Brain differences - Liberal vs Conservative

[Mandalore]

Conservatives and liberals both have their set of benefits for society. Conservatives remind the liberals not to go too fast. :P
What I've always gotten a huge kick out of was that the Conservatives real power base comes from the more "hard-core" Christians even though Jesus Christ, or whoever wrote his scripture, was among the most liberal of all western thinkers until the 1500s.

[mrjamwin]

Conservatives and liberals both have their set of benefits for society. Conservatives remind the liberals not to go too fast. :P
What I've always gotten a huge kick out of was that the Conservatives real power base comes from the more "hard-core" Christians even though Jesus Christ, or whoever wrote his scripture, was among the most liberal of all western thinkers until the 1500s.

Ok I'll bite. I dare you to prove this.

[Duel of Fates]

DOH!!!!

[Corpse]

He doesn't need to prove it, have a little faith.

[burzerker]

Here's a few more liberal fears proved wrong just this week, 1) CFC's now seem to NOT be the cause of the ozone problem as they have been banned now for more than 20 years and there is no change (one of the lead scientists is admitting they may have been wrong all along) 2) the BP oil spill is seemingly all gone already.. who would have thought that?? certainly not the liberals

As for one of my previous comments, I should have been more clear, the hetro AIDS epidemic fears were about the US (Africa has it's own poor health reasons) which proved to be false.

Here's a few more fears that didn't pan out, breast implants, global starvation with exploding population (obesity is the problem now, and any food shortage is due to turning food into fuel), flu pandemics over the lsat decade (avian, swine, SARS) There's always got to be some crisis that can't go to waste.

[WD-40]

I am Soooo happy that I'm not contributing to this thread!... Happy sigh!

[burzerker]

Oh ya a few more I forgot about, no 50 Million global warming refugees by 2010, and no 40% loss of coral reefs by 2010..

[Matt-Chicago]

Anyone not interested in the Planned Parenthood debate can skip this post

One recent example discrediting your above sentence: April 8, 2011, R-Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said that abortion services comprise 90% of Planned Parenthood. Despite the actual numbers being 3% and a spokesman for Sen. Kyl says that his remark was "not intended to be factual a statement.

Just to clarify this... not gonna get into the whole discussion (I have no time to waste on this)

I wanted to point out that if you count a handing a package of condoms over the counter to be the same as administering an abortion (a 2+ hour, sometimes multi-visit ordeal which involves a number of employees) then abortions do indeed comprise 3%. If, however, you take into account the profit and time which each action takes, then abortions are over 90%. (some estimates put them at 97 or even 98%, it depends on how they count the time taken for the 'procedure')

So, whereas advising a customer on the use of contraceptives and handing them 10 packages of condoms would be considered 11 actions (the extra one is for the advice given) an abortion would only be counted as one action. This is where the discrepancy comes from.
jsyk.

Sorry Aeka - 100% wrong, everything you said. Abortions are 3% of REVENUE not of procedures.
Side note, I currently have no kids in part thanks to Planned Parenthood (check with me in a year and I will probably have one). When I was a teenager that's where my girlfriend got her birth control pills. Some of her friends did get pregnant and one got an abortion - we never had to thanks to PP. If you want to dramatically increase the number of abortions in the US, the best thing you could do would be to block any government funded insurance from covering ANYTHING at Planned Parenthood, which is what Republicans were trying to do in the recent near shutdown. PP could care less about the tiny federal funding they get as a non profit organization, but it would be catastrophic if anyone with medicaid or subsidized insurance couldn't use any PP service just because of an ideological vendetta because of one particular service they provide.

k. Where does the rest of the revenue come from?

Even if Abortions are indeed only 3% of revenue as you say, do you still count handing a package of condoms over a counter to have the same value (a single 'action') as an abortion?

As for "tiny federal funding"... PP recieved $363 million in Government funds, and reported a profit of $63 million over one fiscal year. Their total income was $1,017 million or 1.017 billion. THUS, over 1/3 of their income came directly out of our (this includes mine) tax dollars. They would have been $300 million in debt without the $$ from taxes. Just wondering if this still fits your definition of "tiny."

also, with respect to the clause "as a non-profit organization" I'd like to point out that this isn't the reason that they receive money... for example, the Right to Life coalition in my area receives no federal funding, and they as well are a registered non-profit organization

Aeka,

Just so you realize, the details of the debate we're having now aren't even that interesting to me because I support abortion services as part of the whole of health care and family planning - so I would still support PP even if all of your arguments were true.

When you start throwing around numbers, at a minimum they should be measuring something consistent and not comparing apples and oranges. Most of the literature as well as the "facts" you quote above are misleading. They are meant to portray what the organization does as "mainly" abortion, like the 90% quoted earlier in this thread. That can only be done by doing gymnastics with numbers which aren't often understood, let alone consistent.

PP gets about $70 million in federal health care grants. That is less than 10% of their budget and ya I will concede it's not "tiny" and none of that money can be used for abortions.
Medicaid - the health program for the poor which is administered by states, contracts with doctors all over the country for various health services for the poor, $293 million worth go to affiliates of PP for everything from contraception to pre and post natal care - again $0 for abortion. (extra credit, what percent of the 2009 medicaid budget is $293 million?)

Add those two together to get close to you number quoted above, then go back and read my earlier post. Under the guise of eliminating the former (federal grants) so called "pro-life" congressmen were trying to completely prevent the latter - in effect dictating what health care providers states could use for Medicaid. I think that's unacceptable for many reasons.

Non profits do not report profit. Revenue and income are two different things.

At least 9 of 10 people who use PP do not have abortions. Less than 10% of clients, only 3% of services, and i may be slightly off on the 3% of revenue - it depends on how you calculate it - is between 3-10%.
7,000,000 clients, 330,000 abortion performed by PP in 2009.

From the very report your "sources" are citing, handing out condoms in the manner you describe accounts for 140,000 "services" out of the total 11,400,000 services. A whopping 1% - hardly worthy of an outcry about health care services being things like handing out condoms. Take a look at the list:

Contraception — 35 percent of services in 2009
Reversible Contraception Clients, Women** 2,327,662
Emergency Contraception Kits 1,537,180
Tubal Sterilization Clients 756
Reversible Contraception Clients, Men 140,648
Vasectomy Clients 3,303
4,009,549
STI/STD Testing and Treatment — 35 percent of services in 2009
STI Procedures, Women and Men 3,419,965
HIV Testing Procedures, Women 391,299
HIV Testing Procedures, Men 123,283
HIV Testing Procedures, Gender Not Reported 21,369
3,955,9163
Cancer Screening and Prevention — 16 percent of services in 2009
Pap Tests 904,820
HPV Vaccinations 44,924
Breast Exams/ Breast Care 830,312
Colposcopy Procedures*** 46,062
LOOP/LEEP Procedures*** 2,692
Cryotherapy Procedures*** 2,001
1,830,811
Other Women's Health Services — 10 percent of services in 2009
Pregnancy Tests 1,158,924
Prenatal Clients 7,021
Midlife Clients 12,424
Total: 1,178,369

Abortion Services — 3 percent of services in 2009
Abortion Procedures 332,278
Other Services — 1 percent of services in 2009
Primary Care Clients, Women and Men 19,796
Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 977
Other Services, Women and Men**** 56,204
Total: 76,977
Total Services 11,383,900

Now my question is, why do some people who get up in arms about the government even getting involved in health insurance think it's proper for the federal government to legislate for or against particular health procedures, or go on an ideological crusade against an entire organization providing a full gamut of health care services mainly to the poor just because one service offered offends their religion.

[Duel of Fates]

"Now my question is, why do some people who get up in arms about the government even getting involved in health insurance think it's proper for the federal government to legislate for or against particular health procedures, or go on an ideological crusade against an entire organization providing a full gamut of health care services mainly to the poor just because one service offered offends their religion."

Yeah, why would anybody be upset by this? You asked the question.

*First, government should not get involved with health insurance.

*Second, Planned Parenthood's creator, Margaret Sanger, was not the angel Progressives and Liberals make her out to be. Planned Parenthood was born of racial hatred and bigotry.

*Third, many people have a problem with their tax money going to abortion. The killing of any life, including innocents is abhorrent to many with a conscience.


It is not just offensive to the religious, but to anyone who has had a child. Have some kids Matt, maybe your outlook on life will change a bit when you look into your son/daughters eyes for the first time.

[Corpse]

Here's a few more liberal fears proved wrong just this week, 1) CFC's now seem to NOT be the cause of the ozone problem as they have been banned now for more than 20 years and there is no change

The chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere prior to the ban on them have long-lasting influence on the breakdown of ozone in the stratosphere. The chlorine radicals produced from the photo-dissociation of the CFC molecules catalyse the reaction for the breakdown of ozone. They are not used up in the process. Because of this, they can continue to lead to the destruction of ozone for many years after their release into the atmosphere. CFCs can effect the atmosphere for 40 years or more.