Planned Parenthood

[knowknow456]

No one "needs" to do anything --- even if it is unlawful not to.

This question to you --- one of several ---- was asking how you (personally, not the government, but Merge) can combine your stated personal view that you want abortions to decrease with the view that the government should subsidize the nation's largest abortion store-chain? Is it your opinion that money is not fungible?

If you oppose abortion, why not add disincentive to the big-box abortion store chain?

I want abortions to decrease. I do not believe defunding PP is the answer.

If someone goes to PP for an abortion they pay out of pocket. You could completely defund PP and the abortion number would not necessarily go down.

There are approximately 5 million people who use PP services per year. Approximately, 300,000 abortions are performed. In broad terms the other 4.7 million people use PP for something other than abortion, most commonly contraception, treatment of sexual disease, cancer screenings and pre-natal services.

Let's assume 2 million of the 4.7 million use PP for contraceptive services. (I am having trouble finding meaningful data so I am guessing) . Now suppose PP is defunded. If 1% of the 2 million people wind up pregnant that is an additional 20,000 unwanted pregnancies. Some of those babies will be aborted. If everything else is equal, abortions will increase.

 

[Seton75]

I want abortions to decrease. I do not believe defunding PP is the answer.

If someone goes to PP for an abortion they pay out of pocket. You could completely defund PP and the abortion number would not necessarily go down.

There are approximately 5 million people who use PP services per year. Approximately, 300,000 abortions are performed. In broad terms the other 4.7 million people use PP for something other than abortion, most commonly contraception, treatment of sexual disease, cancer screenings and pre-natal services.

Let's assume 2 million of the 4.7 million use PP for contraceptive services. (I am having trouble finding meaningful data so I am guessing) . Now suppose PP is defunded. If 1% of the 2 million people wind up pregnant that is an additional 20,000 unwanted pregnancies. Some of those babies will be aborted. If everything else is equal, abortions will increase.

Well said know.

 

[Old_alum]

As someone who has audited federal and state grants at hospitals, I a have confidence that there are proper controls in place to prevent planned parenthood from using federal funding for abortion related activities especially due to the size of planned parenthood and the significance of the grants.

I would not agree that removing the funding from planed parenthood would result in a decrease in the amount of women who want an abortion at all.

An analogy of that thought process... if my goal was to eliminate people from eating fast food and I try to accomplish that by removing hamburgers from McDonald's. People still want fast food, people will still get fast food, competition has decreased so the price probably goes up so they will pay more... and the reason they were probably getting fast food in the first place was because of finances... So what have I accomplished? I made it more difficult and expensive for them but have not impacted their decision.

I just don't see PP as this company actively seeking to end pregnancies. My ex went there for birth control. There were a lot of education materials for STD's cancer screening, family planning, prenatal care and free condoms. They really did not appear to be pushing abortion from what I saw.

First of all, this is a small sidebar on my questions and was never intended as a panacea, just one small step for man's kind.

That said, does the government grant system require accounting that tracks "incremental spending on a purpose" or merely "spending on a purpose"?

Have you read the testimonies of former PP employees?

 

[HALL85]

In this day and age, where there is an "app" that can link people, businesses, etc. efficiently (i.e. Uber, Match.com, etc.), you would think that someone would be able to come up with one to link prospective adoptive parents with those that can't provide for a baby, with the appropriate protections to make sure both parties are qualified. That service would be infinitely more valuable than the ACA and health exchange website.....

 

[Merge]

That said, does the government grant system require accounting that tracks "incremental spending on a purpose" or merely "spending on a purpose"?

Have you read the testimonies of former PP employees?

I'll explain the process a little.
Planned Parenthood would receive a grant award contract. Within the contract it will state the allowable costs which are reimbursable under the contract.

For example planned parenthood receives federal funding for this grant.
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=0f56c14fa6a18ccc3a739c7564591a68

which specifically states:
"Funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. Funds may not be used for purchase or construction of buildings; salaries of personnel paid from other Federal grant funds; and certain other miscellaneous items as specified in the regulations. Priority in the provision of services will be given to persons from low-income families."

Planned Parenthood must submit quarterly expenditure reports showing their expenses for the allowable costs laid out in the grant contract.

That data is audited by an independent accounting firm.

Failure to meet the requirements could result in planned parenthood no longer receiving grant funding. They have a vested interest in ensuring there are controls in place to comply with the contracts.

I have not read testimony from employees.[/QUOTE]

 

[Merge]

In this day and age, where there is an "app" that can link people, businesses, etc. efficiently (i.e. Uber, Match.com, etc.), you would think that someone would be able to come up with one to link prospective adoptive parents with those that can't provide for a baby, with the appropriate protections to make sure both parties are qualified. That service would be infinitely more valuable than the ACA and health exchange website.....

I think that is actually a brilliant idea.

 

[cernjSHU]

In this day and age, where there is an "app" that can link people, businesses, etc. efficiently (i.e. Uber, Match.com, etc.), you would think that someone would be able to come up with one to link prospective adoptive parents with those that can't provide for a baby, with the appropriate protections to make sure both parties are qualified. That service would be infinitely more valuable than the ACA and health exchange website.....

Sounds good in theory but some babies are in more demand than others. Those in demand babies normally don't have an issue finding a home. While others will never find adoptive parents. Why do so many adoptive parents go oversees to adopt a baby when there are so many here to adopt? Not to sound callous but it is supply and demand.

 

[HALL85]

Sounds good in theory but some babies are in more demand than others. Those in demand babies normally don't have an issue finding a home. While others will never find adoptive parents. Why do so many adoptive parents go oversees to adopt a baby when there are so many here to adopt? Not to sound callous but it is supply and demand.

My wife and I have never explored adoption, so I don't know the demand drivers. It does strike me as a very disparate and disjointed system that is difficult to link both parties. At the very least an App can create efficiencies that don't exist today.

I have no data to support this, but I think the historic "in-demand", Caucasian, blue-eyed, blonde baby is not as critical for the next generation of adoptive parents. The Gen-X and Millenials are more color and race blind. My whole point with this suggestion is we need to think about and implement real solutions that can effectively reduce abortions and improve the efficiency of placing babies in the hands of prospective parents.

 

[Merge]

My wife and I have never explored adoption, so I don't know the demand drivers. It does strike me as a very disparate and disjointed system that is difficult to link both parties. At the very least an App can create efficiencies that don't exist today.

I have no idea if the app itself would be successful but I am willing to bet you could create an extraordinarily successful crowdfunding campaign to develop the app.

 

[Old_alum]

I want abortions to decrease. I do not believe defunding PP is the answer.

If someone goes to PP for an abortion they pay out of pocket. You could completely defund PP and the abortion number would not necessarily go down.

There are approximately 5 million people who use PP services per year. Approximately, 300,000 abortions are performed. In broad terms the other 4.7 million people use PP for something other than abortion, most commonly contraception, treatment of sexual disease, cancer screenings and pre-natal services.

Let's assume 2 million of the 4.7 million use PP for contraceptive services. (I am having trouble finding meaningful data so I am guessing) . Now suppose PP is defunded. If 1% of the 2 million people wind up pregnant that is an additional 20,000 unwanted pregnancies. Some of those babies will be aborted. If everything else is equal, abortions will increase.

You all say you want the abortion rate to go down. One human baby is killed every hour of every day. Is that acceptable to you? Please tell me.

Now the "logic" and "economics"


Frankly, what I care about is abortions. Per PPFS annual report:
only 23% of revenue is fee-for-service (presumably with costs) and
41% is Government Grants & reimbursements (with no marginal costs);
30% is private donations.

94% of so-called "Pregnancy Services" Revenues (2012) were abortions.

Logic:

You argue if PPFS were to go out of business then abortions would increase.

I argue that if the government were to say that no grants would be made to any organization providing abortions then PPFS would not go out of business in total but --- to save a $528 million annual "profit" contribution --- PPFS WOULD only go out of the ABORTION business.

PPFS performs 45% of ALL US reported abortions!

PPFS statistically kills more than one baby every other day of every week of every month of every year.
(I DK stats on PPFS abortions after 21 weeks)


In 2011 10,255 BABIES (>+ 21 weeks gestation) were purposely killed (I would say murdered) --- 1.2 babies every hour of every day! (730,322 total abortions or 1.4 per minute for every hour of every day.)

Forget about all the other stuff for now. You all say you want the abortion rate to go down. One human baby is killed every hour of every day. Is that acceptable to you? Please tell me.

Economics:

PPFS generates $1.3 billion annually.

Our taxes provide $528 Million of that --- 41% of receipts.

About 10% ($127 Million) went straight to "net assets".

PPFS like AAA does not have shareholders, does not pay dividends, and does not pay taxes --- just rewards management ($146 MM in FY '14).

"Current assets" (I suspect mostly cash) went up $66 Million to $754 million. I would say that is a VERY sweet business for the management.


BTW all of those stats are on the link.

From PPFS website:
Fiscal 2014
Total "Revenue" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1,303,400,000
Government Grants & Reimbursements . . . $ 528,400,000


Current Assets. . . . . $ 753,900,000
PP&E and Other . . . $ 973,200,000
Total Assets . . . . . $ 1,727,100,000

PPFS Abortion Procedures 327,653 in 2011 or 45% of total US

UCDC Stats
In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas....

The abortion ratio was 219 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Compared with 2010, total ...decreased 5%...
the abortion ratio decreased 4%.

From 2002
number -13%
rate -14%
ratio - 12%

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 730,322 100%
≤13 weeks’ gestation . . 667,514 91.4%
14–20 weeks’ gestation 53,314 7.3%
≥21 weeks’ gestation . . . 10,225 1.4%

In 2011, 19.1% of all abortions were medical abortions. Source: MMWR 2014;63(11).

Baby

730,322 (100%) of abortions after this:
Week 5: Blood cells, kidney cells, nerve cells, brain, spinal cord, heart, gastrointestinal tract begin
Weeks 6-7: Arm and leg buds; brain forms into five different areas; cranial nerves are visible.Eyes and ears begin; heart now beats at a regular rhythm
Week 8: Lungs, Hands and feet begin to form
Week 9: Nipples, toes and all essential organs grow
Week 10; Eyelids start, outer ear shapes, intestines rotate, face more distinct (embryo to fetus)
Weeks 11-14: Genitals, Liver makes red blood cells, can make a fist
63,535 (8.7%) of abortions after this:
Weeks 15-18: Muscle tissue and bones continue, moves & stretches, liver & pancreas secrete, mouth can suck,
Weeks 19-21: Can hear, can swallow, moves more actively
10,225 (1.4%) of abortions after this:
At 22 weeks:
Eyes: Your baby's eyelids are still fused shut. Beneath them, the eyes are developed but the irises (the colored part of the eye) still lack pigment.

Lips: Your baby's lips are becoming more distinct and tooth buds are developing beneath her gum line.

Skin: Your baby's skin will look wrinkled until she gains enough weight to fill it out.

IMHO THIS is definitely a BABY!

 

[Merge]

I argue that if the government were to say that no grants would be made to any organization providing abortions then PPFS would not go out of business in total but --- to save a $528 million annual "profit" incentive --- it WOULD go out of the ABORTION business.

That is not a realistic assumption.

The grand funds do not make them a profitable entity. They reimburse for allowable expenses. Grant revenues actually make them a less profitable entity overall as revenues received would equal expenses paid for each program.

Removing funding for their other services would not reduce the number of abortions.

If you make PP choose federal grants receipts OR to perform abortion services... They would stop applying for grants.

Frankly, what I care about is abortions.

I see that is where your heart is, but I just don't follow the logic.

Assume you remove the funding to providers of abortion, and planned parenthood ends their abortion practice. Have you impacted anyone's desire for an abortion? Will they still seek an abortion elsewhere?

 

[Old_alum]

I'll explain the process a little.
Planned Parenthood would receive a grant award contract. Within the contract it will state the allowable costs which are reimbursable under the contract.

For example planned parenthood receives federal funding for this grant.
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=0f56c14fa6a18ccc3a739c7564591a68

which specifically states:
"Funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. Funds may not be used for purchase or construction of buildings; salaries of personnel paid from other Federal grant funds; and certain other miscellaneous items as specified in the regulations. Priority in the provision of services will be given to persons from low-income families."

Planned Parenthood must submit quarterly expenditure reports showing their expenses for the allowable costs laid out in the grant contract.

That data is audited by an independent accounting firm.

Failure to meet the requirements could result in planned parenthood no longer receiving grant funding. They have a vested interest in ensuring there are controls in place to comply with the contracts.

I have not read testimony from employees.

Fungibility

In 2011 PPFS spent:
contraceptive services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4,009,549 . . . . 35%
sexually transmitted disease services, . . 3,955,926 . . . .35%
cancer related services, . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1,830,811 . . . .16%
pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services, . . . .1,178,369 . . . .10%
Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,974,655
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 410,000
total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,383,900 . . 100%

Let's assume abortion services were 0%.

Let's assume that it had no government grants in 2011.

In December, 2011, the government establishes a grant that will pay PPFS 50-cents for every dollar PPFS spends on "contraception, STD, cancer and prenatal care."

Assume in 2012 the PPFS other revenue & spending does not change.

Does the government then have to write PPFS a check for $5,487,328 --- or 50-cents for every $1 spent in 2012 per requirement.

PPFS can then properly devote that government check to cover half of its UNCHANGED spending in the appropriate areas.

Thus it will have REPLACED its OWN spending on those areas from the prior year.

Are you arguing that PPFS will then NOT have an extra $5.5 million saved from its own pocket which it may legally spend anyway it wants?

 

[PiratePride]

Check out Congresswoman Mia Love's heart felt comments on PP and abortion.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2570540

 

[Old_alum]

That is not a realistic assumption.

The grand funds do not make them a profitable entity. They reimburse for allowable expenses. Grant revenues actually make them a less profitable entity overall as revenues received would equal expenses paid for each program.

Removing funding for their other services would not reduce the number of abortions.

If you make PP choose federal grants receipts OR to perform abortion services... They would stop applying for grants.



I see that is where your heart is, but I just don't follow the logic.

Assume you remove the funding to providers of abortion, and planned parenthood ends their abortion practice. Have you impacted anyone's desire for an abortion? Will they still seek an abortion elsewhere?

See my previous response on "fungibiity".


If PPFS wants to provide all of those "approved" services but the government no longer reimburses them, it will have to make a choice:
1. Does PPFS continue to do the abortions --- which many here argue are small and unprofitable for PPFS --- and get NOTHING from the government?

or

2. Will PPFS accept the government terms, get the grants --- which ceteris paribus will be "marginal" and "cost-free" government money?

Hmm, tough choice! You seem convinced they would forego the $528 million in grant money, huh? Please explain your logic.

As far as this affecting "anyone's desire for an abortion", as I tried to explain, my proposal for an abortion-free prerequisite for Title X grants is a sidebar to the big issue --- although I think an effective one which likely would never ever pass in this congress with this president.

The social sciences are always frustrating because the laws do not drive results, only human propensities. Higher prices will not assure lower unit sales, only indicate that would be a likely result. (Sort of like quantum physics, no?) Hence, economics is described as the "dismal science".

As I suggested above --- seemingly oh so long ago --- if it were solely up to me I would make getting or performing an abortion a crime with statutory mandates that the sentence will be a few days or weeks in "education", preferably in a hospital. That said, the crime would remain on one's record, for all future job applications. Who knows, as I said, many might call that a "Red Badge of Courage". Short of that, I would accept it as a law that is never prosecuted!!

BUT make a statement that 80% of Americans say they believe: ABORTION is a BAD/SAD Choice!!!

Give the "consumer" some price to pay if she were to get an abortion. Make it a crime. Eliminate 700 big-box abortion stores. Elasticity does work.

I am still awaiting anyone to explain the logic that in the United States in the 21st Century it is no big deal that one human baby is killed every hour of every day. (Not to mention one human fetus every 42 seconds).

 

[Merge]

Hmm, tough choice! You seem convinced they would forego the $528 million in grant money, huh? Please explain your logic.

One quick point. That number also includes receipts from Medicaid reimbursements for health services which actually represents the far majority of federal receipts. Hard to find an exact amount for Title X revenues but in 2009 it was less than only 70 million. Probably not too far from that now

Bluntly, the fundraising campaign that planned parenthood will push if Title X funds are no no longer allowed would probably exceed the current grant revenue levels.

So yes, I do feel that they would stop applying for those grants and recover fairly quickly.

If you then take the next step and remove federal medicaid reimbursements, then it will be pushed back to the states. Blue states funding and red states not.

And at the end of the day, your ultimate goal of reducing abortion isn't impacted.

I am still awaiting anyone to explain why it should be no big deal that in the United States in the 21st Century one human baby is killed every hour of every day. (Not to mention one human fetus every 42 seconds).

I'm not saying it's no big deal. I just disagree with your approach to a solution because it is not realistic (making it a crime) or because it is not a practical way to reduce the demand (removing grant funding).

 

[Old_alum]

One quick point. That number also includes receipts from Medicaid reimbursements for health services which actually represents the far majority of federal receipts. Hard to find an exact amount for Title X revenues but in 2009 it was less than only 70 million. Probably not too far from that now

Bluntly, the fundraising campaign that planned parenthood will push if Title X funds are no no longer allowed would probably exceed the current grant revenue levels.

So yes, I do feel that they would stop applying for those grants and recover fairly quickly.

If you then take the next step and remove federal medicaid reimbursements, then it will be pushed back to the states. Blue states funding and red states not.

If I were Czar it would be all government payments --- all $528 million.

If the Blue states want to swallow that as the cost of killing a baby every hour, then that would come out of their own purses and be on their own souls.

And at the end of the day, your ultimate goal of reducing abortion isn't impacted.

"Isn't impacted" seems like a highly confident if not strident prediction, no?

Losing $528 million ---- or assuming the Blue states make up, say half of that ---- $264 million would not sway the management teams at PPFS for sure??

Right now "contributions" are impressive at 74% of government payments. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps everyone who now gives would gladly give 70% more. I don't know.

I wish I were that clairvoyant.

Actually, in all my years in the market I cannot remember such confidence. Because in my experience money has ALWAYS had an impact on commercial behavior.

BTW did the fungibility explanation help?

I'm not saying it's no big deal. I just disagree with your approach to a solution because it is not realistic (making it a crime) or because it is not a practical way to reduce the demand (removing grant funding).

OK, Merge, first, let's posit "realistic" expectations for a moment.

If you were the deciding vote on a dead-locked USSC and YOU had the power overturn a signed "Act of Congress" which legislated what I have suggested, what would you do? And why?


Then to be "realistic", how "big" a deal is it for you? Exactly how would you accomplish your stated goal of reducing the number of abortions? And how much effort and expense is it worth to you to stop the hourly killing of another innocent baby?

What if we could cut that by a mere 10%. How big a deal would it be to give a life-chance to 17 babies every week for, say, the next eight years?

 

[Merge]

I just think the issue has a lot of grey and isn't as black and white.
If it were up to me to overturn Roe v. Wade and establish protections for a fetus. I would.

I do worry thought about what that means ultimately. Women who have miscarriages for example since there are already almost as many miscarriages as abortion.

If abortion were illegal. Would we not have to investigate anytime a baby died in the womb? If we don't then there is a huge demand on the black market for the abortion pill... and if we do... are we really willing to demonize women during probably one of the most difficult times of their life?

My answer to how do we reduce the number of abortions has always been about trying to remove the reasons why people have them in the first place.

Are they having an abortion because they do not understand fetal development and think it is just a group of cells? - Educate them
Are they having an abortion because they didn't have birth control? Give them free birth control - and yes... teens included.
Are they having an abortion because they can't afford to take care of the child? Help them with free childcare, free healthcare
Are they having an abortion because they can't afford the time away from work? Promote a significant amount of time for mothers to take care of and bond with their children.

That is where I start. Approach it with love for the sinner and hate for the sin, and find ways to remove the reasons why people choose abortions.

 

[Old_alum]

I just think the issue has a lot of grey and isn't as black and white.
If it were up to me to overturn Roe v. Wade and establish protections for a fetus. I would.

I do worry thought about what that means ultimately. Women who have miscarriages for example since there are already almost as many miscarriages as abortion.

If abortion were illegal. Would we not have to investigate anytime a baby died in the womb? If we don't then there is a huge demand on the black market for the abortion pill... and if we do... are we really willing to demonize women during probably one of the most difficult times of their life?

My answer to how do we reduce the number of abortions has always been about trying to remove the reasons why people have them in the first place.

Are they having an abortion because they do not understand fetal development and think it is just a group of cells? - Educate them
Are they having an abortion because they didn't have birth control? Give them free birth control - and yes... teens included.
Are they having an abortion because they can't afford to take care of the child? Help them with free childcare, free healthcare
Are they having an abortion because they can't afford the time away from work? Promote a significant amount of time for mothers to take care of and bond with their children.

That is where I start. Approach it with love for the sinner and hate for the sin, and find ways to remove the reasons why people choose abortions.

As always, your responses are fair and well reasoned.

I am pleased that you would over-turn Roe.

I have little concern about miscarriages. Common sense should -- and I hope would --- prevail. I could not really care much if at all if anyone were to ever be "punished" for it. An abortion --- or a miscarriage --- is traumatic enough to register with almost anyone. As I said, I would write a statutory penalty of a few days of out-patient education, but I would not be upset if no one were ever prosecuted.

I support all of your suggestions on education. The place to start IMHO is for society as a whole to make it clear than abortions are BAD for everyone --- criminal, in fact. I strongly suspect that criminalization alone should be a wake-up call.

Why would anyone celebrate abortions or even the right to have one? Yes, I am very sensitive to the historical fact that women had been relegated to a subordinate if not inferior role in virtually all societies. That is tragic. Yes, I am sensitive to the fact that there is still a gender-gap in wages in most industries and companies. Women still unjustly get treated with disrespect by many service providers, especially in some states. That is all wrong and should be corrected. But it in no way justifies killing babies. IMHO many women's rights groups have made abortion into a sacred cow, a litmus test of people's attitudes toward gender equality. But I have discerned absolutely no rational connection between opposing abortion and not treating anyone with the utmost respect and equity. Why would a baby have to die to sate one's demands for respect?

But I digress.

If government were to make it clear that abortion is just not an acceptable answer in any civilized society, then attitudes might start to change.

As you say, education is key to changing mores but laws are the incentive to change behavior. First, stop the celebration! Then teach young children the importance of personal discipline and the time-tested source of true happiness. Then clearly and repeatedly explain the alternatives to adolescents, but personally I would not treat artificial birth control as a crutch.

This is one of the major problems I have with PPFS; IMHO they push the abortion path (perhaps due as much to corporate revenue-goals as to principle). Their clients' psyches are about as fragile as they could be. Help her to see that adoption is not easy but that it is a blessing to so many. Can any woman really angst so much over "giving up" her baby that she would rather kill it?

I know that "privacy" seems to be such a huge lure to abortion --- no one need ever know. No one will ever judge!

How do we protect mistake-makers from public shaming? Public shaming has exploded into personal travesties because of the unbridled power of social media.

If a girl were to become pregnant by accident, help her. Teach her parents to help her not shame her. Guide her forward from the place she has reached now, don't bewail where she might have been. Love her!

Yes, Merge, education! For the potential mothers and for their parents and friends.

I'll step off my soap box now.

 

[knowknow456]

You all say you want the abortion rate to go down. One human baby is killed every hour of every day. Is that acceptable to you? Please tell me.

Thank you for the links; they are helpful

To answer your question, it is not acceptable. However, for someone who claims to want civil discourse, the tone of your question suggests otherwise.

In my opinion, abortion is binary. Once conception occurs any intentional termination is abortion. Your biology lesson has little meaning for me in this discussion.

I never said if PP goes out of business abortions will increase. In fact, it is very likely PP can survive without federal funding. People pay for abortions out of their own pocket and would continue to do so, even in the absence of Federal funding. Demand for abortion is not dependent on government money.

When you remove federal funding, you cut off the money flow for the other services like contraception. Reducing access to contraception increases the risk in unwanted pregnancies. More unwanted pregnancies increases the risk of more abortions.

 

[Old_alum]

Sounds good in theory but some babies are in more demand than others. Those in demand babies normally don't have an issue finding a home. While others will never find adoptive parents. Why do so many adoptive parents go oversees to adopt a baby when there are so many here to adopt? Not to sound callous but it is supply and demand.

Stats are not readily available but my search did turn this up:

Adoption-Stats

Age at Adoption Finalization: October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012 (FY 2012)

Under 1 year . . 2.7%
1-5 years . . . . 54.4%
6-10 years . . . 26.1%
11-15 years .. 13.3%
16+ years . . . . . 3.3%

I feel confident that babies have a low mix because they are not available, but since this is finalized adoptions not kids available for adoption the trend seems to be obvious that the younger kids are more appealing to parents. Confirming our speculations.

The total number of adoptions in this report was 52,032. That is very close to the number of aborted fetuses with gestation above 13 weeks (53,314).

God willing, there is unsated demand for babies out there.

 

[Old_alum]

Thank you for the links; they are helpful

To answer your question, it is not acceptable. However, for someone who claims to want civil discourse, the tone of your question suggests otherwise.

In my opinion, abortion is binary. Once conception occurs any intentional termination is abortion. Your biology lesson has little meaning for me in this discussion.

I never said if PP goes out of business abortions will increase. In fact, it is very likely PP can survive without federal funding. People pay for abortions out of their own pocket and would continue to do so, even in the absence of Federal funding. Demand for abortion is not dependent on government money.

When you remove federal funding, you cut off the money flow for the other services like contraception. Reducing access to contraception increases the risk in unwanted pregnancies. More unwanted pregnancies increases the risk of more abortions.

I apologize for any uncivil tone detected; none was intended. The question was intended to focus more on the severity of the core moral problem we are addressing and away from peripheral economic rationalizations and social resignations. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

I should have been more precise and said that you felt that closing down PPFS "increases the risk of more abortions". That is the issue I did try to address.

As for the economic merits of that argument, please see my responses above.

Sorry for my insensitivity.

 

[Old_alum]

In my opinion, abortion is binary. Once conception occurs any intentional termination is abortion. Your biology lesson has little meaning for me in this discussion.

This is a crucial point. I, too, see it as binary: life or not. My list of biological-development stages was meant to help others who like me did not know exactly what development is made at what point. I wanted to help clarify the implications of abortion to others who had not answered my simple progressive list. Each respondent should determine the point at which he or she would say abortion is no longer acceptable, but I hope each one does have such a point. Is there anyone who can stomach even one misguided PPFS operative who can cavalierly inventory human body parts like pork-bellies.

I suspect the nervous system might be key to some: the point at which the embryo --- yes the embryo --- experiences pain.

Sorry (yet again!) if you thought it was aimed at you, personally.

I should have used additional posts to cover distinct points.

 

[cernjSHU]

Interesting article in today's Star Ledger about the ProLife movement's objection to PP but nothing said about all the embryos that are destroyed at fertility clinics.

So, a couple wants a baby. Goes to a fertility clinic and has a number of eggs fertilized. Only one is needed for her pregnancy. The others get destroyed or are donated for stem cell research. What is the ProLife belief on destroying fertilized embryos?

 

[Old_alum]

Interesting article in today's Star Ledger about the ProLife movement's objection to PP but nothing said about all the embryos that are destroyed at fertility clinics.

So, a couple wants a baby. Goes to a fertility clinic and has a number of eggs fertilized. Only one is needed for her pregnancy. The others get destroyed or are donated for stem cell research. What is the ProLife belief on destroying fertilized embryos?

I am not sure if there is one "official" ProLife organization, but the Catholic Church considers fertilized embryos to be human beings with all of the rights and rules implicit therein.

FYI the Catholic Church does not allow in-vitro fertilization at all.

 

[cernjSHU]

I am not sure if there is one "official" ProLife organization, but the Catholic Church considers fertilized embryos to be human beings with all of the rights and rules implicit therein.

FYI the Catholic Church does not allow in-vitro fertilization at all.

Well, you are consistent.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Well, you are consistent.

As is the Church's teaching on the subject. Destruction, or any use outside of what an embryo was intended for, is not acceptable. I know many couples, desperate for children, who have undergone IVF, or similar fertility treatments. They are pretty expensive, and outside the range of most of your average middle-classers, particularly if you have to undergo more than one cycle.

Adoption needs to be less complicated, and more affordable. Yes, you want children in proper, loving homes, but we don't need orphanages full of Oliver Twists, waiting for red tape to clear.
The Catholic Church used to be one of the largest adoption agencies, but have had much of this usurped by the government in recent decades.

 

[donnie_baseball]

As always, your responses are fair and well reasoned.

Why would anyone celebrate abortions or even the right to have one? Yes, I am very sensitive to the historical fact that women had been relegated to a subordinate if not inferior role in virtually all societies. That is tragic. Yes, I am sensitive to the fact that there is still a gender-gap in wages in most industries and companies. Women still unjustly get treated with disrespect by many service providers, especially in some states. That is all wrong and should be corrected. But it in no way justifies killing babies. IMHO many women's rights groups have made abortion into a sacred cow, a litmus test of people's attitudes toward gender equality. But I have discerned absolutely no rational connection between opposing abortion and not treating anyone with the utmost respect and equity. Why would a baby have to die to sate one's demands for respect?

Understanding that PP does provide a multitude of services aside from terminations, this is the most important paragraph of this discussion. I can tell you from first-hand experience that this is exactly the culture. There is a huge movement afoot to change abortion from the "scarlet letter" to the "red badge of courage."

As an aside, in looking at the number of abortions provided, per annum -- I haven't seen a decrease. How successful are all these "preventative services" if there is still a "need" for this number of procedures. If it brings in 40% of your revenue, again, how motivated for prevention can they possibly be? The numbers answer that question.

 

[Old_alum]

There is a huge movement afoot to change abortion from the "scarlet letter" to the "red badge of courage."

This is my greatest concern.

 

[Old_alum]

The "business" side of what is wrong with PPFS approach.

The Wall Street Journal

Closing the Planned Parenthood Loophole By Scott Gottlieb Aug. 25, 2015 6:45 p.m. ET

Whatever your stance on abortion, it’s clear the laws governing fetal tissue don’t work—and should be fixed.

Disturbing videos that show Planned Parenthood personnel casually discussing the sale of fetal organs from abortions have caused widespread outrage. As each new video is released, the calls for Congress to cut Planned Parenthood’s federal funding grow stronger. No matter where you stand in that debate, the videos provide unarguable proof that current laws governing the fetal-tissue trade don’t work. Congress must tighten them.

Those laws, passed more than two decades ago, were meant to ensure clear separation between the act of abortion and the procurement of tissue for research. The provisions originated from the 1988 “Fetal Tissue Transplantation Panel,” appointed by President Ronald Reagan and charged with deciding in the first instance whether it was appropriate to use fetal tissue for clinical research. The question gained prominence that year after the National Institutes of Health sought to fund a study to test whether implanted fetal tissue could reverse the effects of Parkinson’s disease. These clinical experiments eventually did go forward, and largely failed.

But the panel’s recommendations were codified into law in the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which passed the Senate 93 to 4 and the House 290 to 130. A bipartisan majority in Congress agreed that the diversion of fetal tissue for research shouldn’t be used to encourage women to have an abortion, affect the conduct of the procedure, or financially reward those performing it.

Planned Parenthood insists that it didn’t violate the statute. But the videos suggest that some abortion clinics flout the spirit if not the letter of that law. Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is shown explaining that many providers use ultrasound images to guide the procedure so as to obtain intact tissue. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” she says.

A congressional inquiry reached the same conclusion 15 years ago, as did an investigation that same year by ABC’s “20/20.” Yet the law wasn’t revised after these episodes.

Defenders of Planned Parenthood also assert that medical research using fetal tissue is essential and saves many lives. But that argument distorts the facts. Research directly using fetal tissue is uncommon. At Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, only about 10 of 8,000 active research protocols involve fetal tissue, according to an official there. By my count, from 1993 to 2014 the NIH funded only 30 grants involving fetal tissue transplant, out of hundreds of thousands of total grants—about 10,000 are awarded every year.

Instead researchers generally use fetal tissue as a source of stem cells, which can be coaxed into many different kinds of tissue and are thus valuable for cell-based therapeutic research. But even work with fetal stem cells comprises a tiny subset of research. Most such studies involve either embryonic stem cells—often derived from embryos developed for in vitro fertilization that go unused and are then donated—or adult stem cells that have been derived from normal adult tissue. A search of PubMed for studies published in the past five years returns 10,000 articles related to “embryonic stem cells”; 5,500 related to search strings for adult stem cells; and fewer than 200 articles related to “fetal stem cells.”

More important, when scientists want to use fetal cells, they typically can draw on existing cell lines that were derived from fetal organs procured many years (and sometimes decades) earlier. These cells continue to divide and self-propagate, often indefinitely. There are hundreds of these cell lines already in existence, requiring no further use of new fetal tissue.

There are also clinical and practical reasons why the vast majority of fetal tissue research involves these self-propagating cell lines. Some of these cell lines show significant promise as therapeutics and are in development for the treatment of a range of vexing diseases. There are far fewer clinical uses for newly procured “fresh” tissue.

Even Planned Parenthood was only brokering fetal tissue in three states (California, Washington and Oregon). This is because the market for fetal tissue is limited, marked by small companies that act as middlemen precisely because the demand for the tissue isn’t that high.

With a few straightforward changes, the law can be toughened to achieve its original purpose, with little consequence to this research. The aim should be to achieve the objectives set out in 1988—banning abortion providers from changing the conduct of the procedure as a way to “harvest” fetal tissue or seek reward from its procurement. Congress should also confine the use of fetal tissue to valid science that involves the study of the human body’s function or treatment of human disease.

Today the law requires the doctor to certify that “no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.” Congress can nix the word “solely” from the statute and make any intentional alteration illegal. In the videos, the absoluteness of the current language seems to give Planned Parenthood wiggle room to skirt the spirit of the provision. There’s also little enforcement, and that must change, too.

Those who want to safeguard this science should welcome legal provisions that would inspire more public confidence in the entire enterprise of regenerative medicine. Americans broadly consent to funding clinical research because they believe in the promise of medical research. But people support scientific work only if they trust that it serves societal interests, respects patient dignity and operates with guardrails. If it’s shown that the scientific enterprise is giving short shrift to these ideals, that support will erode. Then much more than a small subset of fetal tissue experiments will be at risk.

Dr. Gottlieb is resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was previously deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. He is an investor and adviser to life science companies, some of which work with cell-based science.