All I got from that article was that anti-abortion groups spend more money lobbying than Planned Parenthood does. What were you trying to prove?

And they are not capable of filling the hole defunding PP would create. That's just bs spread by right-wingers who dislike women and don't think women should have access to reproductive health (well, not poor women, anyway. Their own wives and daughters, well, that's different). We have seen what happens to access to women's care in Texas, when PP clinics shut down:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9373721...somewhere-else

In fact, this article has pretty clear stats on what happens whenever PPs shut down and the result has always been the same- a lot of women lose access to health care and go without.

From an economic standpoint, PP is considerably more efficient at delivering reproductive care than these community centers. The fact that you are pointing to a lack of mammogram machines in the clinics stands out as a misunderstanding of reproductive health care. So, let me shed some light- mammography machines are f*cking expensive to acquire and f*cking expensive to maintain. Economically, it's much more efficient for PP clinics to refer patients to a large hospital or facility that has one and has a department devoted to doing them all day long, rather than spend the money acquiring and maintaining one themselves. It saves patients money, and it saves the federal government money. That way they can spend more of those dollars on more inexpensive things, like Pap smears and birth control:

I assure you, all of those community health centers are not outfitted with mammography machines, either. They also don't have the staff or space or resources to deal with the sheer number of patients PP sees. From the article:

"To put it another way: Planned Parenthood clinics comprise only 10 percent of publicly funded contraceptive clinics — but see 36 percent of patients who use the government birth control programs. Their clinics have developed a specialty in this area, and are particularly tailored toward providing reproductive health care. The other clinics that see fewer birth control patients, however, don't have that specialty — and experts say they'd struggle to absorb additional patients."

that all heath care should go thru others, and not anyone who dares assist women seeking legal procedures such as abortion, hyde amendment notwithstanding.

by which you mean abortions. Because that's what PP is really about. That's why pro-abortion Dems support it and it supports them in return. PP is an arm of the Democratic party. It's the "largest kick-butt political organization." ~ Cecile Richards ($2.47M 2009-2013)

For the broader spectrum of health care, CMCs do it better and there are more of them, despite what Vox's "experts" say. But yes, if you're all about women's reproductive health (abortions) and Democratic party support, PP is your savior.

And thanks for pointing out how expensive mammograms are. It's true that mammograms would not generate the sort of profit that say, abortions do. It's not even close.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclu...ide-mammograms

"...right-wingers who dislike women..." What utter bullshit.

it's what pp is really about?
they're really about 3% of their total work?
cmc's don't do it 'better'. they don't do abortion, that doesn't make them better.
be honest, old dog.
you're not worried about mammograms, std testing, womens health. just the abortion part.

And with which part is PP most concerned? It's pretty obvious if one follows their lobbying and political efforts.

Do you know how the 3% claim is calculated? It would be interesting if PP released how much revenue it collects for these different services, but it doesn't. Aren't you at all curious? Perhaps it wouldn't matter to you. But don't quote that 3% figure to me because I think it's bogus propaganda.

Yes, my cover is blown. I am anti-abortion. And I am anti-PP because they are pro-abortion. They are so pro-abortion that they do more than any other "provider," and their share of that despicable market grows every year. They provide abortion under the guise of women's health, but every year they do more abortions and less of nearly everything else, while every year they receive more government money. They perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral. PP is in the abortion business, and it's subsidized by tax dollars.

I know where this will go because it's a softball question, but you are saying that tax dollars shouldn't subsidize legal medical procedures?

Am i curious how much revenue pp gets from abortions? Not at all.
but, if youre anti abortion, shouldnt you be as supportive of birth control as possible? After all, its better bc accessibility that has led to the decreasing number of pregnancies and abortions.
As for the assertion of pp doing more abortions, is that due to clinic closures and them picking up the slack?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-abo...ore-women-wait


yay, texas.
here's hoping the courts overturn these bs laws that only had one aim, to shut clinics. for a legal procedure.

Your cover is blown because you are opposed to PP. Because you don't mention anything about visits to dispense contraception vs. visits to perform elective abortion (note: 34 percent of visits to PP are to obtain contraception, vs. 3 percent for elective abortions). Why? I suspect you don't care. The fact that PP prevents 515,000 unintended pregnancies, and 216,000 abortions (via contraceptive services) doesn't matter. But it bears repeating- over half a million unintended pregnancies, and almost a quarter of a million abortions are PREVENTED by Planned Parenthood. Every year.

I have a friend who genuinely anti-abortion (she is also celibate by choice, so she has no dog in the unintended pregnancy game). She is, however, ardently in support of birth control being available to anyone who wants it. Because she is actually anti-abortion, not anti-woman. And she gets that people are going to have sex and that is a non-negotiable part of life. You can't just say "keep your legs crossed." (which, of course, is only ever said to women. Boys are expected to be boys, amirite?)

Right-wingers oppose abortion. They also oppose access to birth control, and feel that employers should be allowed to impose the religious values of the company's owner on their employees, too. They use incorrect information about birth control to justify this (claiming things like the morning after pill, and birth control pills, and IUDs prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, when every available bit of evidence points to exactly the opposite, that they do not).

And they want to defund the organization that has devoted 97 years to keeping poor women from getting pregnant before they are ready to be. Ninety-seven years. There's a reason the organization is called Planned Parenthood. Emphasis on "Planned."

People who oppose access to birth control and who oppose safe access to abortion, and who also oppose state-supported pre-natal care and post-natal care for infants and children of poor mothers (and right-wingers oppose all these things) view pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for women having sex.

And that's a terrible view to have of women and babies.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/fi...he_Numbers.pdf

Or, more eloquently (and stridently) put:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."

- Ayn Rand

and scotus already ruled on whatever 'right to life' there is, when the state can begin to impose rules, when a womans rights begin to lose ground to a potential human beings 'rights'.

anyone up in arms over the video is up in arms because they think they found a gotcha moment for PP. except it's not, nor should it be. fetal tissue research has been going on far longer than roe has been around. only the lack of medical necessity will stop it in future.

i'm seriously considering having my body donated to science when i croak. if i could help one last time i'd be all for it. how else to find cures, vaccines, etc?

Yes you are:)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ble-fellowship

Any correlation if the Cubs win tonight?
I figure this wouldn't post until the Cubs win the World Series.

i can't believe people still see stuff like this occur in the sky, and think it means something apocalyptic.
i also can't believe other people listen to them....

Dang:eek: watch, I'll probably hit the lottery at 11 and the world ends at midnite...i got no luck but bad luck:zz:

Oh and i've been Pirates fan for 50 years.

That's quite an imaginative conspiracy narrative.

One of the most effective arguments I’ve heard against capital punishment is the fallibility of the judicial system. It goes something like this: If there is the least shred of doubt of the accused’s guilt, how can society risk performing the ultimate, irreversible punishment? Do we know when human life begins? Can we say with certainty that it is less objectionable to take it at 14 or 18 weeks than at 22 or 24? I would think we’d prefer to err on the side of caution. Maybe I am in the minority, maybe not, but I believe that life begins at conception. Being pro-life or anti-abortion is anti-woman? That only works if one believes that life doesn’t begin until birth, or that rights, as HRC says, begin when the baby leaves the hospital. If one believes that life begins at conception, as is backed up by science, then how does a woman’s right to choose trump another human’s right to life? In this context, does the discussion of when life begins make some uncomfortable? It should. As Uncle Joe said, “It’s a big f____g deal.”

So I am anti-abortion, and pp is not only increasingly the single largest purveyor of abortions, but is the most politically active pro-abortion group, so of course I am opposed to government funding of pp. Do they do good things? Yes, pp provides many services to which I do not object. Pro-abortion advocates like to cite pp’s statistic that abortion is only 3% of what pp does, and that even if one objects to abortion one must hold them near and dear because of their good works. Follow the money. PP is run more like a business than many realize. “Abortion is only 3% of what pp does.” As measured by “discrete clinical interaction,” which is how pp calculated that percentage, that may be true. That means that the person who comes in to obtain condoms is counted as one “interaction,” just as is the client who comes in to obtain an abortion. How about in terms of revenue generated? Unless pp receives significantly more than 3% of their revenue from abortion, why would they not open their books to independent analysis so as to put the issue to rest? To some (pro-choice'ers) it wouldn’t matter if abortion generated 30% or 60% or even 90% of pp’s non-government granted revenue, but to others it might (and that may well be pp’s concern), seeing as how some experts believe that CHCs are better health care providers and yet the government provides around 40% of pp’s funding. As was pointed out earlier, pp doesn’t do mammograms because of the expense relative to the reimbursement rate. The contribution margin for mammograms is extremely low, sometimes even negative, whereas for abortions it’s estimated to be $400-$600 per procedure. And while “right-wingers” are lumped together as being opposed to “women’s rights to contraception,” it’s the left – and pp – who are vehemently opposed to a Republican proposal that contraception be sold as an OTC. Wouldn’t OTC status increase immediate availability to all women? Yes, but pp would stand to lose a lot of money. Women’s interests? Or self-interest?

i wonder how the 'some experts' figure that chc's are 'better'?
or do they just say that they're better because they don't do abortions?

what really gets me....capitalism is supposed to be so great, except when someone dare make money on certain medical procedures.
but when i say we should have universal health care, oh hell no! that's communism or socialism, or something.

as for 'fallibility' and the argument over right to life, that's been covered.
as the fetus gets further along, things change. read the roe ruling, it'll explain.

McCarthy drops
 

It's official now with McCarthy dropping from the speakers race. The inmates are in charge of the asylum

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._had_guns.html

Attachment 2596

yeah, i thought the above was a good one...until i saw this one:

http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...ist-requesting

science is partisan?!
this reminds me of the good old days, when fossil fuel companies fought the removal of lead from gasoline. paid scientists to say the evidence showed nothing to worry about.... lead is a naturally occurring substance, how could it be bad? they asked. :rolleyes: hell, even the ancient romans knew the stuff could be bad--but plenty more peasants to take the places of those who died in the lead mines. lead was right there, easy to mine, easy to use....who cared if it was deadly to a few?

oh,and speaking of lead.....it's still in aviation fuel, and is the leading cause of lead in the environment.

Allegedly due to threats of revealing an affair:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/9/9488323...ellmers-affair

Which, I mean, I don't care who the eff a politician is sleeping with; I only care how they vote on actual issues, but in this case, apparently the threat to go public came from the GOP side, not the opposition.

I was amazed when I saw about that story.....cannibalism at its finest.

but then, I just saw this:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carson-ba...tler-fox-op-ed

I am appalled. carson blames the shooting victims, than he blames the jews, and now this guy doubles down on it.


this is a complete fabrication, and completely misunderstands history-with a bit...well, a lot of alteration to go along with it.
and it also ignores the fact that most of the jewish people killed in concentration camps weren't germans, they were poles, or from other countries overrun by the Nazi war machine. and then there's the fact that the effing german populace fully supported the Nazis, hitler, etc.
good god, people. know of what you speak before opening your stupid mouth and making up crap!!

There is an alarmingly large portion of the population that seems to think Red Dawn was a documentary.

It's really funny. The left used to pride themselves as being the party of inclusion and the right being old, rich white candidates. Now you have an african american, a women and 2 hispanics on the right, with old rich white people running on the left.:)

I think perhaps you need to review the net worth of the leading candidates:

http://www.cheatsheet.com/politics/h...tml/?a=viewall

And also perhaps their ages. I would not exactly call multi-millionaire Ben Carson a spring chicken. ;)

(I'd also argue, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, that any of these candidates are running on the left, but that's a whole 'nother topic.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-su...g-injured-her/

""I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d'oeuvre plate," she said"


for the love of Pete :wf

you gotta be kidding me.
who sues an 8 year old?! well, now 12, he was 8 when it happened.
i don't know that this will fly, how could it?

The part that gets me is the claim that a "reasonable" 8 year old would have known better......give me a break :rolleyes:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ti-apolog...cted-president

I love when people say 'not to be _______, but'......and then say something that is just the opposite of 'not to be'

There's some commenting that it may be the insurance company requiring her to sue in order to recoup costs from the dad's homeowner insurance policy.

Or, it could be that the kid inherited a life insurance policy from his deceased mom and she wants a cut. Families get weird when money gets involved.

a lot of people get weird when money is involved.
but that would be appalling if her health insurer was forcing this issue...i mean, what negligence is there? the kid is 8. and to sue, when the dad just lost his wife....just a completely horrible situation.
what a betch

I thought I seen a news trailer early this morning stating the suit was thrown out.....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34523300

no, she lost. as she should have. just visited bbc, and there was the link.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34530646

i have a concealed carry permit...doesn't make me think i'm a cop.
hell, not even a cop should shoot in this type situation! stupid.

in hockey, they give two minutes for dives like this...

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ing-allegation

And indeed, she said the insurance company forced her to. They paid exactly $1.00 of her medical expenses, so she's out over $100,000 over her broken wrist.

"“From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance,” her lawyers’ statement said,“Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice … Her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict.”"

http://gawker.com/aunt-didnt-want-to...e-c-1736551054

BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!