Georgetown to host Cecile Richards

[donnie_baseball]

Just read that Cecile Richards (President, Planned Parenthood) has been invited to speak at Georgetown in April. GU administration defending this as "exchange of ideas."

I think it's incredibly bad timing, considering that PP has been under fire for the past 8 months, because it's clear that it's all about money, and not prevention.

It's one thing for an "exchange of ideas" with a dignitary, such as an author or an ambassador (or even Kathleen Sebelius) at a modern University, but considering what PP stands for, to Catholics, to give this woman a stop on her damage-control tour at a Catholic University is an absolute disgrace.

I thought that the author of The Exorcist, and noted GU alum, William Peter Blatty, who was calling for the pulling of Georgetown's charter, was crazy, but it's clear this is a University that is Catholic in name only.

 

[HALL85]

Another charade...this nonsense about "free exchange of ideas" only seems to work one way...

 

[Merge]

Another charade...this nonsense about "free exchange of ideas" only seems to work one way...

Ann Coulter was one of their speakers...

I can understand why people would be upset about Richards speaking there, but historically this is a pretty interesting/important time regarding the abortion debate. I think she would be an interesting guest depending on the format.

 

[donnie_baseball]

She's not coming to debate; she is going to explain how an organization that claims to be about prevention performs more terminations year over year, and also contrive to tell adolescents that there's no conflict of interest when said procedures make up the vast majority of receipts. What motivation could they have to do prevention well?

 

[Merge]

She's not coming to debate; she is going to explain how an organization that claims to be about prevention performs more terminations year over year, and also contrive to tell adolescents that there's no conflict of interest when said procedures make up the vast majority of receipts. What motivation could they have to do prevention well?

Of course... She was not invited for a debate. She was invited to speak.

I think you may be letting your bias get in the way here. My girlfriend when I was 19 or 20 used to go to planned parenthood for birth control. I went with her several times and spoke with the people there with her. The goals were about preventing unwanted pregnancy and diseases. They also gave away condoms for free... wouldn't that be "bad for business".

What you are saying would be similar to saying my doctor has a conflict of interest when deciding which medicine to give me if he knows one would result in an increase in office visits.

 

[Seton75]

Create demons and rant about them. That is part of our political process, for both sides.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Nothing manufactured, 75. 3300 human lives extinguished in thus country daily.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Of course... She was not invited for a debate. She was invited to speak.

I think you may be letting your bias get in the way here. My girlfriend when I was 19 or 20 used to go to planned parenthood for birth control. I went with her several times and spoke with the people there with her. The goals were about preventing unwanted pregnancy and diseases. They also gave away condoms for free... wouldn't that be "bad for business".

What you are saying would be similar to saying my doctor has a conflict of interest when deciding which medicine to give me if he knows one would result in an increase in office visits.

Don't believe that doesn't happen. I know of oncologists who refuse to use certain chemo drugs because there is no margin in it for them.

And, I think youve missed my point. PP has been defending itself a lot lately, pointing to how much it does in prevention. Clearly they are failing at it, if they perform more abortions every year. -- at best, certainly none less. And that's with several of them closing since ACA passed. It's what profits them.

 

[Merge]

nd, I think youve missed my point. PP has been defending itself a lot lately, pointing to how much it does in prevention. Clearly they are failing at it, if they perform more abortions every year. -- at best, certainly none less. And that's with several of them closing since ACA passed. It's what profits them.

Although their other services have been increasing as well and nationally the rate of abortions has been on the decline for years... so maybe they are more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies which would lead to abortion than you are giving them credit for?

 

[donnie_baseball]

Although their other services have been increasing as well and nationally the rate of abortions has been on the decline for years... so maybe they are more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies which would lead to abortion than you are giving them credit for?

I really fail to see how. Nationally, there is a decline in terminations, but if the data I read was correct, no such decline in PP's performance of the procedures. It's usually about money, and procedures are where the money is.

 

[Seton75]

Don't believe that doesn't happen. I know of oncologists who refuse to use certain chemo drugs because there is no margin in it for them.

And, I think youve missed my point. PP has been defending itself a lot lately, pointing to how much it does in prevention. Clearly they are failing at it, if they perform more abortions every year. -- at best, certainly none less. And that's with several of them closing since ACA passed. It's what profits them.

But there is crime every day and we pay the cops to stop it. I think if the cops weren't around, crime would be far worse. So why can't you accept that if not for PP, there would be far more abortions?

 

[Merge]

I really fail to see how. Nationally, there is a decline in terminations, but if the data I read was correct, no such decline in PP's performance of the procedures. It's usually about money, and procedures are where the money is.

There are too many other factors to know why people get them at a specific facility at a point in time.
Doesn't mean that planned parenthood is not responsible for any of the decline nationally.

Again.. I have been in 2 planned parenthood facilities. They weren't advertising abortion, most of the stuff there was about STD's and promoting birth control.

 

[donnie_baseball]

But there is crime every day and we pay the cops to stop it. I think if the cops weren't around, crime would be far worse. So why can't you accept that if not for PP, there would be far more abortions?

If the biggest abortion provider in the world were gone, there would be far more abortions? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one. If not for PP, someone else would be doing them -- that I'd agree with. That doesn't change the fact that if we don't want "far more abortions," the prevention is failing?

Merge - no need to advertise what everyone already knows. For whatever noble services they claim to provide, they are as synonymous with abortions as Hoover is with vacuum cleaners.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Interesting update:

http://beta.townhall.com/tipsheet/c...ards-speech-with-one-by-abby-johnson-n2147458

 

[Old_alum]

Create demons and rant about them. That is part of our political process, for both sides.

But there is crime every day and we pay the cops to stop it. I think if the cops weren't around, crime would be far worse. So why can't you accept that if not for PP, there would be far more abortions?

Sorry, 75, but IMHO you are off your game as both of these quotes have specious logic.

You present no evidence or logic about "creating demons".

I understand that you are not religious, but after all of the discussion we have had on this topic just on this board are you still saying that you personally do not comprehend that for 2000 years Christians have considered abortion to be as morally repugnant as murder (i.e. the intentional taking of innocent human lives)? How is that "create(d) demons" in the political process? If someone in the government tried to make it legal for any parent to kill any of her babies under six-months of age, would you oppose that? And if it were to pass and such killings numbered more than 100 every hour of every day, how vehemently (if not aggressively) would you oppose such action?

On your second point, the only "logical" inference to be drawn is that you equate live-births to crime, as something everyone should try to prevent. Is that your thesis?

Or are you now reducing yourself to using one-liners in lieu of reasoned dialogue (see the main board's discussion of the protests against a gay player in the NCAA)?

 

[Seton75]

Sorry, 75, but IMHO you are off your game as both of these quotes have specious logic.

You present no evidence or logic about "creating demons".

I understand that you are not religious, but after all of the discussion we have had on this topic just on this board are you still saying that you personally do not comprehend that for 2000 years Christians have considered abortion to be as morally repugnant as murder (i.e. the intentional taking of innocent human lives)? How is that "create(d) demons" in the political process? If someone in the government tried to make it legal for any parent to kill any of her babies under six-months of age, would you oppose that? And if it were to pass and such killings numbered more than 100 every hour of every day, how vehemently (if not aggressively) would you oppose such action?

On your second point, the only "logical" inference to be drawn is that you equate live-births to crime, as something everyone should try to prevent. Is that your thesis?

Or are you now reducing yourself to using one-liners in lieu of reasoned dialogue (see the main board's discussion of the protests against a gay player in the NCAA)?

If you are referring to when you said in a thread about Derrick to hate the sin, I took offense at thinking that gay sexuality is sinful, and I really objected it to be said on the main board in a thread about Derrick. You have the right to your beliefs. But I thought your comments were very inappropriate in that thread and very hurtful. I would hate for Derrick to think that is how most SHU fans feel about his sexuality. And I do not think most SHU fans feel that way.

Re "On your second point, the only "logical" inference to be drawn is that you equate live-births to crime, as something everyone should try to prevent. Is that your thesis?" No, that could not be further from my thesis. My thesis, quite simply, is that Planned Parenthood decreases the number of abortions - even though abortions continue and even though they receive monies for abortions - through its teachings on contraception (which I think is still banned by Catholicism - make Catholics walking into Mass take a lie detector test on who used Birth control and you can take away the need for microphones), yet abortions continue, just like we pay the police to stop crime, but crime continues and we continue to pay them.

I assume re abortion, you are not a believer in the "three exceptions" rule, where abortion is OK when related to rape, incest or the health of the mother. That to me is the only logical way for me to see the anti abortion argument. No exceptions.

Do you deny both political sides - TODAY MORE THAN EVER - demonize each others' positions? Frankly, I don't remember what I was referring to, but it is not like I accused one side of demonizing.

 

[donnie_baseball]

I assume re abortion, you are not a believer in the "three exceptions" rule, where abortion is OK when related to rape, incest or the health of the mother. That to me is the only logical way for me to see the anti abortion argument. No exceptions.

Do you deny both political sides - TODAY MORE THAN EVER - demonize each others' positions? Frankly, I don't remember what I was referring to, but it is not like I accused one side of demonizing.

I respect your thoughts on this, but realize that the three exceptions make up less than one percent of all terminations.

Of course the pro lifers "demonize" the other side -- they feel it's murder.

The pro choicers demonize the other side because you can't rightly defend what is inherently evil, so ad hominem attacks rule the day. First, they claimed it wasn't human. Advances in science and care of premature births has quelled that, for the most part, so now they demonize pro lifers for being "pro birthers," meaning they don't care what happens AFTER the baby is born. Having seen first hand the work done at various mother-baby homes, I can tell you that is far from the truth.

You should read the writings of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a reformed abortionist (and co-founder of NARAL) who chronicled how the pro choice movement used deception and manipulation to get abortion legalized -- and he was a central figure in it. It's eye-opening.

 

[Old_alum]

If you are referring to when you said in a thread about Derrick to hate the sin, I took offense at thinking that gay sexuality is sinful, and I really objected it to be said on the main board in a thread about Derrick. You have the right to your beliefs. But I thought your comments were very inappropriate in that thread and very hurtful. I would hate for Derrick to think that is how most SHU fans feel about his sexuality. And I do not think most SHU fans feel that way.

It is obvious that many in our society now, like you, "take offense" to old fashioned religious beliefs. For millennia "religious" people have taken offense at behavior that is contrary to those religious beliefs. Nothing new there.

First, let me point out that the "thread about Derrick" which was started and continued "on the main board" (as you call it), was, to be specific, about that radical Kansas-group which apparently "protests" much behavior based on their own so-called "religious beliefs." I did not start the thread. I did suggest to the Admins that they move it here, Off-Ship. So the entire thread was about Derrick and his sexuality. Many posters had been bemoaning all "religious" objections to homosexual behavior. I did not introduce what you now opine was "very inappropriate in that thread and very hurtful". I would agree that in general discussion of such matters is more "appropriate" off-ship (as I suggested therein). But please explain why you feel that on one hand it is appropriate for other posters to bash religious belief in that thread and yet on the other hand you feel it was inappropriate for me to defend religious beliefs in that same thread?

Now, as to the "hurtful" part, I assure you that I never intended to hurt anyone, especially Derrick. I suggest that if the goal was to shield Derrick from being hurt then the thread should never have been started.

You go on to say: "I took offense at thinking that gay sexuality is sinful....I would hate for Derrick to think that is how most SHU fans feel about his sexuality. And I do not think most SHU fans feel that way."

IMHO this is just plain wrong on various levels. First, the dictionary definition of Sin is "transgression of divine law". To Christians and Jews homosexuality is a "transgression of divine law". QED whether you like it or not, homosexuality acts (not feelings) are a "sin". And any "true" Catholic would interpret it that way. I suspect that a very large plurality if not majority of SHU fans are Catholics.

Also whether you like it or not, Seton Hall is a Catholic university operated by the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark. I strongly suspect that the Administration, being Catholic, specifically accepted Derrick despite his sexuality on the basis that he not flaunt his sexuality, which he never did. (BTW extramarital bisexual relations are also illicit and a sin under Catholic teaching, and I suspect the Admins would admonish any scholarship basketball player who flouted those teachings and flaunted it publicly).

Finally, I brought up your one-liner from that thread in this discussion because one-liners IMHO are not a reasonable way to carry on a dialogue.

Re "On your second point, the only "logical" inference to be drawn is that you equate live-births to crime, as something everyone should try to prevent. Is that your thesis?" No, that could not be further from my thesis. My thesis, quite simply, is that Planned Parenthood decreases the number of abortions - even though abortions continue and even though they receive monies for abortions - through its teachings on contraception ...yet abortions continue....

Part of Planned Parenthood --- contraception --- does technically in most instances eliminate the need for an abortion. That is true, or, rather a half-truth. In addition to passing out contraceptives Planned Parenthood has a whole separate and much BIGGER operation (much more financially rewarding to them because they are paid handsomely --- particularly by the Federal Government) and that is performing abortions. This "other" function is very much supportive of --- in fact, driven by --- generating more abortions. So it is in no way accurate to purport that Planned Parenthood is in primary opposition to abortions. Do you believe that even one Planned Parenthood store counsels adoption versus abortion?

But that is not the most specious part of your "thesis". The specious part --- as I tried to point out originally --- is your analogy to the police and crime.

....through its teachings on contraception ...yet abortions continue....just like we pay the police to stop crime, but crime continues and we continue to pay them.

This is one strange analogy. It might be deemed reasonable if the police were the ones committing the crimes, as if saying "we police tell people not to leave their keys in their cars to reduce care theft, BUT when we see keys we always try to steal the cars!" Is that what you are implying?

You see, police are diametrically opposed to crime. No one can say that Planned Parenthood is diametrically opposed to abortions, since one cannot even say that abortion is even less important to Planned Parenthood than contraception.

That is why that logic is specious.

.... through its teachings on contraception (which I think is still banned by Catholicism - make Catholics walking into Mass take a lie detector test on who used Birth control and you can take away the need for microphones)

This is a gratuitous, irrelevant and (again) specious comment. Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is a sin. Yes many Catholics practice contraception. Why is that relevant? And, for the record, any Catholic who does practice contraception is committing a "sin" --- in the classic sense --- and that sin is harmful to them and those sinners are to be loved. But how is this a defense of Planned Parenthood?

I assume re abortion, you are not a believer in the "three exceptions" rule, where abortion is OK when related to rape, incest or the health of the mother. That to me is the only logical way for me to see the anti abortion argument. No exceptions.

I personally do not ever support abortion and I pray that I will not (nor that anyone will) be faced with choosing between aborting a baby and losing the life of its mother. I pray I would let nature take its course.

Do you deny both political sides - TODAY MORE THAN EVER - demonize each others' positions? Frankly, I don't remember what I was referring to, but it is not like I accused one side of demonizing.

Demonizing an opponent is not the same as your quote: "Create demons and rant about them. That is part of our political process, for both sides." My point, as Donnie eloquently explained, is that these so-called and specific demons were not created for political purposes but have been around for millennia.

 

[Merge]

Part of Planned Parenthood --- contraception --- does technically in most instances eliminate the need for an abortion. That is true, or, rather a half-truth. In addition to passing out contraceptives Planned Parenthood has a whole separate and much BIGGER operation (much more financially rewarding to them because they are paid handsomely --- particularly by the Federal Government) and that is performing abortions.

That is not true. They do not receive federal funding to perform abortions.

So it is in no way accurate to purport that Planned Parenthood is in primary opposition to abortions. Do you believe that even one Planned Parenthood store counsels adoption versus abortion?

I'm sorry but you really could not be more wrong about that. You are letting your bias get in the way in assuming that all employees at PP are only part of some money making machine. They employ people who will support whatever decision an individual makes as is their right under the current law. They provide information about all options...

 

[Old_alum]

That is not true. They do not receive federal funding to perform abortions.

Want to bet? What portion of state Medicaid has Federal funding?

I'm sorry but you really could not be more wrong about that. You are letting your bias get in the way in assuming that all employees at PP are only part of some money making machine. They employ people who will support whatever decision an individual makes as is their right under the current law. They provide information about all options...

Now who is "letting (one's) bias get in the way" of facts and reasoning?

First, no one said anything about what the employees of PP "want". We are talking about the organization, and its management.

Second, I challenge you to show me one instance in which Planned Parenthood --- as an organization --- promoted adoption as a preferred option.

Third, are you denying the published testimonials from former Planned Parenthood managers (see Donnie's citation above for one) which detail the drive for higher abortion revenues?

Fourth, no one suggested that Planned Parenthood or any of its employees are physically able or legally trying to abridge anyone's legal "rights". But IMHO your use of the word "support" is totally inappropriate. Would you call it "support" for adoption when this organization and its people actively pressure their "customers" to have abortions? Read what is out there, Merge.

 

[Merge]

Want to bet? What portion of state Medicaid has Federal funding?

Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion. In the 15 states where Medicaid pays for abortion, the state covers the cost.

Second, I challenge you to show me one instance in which Planned Parenthood --- as an organization --- promoted adoption as a preferred option.

They don't promote adoption as a preferred method... but they don't promote a preferred method. They don't talk you in or out of any option. I have been to planned parenthood and knew someone who had an abortion at a planned parenthood.

Third, are you denying the published testimonials from former Planned Parenthood managers (see Donnie's citation above for one) which detail the drive for higher abortion revenues?

No. Individuals may have different priorities than the organization as a whole.
Did certain individuals act poorly? Sure.
Does that mean that was company policy and there are systemic instances of that happening? No.

urth, no one suggested that Planned Parenthood or any of its employees are physically able or legally trying to abridge anyone's legal "rights". But IMHO your use of the word "support" is totally inappropriate. Would you call it "support" for adoption when this organization and its people actively pressure their "customers" to have abortions? Read what is out there, Merge.

Again... Not denying it has occurred as you describe, but having been to planned parenthood and knowing someone's experience at a PP... there is another side to this story that you are missing.

 

[Old_alum]

Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion. In the 15 states where Medicaid pays for abortion, the state covers the cost.



They don't promote adoption as a preferred method... but they don't promote a preferred method. They don't talk you in or out of any option. I have been to planned parenthood and knew someone who had an abortion at a planned parenthood.



No. Individuals may have different priorities than the organization as a whole.
Did certain individuals act poorly? Sure.
Does that mean that was company policy and there are systemic instances of that happening? No.



Again... Not denying it has occurred as you describe, but having been to planned parenthood and knowing someone's experience at a PP... there is another side to this story that you are missing.

Thanks for the explanation, Merge, but I fear we might be hijacking this thread with the funding tangent. You are right, of course, on the Hyde prohibition, but as any first-year MBA student can tell you, money is fungible and no accountant will even claim to be able to "track" specific dollars. In FY14 the "government" provided $528 MM of PP's total "receipts" of $834 MM.

As to your personal anecdotal evidence, I am sorry she had to go through that and I guess in a small way one might find a modicum of comfort in the solicitous reception she got (although not with the outcome). During your experience did the PP rep directly explain the option of adoption? If so, based on the consistent testimony of multiple former senior PP managers, that rep's job would have been at risk to do so. I whole-heartedly concur with your statement: "Individuals may have different priorities than the organization as a whole", but let us leave it to the readers as to who better understands the operating directives inside any organization: its managers or its CSR.

 

[Merge]

but as any first-year MBA student can tell you, money is fungible and no accountant will even claim to be able to "track" specific dollars.

As an accountant who has audited federal grants for hospitals, I disagree. These funds are traced and may only be used for what they are intended to be used for. Grant money will be segregated from operating accounts.

Medicaid funds would not have to be segregated as PP will bill states which pay reimbursement for abortions (there are 15, and I agree they should not be paying for abortion) The state is responsible for segregating federal funds form state tax receipts. States have less of a reason to maintain the segregation than planned parenthood, but if there is a problem occurring here, it is on the states side and not the service provider.

As to your personal anecdotal evidence, I am sorry she had to go through that and I guess in a small way one might find a modicum of comfort in the solicitous reception she got (although not with the outcome). During your experience did the PP rep directly explain the option of adoption? If so, based on the consistent testimony of multiple former senior PP managers, that rep's job would have been at risk to do so. I whole-heartedly concur with your statement: "Individuals may have different priorities than the organization as a whole", but let us leave it to the readers as to who better understands the operating directives inside any organization: its managers or its CSR.

To be clear, it wasn't my child. It was my ex girlfriends best friend.
We got into a heated debate about abortion. I was pro-life and she was pro-choice. At the time I did not know that she had already had one. My girlfriend let me know afterwards why her friend was getting so upset so the next time I saw her friend I apologized and she talked a little about her experience. I specifically asked if she discussed adoption and she said they did, but her mind was made up as she was in high school, about to go to college and thought carrying a child would ruin her life. She said she also received a pamphlet which discussed the procedure and the days afterwards and who to reach out to if they are depressed afterwards.

When I went to PP with my girlfriend it was for birth control. I only went in with her once and waited in the waiting room the other times we went (4x a year for a shot) but her practitioner had asked if we would want a child if my girlfriend became pregnant and we said we were not ready for children (I was 20 at the time) and she discussed how important it was to have safe sex since having an abortion could be traumatic. In the waiting room they had free condoms available for anyone who wanted them and there were a ton a pamphlets about STD's and cancer screenings. I did not see anything about abortion.

Maybe my experience was an outlier but it is hard to imagine it would be. I think if it was, there would be a lot more damning evidence out there against PP.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Maybe my experience was an outlier but it is hard to imagine it would be. I think if it was, there would be a lot more damning evidence out there against PP.

I recommend you read what Abby Johnson has to say about it. She has a much larger sampling of PP anectdotes than you (although you have more real world experience than me -- meaning that I've never darkened their door).

 

[Merge]

I recommend you read what Abby Johnson has to say about it. She has a much larger sampling of PP anectdotes than you (although you have more real world experience than me -- meaning that I've never darkened their door).

I have read some of what she has had to say. I think some of it is complete nonsense intended to increase her book sales / speaking fees etc... The idea that they are encouraging women who are not pregnant to have an abortion seems absurd... and if it were true, you would have countless instances of people coming forward with claims against PP. Do you really think these practitioners would compromise their ethics just to make PP more money?

All I am saying is that there is another side to PP of physicians and practitioners who are not a part of a corporate machine but are there to help women with a difficult decision.