Planned Parenthood says it will no longer profit from aborted fetal.....
- Thread starter 86Hawkeye
- Start date
You probably didn't see my question in the other thread so I will ask over here. You are a researcher, not a practicing physician, correct?
If you honestly think that's a valid analogy, there really isn't any point responding.
The only thing I found disgusting on "the tapes" WAS the callousness of the drunken physicians. That was what I founf offensive. Some people talk too much. People who drink and get drunk, always talk too much. And much of what they say is not necessarily the truth.
This was a "gotcha" run by the pro-lifers...and again, it fell well short of its intended mark, once the tape was examined.
They used to except reimbursements for their reasonable services. They have said they will no longer accept those reimbursements. We're talking money here, not donations of fetal tissue.
So in "this" sense, they've reversed that practice/policy. Before they were, now they're not. To say otherwise is just arguing for the sake of arguing. But something tells me that's exactly what you're doing here.
...because 'callous attitudes' are illegal. Good thing we have some hard-nosed champions in Congress to spend time sorting this out....
It's absolutely a valid analogy. Harvesting tissues from fetuses or cadavers or brain dead people costs money in time, supplies, logistics, etc. The U of I has (or had) a tissue bank, and that entity spun off as an independent organization 15 or so years ago; it was a not-for-profit company, but they still made money off reimbursements from buyers of things like corneas, ligaments, bone, etc.
I personally knew the people who ran it, and many of the medical/dental students who were employed on-contract by them. They all had pagers and would have to fly out to various areas in Iowa to harvest tissues on an hour or less notice. Those kids made REALLY good money for school doing that; those costs, flight costs, infrastructure, etc are all bundled into what that not-for-profit company charged for the tissues they harvested.
It's not something anyone 'advertised' much, because it wasn't exactly a conversational topic. But adult, child and fetal body parts or stem cells are all valuable for research, as well as conventional surgeries. Lots of people owe their knee or joint repairs to bone grafts. Someday, we will probably look back at fetal stem cells as a key contributor to certain genetic maladies, although I seriously doubt we will rely on continued stem cell harvests from fetal or placental sources directly for therapy, as most professionals agree there are serious and significant ethical issues involved. But if you don't harvest the unused cells and do the research, there is zero chance you'll ever come up with a viable therapy.
"at cost" or for small profit (making sure they are not incurring a loss).
And they cannot turn any of those profits around to paying staff, bonuses or anything else. They CAN use that money to directly defer costs or lower costs to other patients.
That is completely legal.
Their costs to their patients are staff, bonuses and anything else. Anything can be expensed. Non-profit does not mean that in accounting terms they do not make a profit. Non-profit means ownership doesn't get the profit. It also doesn't mean that ownership is prohibited from a large salary or bonus.
And the issue is not that they are "profiting" from the act, it is the act itself.
All completely correct. Only comment is that 'ownership' doesn't get the large salary or bonus, management/employees do. Ownership can if it also holds a functional management role; and the large salary or bonus is also taxed as income, vs. profits being handed out as dividends to owners.
'Non-profit' is often portrayed as 'altruistic' and 'low pay' for employees/managers, which is simply not always the case.
As in "I can't refute it so I'll hide". Here's another one for you. You drop items off at Goodwill. You get a receipt. You claim that "donation" on your taxes...except now you've "profited" from it so it was, in your world, a "sale". So there was no charity. So you don't claim the the deduction...right?
No, as in "If you really think that's a valid analogy, there's no point responding." Not sure how I could have said it more clearly.
Your attempt at another one isn't much better....unless it's used to argue my position instead of yours.
Goodwill doesn't give me the money, so I am not selling it to Goodwill. Am I profiting from the transaction? Damned right I am. Just as PP is profiting from the sale of tissue. Even though in both cases, we might not be getting as much as the item is worth. In both cases, we're getting more -- e.g., profiting -- than we would if we didn't make the transaction.
No, obviously you do not. In your eagerness to take a cheap shot at Fox News (and me, for watching it), you didn't think before you posted. If I saw it on Fox News, and tar is correct in saying it was suppressed in the original clips given to the media, the only explanation is that Fox News went beyond the press release in order to give viewers a more fair and balanced story.
Which I don't think was the point you were hoping to make.
