And then have babies that continue to grow the ghetto or even those that go to PP and have 90k abortions.
Today’s Planned Parenthood hearing shows why Republicans will lose on this issue
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Planned Parenthood does 1 adoption referral for every 149 abortions.
Proof that the thrill is in the kill.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...enthood-did-1-adoption-referral-149-abortions
Proof that the thrill is in the kill.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...enthood-did-1-adoption-referral-149-abortions
Not following your point here, but one element of preventive care (e.g. mammograms) is that they produce more false-positives than cancers detected. That, coupled with new genetic tests which can determine which women are 'high risk' and SHOULD have mammograms earlier are some of the elements. I believe some of the guidelines recommend DELAYING annual mammograms until later age for most EXCEPT those who have the genetic marker which indicates high risk.
This is very much in line with serum PSAs for prostate cancer and DREs; they used to recommend them for anyone >35 (or something like that); now, PSA is not viewed as necessary (w/o family history of prostate cancer), and they recommend DREs annually >age 50. Thus, if basic medical guidelines are changing and/or delaying when these screens should be performed, any clinic is going to be doing more or less of them based on the latest recommendations.
If someone wants to assess if PP is actually seeing fewer patients/provided lesser services, these aren't great criteria to be using, unless you provide them within the scope of the greater medical community and whether they have increased or decreased as a whole and among the typical demographic being served.
Huey, are you high today? That's fine and all, but I'd advise you to think before you post. Could you explain in english what you are ranting about here?
There was just a great moment at the House hearing going on right now where Cecile Richards was forced to admit under questioning from Rep. Cynthia Lummins (R, WY) that although abortions only account for 3% of Planned Parenthood’s total procedures, abortions account for 86% of Planned Parenthood’s revenues
....and....???
All that indicates is that surgical procedures in this country are EXPENSIVE, irrespective of what those procedures are.
The uncomfortable fact in all the abortion debate, is that an abortion costs roughly ~$500-1000, maybe up to $2000.
Delivering a baby to full term (not inclusive of ANY post-natal care following delivery) costs $20,000-30,000 (that is insurer cost/payments, NOT what hospitals will bill WITHOUT insurance).
If we were to 'deliver' the ~330,000 fetuses that were aborted last year, that is ~$8.2 BILLION you need to come up with (ANNUALLY) JUST for getting them to DELIVERY (and excluding any major complications).
Now, add in the costs for raising those unwanted children to adulthood (at ~$200,000-250,000 a piece for 18 years). That's >$2,000 TRILLION (that's right: two-thousand-trillion, or $114 Trillion per year) in long term committed costs EVERY YEAR we force those ~300k unwanted pregnancies to full term.
The reality is that if we do NOT allow abortion, we will end up financially bankrupt as a country very quickly if no one comes up with the money to deliver and care for those unwanted babies.
We are FAR better off with the contraceptive solutions that PP and other clinics can provide to prevent those pregnancies from occurring in the first place. Defunding PP (which is where most of those funds go) is simply asinine.
I don't see how this is possible. In their latest report they list (in millions) 1,145.8 total revenue. 528.4 is from government health services grants & reimbursements (medicaid and Title X). None of that would be abortion. So how can 86% be from abortion when we know nearly half can't be from abortion?
Just guessing, but I suspect that 'reimbursements' and 'grants' are accounted for differently with respect to actual income or 'revenues'.
Based upon rough costs of (and presumably revenues from) an abortion procedure at $2k, then 330,000 procedures would result in $660M in revenues (abortions only). If that is 86% of 'revenues', then they have another ~$107M income from other procedures formally as revenue.
Thus, maybe they are getting around $100M in federal reimbursements that are directly tagged as 'revenue', the other $400M is in other grants, etc which may not be cost-accounted as 'revenue', particularly if it ends up as a 'pass-thru'.
This could be like 'credits' for mammogram payment for the referrals they provide - it's not 'revenue' if it's passed-thru and onto the clinics providing the mammograms, but PP facilitates payments to those clinics for those uninsured via the grants. I'm presuming this is how this probably works, so someone who works at a 'free clinic' that does referrals may know for sure.
Did you just flip positions in this thread? First you're mad they aren't having the babies. Now you're mad they are having the babies. If you're this upset about breeding, sit next to me and we'll have a talk.
OK... Let's do this Joel... You keep supporting killing babies and deal with that moral rot, and in the meantime, keep your nose out of MY FKN BUSINESS regarding paying for progressive pet programs via taxes...
Deal!
Can we opt out of your pet projects? Specifically, can we start collecting taxes from your Churches? Why do I subsidize your religious activities? I mean, come on.
Blazin
Taxes are "our" business. I pay them too. I never have supported killing babies. I do support a woman's right to choose. A baby is not a fetus. It just isn't. But you will never change your mind. I think that it is your right to carry your child full term. So next time you are prego, I support your choice. Please, don't name the child for me though.
Blazin'.......
Taxes are "our" business. I pay them too. I never have supported killing babies. I do support a woman's right to choose. A baby is not a fetus. It just isn't. But you will never change your mind. I think that it is your right to carry your child full term. So next time you are prego, I support your choice. Please, don't name the child for me though.
If it is only about dollars and cents then everyone should support capital punishment over life sentences.
Was showing both sides of the coin - probably could have had more context in that to make it more visible but was tired.
...you might wanna recheck the figures on that. Costs for capital punishment FAR exceed incarceration for life sentences. So, if you REALLY are interested in $$ and cents, you'd prefer to not have inmates on death row....
That because we use the wrong methods.
Sure it will. At some point in our future, when we are better enlightened, it will fall into place as just another example of barbarism in our species' history.
Recheck my numbers if you want. The calculations directly imply that FORCING all of these unwanted pregnacies to term could/would cost us 100x our annual GDP in committed costs over 18 years. Are we going to take out more 'loans' in the form of US Savings Bonds to cover the $2000 Trillion bill to raise these unplanned pregnacies to adulthood? That's ~$110 Trillion PER YEAR, or roughly 7x our total annual GDP!!!
If the liberals were to propose and push a program that would cost us $110T/year, Republicans would lose their minds over it!!
It has NOTHING to do with 'the methods'; it has everything to do with:
A) the appeals process
B) the 'irreversibility' of making the wrong decision on executing someone who is innocent (which HAS happened, btw); this REQUIRES us to ensure any inmate has exhausted his/her appeals before we end their life
Most in prison for life sentences DO NOT continue to file appeals like those on death row. And we have no quick fixes for that aspect of the system, IF we are to provide safety mechanisms to ensure innocent prisoners are not executed and have a possibility to be exonerated at some future date.
Do you have to have an "all, or nothing" mentality.
Very few, myself included, advocate a ban. However, there does need to be better definition and stop points then there is today. Why won't Libs have that conversation?
Some would still find 3rd trimester abortions acceptable.
I don't.
The conservative right does. And it would bankrupt us. Why don't you call them out on that?
No. It would save practically nothing. We execute far too few inmates to even notice the costs of the methods.
A) The appeals process is a method.
B) A stabbin' chair would save a lot of money.
I do. Why don't you support legislation that regulates abortions to at least some sensible degree?
