Small bomb ignites at WI Planned Parenthood Clinic

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ndeparis88 said:
I guess we can gather how the MSM is going to spin this. They won’t even show how Santorum condemned it. It could have even been a plant by PP people to make the pro-lifers look bad.
Click to expand...
How do you define MSM? Because the article I linked to did mention that Santorum denounced the incident.
 
slate said:
Insurance companies actively look for ways to deny coverage. Do you think the insurance company would have paid for more equipment if they thought the incident was a farce? Who’s best equipped to make such a determination?
Click to expand...
If insurance fraud was hard to do, it wouldn’t be such a popular crime. Just fill out the right paper work in the right way with the right supporting documents. Insurance companies don’t investigate every claim, just those that are outside the norm [as determined by their computer programs].
 
slate said:
Somehow, I find it extremely unlikely that PP is willing to take the time to carefully craft an explosive, that’s not too powerful, to damage one of its own building to make the Pro-Life movement look bad. What evidence would lead you to blame the victim (PP)?
Click to expand...
I just posited it as a hypothetical. For them abortions are money, and money of course means a lot of motive.
 
slate said:
Who else would the victim be?
Click to expand...
They’re suggesting that the clinic did it to itself to get money. In such a case, there would be no victim at all. Or, perhaps, one could say that the insurance company would be the victim.
 
losh14 said:
So far as I can tell, there is no such federal law that considers the blocking of a church entrance a crime, or a violation of worshippers’ civil rights.
Click to expand...
And I’m sure you could probably count the number of times that has been a problem in this country on one hand. Conversely, there have been thousands of incidences of trespassing, bombings, vandalism, arson, and assaults at abortion clinics over the past 30 years.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
And I’m sure you could probably count the number of times that has been a problem in this country on one hand. Conversely, there have been thousands of incidences of trespassing, bombings, vandalism, arson, and assaults at abortion clinics over the past 30 years.
Click to expand...
I would reverse that myself. Mobs block church doors all the time in the U.S., or even often times go charging into the service itself, disrupting it, overturning things, and destroying statues. It’s just not typically considered interesting enough news for big names to report on.

I’ve only heard of a handful of bombings and vandalisms. I admit I’ve heard of tons of assaults at abortion clinics, but nearly every single one of them have been committed against, not by, the protestors. Happened at the clinic I was at just last month.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
And I suppose you have a source that “mobs” block access to church’s “all the time?”
Click to expand...
Right next to your source that there have been thousands of incidences at abortion clinics and that you can count on one hand the number of times a church entrance has been blocked.

It is disingenuous to demand a source while not providing one yourself.
 
About my earlier post. I don’t know if they got their insurance money or not. They were making a claim, however.
But on another ocassion when I was leaving as the last picketer they invited me in to show me around. Realizing that they probably had security cameras which would have photos of me in the building I refused to go in.
 
ndeparis88 said:
I just posited it as a hypothetical. For them abortions are money, and money of course means a lot of motive.
Click to expand...
You talk about it like PP has a plan to generate x number of abortions per fiscal quarter. What is the market model for abortions? PP provides the service of an abortion, and probably makes money from it, but this isn’t reliable income since it only represents about 3% of what PP actually does factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Regardless of that, if abortions are big money makers for them, why attack their own equipment/structures needed to perform abortions? I don’t think PP would bother attacking themselves to make other look bad or fraud insurance companies, not when donors and the government are more than willing to subsidize them millions for what they’re already legally doing.
 
slate said:
You talk about it like PP has a plan to generate x number of abortions per fiscal quarter. What is the market model for abortions? PP provides the service of an abortion, and probably makes money from it, but this isn’t reliable income since it only represents about 3% of what PP actually does factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
Click to expand...
Please stop parroting the 3% lie, it has been proven false time and again.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Factcheck.org is a reputable and nonpartisan organization. Who has supposedly proven this “false” and are they unbiased?
Click to expand...
How about the right-wing hatemongers at NPR?
Dannenfelser: But I have to say, one in 10 of PP clients receives an abortion. This is not – this 3% figure about how much abortion that they do is simply not reflective of the import of what abortion is in the array of services…. When one in 10 clients actually receives an abortion, that is a much more revealing figure than 3% , because those other figures are bundled within a client……
Click to expand...
kqed.org/news/story/2011/03/07/45677/budget_battle_threatens_planned_parenthood_funds?source=npr&category=politics

Hand out 97 condoms, perform 3 abortions. “But look, abortions are only 3% of our activities!!”

:rolleyes:
 
slate said:
You talk about it like PP has a plan to generate x number of abortions per fiscal quarter. What is the market model for abortions? PP provides the service of an abortion, and probably makes money from it, but this isn’t reliable income since it only represents about 3% of what PP actually does factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Regardless of that, if abortions are big money makers for them, why attack their own equipment/structures needed to perform abortions? I don’t think PP would bother attacking themselves to make other look bad or fraud insurance companies, not when donors and the government are more than willing to subsidize them millions for what they’re already legally doing.
Click to expand...
Then it should be painless for them to get out of the abortion business.

There are really only 2 logical inferences that can be drawn from the fact that PP refuses to get out of the abortion industry

1 ) They are lying about the percentage of their funding that derives from abortion (it’s much more than they’re letting on)
  1. They are so ideologically committed to abortion that they are willing to jeopardize all the other non-abortion services they provide just to keep alive the possibility that they will get to perform at least one abortion.
Take your pick
 
Oops, I forgot the NPR “fact-checking” part:
Finally, several of you wrote during yesterday’s show about Planned Parenthood, about the conflict over what percentage of the agency’s clients receive abortions. We’ve asked NPR’s heal policy correspondent Julie Rovner to join us again. Julie, always nice to have with you us.
Click to expand...
JULIE ROVNER: Always nice to be here.
Click to expand...
CONAN: And we heard two figures from opposing sides yesterday, 3 percent and 10 percent, who’s right?
Click to expand...
**ROVNER: Well, the conflict is really that Planned Parenthood keeps its statistics according to the percent of those services that are provided, not according to how many people get what. So it turns out that there are - that indeed, abortions are 3 percent of the services provided, although - and that was what, I think, Sarah Stoesz from Planned Parenthood kind of misspoke when she said it was 3 percent of patients who come in get abortions.
Click to expand...
It is actually a little bit closer to the 10 percent that Marjorie Dannenfesler suggested, because there are about 3 million patients who come in. There are about 300,000 abortions provided. **
Click to expand...
Now, you can’t really divide that because that’s not how they keep their statistics. But indeed, that - those are the actual statistics. Three million patients, 300,000 abortions, but you have to contrast that to more than a million pregnancy tests and all kinds of other services provided. So indeed, it’s a small amount in terms of percentage of services provided.
Click to expand...
**CONAN: And the difference might be that the same woman who later received an abortion also got a pregnancy test and counseling and some other services.
Click to expand...
ROVNER: Absolutely. So many of those patients are getting more than one services and who - many of the patients who get an abortion are probably getting other services as well.**
Click to expand...
CONAN: NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner, thanks very much.
Click to expand...
ROVNER: You’re welcome.
Click to expand...
npr.org/2011/03/08/134367441/Letters-Manning-Up-And-Planned-Parenthood
 
gnjsdad said:
Then it should be painless for them to get out of the abortion business.

There are really only 2 logical inferences that can be drawn from the fact that PP refuses to get out of the abortion industry

1 ) They are lying about the percentage of their funding that derives from abortion (it’s much more than they’re letting on)
  1. They are so ideologically committed to abortion that they are willing to jeopardize all the other non-abortion services they provide just to keep alive the possibility that they will get to perform at least one abortion.
Take your pick
Click to expand...
Short answer is I bet they can afford to not perform abortions. Why should they stop? What will happen if they stop?
  1. It’s fair to say that 10% of people get an abortion, abortions are 3% of services. Meaning that people come in for an abortion and something else. If you see this as a deceptive practice, then we can all agree that PP performs an abortion on 1 in 10 patients.
  2. I have no doubt PP sees abortions as a necessary product for women who choose to exercise that option. I have great doubt that PP will jeopardize their organization over abortion, they will not stop as long as they reasonably proceed.
 
Dawnia said:
Can anyone explain to me why the Civil Rights division of the DOJ is handling this and not say ATF? Confused as to what a bomb has to do with civil rights. 🤷
Click to expand...
Because the Obama admin thinks that it’s a “civil right” to kill your baby?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top