Komen Admits Planned Parenthood Grants Don’t Get Women Mammograms

[lynx]

The overwelming majority of services that pregnant women take up from Planned Parenthood are abortion.

So is that a no to,

So a pregnant women getting condoms, seeking a cancer screening, getting std treatment, or getting a pregnancy test wouldn’t count?

What you mean to say is for women who wish to not raise a child, a majority choose abortion over adoption. Another question, why is this PP’s problem? If you have a moral issue with abortion address the people who seek it.

 

[lynx]

In every stage from conception onward it is a human being.

I was unaware that women now had zygote showers etc…

That’s your support? For a second there I thought you might have known some credible source that supported you.

 

[lynx]

In effect the govt promotes immorality and atheism-which of course was never our founders intention we have morphed freedom of religion into freedom from religion and we are paying a terrible price n

The government promotes nothing, which is Christianities greatest issue. If you feel pushing no morality on socially sensitive issues and pushing no religious background is akin to immorality and atheism then I guess I can see your point, but I don’t think many others view it this way. The founders had no idea what the world would be like a couple centuries later, but they knew enough to let the constitution be a flexible document to fit the needs of society.

 

[lynx]

I think that you are completely wrong here. Most of America sees abortion as killing a baby and most of the abortionists admit to that too. The problem of acceptance of abortion is in its convenience and pseudo-moral justifications.

gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx

Looking at the legality of the issue, a strong 70% see abortion as legal always or in some situations. These people I would classify as pro-choice, otherwise they would have said illegal. Regardless of whatever moral justifications you would like to use, a majority of Americans view abortion as legal, at least in some circumstances.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s your support? For a second there I thought you might have known some credible source that supported you.

There’s a YouTube video of a very young girl reading it from med-school embryology textbooks if that makes you feel any better.

 

[lynx]

There’s a YouTube video of a very young girl reading it from med-school embryology textbooks if that makes you feel any better.

It does.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Baby is a vague term for a science fact. Science likes to use words like gamete, zygote, embryo, fetus and child. When is a fetus not a child?

When does a baby become a human being? When does a toddler become a human being? We all know teen-agers are not human beings.

I think the general conclusion is when the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Does a gamete, zygote, embryo, or fetus have the same rights of a child? A majority of people, and the courts say no. If you say science claims different can you point me to the experiment that supports your statement?

So if baby x is born three months early in 1900 and dies, it’s not a human being. If baby y is born three months early in 2011, and, due to science, lives, it’s a human being. How about infants born alive, or “products of botched abortions?”

That’s too arbitrary for my taste.

 

[lynx]

When does a baby become a human being? When does a toddler become a human being? We all know teen-agers are not human beings. So if baby x is born three months early in 1900 and dies, it’s not a human being. If baby y is born three months early in 2011, and, due to science, lives, it’s a human being. How about infants born alive, or “products of botched abortions?”

That’s too arbitrary for my taste.

Infants born alive? As opposed to stillbirth?

That’s an interesting take on it As technology increases fetal viability increases. Given enough time abortions would be unnecessary. I wonder if this could be seen as another step in human/technology evolution…

 

[1holycatholic]

Infants born alive? As opposed to stillbirth?

That’s an interesting take on it As technology increases fetal viability increases. Given enough time abortions would be unnecessary. I wonder if this could be seen as another step in human/technology evolution…

Technology is moot. The objective of an abortion is to intentionally kill, not to increase viability.

 

[Abyssinia]

So is that a no to,

Planned Parenthood’s prenatal and adoption services are small compared to abortion.

What you mean to say is for women who wish to not raise a child, a majority choose abortion over adoption. Another question, why is this PP’s problem? If you have a moral issue with abortion address the people who seek it.

The problem is Planned Parenthood being bailed out by $360 million dollars of tax money a year when many different polls have found the majoirty of Americans do not want abortion funded with tax money.

 

[lynx]

Planned Parenthood’s prenatal and adoption services are small compared to abortion.

It’s not PP’s job to force people into adoption or abortion. That’s the choice of the client.

The problem is Planned Parenthood being bailed out by $360 million dollars of tax money a year when many different polls have found the majoirty of Americans do not want abortion funded with tax money.

Bailed out? No, they can live without it, they can pay their bills, but without it their services would be diminished. In spite of money fungibility, I think many recognize that tax money goes to every other service PP provides, not abortions. Nothing PP is doing is thought of as illegal or immoral by general society so why should they not be funded? You don’t get to pick and choose what taxes go to based off of personal morality, it’s based off of societal morality. If you really want to stick it to PP think about not paying your taxes, that way you know for sure you’re not giving money for abortions.

If you knew that paying your taxes would result in at least one abortion would you pay them? If I knew my taxes would kill an innocent child I wouldn’t pay them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s not PP’s job to force people into adoption or abortion. That’s the choice of the client.

OK then, let’s not make it easy for the client to get a tax payer funded abortion.

If you knew that paying your taxes would result in at least one abortion would you pay them? If I knew my taxes would kill an innocent child I wouldn’t pay them.

You don’t think our wars are killing innocent children?

 

[a_priori]

Baby is a vague term for a science fact. Science likes to use words like gamete, zygote, embryo, fetus and child. When is a fetus not a child? I think the general conclusion is when the fetus is viable outside of the womb.

The de facto definition is “when a mother decides she wants her pregnancy”. How’s that for a way to treat our progeny? A woman can be in one room aborting her baby as another woman in the room next door fights to save her baby of the same exact gestational age. This. Is. Insane.

The financial, legislative and judicial (and electoral) enabling of a doctor to attack a baby in the womb with a suction curette as it fights for its life and loses the battle one little finger, toe and limb at a time is the very essence of disordered human action. Period.

 

[Abyssinia]

It’s not PP’s job to force people into adoption or abortion. That’s the choice of the client.

No, but the fact is that Planned Parenthood’s prenatal services and adoption services are tiny compared to the number of abortions they do, because abortion is where the money is.

Bailed out? No, they can live without it, they can pay their bills, but without it their services would be diminished. In spite of money fungibility, I think many recognize that tax money goes to every other service PP provides, not abortions. Nothing PP is doing is thought of as illegal or immoral by general society so why should they not be funded? You don’t get to pick and choose what taxes go to based off of personal morality, it’s based off of societal morality. If you really want to stick it to PP think about not paying your taxes, that way you know for sure you’re not giving money for abortions.

If you knew that paying your taxes would result in at least one abortion would you pay them? If I knew my taxes would kill an innocent child I wouldn’t pay them.

Lets say you are against torture, and I say I am not going to take your money to pay for torture, I am just going to pay for the room, lighting, the heating, the water, are you paying for torture or not? Yes.

If Planned Parenthood can live without taxpayers money Planned Parenthood do not need taxpayers money. I do not think Planned Parenthood would survive as they do currently do without being given tax dollars, Planend Parenthood know that, that is why they have become a political lobby group.

Christians in the Early Church paid taxes to the Romans even though that money may have been used to support the force which was persecuting them.

 

[Erich]

STI/STD Testing and Treatment — 35 percent of services in 2009
Cancer Screening and Prevention — 16 percent of services in 2009
Other Women’s Health Services — 10 percent of services in 2009
Other Services — 1 percent of services in 2009

So about 62% of what PP does is completely health related. Assuming about 3 million people use PP then it’s reasonable to assume .62 x 3000000 = 1860000 people use PP for health care services. So, about there’s about 1860000 / 332278 = 5.6 people using PP for health care per abortion.

By PP’s own numbers, 332,278 abortions were committed on some of those 3 million clients. This suggests that 11% of their clients had abortions that year… and gives the lie to the 3% claim.

Clearly there is double-counting of services going on, in order to inflate the number of non-abortion services and to downplay the number of abortions. How many of PP’s clients come in for birth control, then later come in for a pregnancy test, then still later come in for an abortion, then repeat the cycle?

We already know that PP unbundles family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 “visits” per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits) and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment equals one visit.

And from this link:Just a few weeks ago, on national television, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said this about Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood:

“If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are gonna lose their health care access–not to abortion services–to basic family planning, you
know, mammograms.”
Yet this is blatantly false.

We got a tip from former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, that Planned Parenthood does not provide any mammogram services. Just to be sure, our investigative team called up 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in many major metropolitan areas. Every single one of the clinics told our actor that no, they do not provide mammograms. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” one staffer in Arizona said. Another in Wisconsin remarked, “We are just a surgical center, we don’t really do health services.” In Overland Park, KS, at Planned Parenthood’s “Comprehensive Health Center,” they said, “We don’t actually have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”

We called 27 states total. In none of those states does Planned Parenthood provide mammograms.

We challenge Planned Parenthood to provide evidence that they provide mammograms to “millions of American women”–or to any at all.
​

 

[Erich]

I’ve been hearing this argument a lot. So here’s the question, are millions of people unaware of these other centers for free health, or are these other centers not in areas that PP serves? Apparently there are billboards everywhere, according to some, that detail their existence. So, why do people go to PP?

Congress already spends billions every year for women’s health care, through Medicaid, Medicare and other programs. Defunding PP is about no longer coercing taxpayers to contribute to the nation’s largest abortion chain, plain and simple.

 

[Charlotte408]

Baby is a vague term for a science fact.

If it’s not a baby, the woman isn’t pregnant.

 

[DawnInTexas]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx **
Baby is a vague term for a science fact.

If it’s not a baby, the woman isn’t pregnant.

“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”

• Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, September 22, 1980.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Here’s one soul I would bet who is not for Abortion:

.