HNGN: Planned Parenthood's Top Doctor Caught On Video Discussing The Sale Of Aborted Fetus Body Parts

[Larry]

Bright light usually kills fungi.

 

add

 

The state did not prosecute anybody for submitting fraudulent voter registration because it could not prove which canvassers were involved. But the court said the “evidence demonstrates that the possibility of fraud is real.”

 

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/oct/04/court-upholds-conviction-acorn-voter-registration-/

ACORN was found guilty and fined $5,000 but later filed bankruptcy with only $4,000 in assets.

Edwards pleaded guilty to gross misdemeanor offenses and was placed on three years’ probation.

 

ACORN was found guilty, of paying people to register voters. 

 

And the state was given the name of the employee who turned in registration forms for "Mickey mouse", among others.  When ACORN handed the fraudulent forms to the election office, and told them "This employee brought in these fraudulent forms, and it's illegal for us to destroy them, so we separated them out, for you.". 

 

And wow, a court ruled that it is possible that voter fraud could happen?  Well, there went all of those people claiming that it is impossible

I been reciting this lie, now for about 25 minutes.

I can keep reciting it for another 25 minutes.

I'm not proud.

Or tired.

(Alice's Restaurant reference.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

And OJ was innocent.

Holy freaking cow!

You've got to be kidding me.

You are simply trolling, there is no way that someone with an obvious intelligence that you have can possibly think your attempt at an argument is logically or rationally sound in any way shape or form. You MUST be trolling for the sake of trolling.

 

Once upon a time I remember you used to be really good at in depth and difficult discussions on politics, but it's almost like one day you said "Ohhh **** it."

[twa]

perhaps when so many became unreasonable I figured I'd join ya'll.

 

 

bring some gas, I got a match.

[Zguy28]

Planned Parenthood Won’t Accept Money for Fetal Tissue

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/planned-parenthood-to-forgo-payment-for-fetal-tissue-programs.html?_r=0

 

Trying to quell the controversy over its use of fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood announced Tuesday that it would no longer accept reimbursement for the costs of providing the tissue for medical research.

 

 

A very balanced article actually that kind of reviews the whole recent controversy.

 

 

Mr. Chaffetz (Rep. - UT) said in his statement, “This is a good, tangible result of the collective efforts of the House in investigating Planned Parenthood,” and called the policy change “helpful.”

But he added, “This decision does not answer the question as to why a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization reporting approximately $125 million in revenue over expenses annually needs a subsidy from the American taxpayer.”

 

Yes, why do they need a subsidy?

[PF Chang]

How is Chaffetz getting $125 million in revenue over expenses annually? The audited financial statements for their 6/30/14 year end show $209 million in revenue and $173 million in expenses.

 

I may have the wrong set of financial statements here but otherwise not sure how Chaffetz is getting to that number, even with the typical political fuzzy math. 

[Larry]

Yes, why do they need a subsidy?

A subsidy? Or getting paid the same amount that other people get paid, for the same services?

[twa]

A subsidy? Or getting paid the same amount that other people get paid, for the same services?

 

you asserting they simply bill per service rendered?....if true why a earmark in the budget

 

add

 

From 2010 through 2014, the nonprofit spent $6.6 million lobbying the federal government.

 

 In addition to its lobbying outlays and grassroots support, Planned Parenthood, through its employees and PAC, has made and kept friends by contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to federal candidates – overwhelmingly Democrats.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/09/center-stage-in-funding-debate-planned-parenthood-is-no-political-pushover/

[Larry]

you asserting they simply bill per service rendered?....if true why a earmark in the budget

 

add

 

From 2010 through 2014, the nonprofit spent [/size]$6.6 million lobbying the federal government.[/size]

 

 In addition to its lobbying outlays and grassroots support, Planned Parenthood, through its employees and PAC, has made and kept friends by contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to federal candidates – overwhelmingly Democrats.[/size]

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/09/center-stage-in-funding-debate-planned-parenthood-is-no-political-pushover/

I note that you did not in any way address my comment.

Although I do like your assertion that any corporation that lobbys the federal government should be barred from receiving any federal money.

That was your point, right?

[Zguy28]

A subsidy? Or getting paid the same amount that other people get paid, for the same services?

Maybe its like how being a tax-exempt organization (like a church for instance) is now being considered a subsidy by many in the public discourse.

[twa]

I note that you did not in any way address my comment.

Although I do like your assertion that any corporation that lobbys the federal government should be barred from receiving any federal money.

That was your point, right?

 

I asked for clarity in your comment.

 

I'm not a fan of non-profits lobbying to get federal funds ,no.

 

the tax paying corps are a different matter, but I'm not as concerned....I'm a fan of freedom of speech not funded by my tax dollars

[Larry]

Maybe its like how being a tax-exempt organization (like a church for instance) is now being considered a subsidy by many in the public discourse.

 

Well, now, I can see how "OK, you don't have to pay the same taxes as everybody else" can be considered a subsidy. 

 

One of my customers was a local health club, and you did not want to hear him talk about how unfair it is that the YMCA can open up a health club that competes against his club, and which generates huge profits for the YMCA, but they're exempt from all of the taxes he has to pay, because the club's profits go to the YMCA. 

I asked for clarity in your comment.

 

I'm not a fan of non-profits lobbying to get federal funds ,no.

 

the tax paying corps are a different matter, but I'm not as concerned....I'm a fan of freedom of speech not funded by my tax dollars

 

So, it's a problem if a non-profit (like the NRA?) lobbys the government? 

 

But if the company is in business to make a profit, then it's not a problem.  (Even if they're funded by tax dollars?) 

[twa]

 

So, it's a problem if a non-profit (like the NRA?) lobbys the government? 

 

But if the company is in business to make a profit, then it's not a problem.  (Even if they're funded by tax dollars?) 

 

I oppose the NRA lobbying the govt to receive federal funding

 

I'd be good w/o limiting tax ded for corps to lobby the govt....probably do more than changing Citizens United.

 

add

 

still awaiting clarification on PP billing for services.

[Larry]

still awaiting clarification on PP billing for services.

As in, you don't think they do?

I was under the impression that most of their government money actually comes from Medicaid.

But, in any case, I was ASKING whether they're being paid for services, or receiving "subsidy".

[twa]

As in, you don't think they do?

I was under the impression that most of their government money actually comes from Medicaid.

But, in any case, I was ASKING whether they're being paid for services, or receiving "subsidy".

 

 

I do not think they bill the govt per service as a normal provider , no

[Larry]

I do not think they bill the govt per service as a normal provider , no

 

Well, I've found several links saying that most of their government money comes from Medicaid.  (Multiple sources say that PP claims it's approximately 75% Medicaid, and 25% grants like the Title X Family Planning fund.  But, all of them also say that PP does not specifically break them down.) 

 

Researching, I've also found several other interesting things. 

 

Seems like a lot of Republicans have been trying to defund PP, for years.  (You don;t say!  You mean, they were trying to do this, before those shocking videos that are supposedly the justification for this action?) 

 

Multiple states have attempted to defund PP. 

 

And every one of them has lost, in court. 

 

Here's a Politico article, that seems to be the best one I've found, so far: 

 

Defund Planned Parenthood? Not so easy

 

When states have tried to expel Planned Parenthood clinics from their Medicaid programs, they’ve ended up in court. The same thing could happen to a federal law. 

 

Attorneys interviewed said Medicaid law has long protected a patient’s right to flexibility in choosing a health care provider (as long as the doctor, clinic or other provider accepts Medicaid). Those safeguards are particularly strong for access to family planning services, said Cindy Mann, an attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips who until recently ran Medicaid for the Obama administration. 

 

“That’s been an important provision to ensure access and allow women to make their own decisions about who to go to,” Mann said.

 

 

 

(All of the articles I found say that cutting off the grant money would be relatively easy for Congress to do.  Although at least one mentions that said grants are issued on a multi-year cycle, so they might not be able to cut it off quickly.) 

 

Now, are you trying to say that you think Medicaid is sending out millions of dollars, to somebody who doesn't even bill them, or tell them what services they provided, and to whom? 

[twa]

Well Medicaid certainly has a history of paying for things that were not provided ect.....by planned parenthood and others

 

search for PP medicaid fraud

[Larry]

Wow.  Moving the goalposts from PP doesn't bill Medicaid for services" to "PP bills Medicaid for services they didn't perform". 

 

I'm shocked. 

 

[twa]

certainly two separate issues , but not a matter of moving goal posts.

[Larry]

certainly two separate issues . . .

Certainly two mutually exclusive issues.

You cannot bill for false services, without billing for services.

[twa]

Certainly two mutually exclusive issues.

You cannot bill for false services, without billing for services.

 

nor is the disputed budgetary line for PP medicaid payments billed per service

[Zguy28]

Well, now, I can see how "OK, you don't have to pay the same taxes as everybody else" can be considered a subsidy. 

 

One of my customers was a local health club, and you did not want to hear him talk about how unfair it is that the YMCA can open up a health club that competes against his club, and which generates huge profits for the YMCA, but they're exempt from all of the taxes he has to pay, because the club's profits go to the YMCA.

Sure, but in your apples to oranges analogy, if the church is analogous to the YMCA, what is analogous to your friend's for profit gym that is doing what the church does?

 

.

[Larry]

Sure, but in your apples to oranges analogy, if the church is analogous to the YMCA, what is analogous to your friend's for profit gym that is doing what the church does?

.

Coulda sworn this thread was about Planned Parenthood, and whether THEIR non profit status can be correctly referred to as a "subsidy".

[twa]

I thought it was about the sale of human remains?

 

or the remuneration of expenses for said activity......might be nice to know how much has been paid/collected.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I thought it was about the sale of human remains?

 

or the remuneration of expenses for said activity......might be nice to know how much has been paid/collected.

Why? So you and the other Rightwingnut bloviators can then say that "Planned Parenthood collected $XXXX.XX for selling baby parts!" 

Look twa, we don't trust any of the jackwaggons on the Right.

As my mentor wisely told me, "When someone shows you who they are...believe them," and the Right's track record has well established who you are, and we believe.

 

Go ahead and think of some non-witty way to retort using my quote against moderates and those who think with their brains, but I won't be listening.

[twa]

I think your post speaks for itself.