Pro-Life duo who filmed at Planned Parenthood cleared of all charges.

[Azadina]

This is rich again. The same pro-life conservative crowd who advocates people to starve rather than have to pay taxes to support poor people, are complaining about abortion and "murder". You don't want people to be "murdered", but you are more than willing to watch them starve to death? Says enough of your so called "morals".

[Symphonic]

This is rich again. The same pro-life conservative crown who advocates people to starve rather than have to pay taxes to support poor people, are complaining about abortion and "murder". You don't want people to be "murdered", but you are more than willing to watch them starve to death? Says enough of your so called "morals".

This is where you're wrong. I cant speak for anyone else, but I am pro-life, and am of the opinion of giving as much help and support we can to assist the caretaker of the unwanted baby. If a baby is born that is not wanted, instead of aborted, he deserves a chance. You'll find it's much easier to adopt your baby away when they're newborn rather than a year or two old. The first step would be providing ways to find those looking. Do you ever wonder why people end up looking overseas to adopt a baby? Cost is another big issue. If a baby is unwanted, and there is a good person or family who is willing to take care of the baby, it shouldn't cost an arm and a leg to adopt. Sure, do background checks, have CPS or whoever visit the family that is interested to make a valid opinion on their ability to take care of the baby, but don't make it cost 20,000 dollars to adopt a baby.

Step 1) reduce costs of adoption
Step 2) Provide assistance/aid to the baby (monetary and formula for her)

Whoever is telling you this lie that pro-life conservatives don't care about the baby after its born need to stop.

[AndaliteBandit]

This has already been asked repeatedly in this thread.

What was actually exposed? We have 10 posters saying that it was for the good of the people. And things should be exposed!

But when confronted on what that actually is, they've been silent.

Now, now. You can't just persecute their beliefs like that by asking them to substantiate their opinions with proven facts. Facts apparently have a liberal bias.

[Azadina]

Whoever is telling you this lie that pro-life conservatives don't care about the baby after its born need to stop.

They speak for themselves. And while I definitely wouldn't put lying past them, I'll give them a benefit of a doubt, when they advocate for "no murder", but would do nothing to help. Instead watching the now newborn starve to death, rather than pay more "communist welfare taxes".

This thread is full of such people. But good on you for being that one exception.

[Symphonic]

This has already been asked repeatedly in this thread.

What was actually exposed? We have 10 posters saying that it was for the good of the people. And things should be exposed!

But when confronted on what that actually is, they've been silent.

It proved they were "double-dipping" on reimbursement on their donations, that's for sure. The person performing the abortion already charges based on what has to be done. Aborting a baby at 10 weeks gestation will not cost as much as a baby at 20 weeks gestation. Yet, they were charging more for reimbursement with the claim that it took longer/harder to perform. Then, the prices they get reimbursed for were arbitrary. They were negotiable. That's plain wrong. Don't you think it is interesting that planned parenthood stopped getting reimbursed for fetal tissue donations after the videos were being released? They changed their policy because they knew it was wrong.

[AndaliteBandit]

It proved they were "double-dipping" on reimbursement on their donations, that's for sure. The person performing the abortion already charges based on what has to be done. Aborting a baby at 10 weeks gestation will not cost as much as a baby at 20 weeks gestation. Yet, they were charging more for reimbursement with the claim that it took longer/harder to perform. Then, the prices they get reimbursed for were arbitrary. They were negotiable. That's plain wrong. Don't you think it is interesting that planned parenthood stopped getting reimbursed for fetal tissue donations after the videos were being released? They changed their policy because they knew it was wrong.

That is very interesting, as you would think such a thing would turn up in at least one of the many investigations into Planned Parenthood. And yet not one single state has uncovered any evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood was selling or profiting off of fetal tissue. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594...l-tissue-sales

Care to site your source?

[wheresmywoft]

It proved they were "double-dipping" on reimbursement on their donations, that's for sure. The person performing the abortion already charges based on what has to be done. Aborting a baby at 10 weeks gestation will not cost as much as a baby at 20 weeks gestation. Yet, they were charging more for reimbursement with the claim that it took longer/harder to perform. Then, the prices they get reimbursed for were arbitrary. They were negotiable. That's plain wrong. Don't you think it is interesting that planned parenthood stopped getting reimbursed for fetal tissue donations after the videos were being released? They changed their policy because they knew it was wrong.

Ok so they've removed it from the SOP to mitigate the basis of the smear. So what now? How does this prove what you say it proves??

[Felya]

It proved they were "double-dipping" on reimbursement on their donations, that's for sure. The person performing the abortion already charges based on what has to be done. Aborting a baby at 10 weeks gestation will not cost as much as a baby at 20 weeks gestation. Yet, they were charging more for reimbursement with the claim that it took longer/harder to perform. Then, the prices they get reimbursed for were arbitrary. They were negotiable. That's plain wrong. Don't you think it is interesting that planned parenthood stopped getting reimbursed for fetal tissue donations after the videos were being released? They changed their policy because they knew it was wrong.

They were being reimbursed at one of their affiliates and stopped because it was being used to justify pulling funding. Not because it was illegal, but because the argument was their funding through sales at this one affiliate, meant that tax funding through Medicare was not needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us...rams.html?_r=0

Most likely, because a similar tact ended up defunding ACORN. Because even though ACORN were found not guilty, the mud slinging of the accusation versus the lack of attention to the ruling, ruined their name. PP stopped a process at a single affiliate, so the entire organization wouldn't be slandered.

- - - Updated - - -

That is very interesting, as you would think such a thing would turn up in at least one of the many investigations into Planned Parenthood. And yet not one single state has uncovered any evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood was selling or profiting off of fetal tissue. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594...l-tissue-sales

Care to site your source?

You are arguing two different things. He isn't saying that they sold the tissue, but that reimbursement was too much to need government funding. He isn't saying they sell body parts, like the video implied. He is using the fact that PP will no longer get reimbursed for tissue donations, to instead fall on the tax payer, as a victorious result of a video implying they sold body parts.

[Symphonic]

That is very interesting, as you would think such a thing would turn up in at least one of the many investigations into Planned Parenthood. And yet not one single state has uncovered any evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood was selling or profiting off of fetal tissue. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594...l-tissue-sales

Care to site your source?

First, here's a link to an article about them stopping receiving reimbursements for fetal tissue donations: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us...-programs.html

The reimbursements for the fetal tissue donations WERE the profits. They claim them as being reimbursed, when they already make their money by performing the abortion. The average cost for an abortion between 6-10 weeks is 470 dollars surgically, and 490 dollars by the pill. By week 24, it costs over 2,000 dollars.

It doesn't take a researcher to understand that the cost to produce a pill, the time it takes to give a pill at the clinic, including time to talk about the decision, would not equal almost 500 dollars. They're clearly making a profit of of the abortion, as any doctor would in any surgery/medical environment. I'm not saying it's wrong. But then, to go around and donate the tissue, and get further money from it, is double-dipping. You're getting extra money off the fetal tissue, which is unnecessary, and likely the main reason why abortion is such a high revenue for them.

People like to throw the "but abortions only make up 3% of our services!" line, when it is deliberately misleading. Yes, a condom given out is one service. And abortion is another service. If I give 97 condoms out and perform 3 abortions, well, you get the picture. abortions only made up 3% of the services, yet cost the most and so they profit off them the most. Here's an old article about that. It doesn't use their latest statistics as this is using their 2005 report.

You are arguing two different things. He isn't saying that they sold the tissue, but that reimbursement was too much to need government funding. He isn't saying they sell body parts, like the video implied. He is using the fact that PP will no longer get reimbursed for tissue donations, to instead fall on the tax payer, as a victorious result of a video implying they sold body parts.

You get it! +1

[zenkai]

This is rich again. The same pro-life conservative crowd who advocates people to starve rather than have to pay taxes to support poor people, are complaining about abortion and "murder". You don't want people to be "murdered", but you are more than willing to watch them starve to death? Says enough of your so called "morals".

Not only is this a fundamentally flawed argument, it is not in anyway a reflection on topic but instead gives your view point on abortion. Again, this in no way pertains to the argument.

[Felya]

It doesn't take a researcher to understand that the cost to produce a pill, the time it takes to give a pill at the clinic, including time to talk about the decision, would not equal almost 500 dollars. They're clearly making a profit of of the abortion, as any doctor would in any surgery/medical environment. I'm not saying it's wrong. But then, to go around and donate the tissue, and get further money from it, is double-dipping. You're getting extra money off the fetal tissue, which is unnecessary, and likely the main reason why abortion is such a high revenue for them.

People like to throw the "but abortions only make up 3% of our services!" line, when it is deliberately misleading. Yes, a condom given out is one service. And abortion is another service. If I give 97 condoms out and perform 3 abortions, well, you get the picture. abortions only made up 3% of the services, yet cost the most and so they profit off them the most. Here's an old article about that. It doesn't use their latest statistics as this is using their 2005 report.

You are being misleading by calling it profit. This was happening at a single branch in California, the money generated didn't go into anyone's pocket, but into funding a nonprofit. Blood centers also receive government funding, while also selling donated blood to make up companies and plastic surgery. This is done because there simply isn't enouph money being provided by donations and government to remain up float. A single apheresis machine costs 10s of thousands of dollars. If you chicken out, in the middle of your plasma donation, you just cost the blood center a couple of grand and they gave no way to recoup the cost. This happens more than you'd think, because people get antsy with a needle in their arm for nearly an hour.

What this did, was cost funding in states like Indiana, even though none of this was done there. A single branch was used to demonized the entire organization and pull government funding, while also removing the funding thus was generating at that single branch.

[zenkai]

You are being misleading by calling it profit. This was happening at a single branch in California, the money generated didn't go into anyone's pocket, but into funding a nonprofit. Blood centers also receive government funding, while also selling donated blood to make up companies and plastic surgery. This is done because there simply isn't enouph money being provided by donations and government to remain up float. A single apheresis machine costs 10s of thousands of dollars. If you chicken out, in the middle of your plasma donation, you just cost the blood center a couple of grand and they gave no way to recoup the cost. This happens more than you'd think, because people get antsy with a needle in their arm for nearly an hour.

What this did, was cost funding in states like Indiana, even though none of this was done there. A single branch was used to demonized the entire organization and pull government funding, while also removing the funding thus was generating at that single branch.

Maybe they should make a profit and stop being tax funded

[Espe]

This is rich again. The same pro-life conservative crowd who advocates people to starve rather than have to pay taxes to support poor people, are complaining about abortion and "murder". You don't want people to be "murdered", but you are more than willing to watch them starve to death? Says enough of your so called "morals".

Bingo.

Oh they will posture and deny and finally fall back on their victim complex, but they are more interested in causing other people harm (especially young girls and women) than in doing good or even doing the decent thing for all US citizens.

Fairy tales and the willfully ignorant are a dangerous combination, as we have seen throughout human history.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they should make a profit and stop being tax funded

I didn't know we were talking about Wal-mart.

Yeah it's pretty disgusting the amount of taxpayer money spent on corporate and agra welfare by conservatives. Everyone needs to get out and vote in November, get these blood suckers out of office.

[Symphonic]

It's pro-life conservatives making that point clear during the course of political discussions, so...

Yes, I am aware that out there somewhere are the rare unicorns who actually believe in something almost consistent with the notion of being pro-life, but it is extremely common for people who are supposedly pro-life to be something closer to pro-birth by being anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, and basically turning their noses up at the thought of helping the less fortunate. After all, they're less fortunate because there is some fundamental view in their character in the eyes of those people, so they "deserve" to be poor and downtrodden.

There are some who are pro-birth and never-abortion, but I'm pro-life, and believe abortion should be safe and allowed, in certain cases. That doesn't make me pro-choice, because I do not believe in abortion-as-birth-control. If you used a condom, and still got pregnant, I would not agree with aborting that baby. If you were raped, and got pregnant, I would not blame you for getting an abortion and would not judge you for that, but we should all be sad that the unborn baby is making the ultimate sacrifice.

[AndaliteBandit]

They're clearly making a profit of of the abortion, as any doctor would in any surgery/medical environment. I'm not saying it's wrong. But then, to go around and donate the tissue, and get further money from it, is double-dipping.

No, it is not, because the reimbursement only covers storage and transportation costs, and nothing more. The patient is not billed for storage or transportation costs. This isn't hard.

[Symphonic]

Rape and incest exemptions strike me as compromises, but when they move beyond merely being a compromise and become a fundamental part of your approach to the issue, it undermines the entire basis of the pro-life argument. After all, if you believe someone is a person from the moment of conception and that they have a right to exist, the simple fact that someone was raped to bring that about would not justify murder, as the fetus would be an innocent third party.

I cannot fathom what the woman must be going through emotionally to be in this situation. I think mostly, an abortion due to being impregnated from a rape, is to protect the sanity of the woman. Could you imagine, feeling the baby kick inside you, and all you can think about is how you're carrying his baby. That is so sad, and for that reason I say, I would not blame her for protecting her sanity in a case like that. I am not saying it would be an easy decision, because I do believe it is a life, and for that reason it is a sacrifice by that baby, to protect the woman. I would hate to make that choice.

No, it is not, because the reimbursement only covers storage and transportation costs, and nothing more. The patient is not billed for storage or transportation costs. This isn't hard.

Then why would the reimbursement costs vary so much? They were being negotiated on how much the reimbursement would be. It's one thing to say, charge $0.35 per mile driven, to drop off the donation, and $0.01 per hour to keep it stored in a fridge/freezer and another to say "40 dollars for the brain tissue, 10 dollars for the eye tissue", etc.

[Endus]

Then why would the reimbursement costs vary so much? They were being negotiated on how much the reimbursement would be. It's one thing to say, charge $0.35 per mile driven, to drop off the donation, and $0.01 per hour to keep it stored in a fridge/freezer and another to say "40 dollars for the brain tissue, 10 dollars for the eye tissue", etc.

Welcome to capitalism. Price is based on the market value, which varies based on a lot of factors, including the buyer's capacity to spend. This has nothing to do with whether it was generating profit, which was the accusation. Profit means money is being paid out to owners/shareholders. If Planned Parenthood is taking the revenue from this, and re-investing it into provision of services or other non-profit ventures, then those funds are not profit, and they really shouldn't be taken to task for getting a decent market value for the tissue they're providing.

Also, you're ignoring that certain tissues are easier to harvest intact and easier to maintain; you're not even noticing variation in price, you're comparing different products and complaining that they're priced differently.

It's like complaining that the brand-new custom Porsche costs more than the 1982 Gremlin. Well, yeah.

[AndaliteBandit]

Rape and incest exemptions strike me as compromises, but when they move beyond merely being a compromise and become a fundamental part of your approach to the issue, it undermines the entire basis of the pro-life argument. After all, if you believe someone is a person from the moment of conception and that they have a right to exist, the simple fact that someone was raped to bring that about would not justify murder, as the fetus would be an innocent third party.

And if someone believes that life begins at conception, then they have an issue to take up with fertility clinics, where sometimes rejected embryos are cryogenically frozen, and other times they're destroyed or donated for scientific research and then destroyed. This is why the Catholic church is vehemently against not only IVF but also birth control, which in causing the uterine lining to thicken can result in fertilized embryos being discarded when they're unable to implant.

But that's why the Catholic church is consistent when it comes to this. People who are staunchly against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest, against IVF treatments, and against birth control because they genuinely equate the destruction of a fertilized embryo with murder can truly say that they're pro-life. If you don't meet that criteria, you're pro-life*.

*Some Rules and Restrictions May Apply

[wheresmywoft]

Then why would the reimbursement costs vary so much? They were being negotiated on how much the reimbursement would be. It's one thing to say, charge $0.35 per mile driven, to drop off the donation, and $0.01 per hour to keep it stored in a fridge/freezer and another to say "40 dollars for the brain tissue, 10 dollars for the eye tissue", etc.

Because there are varying requirements for transport of tissue?

For example. The transport of a liver usually has to be done via plane or helicopter after its removal from the donor/deceased to the recipient. Whereas blood extracted at the clinic can be fine for more than a week and be transported en mass.

[AndaliteBandit]

Then why would the reimbursement costs vary so much? They were being negotiated on how much the reimbursement would be. It's one thing to say, charge $0.35 per mile driven, to drop off the donation, and $0.01 per hour to keep it stored in a fridge/freezer and another to say "40 dollars for the brain tissue, 10 dollars for the eye tissue", etc.

Do you think it's a scam that shipping and handling charges can differ depending on the weight of what's being shipped?