Whether or not there are women who don’t have access to birth control doesn’t change the fundamentally misleading way you attempted to use that statistic to back up your argument.
That leaves out quite a bit. Here’s a link to one of the videos. It features Holly McDonnell, a technician for Stem Express, a company that purchases fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. She describes an incident that took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic in San Jose. A Planned Parenthood employee invited her into the surgery room by saying, “I want you to see something kinda cool. This is kinda neat.” The cool and kinda neat thing was an infant with a beating heart. O’Donnell says that she didn’t know whether the infant was dead or alive.
It was a live infant, according to federal law. But O’Donnell’s company wanted to purchase fetal tissue and Planned Parenthood wanted to sell it, so according O’Donnell, they sliced up the infant with scissors to remove the organs.
The report that was quoted in the Huffington Post comes from Fusion GPS, which is not “neutral” or a team of “forensic experts”. It’s a left wing group that specializes in hit pieces on Republicans or anyone the Democrats don’t like, digging up dirt and exposing the personal lives of those who, for instance, donate to the Republican Party.
Three million out of a total population of 320 million is a really small number, as in less than 1%. Why should we fund that, instead of the 13,540 community health care clinics?
Well if it’s dishonest to say that an organization which doesn’t provide mammograms doesn’t provide mammograms, I guess I’m dishonest. It seems to me there’s a large and clear difference between providing a service and providing referrals for it. If a particular medical office advertised offering a service while in reality only offering referrals, they’d be on the hook for false advertising.
That’s a very Stalin-esque attitude you’ve got on display there. Contrary to the Great Mustache, there isn’t actually a point where three million people stop being three million people, and turn into just a statistic.
Why is it an either/or proposition? Why not fund all of them?
When I was fresh out of grad school and marginally employed and not yet covered by my employer’s health insurance plan, and not in need of contraception because I was not sexually active, Planned Parenthood treated me on a sliding scale for a minor gynecological infection. They do a lot of that sort of work.
Planned Parenthood is also a handy place for women to go even if, say, they have insurance coverage but don’t want the primary policyholder (probably their parent or spouse) to see the explanation of benefits for services they received but want to keep confidential. Like, say, if they are teenagers (or even college students, or anyone up to age 26 now that the ACA allows people up to age 26 to be covered on their parents’ insurance) who want contraception or abortion counseling.
I “edited” what I quoted? Well so did you. What would you expect me to do, quote the entire 54-page report?
Here’s what I quoted: “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age.”
Here the context:
This is the first report of findings from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The findings are based on interviews with a national sample of 7,356 women aged 15–44. Future reports based on the interviews with both men and women will describe many other aspects of fertility and family life in the United States.
Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 99% of all women who had ever had intercourse had ever used at least one contraceptive method in their lifetime (Table 1 and Figure 1.) In 2006–2008, 93% (49.5 million) had ever had a partner who used the male condom, 82% (43.8 million) had ever used the oral contraceptive pill, and 59% (31.3 million) had ever had a partner who used withdrawal.
Now here’s what you accused me of in post #46: “Of course, it’s also possible to quote complete sentences, and not edit them to make them appear to say something they don’t say; you didn’t do that either, but it’s possible.”
Would you care to explain in what way I edited a sentence to make it appear to say something it didn’t say?
Who is doing this?
YogSosoth, I’m giving you a warning for this. This is pretty much exactly the same path that Der Trihs went down and we don’t want that to happen again.
It is possible to debate and discuss without demonizing. Demonizing one’s opponents accomplishes nothing and damages debate. Please don’t do it again.
Because one group is committing abortions, and one is not.
Performing, not committing. Abortion is not a crime.
Oh my God, doctors are committing health care! This must be stopped!
In the vast majority of cases, abortion is not healthcare.
Saving the life of the mother is healthcare.
I’m too young, poor, and stupid to have a child is not healthcare. It’s eugenics.
I didn’t accuse you of anything, I pointed out what you had done: you removed context by removing the explanation of what “virtually universal” meant. It was pitifully obvious. Heck, you just showed everyone what you edited out. Why you felt it necessary when I had already quoted the same thing is beyond me, but thanks for confirming what I already pointed out.
BTW, the notion that I edited anything simply because I did not quote the entire document is laughable.
Your arguments and your tactics are seriously lacking.
No, I disagree. Eugenics is selecting genes for reproduction of desired qualities.
Be that as it may, having an abortion is healthcare when the procedure is performed in a clinic.
You are arguing for young, poor, and stupid to have offspring. Who is going to pay for the raising of the child, it’s education, and healthcare? You are.
So you are actually endorsing inferior elements of society to procreate. I guess that is reverse eugenics.
My guess is you already know the answer and are only pretending to be ignorant, but I’ll answer anyway.
There are three ways for a nation to provide healthcare.
A pure Libertarian system where, for example, you might be able to get Health Insurance for Celibate Christians Only, where you’d be tested on a catechism and given the best discounts only if you allowed cameras to be installed in your bedroom. Are you advocating this, Champion?
A single-payer system, which would be highly efficient, and where all prescribed medicines might be completely free. Are you advocating this, Champion?
The system that’s evolved in the U.S., written by thousands of lobbyists and lawyers – a very complicated system of rules, mostly dictated to satisfy moneyed interests, though some were intended to (gasp) appease liberal supporters of the Democratic Party. Given the complicated hodgepodge there will inevitably be many things that seem inconsistent to some people, and can be claimed as Gotcha’s by those who hate Obama and hence hate Obamacare. Get it?
OK, I’ve answered your question, Champion. Are you going to answer mine?
Or a “sin.”
The House just voted 248-177 to defund Planned Parenthood. As this faces certain filibuster and certain veto, a shutdown will most likely happen…
Notwithstanding the controversy about Planned Parenthood, and notwithstanding the idea that physicians are medical professionals who are licensed and certified to practice healthcare and eugenics, I think we’re not really addressing the question the OP is actually trying to get at.
Public policy has recently prioritized the access to birth control more so than for other pharmaceuticals. That’s certainly true, but the OP is really questioning whether one pharmaceutical should enjoy this privilege.
I think it is a justifiable privilege for several reasons. First, birth control pills are not exactly cheap as dirt, but neither are they expensive drugs. A cost of around about $500 a year is that sort of level where middle class folks can certainly afford it, but less well off folks probably find it a burden. On the flip side, considering that insurance often covers 90% or more of medications costing hundreds of dollars per month, covering the full ride on a $40 monthly prescription isn’t exactly killing the insurance industry. If insurance had to cover 100% of every drug that costs less than, say, $50 or $100 per month, I think that may add up to a very substantial cost to industry and have much greater impacts.
Plus, the major selling point of making birth control easy to access is that reducing unplanned pregnancies pretty much makes everyone’s life better. Fewer single parent households, less in medical costs for prenatal care, fewer abortions, less call for WIC and other government benefits, and so on. I suppose other medications can make a claim to various societal benefits – someone doesn’t have to call 911 if they can afford and actually take medication that they need – but off the top of my head, birth control pills seem to have a pretty unique claim to having so many potential ways to avoid cost – either monetary or sociological.
So, yeah, I think birth control is a little different than most other drugs I can think of, and treating it differently than, say, antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals seems like pretty good policy to me.
A classic example of the excluded middle fallacy. There is no reason why these would be the only three possibilities. Indeed there are many countries that use none of these three possibilities.
What, you mean this: “I’ve heard that Planned Parenthood is in business to profit by ‘selling baby parts.’ Champion, can you use your Google skills to inform us about this?” You’re quite free to search on Google yourself.