to appropriate and effective and safe contraception, because the alternative is society bearing the cost of the children (one thing that no one can do is legislate away the desire to have sex)

Excuse me, no one said one thing about drug stores, the services are available at a very high number of clinics, thousands across the USA that do not offer abortion. Does one not understand that??

Well I’m sorry but when access to contraception is curtailed on the basis of “shut the whole thing down”, then however much one considers abortion itself to be an egregious blight on society, one does begin to wonder sometimes…

And access to contraception is not curtailed. The other clinics that do not perform abortion offer the same. Is this a concept one can not grasp?

If I have this wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

Then, there would also be the argument, why should taxpayers subsidize the sex lives of other people??

 

[Peter_Plato]

Excuse me, no one said one thing about drug stores, the services are available at a very high number of clinics, thousands across the USA that do not offer abortion. Does one not understand that??

And access to contraception is not curtailed. The other clinics that do not perform abortion offer the same. Is this a concept one can not grasp?

If I have this wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

No, YOU don’t have it wrong.

 

[Murmurs]

How about the fact, that Planned Parenthood as in Texas, has refused to provide services of any kind unless they can provide abortions as well? What is the deal with that?? Don’t they care about women’s health??

I can’t and don’t and won’t speak for them, naturally, but I imagine it is felt to be inconsistent to offer variable coverage across the country (and doubtless some bright spark would work out a way of suing them on that basis just for the sake of it).

The services are available at a very high number of clinics, thousands across the USA that do not offer abortion

Sure they do. Absolutely.

How much does it cost the woman?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Excuse me, no one said one thing about drug stores, the services are available at a very high number of clinics, thousands across the USA that do not offer abortion. Does one not understand that??

It is a glaringly modern example of straining out gnats while swallowing camels. In this case defending the swallowing of camels BECAUSE the gnats are being strained.

 

[Path_Finder]

I can’t and don’t and won’t speak for them, naturally, but I imagine it is felt to be inconsistent to offer variable coverage across the country (and doubtless some bright spark would work out a way of suing them on that basis just for the sake of it).

Sure they do. Absolutely.

How much does it cost the woman?

Some of these questions I don’t know. Do we know Planned Parenthood gives away the birth control free always?

Also, if Planned Parenthood lowers abortions, a claim made sometimes, why does their abortion business increase?

1. More taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood equals more abortions, fewer adoption referrals. Claims that taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood results in fewer abortions are false. From 2000 to 2013, taxpayer funding shunted to Planned Parenthood jumped from $202,000,000 in 2000 to $528,400,000 in 2013. In 2000, Planned Parenthood performed 197,070 abortions while making 2,486 adoption referrals. In 2013, they performed 327,653 abortions and made just 1,880 adoption referrals. That means a percent increase in taxpayer funding resulted in a 66 percent increase in the number of abortions and a 61 percent decrease in the number of adoption referrals.[x]

sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/top-12-reasons-defund-planned-parenthood-now

So, if there purpose is to lower the number of abortions performed, it seems they are failing.

And as for Contraception available elsewhere free:

1. Women have other options for seeking primary care, contraception, STI testing, and cancer screening. According to the Chiaroscuro Foundation, in addition to the tens of thousands of U.S. doctors and hospitals providing this care, there were 1,048 federally qualified health centers in the U.S. which provide women cancer screening, contraception, and STI testing.[xv]

1. Planned Parenthood has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of employee time in order to protect its government handout. Planned Parenthood has flooded the airwaves with TV commercials [xxiii] and radio ads[xxiv] in order to protect its funding. Its employees – whose paychecks are subsidized by tax dollars – have participated in bus tours and rallies across the country.[xxv]

This is another thing, Planned Parenthood spends a lot in lobbying, salaries, how can they be endorsing political candidates if they get so much money? Another reason why at the least, they should not be doing such.

 

[Murmurs]

Some of these questions I don’t know. Do we know Planned Parenthood gives away the birth control free always?

I can’t answer everything because obviously I don’t know. I’m not even sure in what cases birth control is free (presumably to medicaid recipients but I don’t think to anyone else).

Also, if Planned Parenthood lowers abortions, a claim made sometimes, why does their abortion business increase?

sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/top-12-reasons-defund-planned-parenthood-now

So, if there purpose is to lower the number of abortions performed, it seems they are failing.

I wouldn’t personally make that case (that PP reduces abortions), but I think that quotation uses statistics in a dubious way of which PP or a government accounting department would be very proud. Correlation does not imply causation.

There is a theory that the general reduction in crime rates since the 1970s is partly a product of legal abortion, because of a reduction of children born in poverty (because they’re not allowed to be born at all ). And while I would be the first to a) question the methodology and b) not think even that can justify abortion, I would equally apply the causation rule to that.

This is another thing, Planned Parenthood spends a lot in lobbying, salaries, how can they be endorsing political candidates if they get so much money? Another reason why at the least, they should not be doing such.

Planned Parenthood, like lots of other quasi- or wholly-government funded things, has an inherent interest in getting as much taxpayer money as it can get away with, so of itself I don’t think they should be faulted any more than the Department of Defence or whatever. But it is as well as a service provider, also a campaigning organisation, and was set up to be both, so it’s not unreasonable that just as the employees of countless charities go round the country/world drumming up donations and support, PP should do. We might not like some of what they do with the money or support but obviously they have a right to seek it just like anyone else. The White House might have a subscription to the Washington Post but that doesn’t mean that the paper should hold off endorsing a candidate to live there it just because it gets some of its money from it.

 

[Path_Finder]

I can’t answer everything because obviously I don’t know. I’m not even sure in what cases birth control is free (presumably to medicaid recipients but I don’t think to anyone else).

I wouldn’t personally make that case (that PP reduces abortions), but I think that quotation uses statistics in a dubious way of which PP or a government accounting department would be very proud. Correlation does not imply causation.

There is a theory that the general reduction in crime rates since the 1970s is partly a product of legal abortion, because of a reduction of children born in poverty (because they’re not allowed to be born at all ). And while I would be the first to a) question the methodology and b) not think even that can justify abortion, I would equally apply the causation rule to that.

Planned Parenthood, like lots of other quasi- or wholly-government funded things, has an inherent interest in getting as much taxpayer money as it can get away with, so of itself I don’t think they should be faulted any more than the Department of Defence or whatever. But it is as well as a service provider, also a campaigning organisation, and was set up to be both, so it’s not unreasonable that just as the employees of countless charities go round the country/world drumming up donations and support, PP should do. We might not like some of what they do with the money or support but obviously they have a right to seek it just like anyone else. The White House might have a subscription to the Washington Post but that doesn’t mean that the paper should hold off endorsing a candidate to live there it just because it gets some of its money from it.

The White House having a subscription to the post is surely different than giving half a billion dollars to an organization.

Be that as it may, you bring up:

Freakonomics per the crime rate going down: Freakonomics may use a variety of factors.

Comparing the abortion rates and numbers from the year 2000 to say 2009 is basically using the statistics provided by Planned Parenthood themselves.

An August 2007 study conducted by a researcher at the University of Maryland shows that legalized abortion has led to higher rates of crime and increased murder rates. That occurred because a higher percentage of children grew up in single-parent homes during the years following Roe v. Wade.

lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/

 

[FollowChrist34]

Regardless, it’s an indication of how poorly informed people are.

Exactly and that is not going to change. My family is really prochoice. I got this huge lecture about how I didn’t know how horrible and repressive society was before legalized abortion - women being forced into marriages with no freedom of self determination and the right to terminate their pregnancy and live their lives. Chilling stuff. None of my family will watch the videos - right wing propaganda.

You have to understand this ideology - it is not going away. And it will not back down. And a lot of people are on board - it is the American way. Whatever I want I do - think Trump. Ethics are too confining. DO NOT underestimate this.

 

[Path_Finder]

Ben Carson: No apologies for 1992 fetal tissue research

Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research Thursday, after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses. In an interview with the Washington Post, Carson called the revelation “desperate,” and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.

“You have to look at the intent,” Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. “To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.”

Carson, who has risen in primary polls since last week’s debate, is among the Republicans who’ve condemned Planned Parenthood after undercover videos revealed executives in the organization coldly discussing the extraction and distribution of tissue from aborted fetuses. In a July interview on Fox News, after the first videos broke, Carson said that there was “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue" and that babies aborted at 17 weeks were clearly human beings.

washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/

I will keep up with this and unsure of what to think. This was some time ago.