Never Again?

I was watching “Band of Brothers” last week–the episode where the Nazi death camp is discovered.

They (the Nazis) were massacring tens of thousands of people, in a camp located right near their community, right under the noses of those in the community–and they did NOTHING.

After they liberated the camp, the 101st Airborne conscripted the nearby townsfolk to carry all the bodies out of the death camp and to bury them. The people were aghast as they carried out their grisly duty; unaware that such atrocities could occur, right under their noses. They had no answer when interrogated as to why they continued to allow those atrocities to occur.

At some of those death camps, there were even bizarre experiments in dismemberment, disfugurement, and other forms of torture conducted, sometimes on live prisoners.

After WWII, the solemn pledge that arose was the phrase, “NEVER AGAIN!”

NEVER AGAIN! would the world allow such atrocities to occur against a defenseless group of people.

NEVER AGAIN! would the world stand by and do nothing in the face of what is surely evil.

And now, eighty years have passed, and there are now ‘death camps’ scattered all over America, centered mostly in minority urban centers–these death camps are massacring hundreds of thousands of babies every year. These death camps are also known as ‘abortion ‘clinics,’ most commonly known as “Planned Parenthood” clinics. At a goodly portion of these death camps, bizarre and horrific dismemberment and disfigurement of their victims take place for later experimentation and other uses, sometimes perpetrated on born-alive victims.

These atrocities take place right under our noses. And the powers that be do nothing. People literally whistle past the graveyard. Even our own United States Senate, charged with the Constitutional Duty to protect the Right to Life, today refused to remove the mechanism through which these atrocities are funded and are allowed to continue. Even after the atrocities, thanks to the Center for Medical Progress, had been documented on film ad nauseum, the abject cowards in the United States Senate refused to lift a finger to keep these atrocities from continuing.

We who individually and collectively refuse to defend the defenseless can no longer lay claim to live in a blessed nation. I cannot fathom a Creator who would continue to bless his creation for disrespecting and wantonly desecrating that which was made in His own image, and that we were charged to protect.

A moment of Judgment is no doubt coming… one in which our Creator will force US to view and to confront the horrors which we have wrought, and one in which which we will singularly and collectively have to answer the question, “What did YOU do to defend the defiling of My creation?”

I’m afraid my answer will be, “Not enough Lord…not enough.”

Never again?

Leo Pusateri's photo.
Advertisements

96 thoughts on “Never Again?

  1. M. Noonan August 4, 2015 / 12:51 am

    Feel worse for those who are defending this barbarity – our liberals are enthralled to Planned Parenthood. They can’t break away from it – even when it is clearly wrong. Even when the complete removal of PP wouldn’t mean that abortion becomes illegal.

  2. Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2015 / 2:29 pm

    It is completely unthinkable, and yet everyday.

  3. rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 5:22 pm

    The complete removal of PP would mean that abortions would increase.

    • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2015 / 5:33 pm

      Rusty Brown

      I don’t understand how that would be the case. I could understand the argument that closure of Planned Parenthood would increase ILLEGAL abortions (not performed in a true medical environment and/or by a true medical professional) but how would overall abortions increase?

      • rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 5:41 pm

        Bob,

        PP provides reproductive counseling and safe, highly effective forms of birth control to millions of women who are most at risk of having unwanted pregnancies (as well as providing many more basic health care services for women). Take those away you get more unwanted pregnancies. More unwanted pregnancies = more abortions. Taking the scale of the services they provide into consideration, a LOT more.

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2015 / 6:04 pm

        They sell body parts of dead children. That is pretty much an end on it – even supposing they do anything good, they must be shut down for that reason, alone.

      • rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 6:14 pm

        They do not sell body parts of aborted fetuses, that’s been debunked. They allow and facilitate tissue donation (tissue which otherwise would have would up in the trash) to promising biomedical research teams working to cure us of horrible fatal diseases.

      • Amazona August 4, 2015 / 7:54 pm

        Today a restaurant donated a lovely lunch to me, and then a filling station donated a tank full of gas. Sure, I had to reimburse them for the costs of providing these things, but in the Doublespeak of the RRL, they didn’t sell me anything. They merely “allowed and facilitated” my acquisition of some really tasty sushi and some petro product.

        And of course if we had not entered into this minuet of donation and reimbursement, the products would have ended up in the trash.

        The fact is, PP promotes abortion, to the extent of bullying and intimidating women who merely went in to get pregnancy tests or prenatal care. Abortion is Big Business, and a major recipient of that dreaded (if not handed out to the right people) CORPORATE WELFARE. It’s a multi-million dollar scheme perpetrated upon the American public as a valuable, if not INvaluable, service to the nation, necessary and important and irreplaceable and humane and all about TAKING CARE OF WOMEN.

        We can never tell if Rusty believes the crap he emits so regularly, or if he knows better but is a willing mouthpiece for his minders, but we do know we can count on his production to have a very predictable odor about it.

        Abortion is slavery, taken to the next and worst level. It is ownership of one human being by another, followed by a decision to destroy that human life made only by the one person who will benefit most by this act, facilitated by people who make money by doing so. There is not one single aspect of it that is decent, or excusable, and those who support it and defend it and apologize for it and enable it are no better than those who participate in it. On one hand it is an act of pathological selfishness and on the other it is an act of greed and barbarity. Only someone like Rusty could defend it.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2015 / 8:14 pm

        I’m sorry, Rusty, but I still don’t get it. You’re saying that without Planned Parenthood women could not get birth control. Not even from their own general practitioner or ob/gyn?

        Also, your scenario basically says that fewer women would get birth control, which would lead to more pregnancies, which would lead to more abortions. Isn’t it possible – just possible – more women might choose to carry to term, and be happy for it later in their lives, rather than abort, were Planned Parenthood gone? Isn’t that even a possibility?

      • rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 8:37 pm

        Ama,

        Your characterization of the term “donation” is fatuous as it relates to PP. If you can be bothered to read the unedited transcripts you’ll find that when money is discussed there are several instances of the PP person saying variations of “this is not about profit” (this was all conveniently excluded from the edited versions, of course). Read my link for starters, it highlights some of the edits.

        The fact is, PP promotes abortion, to the extent of bullying and intimidating women who merely went in to get pregnancy tests or prenatal care.”

        I don’t believe this. Do you have any evidence?

        “Abortion is Big Business, and a major recipient of that dreaded (if not handed out to the right people) CORPORATE WELFARE. It’s a multi-million dollar scheme”

        Nonsense. Only 3% of PP’s budget goes to providing abortions and not one dime of that is taxpayer funded.

        “those who support (abortion) and defend it and apologize for it and enable it are no better than those who participate in it.”

        I’m not apologizing for anything, but I am “defending” and “supporting” policies and institutions which have been proven to be very beneficial to the health and well being of women, as well as PREVENT abortions. You, on the other hand by, your own admission have been hostile to providing greater access to the types effective birth control like the IUD which have been proven to reduce abortions. You’re in favor of defunding women’s health care clinics which will certainly lead to an increase of abortions. I’ve clearly and politely explained myself; you’re the one with the explaining to do.

      • rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 9:00 pm

        Bob,

        Is it a possibility that someone who wanted an abortion but was unable to get one could carry that fetus to term and ultimately be happy about it? Of course, but in the real world that would likely be a very small percentage of women. Many more would have babies before they were emotionally and financially able to properly care for them and that often leads to misery and hardship for the mother, child, and society. There are many studies that confirm this.

        And while there are other sources for birth control, PP provides expensive, highly effective birth control in rural and impoverished areas to women who otherwise would be unlikely to afford or access them, not to mention the counseling, education and family planning which may help a woman avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Sometimes PP clinics are the only avenue to health care for these women. Are you aware of the Colorado program that distributed free IUD’s to lower income women? Reduced the abortion rate 40%

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2015 / 10:30 pm

        Rusty

        I would think even rural folk have doctors. I find it hard to believe there is no one in Kansas that lives with diabetes for want of a doctor and a pharmacy, and that same doctor/pharmacy can supply birth control.

        As for the possibility of happy outcomes being outweighed by the statistical likelihood.of impoverished outcomes, I think several thousand lives a year tip the scales towards the less likely happy long-term outcome. As for the impoverished children in the so-called “bad” outcome, I do feel bad for that category but point out that some of histories greatest people were raised impoverished.

        Recent examples. Richard Pryor was born and raised in a whorehouse and he reshaped comedy. Almost all early rappers grew up horribly and they created an entirely new (and raucous) musical style. Uh, I can’t believe I’m saying this but, Bill Clinton was raised maybe not in poverty but pretty poor with a single mother, and he did pretty well for himself.

        Historic examples. Joan of Arc, Andrew Carnegie, Abe Lincoln. Charles Dickens.

        I feel horribly for the poor and I give and work charitably in their behalf but I do not see poverty and the horrible outcome you do. And for the record, while I have never been dirt poor, I have known severe financial hardship many times in my life.

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2015 / 11:27 pm

        Being alive sure beats being dead, in my view.

        At any rate, Planned Parenthood’s alleged medical services is rather bogus.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 12:33 am

        “I don’t believe this. Do you have any evidence” (Referring to my comment that PP bullies women into having abortions.)

        Yes. My sister-in-law, 17, just waiting till she was 18 to get married, went to PP for a pregnancy test. (This was before drugstore tests.) She said the nurse was quite insistent that she get an abortion, called in the doctor when she refused, and by the time she pushed her way out of the room several people had been haranguing her, pressuring her, insisting that there was no way she could or should have the baby. (The baby in question is now a mother and teacher, BTW, and a blessing to her family.) In addition, I have read many accounts of the pressures put on women and girls to kill their babies after a PP test has shown they are pregnant.

        “Only 3% of PP’s budget goes to providing abortions and not one dime of that is taxpayer funded.” We keep hearing that figure. Can you back it up with anything more solid that what PP says? As for the whine “..not one dime of that is taxpayer funded…” that is BS. Once the millions of taxpayer dollars are in PP coffers, they are fungible, just as the millions from other enablers such as Susan B. Konen Foundation, and there is no way it is possible separate those funds out. Obviously, any money that is received from any source will free up other funds to be used to kill babies. Duh.

        “You, on the other hand by, your own admission have been hostile to providing greater access to the types effective birth control like the IUD which have been proven to reduce abortions. “ What a lie. I object to providing IUDs to girls and young women because of the KNOWN dangers and complications, at least without parental knowledge and permission for underage girls. I have had absolutely NO objection to any other kind of birth control being easily available. I supported the suggestion that most birth control pills be available without a prescription. I object to taxpayer money being used to pay for any form of abortificant because this is a blatant violation of the religious beliefs of people forced to pay taxes.

        I am NOT in favor of “…defunding women’s health care clinics…” and I defy you to find any place where I said this. I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood because it simply should not use taxpayer money to do what it does. Period. Do NOT try to say that because I find this particular organization vile and despicable and inherently dishonest, actively promoting the barbaric practice of dismembering living human beings to harvest their organs as well as simply killing them, while using the claims of really being all about innocuous “health care for women” as a stalking horse, I object to funding ethical and useful health care clinics that focus on the actual health of women and not on the butchery of their children.

        Your position is clear. You find nothing wrong with the practice of butchering unborn children, no matter how brutal the method or how much they suffer in the process. Mine is equally clear. I find this practice indefensible and completely lacking in basic humanity, and I feel the same about anyone who supports it, defends it, and/or apologizes for it.

        I have nothing to explain.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 1:13 am

        Ama,

        In reference to your accusation of PP bullying, sorry, a personal anecdote doesn’t cut it. If you could provide a more objective piece of evidence you might be closer to establishing your claim. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s fair. Would you accept a claim of fact of mine if I said “my friend said so”? I think not.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 1:40 am

        That’s convenient. I guess as long as you set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable you can keep carrying on. As every account of being pressured and bullied by PP personnel to have an abortion IS an “anecdote” you can, and undoubtedly will, dismiss all of them.

        Bet you can’t back up that silly claim about abortions in Colorado going down 40% after Big Brother started paying for IUDs. Bet you’ve never spoken with a woman who had one and found it excruciatingly painful. (ANECDOTE ALERT!! I had one when I was in my early twenties, and it was sheer hell for six months, that long only because I thought taking it out would hurt as much as putting it in. My poor body fought to get rid of it, and I was basically in labor for half a year, give or take a couple of miserable months. Ditto for my niece. Ditto for her daughter.) You are completely ignorant of the reality of IUDs, of the percentage of failures due to rejection by the body, due to pregnancies that are dangerous because of the presence of the device,the number of ectopic pregnancies due to the device, the number of uterine perforations due to the device, the number of infections due to the device, the number of women whose later infertility was attributed to the device. You simply do not care, because for some reason this IUD thing has become a beloved meme of the RRL, so you are bound to defend it.

        But thanks for being so blatant about your intent to reject and/or deny everything that rebuts your parroting of PP propaganda. As always, you are a faithful little mouthpiece for the Rabidly Radical Left and its various agendas. It is this absolute refusal of yours to even consider the validity of anything anyone ever has to say in contradiction to your screeds, and your use of the name “Ama” (used by several RRL personas) that brand you as a seminar poster and blog vandal.

        Kudos for watching this blog so closely and scurrying in so promptly to spew the party line. You might get another red star in your folder for it.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 1:41 am

        “Would you accept a claim of fact of mine if I said “my friend said so”?”

        I think the “friend” reference would quickly establish that as bogus.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 1:57 am

        Ama,

        In reference to the 3% of PP budget goes to abortions and how fungible those tax dollars are, give me a freakin’ break–those are the accepted numbers that have been debated in Congress for decades in spite of fierce lobbying from pro-life groups. Do you really think that after all this time, with such a dedicated oppositional group as the religious right lobby they could not have done a FOIA and come up with some evidence to the contrary? Give me a break. YOU prove to ME that the 3% figure is bogus, how about that? Don’t you think that bigger brains than yours have looked into this from the right? Where are their findings? This is a familiar tactic I recognize from you on the right: dismiss statistics, scientific evidence, and governmental data in favor of your own personal beliefs and opinions. If you have a problem with the numbers, give evidence, don’t just say you’ve got a problem.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-planned-parenthood/2011/04/14/AFogj1iD_story.html

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:12 am

        Ama,

        “I object to taxpayer money being used to pay for any form of abortificant because this is a blatant violation of the religious beliefs of people forced to pay taxes.”

        if you’re referring to an IUD here, you’re miseducated. IUD’s are not abortificants, at least outside of the religious right community (remember that term?). BTW, how do you feel about IVF? Wanna come out there right now and campaign on how “evil” that is? I think you should be honest and consistent….

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:35 am

        Ama,

        I’m very sorry for whatever adverse affects you or anyone in your family or close personal relations might have personally experienced with an IUD. That is tragic and is not to be taken lightly. Perhaps your personal experience is a medical outlier, because, with the human population at large, IUD’s seem to be a smashing success. Most obstetricians recommend it as their favored form of birth control, and it has proven to be a success at controlling unwanted pregnancies.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:51 am

        Ama,

        “That’s convenient. I guess as long as you set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable you can keep carrying on. As every account of being pressured and bullied by PP personnel to have an abortion IS an “anecdote” you can, and undoubtedly will, dismiss all of them.”

        Are you serious? You make a claim, I ask for evidence, you offer ONE SINGLE unverified anecdote related by you from an in-law as PROOF? You’re just shitting me now, right? Do I really have to rebut this?

      • tiredoflibbs August 5, 2015 / 7:57 am

        Amazona,

        I just saw a commercial made in support of PP. On it, a woman offers an anecdotal story how PP had saved her life. We can now expect ol’ crusty to contact PP and tell them to remove the commercial because it does not prove a thing.

        I won’t hold my breath though. Ol’ crusty does this all the time. He finds any excuse to dismiss out of hand anything he does not agree with. His rules are his rules. He does not apply the same rules to himself that he applies to others.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 10:21 am

        Rusty, your nonstop screeching about the virtues of PP are quite tiresome, and quite predictably have quickly segued into personal attacks on people and what we say.

        An IUD prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus=abortificant.
        “…MOST obstetricians recommend…”? Sounds like anecdotal “information” to me. Tell me—is there a “consensus”? And why don’t you address the very real contraindications I listed for you? All real, some resulting in permanent damage, some potentially fatal. Shoving a sharp device into a young and immature uterus is something that most people would find to be a pretty bad idea, and this is borne out by the horror stories of uterine perforation and infections. But wait—as you have never personally had a sharp object shoved into your reproductive organs (here I speculate, of course) and have never experienced the pain and misery millions of women HAVE, and have never personally experienced infection, septicemia, permanent infertility, or any of the other side effects of IUDs, any such information is, of course, ANECDOTAL.

        In other words, when it comes to IUDs, all you “know” is what your minders have instructed you to parrot, in the interest of advancing some agenda.

        When a person in my family tells me about an experience she had, I pay a lot more attention to that than to some stranger demanding that I accept a laundry list of apologies, trumped-up “statistics” and general BS.

        “BTW, how do you feel about IVF? Wanna come out there right now and campaign on how “evil” that is? I think you should be honest and consistent….” Too funny, you demanding that someone else be honest after your lie about my position on providing birth control, and screeching about consistency when you are the one trying to change the subject, efforts ranging from trying to veer off into discussions of IVF to your sneer about the “religious right”.

        Yeah, “tiresome” is a good word for you. Or “annoying”.

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 10:35 am

        Rusty has only parroted the PP and Democrat talking points. He has not one original thought. A compassionate, caring, thinking person would separate the legitimate women services that PP offers from this vile, horrific and possibly criminal practice of late term abortions and “intact fetuses” and denounce them. Sadly, Democrats like Rusty are incapable of calling out abhorrent behavior in deference to their progressive agenda. Yesterday, Senate Democrats forced the tax paying population to continue to financially support the mutilation of young human beings. That is how morally bankrupt and depraved that party has become.

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 10:40 am

        And equally sad is how the Democrats continue to frame their agenda. This morning, Sen. Durbin stated that the only alternative to the Iran deal was war. In this issue, Rusty and Democrats have stated that the only alternative to PP is more abortion and inferior care for women. Those arguments are not only false, they are indicative of a petulant and intolerant mind set.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 5, 2015 / 11:38 am

        Cluster

        You nailed it on the head. He still has yet to back his original claim, that closure of PP would increase abortions. He’s moved this direction and that but he still hasn’t supported his opening thesis.

        According to Rusty, those poor rural folk won’t get the pill, or his beloved IUD, cause there just ain’t no doctors around to prescribe them. That explains why there are no rural folk with diabetes; the ones that get it die cause there just ain’t no darn doctors in rural places.

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 12:38 pm

        Here’s another inconvenient truth for people like Rusty. The attempt to defund PP is not a reduction in money for women’s services, rather a reallocation:

        The primary beneficiaries of the legislation will be Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). FQHCs already have far more locations than Planned Parenthood and treat far more patients: over 21 million a year, according to the Government Accountability Office. FQHCs provide holistic care on a sliding scale. Not only do they offer contraception, well woman exams, STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings, in violation of Planned Parenthood’s purported monopoly on women’s health, FQHCs also offer a wide range of primary health care services for women, men, and children that Planned Parenthood doesn’t. And they somehow manage to do all that without killing anyone and dissecting them for parts.

        As it is now, county health clinics serve more women than PP and they do not extract “intact fetuses”. Those are the folks that deserve the funding.

      • tiredoflibbs August 5, 2015 / 12:21 pm

        I though obamacare was going to take care of all that – provide contraceptive coverage in its insurance. Since everyone has to carry this minimal coverage and have to purchase insurance, what need is there for PP to supply contraceptives? Since the drones, like crusty, love to tout the “success” of obamacare and its covering of millions not covered before – and have dutifully regurgitated their talking points, they want their cake and eat it too. They must continue to fund PP even though their role has been replaced by government insurance – because tax payer dollars do not fund for abortion – so they say.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 12:31 pm

        Bob,

        What do you mean, “I have yet to back my original claim”? I’ve described how PP provides family planning to tens of millions of underprivileged women who are at high risk for unintended pregnancy. Are you still sticking to your line of reasoning that if PP should disappear most of those women would be seamlessly absorbed into our understaffed health care system? And the rest would decide to carry their fetuses to term and turn their lives into cheery Brady Bunch episodes?

        Well, if common sense and reason hasn’t persuaded you as to what the outcomes would be, here’s a few facts for you:

        “The Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health, calculates that Title X family planning centers prevent about one million unintended pregnancies a year, of which 345,000 would have ended in abortion. It says that every year Title X clinics avert some 53,000 cases of chlamydia and 8,800 cases of gonorrhea, and save the lives of 1,100 women who would otherwise die of cervical cancer.

        In other words, Title X prevents an abortion about once every 90 seconds.

        Family planning investments also offer hedge fund-like returns, for a condom or IUD can avert more than $12,000 in average Medicaid spending on a childbirth. Guttmacher calculates that every $1 invested in public family planning services saves $7 in public expenditures. This is a program that saves money as well as lives. “

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-our-sex-crazed-congress.html?_r=0

      • Bob Eisenhower August 5, 2015 / 1:15 pm

        Rusty

        I do not think that if PP disappeared their clients would seamlessly be absorbed into “our understaffed health care system.” I’m saying these people are ALREADY in our understaffed health care system.

        They already have doctors to prescribe and inform them. There is no seam to be less, they are already there.

        They go to PP because that is one of several sources, one known for dealing with pregnancy. If they were gone people would resort to their next option for medical assistance, their GP or OB/GYN.

        How would the closure of PP increase abortions? That is your point and you have yet to support it.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:02 pm

        Bob,

        I have indeed supported my point. If you can be bothered to read the links I’ve provided, and maybe follow a few more embedded within, you will find ample support for my contention. Here’s another. Now, are you just going to dismiss this data out of hand with no evidence of your own? That seems to be the preferred method of debate around here.

        “Publicly funded family planning providers served 8.3 million women in 2013. Their services helped women prevent two million unintended pregnancies, one million of which would have resulted in unplanned births and 693,000 in abortions. In the absence of these services, rates of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions in the United States would have all been 60% higher.”

        http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2015/07/21/index.html

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 2:59 pm

        I don’t know of anyone advocating for the “absence of services”. We’re simply objecting to one practice of PP which is borderline criminal, and certainly morally bankrupt. Your defense of such practice doesn’t speak well of you, of course you have been on so many tangents in this thread it’s hard to tell if you support the practice or not. There are more than enough service providers, and there are is an abundance of cheap and accessible contraception, so your argument supporting PP is hollow and simply a distraction from the core issue – which is late term abortion and the desire of PP to keep fetuses “intact”.

        Furthermore, I have always wondered why liberal progressive democrats don’t support PP on their own. Considering Rusty’s and other Democrats arguments on the issue that women will suffer greatly without the presence of PP, I would think that people like Soros, Steyer, and other progressive billionaires would step up and ensure that women will be taken care regardless of the heartless GOP and regardless of government funding or not. If they truly cared about women, wouldn’t they see to it that this wasn’t a political football?

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:20 pm

        Ama,

        Not only do most doctors recommend IUDs, most doctors USE IUDs (along with other LARCs) themselves. This is not anecdotal, but based on study:

        “The research, conducted in 2013 by Planned Parenthood and the Hospital of Cook County, Illinois, found that nearly 42 percent of female women’s health providers said they prefer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) for their own personal method of birth control. About 40 percent specifically chose IUDs”

        I’ve said this before, but ALL medical procedures carry some risk of adverse effects. IUDs are safe and highly effective and rank extremely high in birth control satisfaction rate.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/04/doctors-iuds-birth-control_n_6785990.html

        If IUDs are so hazardous, why are so many women delighted with them? Why are they the most popular form of reversible contraception, with more than 180 million users worldwide? Why do most female doctors prefer them for themselves? Are they all masochists? Do you have any evidence for your claim that they’re horrible other than a few, isolated anecdotal examples?

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:29 pm

        BTW, asking for your opinion on IVF is not deflecting off topic. IVF involves the destruction of embryos, kinda related to what we’re talking about. So what say you?

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:43 pm

        Also, that 40% abortion reduction figure as a result of providing IUDs to low income women comes from the states own budget office, is confirmed by the CDC, and apparently disputed by no one outside of this blog as far as I can tell. Once again, *sigh*, I’ve pointed this out to you all before; I wish you guys would work on your retention skills.

        Are you getting this Bob? Increased access to IUDs results in fewer abortions. You can do the reverse reasoning and conclude that making IUDs harder to obtain (like, for instance, closing down PP) would result in more abortions. Support my claims much?

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:48 pm

        “Bet you can’t back up that silly claim about abortions in Colorado going down 40% after Big Brother started paying for IUDs.”

        I just did.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:51 pm

        “…this absolute refusal of yours to even consider the validity of anything anyone ever has to say in contradiction to your screeds…”

        Balderdash. I carefully consider the validity of what everybody says here, I think that’s evident in my responses. Now ACCEPTING that validity is another story. For that, I require evidence, or at least a convincing argument. You’ve provided neither.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 2:55 pm

        Ama:

        “I am NOT in favor of “…defunding women’s health care clinics…” and I defy you to find any place where I said this. I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood because it simply should not use taxpayer money to do what it does. Period.”

        Find a place where you say this? Sure: it was in your very next sentence! That was easy.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 3:06 pm

        Tired:

        “I just saw a commercial made in support of PP. On it, a woman offers an anecdotal story how PP had saved her life. We can now expect ol’ crusty to contact PP and tell them to remove the commercial because it does not prove a thing.

        I won’t hold my breath though. Ol’ crusty does this all the time. He finds any excuse to dismiss out of hand anything he does not agree with. His rules are his rules. He does not apply the same rules to himself that he applies to others.”

        Bullshit. I took Ama’s claim of “bullying and intimidation” on the part of PP to mean it was widespread. She provided a few isolated anecdotes. If she had indeed meant that it was possible a few people had been treated badly in the decades of PPs existence, then I concede her point. But I don’t think that was her point, and neither do you.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 5, 2015 / 3:12 pm

        Rusty

        We seem to be not connecting here so let me try stating briefly our discussion. Please set me straight where we went missed each other.

        You: Loss of PP would increase abortions

        Me: Really? How?

        You: poor and rural people would have no source for birth control or information

        Me: They can get that from their current doctors

        You: This study shows how many abortions were avoided with PP’s birth control and information

        Me: OK, but wouldn’t those same abortions be prevented because the same birth control and information is available from their current doctors

        You: why do I have to keep explaining it? Here is another link showing the good things PP does.

        It takes two to miscommunicate and I apologize for my part. Please step back a moment from our past words and explain to me, what services does PP provide that wouldn’t be handled by their clients own doctors, should PP disappear?

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 3:59 pm

        The concept that absent PP women wouldn’t have access to basic health care is nonsense. I’m 50. I’ve known a lot of women in my life. I’ve yet to know one woman who used PP as any sort of a basic health care provider. Why would a woman used PP for basic services? Birth control pills have to get a doctor’s prescription (until we pro-freedom GOPers end the nonsense of needing such, of course); other forms of birth control are available OTC from any local pharmacy at very low cost; cancer screenings are available just all over the place; women getting their annual “female stuff” check ups go to their Ob/Gyn…what fricking service does PP provide, supposing they even provide them, that aren’t available elsewhere? I mean, other than finding “less crunchy” ways of aborting children so their parts (not “tissues”, parts…lungs, livers, brains, etc) can be “donated” for a reasonable processing fee?

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 3:35 pm

        Cluster,

        “I don’t know of anyone advocating for the “absence of services”.”

        If you bother to read my links you’ll realize that YOU are the one advocating for terminating services. PP provides tons of medically necessary services, the overwhelming majority of which have nothing to do with abortion.

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 3:39 pm

        I am the one advocating the end of women’s health service providers? Interesting

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 3:52 pm

        Which claim is nonsense. PP is America’s largest abortion provider. If most of PP’s activities were not abortion, then they wouldn’t be worried about abortion. They’d be all, “well, it is a very small part of our activities and we’re just going to concentrate on things like birth control and other health issues for women”. You can, after all, plan your family without abortion – of course, you can also plan it just as well without artificial birth control, but we’ll leave that aside.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 3:54 pm

        Bob,

        Here’s where we went wrong, when you said:

        “OK, but wouldn’t those same abortions be prevented because the same birth control and information is available from their current doctors”

        The point that I’m making is that the same birth control and information WON’T be as available. The federal funding your talking about eliminating is DIRECTLY responsible for providing these crucial medical services to many women WHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE SAME LEVEL OF CARE OTHERWISE.

        Additionally, many PPs serve rural and UNDERPROVIDED areas, meaning it would be quite difficult, if not impossible for many women to find duplicate care.

        Furthermore, it’s far from certain that any attempts at diverting PPs current funds to other clinics would result in the same standard of care.

        Hope that gets the train back on the tracks!

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 4:06 pm

        The federal funding your talking about eliminating ….

        Again, no one is advocating “eliminating” funding. The effort is to “reallocate” funding to more responsible providers, ie; county health clinics, which serve more women than PP in the first place. Please stay on point.

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 4:20 pm

        Liberal talking point: if you don’t want to fund PP, you must want no health care, at all. Just an attempt to scare LIV.

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 4:12 pm

        Rural areas? Ok, let’s see…

        Planned Parenthood Nevada. 3 locations. Two in Las Vegas, one in Reno. Nope, nothing in rural places like Winnemucca, Ely and Tonopah.

        Planned Parenthood Utah. 8 locations. Six in metro Salt Lake City, one in St George, one in Logan. Nothing in Moab or Richfield.

        Planned Parenthood Kansas. 7 locations. Five in Kansas City, one in Wichita, one out there in nowhere (there’s a rural one for ya! You got one!).

        Planned Parenthood California. Too many to count. Massively concentrated in Los Angeles, the Bay Area and San Diego…oddly enough, places like Barstow and El Centro are unserved.

        The concept that PP serves rural areas is bull – they aren’t out there. Likely because the money isn’t there – just not enough people to bring in for “less crunchy” procedures…but if PP was about health care for women, they would be more spread out, not slopping over in places which are well-served by the health care industry.

        Now, to contrast a bit, let’s take a look at an organization which isn’t in it for the money and seeks to serve everyone – the Catholic Church. In Nevada, alone, there are at least 23 parish Churches out there in the middle of nowhere…I can’t imagine the Sunday collection plate bringing in more than a few hundred dollars in any of these places (they do have a Church in Tonopah…the population is 2,478; Catholic population probably isn’t more than a few hundred…and yet, there’s a Church, probably costing the Diocese far more to keep open than it could ever bring in via donations…and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that not only do the provide the Sacraments, but I’ll bet there is a food bank, some mechanism for providing clothing and housing and probably some sort of medical assistance available, as well…

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 4:37 pm

        Cluster,

        “no one is advocating “eliminating” funding. The effort is to “reallocate” funding to more responsible providers, ie; county health clinics, which serve more women than PP in the first place.”

        As I’ve already said, it’s far from certain that any attempts at diverting PPs current funds to other clinics would result in the same standard of care. All I’ve heard about is cutting funding to PP. Why don’t you elaborate on the diversion of funds, how it will be executed. Provide links.

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 4:59 pm

        I will do this once for you Rusty but from now on, do your own homework:

        A BILL to prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America
        SECTION 1. FINDINGS
        Congress finds as follows:
        (1) State and county health departments, community health centers, hospitals, physicians offices, and other entities currently provide, and will continue to provide, health services to women. Such health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postpartum care, immunization, family planning services including contraception, sexually transmitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and referrals.
        (2) Many such entities provide services to all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and provide services in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved populations.
        (3) All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women’s health care services.

        http://www.ernst.senate.gov/sites/default/files/TAM15650.pdf

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 4:41 pm

        Mark,

        “If most of PP’s activities were not abortion, then they wouldn’t be worried about abortion.”

        First of all, that’s very faulty logic. It does not necessarily follow that just because something is a small part of a whole it is unimportant. Secondly, are you suggesting that abortion comprises most of PPs activities. That goes against all the evidence. Where is your evidence for that claim?

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 4:56 pm

        Rusty – the only “evidence” you have is PP’s claims…which are to be doubted as they are under fire and have a vested interest in downplaying their abortion activities. We on our side won’t have proof because abortion is about the most unregulated industry in America…odd that liberals who are so keen on regulation refuse to apply even basic health and safety regulations to the abortion industry. We simply don’t know what PP actually does inside the office…which is why these videos were made. The only thing we do know, for certain, is that PP is America’s largest abortion provider.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 9:59 pm

        Cluster,

        Ernst bill lacked specifics on how the reallocation would happen. It’s all very good to say the funds would be diverted to other organizations, but the reality of doing so would be very messy and likely create a lot of holes in the system for women to fall through.

        No, this bill failed because it’s totally unnecessary and would likely have serious negative outcomes. Investigations have revealed no wrongdoing on the part of PP and have been dropped – even by Republican governors. So basically you’re calling for disrupting a very effective organization that benefits women for no good reason.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 10:15 pm

        Mark,

        “the only “evidence” you have is PP’s claims…which are to be doubted as they are under fire and have a vested interest in downplaying their abortion activities.”

        So you admit you don’t have any proof for your claims. Thanks. And PP has no “vested interest in downplaying their activities”, as abortions are a safe and legal service in this country.

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 10:45 pm

        But looking for “less crunchy” ways of aborting children is horrid – and PP has a vested interest in making sure that the broad mass of the American people don’t hear about it…and, so, the asinine “heavily edited video” canard was launched before anyone had time to even review the raw video, which was released right away.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 10:28 pm

        Ama,

        “Also—name a disease that has been cured due to the use of fetal tissue”

        Um, ever heard of polio?

        “One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.”

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 10:46 pm

        Salk vaccine was developed using monkeys…which was a much superior method of developing the vaccine (as proved by its universal adoption) than those using human fetal tissues…which were not, in any case, obtained for cash by people with “less crunchy” ways of aborting viable children.

      • rustybrown2014 August 6, 2015 / 12:25 am

        Mark,

        “Salk vaccine was developed using monkeys…which was a much superior method of developing the vaccine (as proved by its universal adoption) than those using human fetal tissues”

        Where do you get that nonsense from?

        “Although many vaccines and anti-toxin products were successfully developed this way, using animals in vaccine development – particularly live animals – is not ideal. Research animals are costly and require extensive monitoring, both to maintain their health and to ensure the continued viability of the research. They may be carrying other bacteria or viruses that could contaminate the eventual vaccine, as with polio vaccines from the mid 20th century that were made with monkey cells and eventually found to contain a monkey virus called SV40, or Simian Virus 40.”

        Doesn’t sound so superior to me.

      • M. Noonan August 6, 2015 / 12:46 am

        I just looked up how Salk did it – lots of people were working on it, but when a crisis epidemic of polio hit in the 1950’s it was Salk who worked out the most effective way to mass inoculate…and it was done via a vaccine developed in monkey tissue hosts. You go argue with Salk about it, not me – and, at all events, even if human tissue is the absolute best way to develope vaccines, it is horribly wrong to get the tissues via “less crunchy” abortions of viable human babies.

      • rustybrown2014 August 6, 2015 / 1:19 am

        Enough is enough. You came here to harangue and harass and this is what you have done. You are now repeating yourself and getting into personal commentary. // Moderator

      • M. Noonan August 6, 2015 / 10:48 am

        You cut him off too fast! Here’s what poor people will do if Planned Parenthood is shut down.

    • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 1:21 am

      So simply saying “this is not for profit” overrides the fact that PP is taking money for body parts? Gullible, much? What does “not for profit” mean? That the money they get from selling body parts is not enough for them to make a profit doing it? That their motivation is not to make money, but hey, if they do, they do? And how does that disclaimer morph into “we are not selling body parts”?

      I can see Rusty and his ilk insisting that a filmed drug deal, with the dealer explaining what he is selling, calling it by name, explaining how great it is and how high people get from it, giving a price, collecting the money and handing over the drug. is not proof that a crime took place if the dealer mentions a couple of times that what he is selling is really not intended for recreational use.

      A couple of self-serving comments about not making a profit, by someone in the midst of many other statements about how to selectively crush the body of a living human being to make sure no sellable organs are injured, might be all it takes to convince the Rustys that no organs are being sold. Evidently it has. Yet the videos are about selling organs, and other tissue, and the effort to claim that a comment or two about this not being “for profit” does not negate that fact.

      Also—name a disease that has been cured due to the use of fetal tissue. You do remember, don’t you, the discovery that fetal stem cells caused cancers and death, and that the only stem cells that were safe were from adults? I think there was—-wait for it—-A CONSENSUS!

      uh-oh—sounds like ol’ Rusty is ANTI-SCIENCE !!!!!

      And what the hell is that odd/bizarre bit about the same kind of cooler used at a happy times picnic? What does that have to do with anything? The issue is not whether or not the harvested body parts are then transported in a custom cooler unit like the one used to transport horse and cow semen for artificial insemination or a Hello Kitty lunch box. It is not whether or not enough money was collected to qualify as profit. The words are clear and unambiguous. Living human beings are being killed in specific ways designed to protect certain body parts, which are then sold. Or, if you prefer, “donate” in exchange for money.

      Rusty does fixate on the oddest things,doesn’t he? Beer coolers!!!

    • meursault1942 August 5, 2015 / 10:28 pm

      Rusty–

      Earlier, you said this:

      This is a familiar tactic I recognize from you on the right: dismiss statistics, scientific evidence, and governmental data in favor of your own personal beliefs and opinions.

      And you are indeed correct. Conservatives lie a lot about a great many things, but this topic is probably the one they lie about the most.

      Their apparent belief in this case is that healthy women with healthy pregnancies are being pressured by Planned Parenthood into having unnecessary abortions so that Planned Parenthood can make some money by selling fetal tissue (“butchery!” they cry).

      The problem is, no part of their talking point is true. None of it. The idea that Planned Parenthood “sells” fetal tissue has already been thoroughly discredited. The idea that Planned Parethood somehow “pressures” women into getting abortions is similarly false, despite Amazona’s anecdote.

      But what hasn’t been discussed is that first part, the really important part that conservatives either never thought about or really, really don’t want to acknowledge: The assumption that the procedure being discussed in the videos is some sort of elective, unnecessary thing. This post by a former laboratory scientist directly addresses that lie:

      I’m sure it won’t be the last time I have to say it, but damn I’m getting tired of saying it….When a fetus is aborted by the D & X procedure, it’s a wanted child but the pregnancy has gone wrong…horribly, horribly wrong. Sometimes the fetus has fatal or quality-of-life defects and the parents decide the humane thing is termination. There are other instances where the mother’s life, health or future fertility are at risk.

      See, this is where the gig is up for conservatives. This is where all their rhetoric is shown to be empty. They refuse to confront the fact that the procedure is medically necessary because they cannot do so without undermining their entire argument. Conservatives have gotten so fanatical, so hardline about “abortion is murder!” (which it is not), that there can be no exceptions. None. Any abortion is “murder.” All abortions are “murder.” So if a woman is likely to die from the process of childbirth–no abortion for her. That would be murder, you see. So both that woman and her fetus will die.

      No rational person could call this a “pro-life” position; indeed, “pro-lifers” are not pro-life at all. They’ve made that abundantly clear over the years.

      And apart from having to cook up some sort of scenario wherein at the 11th hour, women who ordinarily would’ve gone through with childbirth suddenly decide to opt out of it, there are another questions conservatives must face. Let’s say you get your way, conservatives, and women whose lives are at risk cannot get abortions. So a woman dies during childbirth. Can her tissues then be used for medical research? Or is tissue research itself the pure essence of Hitler? What about organ donation–one of the forms of tissue harvesting being discussed here? Hitlerian or no? On the other hand, if the deceased woman’s tissue can be used, then why only hers? Why is that not “butchery”?

      Think about it carefully, please.

      PS for Amazona: If you’re looking for diseases that have been cured due to the use of fetal tissue, start with polio, the vaccine for which was developed using fetal kidney cells. Then there are the vaccines for hepatitis A, chicken pox, rubella, and shingles, also derived from fetal tissue. Then there are all the advancements in treatment for Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, and even–hold onto your hat–prenatal testing. And on and on it goes. Doing a little research before posting would’ve helped you tremendously, though probably not as much as your polio vaccination (for which you can thank fetal tissue research) has.

      • Amazona August 6, 2015 / 1:09 am

        Oh, bullshit. Now you death lovers are claiming that nearly all abortions are due to (cue somber music….) PREGNANCIES GONE WRONG. Horribly, horribly, wrong, oh me oh my. What utter crap.

        Anecdote alert!!! I know two females who have had three abortions each and one who has had two. None of these, and I repeat, NONE, had anything to do with PREGNANCIES GONE WRONG !!!!

        You people will stoop to anything to excuse and support your shameful passion for the dehumanizing of unborn and recently born children but after many many years of various kinds of excuses this is the first time I have seen anyone try to pass this kind of excrement off. Every time I think I have seen the limit of your depravity, you surprise me with even deeper levels of sheer unadulterated vileness.

        I’ve done my research into the alleged use of fetal tissue for medical research, and one thing I have learned, aside from the fact that it is not nearly as common as you people would like us to think, is that it does not take the tortured and mutilated bodies of millions of inconvenient human beings to provide this material. I also learned something you people are still denying—that fetal and embryonic stem cells were a disaster, and the only successful stem cell research was from adult cells.

        You love abortion, you think it is wonderful, you probably agree with the sicko who called it a “blessing” and you will say or do anything, no matter how dishonest or delusional, to support this passion.

        Tell me, is this alleged “laboratory scientist” a doctor? Or just a run of the mill technician drone with absolutely no more credibility than you have? Love your anecdotal story, not even a signed article but just a post by someone who probably remained unidentified, made even more fascinating by its sheer unbelievability. But you sure chugged it down, didn’t you? And then rushed here to spit it up.

        “See, this is where the gig is up for conservatives. This is where all their rhetoric is shown to be empty. They refuse to confront the fact that the procedure is medically necessary because they cannot do so without undermining their entire argument.”

        Again, bullshit. This “procedure” is so seldom “medically necessary” the whole argument is bogus. Medical technology is so advanced these days that an abortion that is required to save the life of the woman is rare. Not as rare as the phantasm of pregnancy due to rape, or as unicorns, but far from common and even farther from a common reason for ending a pregnancy.

        Remember, you ghouls also use the “to save the life of the mother” argument for partial birth abortion, a claim that is so wildly insane it is hard to believe that anyone would ever use it. No doctor is going to put an at-risk woman through the rigors of induced labor (usually more intense and painful than spontaneous labor) and then through the process of having the child manually manipulated inside the womb,and then to undergo a breech delivery so the child is delivered feet first. No, an at-risk situation is a quick C-section, avoiding all this physical trauma. The problem with a C-section is that the child is removed from the womb and might take breaths, and until recently even you ghouls agreed that once a child is breathing it can’t be killed. (That is so old school these days, now that children like this, born alive and breathing, can be set on shelves in cold closets to die.) Yet you clung to this meme and for all I know you still do.

        “Conservatives have gotten so fanatical, so hardline about “abortion is murder!” (which it is not), that there can be no exceptions. None. Any abortion is “murder.” All abortions are “murder.”

        Once again, you lie. You simply lie. You are so overheated, so wound up, about having it pointed out to you that being part of the abortion culture is really very little different from being part of the Auschwitz culture that you are now spinning out of the gravitational pull of sanity. You aren’t even trying to sound rational any more. You are just inventing things, and telling us that we say things we simply do not say.

        And BTW, blithely declaring that the arbitrary taking of a human life is not really murder is really only the opinion of someone who doesn’t want to admit that it IS. You can, and do, come up with all sorts of cockamamie criteria for what is and what is not a “person” but while you are paying lip service to science you are at the same time denying scientific discoveries such as that the DNA of a person is present from conception on, that unborn children in very early stages of development can feel pain and engage in movements to try to avoid it, and that in fact these ARE people.

        “So if a woman is likely to die from the process of childbirth–no abortion for her. That would be murder, you see. So both that woman and her fetus will die.” Again, just more lies.

        But thanks for playing long enough for the mask to be stripped away, showing the ugly truth underneath.

        Maybe some day you can come back and we can talk about the obvious fact that you obviously don’t even know what a “conservative” is. Hint: Someone can be a lesbian Wiccan “married” in a same-sex union and believing that abortion is not evil, and still be a conservative if she also believes that the federal government must be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority reserved to the states or to the people. And someone can find abortion to be an atrocity, a moral and social failure, and still be a Liberal if she believes that the federal government should be allowed to expand its power and authority at will, to accommodate any and all needs of the people, with little or no power left to the states.

        See, you Identity Politics people are totally ignorant of real politics, and I’ll bet that you are ignorant of the true politics of your chosen allegiance, being sucked in by the issues and the validation of your hatreds by a calculating movement that needs intellectual cannon fodder like you to harass and perturb people like us.

      • Cluster August 7, 2015 / 7:51 am

        So again: What is being discussed in the videos are medically necessary abortions of wanted pregnancies.

        No, what is being discussed is the altering of the abortion procedure to keep fetal organs intact and unharmed, and the shameful disregard for their life. These were not clinical conversations. They were conversations centered around procedures that result in preserving the organs and which organs are in demand. And just like Rusty, your defense of that practice is vile. Of course you have already proven to be a vile human being to begin with, so I will ask you the same question I asked Rusty, why do you support killing young human beings for their organs?

      • Cluster August 7, 2015 / 8:36 am

        No woman carries a pregnancy 8.5 months, then suddenly decides to end it for no good reason. To claim otherwise is a lie.

        Actually, your claim is a lie:

        For many years, abortion-rights advocates have asserted that abortions after 20 weeks are performed because of maternal health complications or lethal fetal anomalies discovered late in pregnancy.[8] However, wider data from both the medical literature and late-term abortion providers indicates that most late-term procedures are not performed for these reasons. Previous survey studies of late-term abortion patients have confirmed that most late-term abortions are performed because of a delay in pregnancy diagnosis and for reasons similar to those given by first-trimester abortion patients: financial stressors, relationship problems, education concerns or parenting challenges.

        https://www.lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/

        What’s even more vile is yours and Democrats support, if not encouragement, of “anytime abortions”. The Democratic party is the party of extremists who have failed to protect the most vulnerable Americans.

  4. Leo Pusateri August 4, 2015 / 7:31 pm

    Oh bullshit, debunked, Rusty. The fifth video is out today–that talks about ‘intact’ fetuses (Latin for “Little Ones”

    Quit making apologies for evil. it’s not becoming of you.

    • rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 7:45 pm

      Here’s just one source debunking the highly edited, misleading videos. I could provide you with many more, or take it point by point if you prefer.

      I’ll repeat my initial observation that defunding PP, a policy prescription you endorse, will result in more abortions. Why is that not evil?

      http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

      • Amazona August 4, 2015 / 7:59 pm

        We have to remember, to the RRL, “disagreeing” is the same as “debunking”, and cherry-picking a few sound bites out of a long video is enough to simply erase the rest.

        Also, as we have seen in the past, the word “editing” is loosely applied. “Editing” can, and usually does, simply mean using only parts of a very long recording. It is not the same as changing what was said. The unedited versions have been made available, but the Lying Left (pardon the redundancy) pretends that they have not, and that what has been most commonly viewed is dishonest.

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2015 / 8:03 pm

        They are just trying to deflect attention away from the content of the videos – and, of course, to edit is not the same as to lie. As I noted, all video presentations are edited…unless some dimwit out there wants to think that what he sees on the TV news is all of the raw video footage taken of an event. It isn’t remotely dishonest to edit a video…one thing is certain, you can’t edit into a video the PP worker laughing over how the baby parts are too jumbled up to be sold, but check back tomorrow and we might have something…

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2015 / 8:00 pm

        Rusty,

        You know what has been “heavily edited”? Every freaking video you’ve ever seen in your entire life. All video presentations are edited.

      • rustybrown2014 August 4, 2015 / 8:43 pm

        For pete’s sake, do you really not understand what I mean when I say “heavily edited, misleading videos”? Do you honestly think I’m confusing that with standard, everyday editing? Why do you play these silly games?

        Tell you what, let’s take it point by point. Since you think the videos are so damning, give me an example of an incriminating soundbite and I’ll show you how it was unfairly edited/presented. Sound fair?

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2015 / 11:23 pm

        You’re the one making an accusation – so, please, tell me how the babies are in a bag bit was edited to make it worse than it was in the raw, un-edited video…

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2015 / 10:40 pm

        I’m willing to accept that the video, as original presented, was juiced up a bit, which is a real shame. I see this as a missed opportunity, frankly.

        The unedited video is pretty repulsive, almost as much as the edited one. Had there been faith in the power of the unedited video, the discussion about its content would be vastly different. Instead, they took the wind out of their own sails and gave the other side arguing points.

        As long as abortion exists, there will be more videos like this. I hope the producers of the next videos have the wisdom to let the images speak for themselves. That would move the ball down field, not this fumble.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 12:44 am

        Of course, to someone like Rusty, any woman who finds herself pregnant after engaging in the practice known to result in pregnancy must then abandon the very things that make a woman a real woman—-courage, pride, decency, strength, humanity, compassion, integrity—-and become nothing more than a pathologically selfish gestational creature with no options but to butcher her young. He comes right out and says it—more pregnancies = more abortions.

        And, in the same vein, any female wanting to avoid pregnancy will be helpless to do so, without the paternalistic control of one, and only one, beloved-by-the-Left slaughterhouse posing as nothing more than a benign “health care” facility that every now and then kills off an inconvenient human being. Or millions of inconvenient human beings. Whatever. Ignore the 9000+ clinics that actually DO focus on health care without redefining it as something that causes death.

        And who says PP could not survive without taxpayer money? Let the Rustys of the world rush in with their own money to keep this thing afloat.

        No, his arguments are silly and transparent.

      • rustybrown2014 August 5, 2015 / 12:47 am

        Mark,

        I’M the one making the accusation? I don’t think so. YOU’RE the one (along with the video producers, right wing politicians, and the right wing media) claiming these videos are showing PP is involved with the illegal trafficking of fetal tissue. I’m the one saying they don’t. The original accusation comes from YOU. Let’s be straight about that.

        As for the “babies in a bag bit”, what are you referring to? In the interest of full sunlight on the issue, please post the video you’re referring to and give me a time marker of the offending spot. I just don’t know what you’re talking about. Does the fetal tissue get transported in a bag? I suppose so. That’s also how they transport organs used for life saving donations, often in a cooler similar to the one you use to transport your beer in for a lovely afternoon barbecue at the park. So what?

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 12:49 am

        My mother never admitted it to me, but I’m pretty sure she was pregnant with me when she married my father. We were very very poor, and I do know for a fact that her subsequent pregnancies were originally met with concern, if not dismay. Ditto for the pregnancies of my aunts and our acquaintances. Yet within days this original feeling of “Oh, no!” became love for the unborn child.

        This is a common phenomenon, by the way. An unwelcome pregnancy is a shock, and it takes a while to get past that cascade of dismay and panic. Do a little research, Rusty, and if you care enough to look into it I can guarantee you that the number of women who were unhappy to learn of a pregnancy and remained miserable about it all the way through delivery, never loving that child and never being glad it was born, will be vastly smaller than the number of women who acted on that original panic and killed their babies, only to regret it and grieve for their lost children.

        A fair person would weigh the inconvenience of spending a few months pregnant (you’d never know it to hear a Lefty whine about pregnancy, but it IS a finite condition with a very predictable life span) against the benefit of giving life. A fair person would weigh the possibility of a lifetime of guilt against the possibility of a few weeks of inconvenience. A fair person would acknowledge the benefit of pride in accomplishing something worthwhile and even noble, as opposed to taking the easy way out and acting out of weakness and panic and selfishness.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 7:43 pm

        Your link did not “debunk the videos”. It merely nitpicked some of the details.

  5. Retired Spook August 5, 2015 / 7:39 am

    Here’s an alternative perspective about PP’s claim that only 3% of it’s services are related to abortion:

    The fact of the matter is that 51 percent of Planned Parenthood’s yearly clinic income – their only self-sustaining revenue source – comes from abortion, 329,445 abortions.

    40 percent of all reported abortions committed in the United States occur at a Planned Parenthood clinic, making it by far the largest abortion provider in America. (Editor’s note: When using the national abortion numbers from the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood does 27.5 percent of all abortions in the United States,)

    This is a fairly staggering statistic hidden behind the media’s willful blindness to the truth behind the leader of the abortion industry.

    Planned Parenthood claims to provide 11 million “services” in America each year. From this overly inflated number, they calculate that the 329,445 abortions they committed in their last reported year amounts to only 3 percent of their services.

    Planned Parenthood’s 3 percent figure has been bought hook, line, and sinker by the mainstream media as proof positive that Planned Parenthood isn’t really about abortion. But if you take even a cursory look at Planned Parenthood’s own data, that claim begins to unravel and quickly.

    Planned Parenthood’s latest report states that it performed “11 million services during nearly five million clinical visits.” So, now their abortion number jumps to 6.6 percent of clinic visits were for abortions. That’s right 6.6 percent of all visits to Planned Parenthood result in an abortion.

    Digging a little deeper, Planned Parenthood claims that all those “services” it provides only go to 3 million women. So by it’s own admission, 11 percent of the women that visit a Planned Parenthood clinic in any given year obtain an abortion there.

    What about some of the other “services” Planned Parenthood claims it provides? Prenatal services (those services provided to women who choose to keep their baby) account for a measly 0.28 percent off all services provided. Moreover, the 841 adoption referrals made by Planned Parenthood in their last reported year amount to a whopping 0.0076 percent of services rendered.

    Again these services are deceptive. In 2009, Planned Parenthood reported performing 40,489 prenatal services for 7,021 prenatal clients, an average of roughly 6 services per prenatal client. Assuming an average of 6 prenatal services per client, Planned Parenthood’s current listing of 31,098 prenatal “services” could be for just over 5,000 prenatal clients. That is 5,000 prenatal clients versus well over 300,000 abortions.

    Planned Parenthood’s claim that only 3 percent of its business is abortion is no different than if a car dealership claimed that it wasn’t really in the business of selling cars because the number of new car sales was only a fraction of its total services provided (financing cars, repairing cars, providing manufacture recommended maintenance for cars, cleaning car, and so forth). Of course no one would believe such an outrageous claim. Sure, a car dealership does all of those things, but its purpose is to sell cars.

    • Bob Eisenhower August 5, 2015 / 6:17 pm

      Retired Spook

      Much as it pains me to argue on PP’s side, it looks like this analysis is too skewed to support.

      They are refuting statistics based on quantity of services (line items on insurance submissions, as it were) to quantity of patients.

      If a pregnant woman sees the doctor monthly, she’ll rack up seven “services.” If another woman has an abortion in her only visit, she uses one service. One can’t say 50% of services are abortion because 50% of patients received abortions (in this example). More accurately, eight “services” were provided, one of which was an abortion.

      I appreciate you bringing the article to this conversation, and I love anything that hates on PP but this analysis – for me, at least – fall short. It think it is important to reject skewed info, even when it supports our cause or comes from a respected source, or we will provide ammo to the other side.

  6. Amazona August 5, 2015 / 7:35 pm

    Here is a spin typical of Lefty arguing: Rusty quotes me when I said “I am NOT in favor of “…defunding women’s health care clinics…” and I defy you to find any place where I said this. I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood because it simply should not use taxpayer money to do what it does. Period.”

    He goes on to say, allegedly in response; “Find a place where you say this? Sure: it was in your very next sentence! That was easy.”

    Well, if by “easy” you mean you find it effortless to simply lie, I have to go along with your claim this was “easy”. The thing is, it is also false.

    Where you get tangled up in your own rhetoric, Rusty, is your belief that all funding has to come from taxpayer dollars. This is what happens when people are fully indoctrinated into the belief that the federal government is responsible for every aspect of life in this country. There is a key word in that sentence: TAXPAYER. You also overlooked the post where I suggested that you pony up some money to fund the slaughterhouses you find so important to “women’s health”. (BTW, not so important to the unborn women whose health is not a factor, as they are killed off by the millions.)

    There is a big push for faith-based charities, and as Leftism is a religion in which the State is the ultimate authority and is revered if not worshiped then let the Left fund its own faith-based institutions. I love the ever-changing mantra of being “for choice” and then screeching about anyone’s effort to actually employ choice in anything that is not part of Leftist doctrine. No, when it comes to Leftist ideology there is not supposed to be any choice, there is not supposed to be any personal decision, and evidently there is not supposed to be any voluntary support from advocates. It’s OPM, all the time.

    You also seem quite fixated on the sordid conviction that a certain percentage of pregnancies will naturally result in a certain number of killed babies. But a health care facility that does not push abortions, does not pressure women into making snap decisions to end the lives of their children without taking a few days or weeks to think it over, that encourages thinking that finds ways to accept pregnancy instead of running away from it, will result in far fewer abortions than you seem to find inevitable. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the very important role that PP plays in promoting abortion and therefore increasing the number of killed babies. Just because women who fall prey to the pressures exerted by PP tend to have more abortions is hardly proof that women given support, caring, a broad range of counseling on options, and the opportunity to do serious research into the reality of abortion will make the same decisions.

  7. Amazona August 5, 2015 / 7:41 pm

    The number or percentage of adult women who choose to use IUDs is completely irrelevant to my very clear and very accurate comments on the dangers of the device in young women with immature (ie: not fully developed) reproductive organs.

    Show me a study that shows that these professional women are also young teenagers who have never had children, and you will be comparing apples to apples. I think it safe to say that a doctor is somewhat older/more mature than a teenager, and may very well have had one or more children, stretching out her mature uterus. I also suggest that a doctor is more likely to be aware of complications, recognize danger signs, and address them more promptly than, say, a 14-year-old girl who had a cursory exam and was fitted with a device and then sent out to make use of it.

    Your steadfast determination to ignore details in favor of just repeating the same old same old is very telling.

  8. Amazona August 5, 2015 / 8:00 pm

    A typical blog entry from a Lib:

    “Ultrasecularlib

    Aug. 5, 2015 at 12:18pm

    Legal abortion is a blessing for all Americans, even redneck Jesus freaks..”

    Yeah, I have to wonder if the child near to full term, fully aware of pain, feels “blessed” at being selectively crushed to salvage some of her body parts for PP to sell off.

    Just look at the seething hatred and irrationality in that statement. It is what we have come to expect from Libs. I remember a Lib who used to post here, before we got standards (BTW, what happened to those standards, anyway?) actually congratulating all the pathologically selfish females who had butchered their children that day.

    It is a sick sick mindset that finds the arbitrary killing of human beings just because they are inconvenient to be a “blessing” or worthy of congratulations. I think these people would have sent flowers and thank-you cards to the guards at concentration camps.

    • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 8:21 pm

      Sometimes I wonder if the younger progressives really subscribe to the left lunacy, or if they are simply being knee jerk contrarians to anything conservatives support.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 10:12 pm

        Cluster, I think you’re right. There is a laundry list of things wannabe Libs are told to support, and every time one of those things comes up for discussion they go online to find out what they think and then they parrot it, ad nauseum.

      • Cluster August 5, 2015 / 10:22 pm

        I am also now wondering if Rusty is willfully ignoring PP’s mutilation of young human beings and the liquidation of their organs, or if he is so ideological blind that that morally bankrupt practice means nothing to him. He is arguing this issue as if this were simply a debate on whether or not to fund women’s health care. It’s bizarre.

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 10:33 pm

        They just can’t be shaken – there are still people out there with the “hands up, don’t shoot” even though forensics show it false. It will always be true to the Progressives because it has to be true…if it isn’t true, then it calls into question their beliefs, and they can’t tolerate questions. Our Progressives will fight forever for PP – and will just continually roll out the PP lies.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 10:33 pm

        One of the many bizarre aspects of Rusty’s hair-on-fire defense of PP is his claim that he is motivated by concern for the welfare of women, while the group he is defending is responsible for the extermination of millions of young women before they ever have a need for the services purportedly provided by PP.

        More girl babies than boy babies are aborted, as “parents” choose to kill off females until they can get sons. So supporting this practice is supposedly compatible with claiming to defend the rights and welfare of women. Evidently this concern only extends to those lucky enough to reach a certain age.

        Abortion represents slavery and ageism, as well as brutality toward women, and the Left LOOOVES it. Loves loves loves it. Can’t get enough of it. Has wall-kicking hissy fits about anything that threatens it.

      • M. Noonan August 5, 2015 / 10:36 pm

        And our supreme regulators also won’t regulate the abortion industry…any time even the most basic health and safety regulations are suggested for abortion mills, the left gets up in arms. They’ll regulate every other business into bankruptcy, but not their precious abortion industry.

        In a real sense, it is the center of their views…and if it goes, the whole Progressive house of cards goes with it, because it will be an affirmation of the absolute right to life for all human beings, regardless of condition, from conception to natural death. Once you affirm that, then the rest just follows along – property rights, association rights, etc, etc, etc….the flip side is that if we don’t have an absolute right to life, then we have no absolute rights, at all.

      • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 10:55 pm

        Hard-core Leftism cannot survive in an atmosphere of respect for human life. Leftism requires the destruction of the most basic components of civilization—–the sanctity of human life, the sanctity and primary authority of the family unit, and belief in a Higher Power that is the ultimate authority.

        Any study of Leftist societies shows the lack of respect for human individuality, as people are not seen as individuals with inherent personal value but only as components of the collective who are, at heart, dispensable. Once you see an unborn human being as having no intrinsic value as a human being, as having only the value assigned to it by another, you are on your way to seeing the rest of humanity in much the same way.

      • M. Noonan August 6, 2015 / 12:00 am

        One of the first things legalized by Lenin’s regime was abortion; I’m guessing it was the first nation to legalize elective abortion. But, then again, Trotsky was out there saying we had to get past our worn out, Quaker-Papistal idea of the sanctity of human life.

  9. Amazona August 5, 2015 / 10:23 pm

    Rusty claims that transferring funds now going to PP to other organizations would be “very messy”. Messier than dismembered human beings? Messier than selectively crushing some parts of living people so other parts of them can be sold? His choice of what kind of messy he finds acceptable is pretty creepy.

    “….basically you’re calling for disrupting a very effective organization that benefits women for no good reason….” Well, actually we are calling for simply removing taxpayer money from an organization which misrepresents its function and purpose, which not only supports but actively promotes acts of brutality against the most helpless of human beings, which is evidently part of a criminal enterprise, and benefits some women while permanently damaging others and killing off millions of women based on their age, for the very good reason that some people in this nation do have a sense of decency, a sense of what is right, and abhorrence for the depravity of groups like this. And for their supporters and enablers.

    If Rusty is truly motivated by what is best for women, he would be trying to figure out how to use the money that has been funneled into PP to provide other avenues to health care. No, it is quite clear that his concern is not women, but Planned Parenthood. He is doing what PP does, and using the pretext of concern for the health of women to cloak his support for a Leftist icon.

  10. Amazona August 5, 2015 / 10:45 pm

    “Um, ever heard of polio?

    “One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.”

    As abortion was illegal when the polio vaccine was developed, any “fetal tissue” used was taken from babies which had died of natural causes, not healthy viable human beings butchered for the convenience of pathologically selfish females and the profit motive of the abortionists.

    And how many babies had to die to provide this tissue? Millions? I doubt it. No, Rusty, you can parrot the CNN echo chamber all you want, you are on the wrong side of this issue. Abortion is an atrocity, a stain on humanity that far exceeds that of institutionalized slavery. It can be only be compared to the death camps that also killed millions, also engaged in using human beings for “medical” experimentation, and also had the support of enablers who made excuses for them or looked the other way.

    And you are trying very very hard to get away from the harsh, brutal fact that this “tissue” you find so invaluable in its lifesaving qualities was taken from living human beings who were alive and who could feel pain as they were being systematically crushed to death in ways designed to protect the body parts deemed to be the most valuable.

    • Amazona August 5, 2015 / 11:03 pm

      A little research into the claim of the incredible value of fetal tissue in medical advances showed this:

      “In some cases, women who were infected with rubella while pregnant terminated their pregnancies due to the serious risks from CRS. Following one such abortion, the fetus was sent to Plotkin at the laboratory he had devoted to rubella research.

      In total only two fetuses, both obtained from abortions done by maternal choice, have given rise to cell strains used in vaccine development. Neither abortion was performed for the purpose of vaccine development.”

      http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development

Comments are closed.