The numbers are in .
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...EB_VERSION.pdf
Planned Parenthood's infanticides totaled 327,653 babies in 2014. That's one every 90 seconds last year.

In doing so they were supported by $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements;41% of the group’s total revenues. Now Title X says that Federal Money cannot 'directly ' pay for abortions. However the Federal money does directly support the operations of PP ,of which abortions are a major part(95% of their 'services' for pregnant women) .

I support abortion, not because I like killing fetuses, but because without it, we would be killing people of all ages for whom we can't provide medical and other care, and adding about a million babies a year these days (in the US) who need supporting for at least the next 18 years of their lives, compounded. Do the math! Are you going to support them? You support plenty of them already. SOCIETY CAN'T HANDLE IT. And people from infancy to old age suffer and die as a result of spreading the tax dollar farther than it can go.

I support my tax dollars going to them, to save BILLIONS on what we would be spending for welfare for unwanted babies, most of whom wouldn't be adopted.

Societies throughout history killed fetuses and the elderly. Tahiti and other island cultures killed babies according to what caste-like group you were in. Eskimos left elderly out on the ice or dumped them in the sea. It is really the same - what is needed for the social group. I hate throwing money into the medical maw (mine and Medicare's) as I get old and wouldn't mind the ice floe routine for myself.

At least we have birth control now. When I was a teen, the RCC was still adamantly opposed to birth control, and I had to find one of a tiny number of doctors willing to write me a prescription. I got pregnant and had an abortion in Mexico. No regrets.

I'm suspicious of the stat about 95% of PP's money goes to abortions. What does that MEAN? If counseling a woman about birth control, and giving her some, or counseling about deciding whether to have a baby or an abortion, costs them 1/10 of the cost of an abortion, then do they do 10 times as much counseling as abortions? I guess so, based on my limited experience with them. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that all they do is abortions.

Thanks for the utterly horrible topic to start 2015 on here, tomder.

I support abortion, only because I know what will happen otherwise in some cases. Do they hand out condoms and support sex education in your schools down there??

Hi Tom I find it difficult to comment other than to say that given the population of your nation and world statistics that this statistic appears extraordinarily low.
I don't have recent statistics on my own nation but those I do have suggest a rate of 7 per 1000 of female population which is consistent with your own region and as the same source suggested 1.5 million in 2008 in north america I would be extremely surprised if the rate wasn't at least twice or three times the number you have provided.

Tom... the pie graph states that 3% of their medical service was for abortions. I didn't see 95% stated in the article... where is that from?

The number of abortions in the US is just over a million, most not provided by PP. The rate is going down, thanks to more morning after pills that can be taken more and more hours (now 72) after sex. With girls and young women often not prepared with birth control before they have sex, this is having a huge effect on pregnancy prevention.

My feeling is this: If you want to take a stand against abortion, do so only if you are willing to provide alternatives, and how to PAY FOR THEM!!!!
Not much disgusts me more than the high moral ground while looking down your nose at the masses.

I clearly cited '95% of their 'services' for pregnant women'. The other 5% is probably prenatal care and other useful services . Maybe the abortion rate would go down even further if they would devote more resources to adoption services. I'm all for preventive counseling . Willing to bet they don't invest a lot of time and resources counseling abstinence.

Margaret Sanger despised the 'masses ' . Especially minorities . She saw abortions and sterilization as a means to control the Black population. She said ' Colored People are like weeds and are to be exterminated ' . With Blacks being 12% of the population ,but having 35% of the nations abortions performed on them ,I'd say she is on her way to having her goal realized.

Let me start by dispensing with the "when does life begin?" argument. I like omelets. Sometimes an egg has a blood spot in it. Is that life? Yes. Do I make the omelet anyway? Yes (I spoon out the blood spot. Messes up the flavor.) Caviar is lots and lots of lives ended to make a luxury food. Carrots and potatoes are viable lives ended for soup. Until someone can teach me this photosynthesis thing I (and the rest of you) will continue to take lives to survive.

I make a good living taking lives for the convenience and health of others, legitimately. So do some Gynecologists. If I had to take the Gynecologist's role, it would be a great deal messier.

Thus the only question in my mind would be the role of the taxpayer in the Gynecologists' function. Arguments abound regarding the taxpayer's role in all medicine, not just this one aspect. I pay my own way, and subscribe to a Hospitalization crowdsourcing fund.

"The sacredness of Human life?" I like my dog a lot better than most of the people that espouse that argument. Terry Jones, Westboro Baptist, and Louis Farrakhan are such sterling examples of how to live.

Women of means and education don't worry about planned parenthood services, they go to private specialists and get early care and services without all the moral scrutiny and finger pointing.

Guess its easier to denigrate women who have no means, or support, and actively make sure they don't get it. That's the problem, not the females.

I don't care in this discussion what Sanger said. This is now. Joe Kennedy was a robber baron. Do you despise his offspring?

I am sick of quotes about blacks vs white when it's really about INCOME. Theirs and their parents, when it comes to girls. Income means much more than just the money to pay for a child. I don't think I need to explain the sociology of poverty to anyone here.

That 95% (of PREGNANT women) is so contrived when 3/4 of the women are there for STD or birth control testing/treatment/advice/pills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I clearly cited '95% of their 'services' for pregnant women'. The other 5% is probably prenatal care and other useful services . Maybe the abortion rate would go down even further if they would devote more resources to adoption services. I'm all for preventive counseling . Willing to bet they don't invest a lot of time and resources counseling abstinence.

---

While obviously not everyone approves; people will have varying opinions on the topic of abortion, some pregnant women who seek an abortion will go to Planned Parenthood, but the vast majority of services at Planned Parenthood are not for abortions. The title of the article regarding the 95% states that 95% of the services Planned Parenthood offers is for abortions, it is only in the context of the article that is specifies it is in reference to "pregnant women". Most pregnant women will not be having an abortion so they will see their doctor, ob/gyn, or midwife for prenatal services instead of Planned Parenthood.

Quote:

---

Most pregnant women will not be having an abortion so they will see their doctor, ob/gyn, or midwife for prenatal services instead of Planned Parenthood.

---

The women with insurance, or money.

Quote:

---

The title of the article regarding the 95% states that 95% of the services Planned Parenthood offers is for abortions, it is only in the context of the article that is specifies it is in reference to "pregnant women". Most pregnant women will not be having an abortion so they will see their doctor, ob/gyn, or midwife for prenatal services instead of Planned Parenthood.

---

Doula,
You beat me to it. That was a perfect pin to burst the bubble of that article and the spin put on it. PP is much more about helping people prevent pregnancy then it is about ending them. So its not surprising at all that the vast majority of woman who are already pregnant go to PP to end their pregnancy. That's like saying that 95% of people entering a grocery store are there to buy food. It is a totally skewed statistic and it shows the bias of the authors of the article. So the real question is how many people TOTAL go to PP and what percentage of them are pregnant.


What really bugs me about this thread was the reference the Holocaust. Whether one agrees with abortion or not, those who have them have made the choice to do so. Those who were affected by THE Holocaust had no choice in the matter. Tom, I think you owe those people an apology.

I objected to the "carnage" reference to planned parenthood, as well as the "holocaust".

Why Tal holocaust is not a reserved word, it describes the wanton destruction of human life very well

Para, that is very insensitive and wrong. First, because, the word has historical context. It may not be reserved, but the historical context is significant. Second, not everyone believes an abortion is the loss of human life. Where abortion is legal it is not. Please feel free to support your opinion on that score, but it is possible to do so without being insensitive to others.

Let's say that for the last 18 years, 3/4 of the 1,000,000+ births that were going to be abortions were by teens unable to care for babies, drug addicts, destitute women, girls raped by mom's boyfriend, and so on. I think that's a conservative number but don't know, so am saying 3/4 for sake of argument. So about 750,000 a year. At the end of 18 years, you and I have paid for 13,500,000 babies and probably their mothers too, in many cases. Let's say that care is 20K/yr. 20 x 750,000 the first year, plus 20 x 1,500,000 the second year... all the way to 20 x 13,500,000 the 18th year. That last year is $2.7 BILLION ALONE. Now add all the increasing years before that. It's CUMULATIVE!!
Of course the costs would really be higher, what with abused, unloved, abandoned, malnourished kids struggling to make it to adulthood, never mind a productive existence. The taxpayer revolt would be a real revolt. We'd be right back to where we are now in no time.

So again, if you can't come up with ways to PAY for all life, much less take an unwanted baby into your home, then you have no rights to complain.

Scott it is not insensitive to say what you think and feel without being directly accusative. If there are those who fail to understand the truth that abortion is unnecessary particularly in this age of sophisticated birth control then I cannot and will not asswage their guilt. I am not one who regards an unwanted pregnancy as an accident which can be quickly remedied. If my mother had opted to terminate her unwanted pregnancy I would not be here so I side with the child and it is a child and cannot be dismissed as anything else. This is as personal for me Scott as it is for anyone else.

I still disagree with this post. It is insenstive going into the new year when everything we wish for may be set right. Mothers here and young people should not be subjected to this.

OK, para, the word holocaust may be personal to you, but not to some others, and you have to respect that. I have to ask, are you Jewish? Is that why you object to the use of that word ?

I terminated two pregnancies, para. It was not easy, and certainly not a good time in my life.

Looks like they're ganging up on ya, Clete. I note that Tom used the term "Holocaust" first. It IS used quite often in the abortion debate. Those that claim to be nauseated or disgusted by the term really have a personal problem. Ah, well, I suppose restricting speech is part of the norm for the Authoritarians these days, exemplified by the "trigger warning" foolishness on American college campuses.

I have edited the title to be less headline, grabbing knee jerk, amateur dramatics.
The most contentious part of this whole affair is this:

Quote:

---

In doing so they were supported by $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements;41% of the group's total revenues. Now Title X says that Federal Money cannot 'directly ' pay for abortions. However the Federal money does directly support the operations of PP ,of which abortions are a major part(95% of their 'services' for pregnant women) .

---

I would be interested in seeing the actual statute that backs this up, but I can see the viewpoint.
The $530 million could have been better invested into universal healthcare or childhood poverty.

Para, You just proved my point. You nicely expressed your opinion (even though I don't agree with it) without resorting to using phrases that can put off people. So yes it is insensitive to do so. The people who would be upset by the use of Holocaust are not the people who's guilt you are concerned about. So I stand by my statement that it was very insensitive.


By the way, it may be your truth but it is not everyone's truth. Which means it is not a truth at all but an opinion. I'm not going to discuss the merits of your opinion, because neither of us is going to convince the other.

Okay, what did I miss? Were posts deleted? If so, talking about them after they're gone, is just confusing to those of us that are coming in late to the game. :(

I'm in Canada, we don't have planned parenthood. Abortions still happen here, because sadly many women cannot afford to bring a child into the world, even with free health care. There's more to having a child than just paying for your pregnancy and birth. Giving up a child is not easy ever. Not that I know, I've never had an abortion or given up a child, it's just not something I could do. But I won't look down on anyone else that makes that choice. They have a right to choose what's best for them and their situation.

It's easy to say that they should have the child and give it up, but unless someone is paying for their medical expenses through their pregnancy in a country like the US where medical care is very expensive, it's not feasible for a great number of women. Abortion is sometimes the only viable option.

Now, if I totally missed the point of this post, I'm sorry, but as I said, I read all the posts and a lot seems to be missing, and I can't comment on things I didn't read or see.

Quote:

---

In doing so they were supported by $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements;41% of the group's total revenues. Now Title X says that Federal Money cannot 'directly ' pay for abortions. However the Federal money does directly support the operations of PP ,of which abortions are a major part(95% of their 'services' for pregnant women) .

---

I highlighted the unsubstantiated part of Toms statement, and from the link provided is FALSE. Abortions are only 3% of the total services of PP. I fail to see why anyone would think they can make such a serious decision for a women. Or why its even their business in the first place.

@ Alty the only thing changed in this thread was the title.

I do wish basic comprehension were taught I did not object to the use of the term in fact I was endorsing tom's comment that the destruction of human life on this scale is in fact no different to the holocaust, because it is systematic and legalised destruction of those who cannot fight back.

Tickle, it is not the word holocaust that is personal to me but the very concept that anyone has the right to terminate a human life on a whim or merely because they made a "mistake". This is an emotive debate particularly for the heddonistic "me" generation. As I said before my birth mother choose not to terminate her pregnancy, she gave me up for adoption and I know she had a sense of loss all her life, never the less I grew to become a productive human being.

If this debate makes you feel guilt tickle and recalls memories you would rather left buried can I suggest you avoid the debate rather than trying to styfle it

Clete, I say again, going through with a pregnancy only to give the child up, is not always feasible. In the US health care isn't free. Just giving birth can cost upwards of $12,000, and that's not including prenatal care!

You say destruction of life. I'm going to tread lightly on that one. I do agree that a baby isn't a human being until it's able to survive outside of it's mother. Having said that, to me every pregnancy I've had (I've had three pregnancies. I have two children), it was life as soon as the pee stick was positive. Sadly I lost my last one at 3 months gestation, a horrific miscarriage that almost cost me my life. Even though I know that that "baby"wasn't yet a real human being, wasn't able to survive outside of my body, I still mourned it, and still do mourn it.

But I do agree that a woman has a right to choose, and the law agrees with her! Just because you made a mistake doesn't mean that you and the child (most of all the child) should have to pay for that mistake.

Is this really about planned parenthood, or is this an anti-abortion post?

Quote:

---

Is this really about planned parenthood, or is this an anti-abortion post?

---

Alty you will have to ask Tom that question, I think he was lamenting the cost to tax-payers

You cannot reduce a human life to a cost / benefit exercise, that really is a distortion brought about by a society that doesn't care for its people

Quote:

---

You cannot reduce a human life to a cost / benefit exercise

---

But you do that every time you buy a shirt made by slaves instead of the much much more expensive one.

Abortion is unnecessary because of birth control? Like root canals, many car repairs, and the times I have tossed out some food I burned. The word 'truth' isn't one to be used lightly.

I take it that you have been talking to all the 14 year old girls whose boyfriends tell them they are too young to get pregnant, or that they will pull out in time? And you have been listening to some of the women regularly on this site, who got pregnant despite birth control, some even more than one form? I know several women personally who got pregnant despite the pill, despite tubal ligation, one even who had her bleeping uterus removed (the surgeon left one tiny bit to close off the cervix and it ballooned up as though nothing had changed). Another woman whose doctor never told her that the medication she was prescribed could negate the b.c. pills she took, and it did. On and on!

Be as glad as you wish that your mother had you, but if that determines your views on abortion, then provide a solution to a million extra foster kids each year.

The 72 hour pill seems to be one of the big reasons that the abortion rate is going down (and the pregnancy rate). I would hazard a guess that the public housing crunch, and the economic crunch in general, might be having an effect too, as mothers are told that they can't just get an apartment or even a bigger apartment these days. A lot of girls in horrible situations, such as a mother with a string of awful bf's, get pregnant just to get out of the house. Even just lacking any shred of love, and they think a baby will provide what they are missing.

That's just the people with no money. Of course women with money also have abortions. They have a job and a helpmeet but just got dumped.... etc etc etc... if you can't understand abortion for economic reasons THAT ONLY WOMEN FACE, then start learning.

Curleyben, 'The $530 million could have been better invested into universal healthcare or childhood poverty?' What a joke! That won't even cover the children born instead of aborted for ONE MONTH. Not the next 18 years! I tried to say that yesterday but I guess it fell on deaf ears.

Joy, Roughly along the lines or what I was getting at, just goes to show the skewed nature of this article.

the figures cited were directly from PP's annual report .

Quote:

---

What really bugs me about this thread was the reference the Holocaust. Whether one agrees with abortion or not, those who have them have made the choice to do so. Those who were affected by THE Holocaust had no choice in the matter. Tom, I think you owe those people an apology.

---

I owe no such apology because the baby destroyed had no such choice.

For those who think this is such a benign harmless medical procedure ,I reference testimony to Congress from a former abortionist.

Quote:

---

Imagine, if you can, that you are a pro-choice
obstetrician/gynecologist like I once was. Your patient
today is 24 weeks pregnant (LMP). At 24 weeks from last
menstrual period, her uterus is two finger-breadths above
the umbilicus. If you could see her baby, which is quite
easy on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand
plus a half, from the top of her head to the bottom of her
rump, not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling
her baby kick for the last month or more, but now she is
asleep on an operating room table and you are there to help
her with her problem pregnancy.
The first task is to remove the laminaria that had
earlier been placed in the cervix, the opening to the
uterus, to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure
you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct
your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a
small table to your right. The first instrument you reach
for is a 14-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic
and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the
center approximately \3/4\ of an inch in diameter. Picture
yourself introducing this catheter through the cervix and
instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction
machine, which is connected through clear plastic tubing to
the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid the
looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a
glass bottle on the suction machine. This is the amniotic
fluid that surrounded the baby to protect her.
With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This
instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of
stainless steel. At the business end are located jaws about
2 inches long and about \1/2\ an inch wide with rows of
sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and
crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does
not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind
procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position
inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the
Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can. At 24 weeks
gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to
perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped
something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and
pull hard--really hard. You feel something let go and out
pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in
again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull
really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same
length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear
out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.
The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the
baby's head. The head of a baby that age is about the size
of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine
cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the
Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will
allow. You know you have it right when you crush down on
the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through
the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then
extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face may come
out and stare back at you . . .
If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts
severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.

---

Written Testimony of Dr. Anthony Levatino, available at
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/...2005172012.pdf.

Quote:

---

I owe no such apology because the baby destroyed had no such choice.

---

But that only if you believe that the fetus (not a baby) was a life. Not everyone does. So don't apologize, just says a lot about you as does using this very skewed report to forward your agenda. I'm out.

I've tried to stay out of this, but there are also medical reasons for abortion. As a medical professional I've seen this all too often.

Abortion is a choice and a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason should not be chastised.

Pro-lifers really get under my skin as they see it as a black and white issue when it clearly is not black and white, there are many shades of gray scattered in there, but pro-lifers wear blinders and refuse be open minded.

"Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant (LMP). "
Unrealistic scenario!

The limits go by state law. Perhaps J_9 has experience with how many women in her state and hospital have abortions anywhere near that late, unless there's a medical emergency.

We don't do abortions at my hospital. In 2 hours I will have been awake for 24 hours, so I'm a little too tired to research the statistics for my state.

Something that is not being taken into consideration is congenital birth defects that are incompatible with life such as anacephaly. Right to lifers think that it is okay to carry a baby to as near term as possible with a congenital defect that is severely disfiguring and would cause the baby excruciating pain in the few hours that it will live. This is not only cruel and unusual punishment for the baby, but for the family as well.

I have a personal story regarding abortion. Prior to Roe v Wade my brother-in-law's birth mother found out she was pregnant as a teen. Since abortion was illegal she attempted a back alley abortion. It didn't work. My BIL is now in his late 50s and is mentally challenged because of the botched abortion. He will never live alone and will always be dependent on one of us. The medical records and adoption records were opened after his adoptive parents (my in laws) were told of his mental deficiencies.

As as a nurse I have had, without breaking HIPAA, a 12 year old child deliver a baby after she was raped by her grandfather. Within a year that child committed suicide all because her parents did not believe in abortion.

There is a bigger picture here that pro-lifers just choose to ignore. They think that once there is a heartbeat it is a life. That's furthest from the truth. Until the 24th week of gestation a fetus is completely dependent on the mother. If the mother doesn't have a heartbeat, the baby won't. There are other medical conditions in which the mothers life is placed in jeopardy when she is pregnant. Had one of those recently as well. Mother was counseled NOT to carry the baby and was advised to abort. Because she was pro-life she chose to continue with the pregnancy. As warned, she passed 2 hours after the delivery despite all medical interventions, and this child will never know her mother.

Abortion is one of those hot topics where there will always be two camps, actually three, as J_9 mentioned, some take into consideration medical reasons, with varying points of view. All will believe that they are justified in their reasons and beliefs and feel the other camp is wrong for theirs.

I see this frequently when I counsel women and families about choice in childbirth, breastfeeding, circumcision, and vaccinations... other hot topics that will always have different views.

Many times opinions or beliefs come from personal experiences, but personal experience is not necessary to have an opinion or belief. Sometimes one can offer facts and statistics, but it still won't alter someone's opinion, belief, or personal experience.

Even whether or not government monies (taxes) should be used is debatable.

Like ScottGem, I'm out as these types of debates will never be settled....and often just fall into arguing and hurt/angry feelings.

I agree with what you are saying Doula. It's really a no-win situation. My only issue is trying to educate, as nurses do, that it's not always as simple as terminating a pregnancy because a woman is using it as birth control, she can't afford a baby or another baby, etc. it's not always that simple. Many couples try for years to conceive only to find out that the fetus will suffer tremendously during the labor, birth, and few hours following the birth.



Would you make that baby suffer? It's very selfish of you if your answer is yes.