Posted on Mar 7, 2017
Trump offers Planned Parenthood funds if it halts abortions
3.8K
141
129
16
16
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
I'm good with that. Nothing is more repugnant to me than the killing of a fetus for convenience, then selling the parts. Given that most are babies of color, I would think most of us can agree on this minor step.
(9)
(0)
1. Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for Pap tests is 0.97 percent. It performed 271,539 tests in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 28.1 million tests nationwide.
2. Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8 percent. It performed 363,803 exams in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 20 million exams nationwide. (Source and note: These are physical exams, not mammograms. Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms.)
3. Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortions is 30.6 percent. It committed 323,999 abortions in fiscal year 2014-15, out of approximately 1.06 million abortions nationwide.
4. Planned Parenthood aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption.
2. Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8 percent. It performed 363,803 exams in fiscal year 2014-15, out of 20 million exams nationwide. (Source and note: These are physical exams, not mammograms. Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms.)
3. Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortions is 30.6 percent. It committed 323,999 abortions in fiscal year 2014-15, out of approximately 1.06 million abortions nationwide.
4. Planned Parenthood aborts 160 children for every one child it refers out for adoption.
(8)
(0)
LTC Orlando Illi
PO2 (Join to see) Good Morning. The data was obtained from the this http://liveaction.org. You may disagree with the data. That is obviously your're right. Nonetheless, via their own annual report one can determine that Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income—and more than 10 percent of all its revenue, government funding included—from its abortion procedures. Ask anyone who runs a for-profit business or nonprofit charity if something that brings in one-third of their revenue is “central” to their endeavor, and the answer is likely to be yes. So yes, Planned Parenthood's own data reveals that abortion is central to what Planned Parenthood does.
![](https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/156/056/qrc/quote-icon.png?1489149265)
Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action, a human rights organization dedicated to ending abortion and inspiring a culture that respects and protects life. Lila founded Live Action when she was 15 years old.
(0)
(0)
Deborah Gregson
SGM Erik Marquez - I had responded to this statement - "
SPC Kevin Ford 4 d
And that tells us what this is all about. There and many, many providers of those other services but very few providers of abortions. If you know something is legal and constitutional and you still want to get rid of it, just make it so there are no providers of the service then no one can exercise what the SCOTUS has determined is a legal right."
Since he described abortion as a "right"; and the SCOTUS described abortion as a "right" per Roe v Wade; and a woman does have a right to determine what she decides to do medically concerning procedures for her own body, which is what an abortion is in the first and second trimesters as provided in Roe v Wade and subsequent "viability" court cases; then if Congress doesn't fund Planned Parenthood they take away a woman's right to abortions by removing the locations that offer abortion services for them, even though those services aren't paid for by federal tax money. If women can't get those services at other locations, defunding the locations where the services are provided in order to shut the services down is in essence limiting their Constitutional right to those services.
It's no different than the Fed. govt requiring gun registration or limiting the type of guns one may own, or limiting ammunition sales or the number of rounds in the magazine as a way to enact gun control, which limits or removes the right to own guns; or says that one can't show pictures of the Virgin Mary with blood on her, or put displays of Jesus in a public place, or publish cartoons of Mohammad in the newspaper which takes away the right to free speech - you're not directly taking those rights away, but in essence by those rules you are limiting their Constitutional rights.
SPC Kevin Ford 4 d
And that tells us what this is all about. There and many, many providers of those other services but very few providers of abortions. If you know something is legal and constitutional and you still want to get rid of it, just make it so there are no providers of the service then no one can exercise what the SCOTUS has determined is a legal right."
Since he described abortion as a "right"; and the SCOTUS described abortion as a "right" per Roe v Wade; and a woman does have a right to determine what she decides to do medically concerning procedures for her own body, which is what an abortion is in the first and second trimesters as provided in Roe v Wade and subsequent "viability" court cases; then if Congress doesn't fund Planned Parenthood they take away a woman's right to abortions by removing the locations that offer abortion services for them, even though those services aren't paid for by federal tax money. If women can't get those services at other locations, defunding the locations where the services are provided in order to shut the services down is in essence limiting their Constitutional right to those services.
It's no different than the Fed. govt requiring gun registration or limiting the type of guns one may own, or limiting ammunition sales or the number of rounds in the magazine as a way to enact gun control, which limits or removes the right to own guns; or says that one can't show pictures of the Virgin Mary with blood on her, or put displays of Jesus in a public place, or publish cartoons of Mohammad in the newspaper which takes away the right to free speech - you're not directly taking those rights away, but in essence by those rules you are limiting their Constitutional rights.
(0)
(0)
LTC Orlando Illi
Deborah Gregson - In their strident defense of the "right" to abortion (or more accurately the termination of a human life) the DNC has become diametrically opposed to egalitarianism and human rights. Recall that this same Democratic predilection toward denying humans basic rights was also by slaveholders in the antebellum South who cited their "rights" and their culture's "peculiar institution" when opposing abolition. It is interesting to note the glaring similarity of logical conclusion and purpose as the DNC and Planned Parenthood stridently scream "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!" "CHOICE!" and "EQUALITY!" when any mention of abortion is made. Furthermore, just as the Nazis termed Jews "untermensch" (German for "sub-human" or "less than human"), most of today's liberal Democrats scream "NOT HUMAN!" "FETUS!" and "PRODUCT OF CONCEPTION “MASS OF CELLS”, “BLOB OF TISSUE” and “NOT A PERSON” in defending their privilege to kill infants who they deem inconvenient. Specifically, in 1936, the Reichsgericht declared Jews to be non-persons and thus the Nazis declared that they were making their society better by getting rid of inferior … i.e., unwanted … people; referring to Jews and other Non-Aryans as rats, pigs, vermin and untermensch. Additionally, in the 1857 SCOTUS decreed in Dred Scott v. Sandford,; that slaves were "chattel" (property) who had "no rights which the White man was bound to respect," including the right to sue in U.S. courts for their own freedom. The court decided that “among the whole human race,the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when SCOTUS rt arrived at the identical conclusion. At what point in time “…does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked…” SCOTUS refused to answer - using the tortured logic that: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed - in effect classifying them as "untermensch". How convenient and how reminiscent of 1936, the Reichsgericht decision cited above. The resultant carnage from Roe v Wade has was termination of FIFTY-SEVEN MILLION unborn children since 1973. For comparison, an estimated SIX million Jews died in the Holocaust. So under the guise of a Constitutional Right our society has terminated with extreme prejudice the lives of MILLIONS more unborn children as Nazis did Jews and other untermensch. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood and the DNC have consistently justified this slaughter of the unborn as nothing more then women just exercising their right to "choose"; effectively regulating the consequence of the act of abortion to irrelevance. An interesting choice of words to be sure. To review; slaveholders held humans in bondage and Nazis slaughtered millions by exercising their right to "choose" as well by referring to their victims as "untermensch" and "chattel"; thus freeing them from the consequence of their actions as said actions were relegated to irrelevance - a parallel not lost on many of us the abhor the wanton slaughter of unborn children. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood's own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that 21% of all pregnancies that do not miscarry end in abortions. Non-Hispanic Black women (who comprise less than 12% of the US population) account for a full third of abortions. On their own Fact Sheet web page, the Guttmacher Institute does not even list rape or incest as a reason women have abortions. The only justifications that the Guttmacher Institute stipulate are a preference in family sizes and/or financial burdens.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
LTC Orlando Illi - Great stats, thanks. I’m blessed God supernaturally spared me an abortion when I was in the military and now I have 40 yr old daughter who calls me daily and makes me laugh. And 6 gkids!
(0)
(0)
In defending abortion the DNC has become diametrically opposed to egalitarianism and human rights. Recall that this same Democratic predilection toward denying humans basic rights was also used by slaveholders in the antebellum south who cited their "rights" and their culture's "peculiar institution" when opposing abolition. It is interesting to note the comparison as feminists stridently scream "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!" "CHOICE!" and "EQUALITY!" when any mention of abortion is made. Furthermore, just as the Nazis termed Jews "untermensch" (German for "sub-human" or "less than human"), most of today's liberal Democrats scream "NOT HUMAN!" "FETUS!" and "PRODUCT OF CONCEPTION “MASS OF CELLS”, “BLOB OF TISSUE” and “NOT A PERSON” in defending their privilege to kill people who they deem inconvenient. Specifically, In 1936, the Reichsgericht declared Jews to be non-persons and thus the Nazis declared that they were making their society better by getting rid of inferior … i.e., unwanted … people; referring to Jews and other Non-Aryans as rats, pigs, vermin and untermensch. Additionally, in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford,; the United States Supreme Court explicitly ruled that slaves were "chattel" (property) who had "no rights which the White man was bound to respect," including the right to sue in U.S. courts for their own freedom. The court decided that “among the whole human race,the enslaved African race were not intended to be included…[T]hey had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” In other words, persons of African origin did not “qualify” as human beings for purposes of protecting their natural rights. It was held that, since the white man did not recognize them as having such rights, they didn’t have them. The implication was that Africans were property—things that white persons could choose to buy and sell. In contrast, whites did “qualify,” so government protected their natural rights. The second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973, when the Supreme Court made virtually the identical mistake. At what point in time “…does a human being exist, the state of Texas asked…” The Court refused to answer: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” In other words, the Court would not “qualify” unborn children as living persons whose human rights must be guaranteed. The Dred Scott Decision has long since been decried by other Justices as the worst decision in the Supreme Court's entire history. However, Roe v Wade was far, far worse—as has been every single decision since then which upheld Roe and/or loosened restrictions on elective abortion in America. The result of Roe v Wade and the support it enjoys (primarily) from liberal Democrats today is that FIFTY-SEVEN MILLION unborn children since 1973 have had their lives terminated. For comparison, an estimated SIX million Jews died in the Holocaust, which we all remember as one of history's worst human rights violations. The numbers are staggering in that we have terminated the lives of TEN TIMES as many unborn children as Hitler did Jewish people, and we have always justified it by calling them "untermensch" and "chattel," and by proclaiming this as a "woman's right" to "health care." Furthermore, Planned Parenthood's own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that 21% of all pregnancies that do not miscarry end in abortions. Non-Hispanic Black women (who comprise less than 12% of the US population) account for a full third of abortions. On their own Fact Sheet web page, the Guttmacher Institute does not even list rape or incest as a reason women have abortions. The only justifications they record relate to preference in family sizes and/or financial burdens.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next