Limbaugh falsely suggests Planned Parenthood mainly provides abortions
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely suggested that Planned Parenthood mainly provides abortions, saying, "You go into Planned Parenthood for an abortion, all right?" In fact, according to the Planned Parenthood website, 3 percent of its health services are abortion services.
During the January 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely suggested that Planned Parenthood mainly provides abortions, asking show contributor James Golden, known on-air as "Bo Snerdley": "What do you do when you go to Planned Parenthood? What do you go in there for? Tell me the word. You go into Planned Parenthood for an abortion, all right?" In fact, according to statistics on the Planned Parenthood Federation of America website, "Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services" and "82 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy."
From Planned Parenthood Federation of America's website:
Our Services in the U.S.
Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 82 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year.
Planned Parenthood provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 850,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
Planned Parenthood provides more than 3.3 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, each year.
Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to more than 1.2 million young people and adults each year.
Limbaugh made his remarks while suggesting that listeners donate "Reborn Dolls" as gifts to "clients and customers" of Planned Parenthood, saying: "Yeah, so you go into Planned Parenthood as a customer, you walk out after the deed is done; they give you one of these Reborns."
From the January 14 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
CALLER: I was listening to your Reborn and I thought, he's got to be kidding on that. So, went on my computer, and there it is --
LIMBAUGH: Yeah, it's right there.
CALLER: -- and they have a line -- it's a "Orangutan Baby Doll," and it's $140.
LIMBAUGH: Yeah, but the thing -- the thing about the human Reborns is apparently they're the same size. They feel, look like real babies, and that's why they're so expensive.
CALLER: Well, yeah, but I -- you know, they've got some for like $60, but --
LIMBAUGH: Well, I know, but you've got to have different price points here, because we're in an economic recession.
CALLER: Well, you couldn't prove that by people around here if they're spending this kind of money. They even have some that breathe. It's called a "realistic 'breathing' baby doll: so truly real." And I'm thinking, oh, this is --
LIMBAUGH: Then why were you shocked at the story about the Reborns?
CALLER: I don't know. I guess just because if you've got nothing better to do than buy baby dolls and have -- that's what little girls do -- have birthday parties for baby dolls. I don't know, at my age, I've just gotten to the point where I think, nothing surprises me anymore, but then I get a surprise like this. So, anyway --
LIMBAUGH: Would it be -- would it be over the top, ladies and gentlemen, to suggest maybe a charitable donation of a bunch of these dolls to the Planned Parenthood? As gifts to their customers and clients? Because I saw the other day, Planned Parenthood is down 20 percent. They're having some -- they're looking for bailouts. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. That's not what it was. The Madoff scandal -- the Madoff scandal has resulted in Planned Parenthood getting 20 percent -- maybe it's a little bit more -- donations.
Yeah, so you go into Planned Parenthood as a customer, you walk out after the deed is done; they give you one of these Reborns.
Well, no, you can't -- I don't know. No, no, you don't take it that far, Snerdley. You're asking irrelevant questions here. What happens if they change their mind if they take the doll? You know, we're not talking about them ordering it.
What do you do when you go to Planned Parenthood? What do you go in there for? Tell me the word. You go into Planned Parenthood for an abortion, all right? It's a traumatic thing, right? We've heard all about this. So to salve you, and to make you feel better as the client when you leave, give you a Reborn. That's what I meant.
Where did Snerdley go? And I was suggesting this because the Madoff scandal has resulted in a 20-percent reduction in funds for the poor people at Planned Parenthood.
Hey, let me change subjects real quickly to Obama for a second.
With a democratic administration on deck, its salad days ahead for Rushykins. He can just phone it in for the next four plus years.
Well limbaugh has never let truth and accuracy get in the way before. Why start now?
His listeners don't know the difference...so why should Limbaugh care if he ever says anything truthful and accurate? Only someone with a semblance of integrity might care.
I think Rush types jumped up and down when Obama won. The neo-con / neo Nazi way of doing business was ruining this country.
Now they have someone to blame.
They offer few solutions to the problem of unwed children. For example, who has not one conservative come forward with a comprehensive adoption plan? (a rhetorical question).
Many of these folks are quite hypocritial.
I've always been consientious in referring to PP as unborn children extermination clinics. I'll correct anyone who ignorantly calls them women's health care clinics. One expects ignorance from the left but it still amazes me that they want to broadcast it so widely.
One expects ignorance from the left but it still amazes me that they want to broadcast it so widely.
I've always been conscientious in referring to anyone on the Right as stupid. I'll correct anyone who conciliatorily uses euphemisms like "bereft of mental capacity" to describe them. One expects ignorance from the Right, so much so that they are virtual synonyms, but it still amazes me that they hold on to it so steadfastly.
Then you've always been bone stupid. No other description is possible or accurate.
His description is certainly more acurate than 'planned parenthood'. The don't help plan parenthood, they help plan the lack of it. They promote childless families and give every bit of advise possible to achieve that goal. They teach children how to have sex, then teach them how to be tested for the diseases they will catch, then teach them how to abort the babies they are told they didn't want. Those are the services offered as according to mmfa.
Unborn children extermination clinic is as accurate as Planned parenthood. You're just a whiner because someone doesn't agree with your agenda. Sorry, but a lot of people don't agree with your policy of murdering unborn children. We agree even less your policy of murdering live-born children. But, you fight for those rights anyway. Oh, yeah...you're just a whiner.
Ever gone to a Planned Parenthood facility? Nope, didn't think so.
They teach children how to have sex
Any evidence of this or did you just pull it out of Rush's butt?
Uhh, evidence? Yeah, I read the article: "Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to more than 1.2 million young people and adults each year."
What do you think they teach them?!?
Planned Parenthood Helps Parents Teach Their Children How to Make Responsible Choices about Sex.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it Phil?
Phil isn't just blissful, he's ecstatic.
Ignorant? Didn't you ask me to show evidence of pp teaching children how to have sex? Isn't what you tell me exactly what I told you? Whether they do it to "compliment" parental teachings or in spite of it, pp still teaches children how to have sex. Perhaps you were asking me if you are being blissful? Cause you sure don't understand what is being said.
Ugly Amerikan, your ignorance, cluelessness and cretinism knows no bounds.
Ahh.. gotta love the intellectuals on the left!
Yes, because your posts qualify you to be in the running for the greatest minds of the twenty-first century.
medusas,
Nothing like deflecting troll postings with more silliness.
I noticed my misspelling almost immediately. For some reason there are a few words that I habittually misspell. Too many times I post without going through spell check. My apologies.
I disagree that I am being dishonest. I share your concern regarding the need to lower unwanted pregnancies. I only have a different opinion as how to go about doing that.
I posted elsewhere, and you have not acknowledged, the failure rate of two common forms of contraception. Add to that the reality that contraception promotes a false sense of security and does not prevent std's and HIV.
So in my opinion, your post is either dishonest or ignorant.
I like how the spelling police web prog above doesn't know how to use page breaks and paragraphs, but he's busting balls for a minor spelling error...just say'n...
I've always been consientious in referring to PP as unborn children extermination clinics.
And I have always consider anti-choicers anti-woman.
anotheramerican = more nonsense from Freeperland. Let me guess - he's male. As for "ignorance", he apparently doesn't read his own posts.
Great post. You had a 50% chance of being correct regarding my being a male. I congratulate you on your guesswork. However, being a male/female has nothing to do with having an opinion on this subject.
I guess you ignorantly assume it does. :-)
Thank you for providing this excellent example of how dishonestly some irrational idealogues portray Planned Parenthood. An example makes the case so much better than does simple description.
And, as I indicated before, I'm compelled to point out that you are dismally inaccurate in describing what PP does. PP is a provider of women's health care and a minority of their locations offer abortion services as a small part of those services.
There, now you can get it correct going forward unless you choose willful ignorance.
They provide childless family advise. Not health care advise. Didn't you even read the article? 82% receive advise on how to avoid pregnacies. Then 3 million have to come back to be tested for diseases they may have caught because PP can't teach correctly. That would be like your mechanic changing your oil then leaving the drain plug out. When you need a new engine he tells you that 'most of our services are to prevent engine damage, but we're here for you when you need one'.
They do nothing of the sort. Their primary services are related to pre-natal healthcare and screening of impoverished pregnant women. And your continuous ignorant bleating of lies does not bring those lies one bit closer to being true.
Planned Parenthood affiliates performed 280,760 abortions in 2005-2006.
Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist who wanted to lower the number of births of non-whites.
To borrow the phrase, "useful idiots" have unwittingly taken up her cause by advocating a false feminism.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.
The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html
Why is it then, that the majority of abortions are performed on white women? Wouldn't Planned Parenthood just stop them and say, "no, no, your white babies are precious. we don't offer services to your kind".
Also, and this is a serious question because I don't know the answer, but if a million+ abortions are performed every year, and Planned Parenthood provides the most, and they only perform 200,000, who is performing the rest? I thought private practitioners wanted to keep their hands clean from providing abortions.
And I think it's pretty well known that Planned Parenthood operates most clinics in urban low income areas, most of which are predominantly non-white. Their mission statement has more to do with the "low-income" than the "black", regardless of what you think their founder thought. In fact, the biggest complaint pro-choice advocates have is that low-income women in rural areas don't have access to services, because of the costs associated with trying to serve rural communities.
You really hate facts, don't you?
You really love writing nonsense, don't you?
Planned Parenthood operates ABORTION CLINICS
Yes, and abortion services are only THREE PERCENT of what they do.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
98% of all abortions are done through PP. That makes THEM the abortion clinics.
THANK YOU.
Maybe it's because they stand up to the threats of ignorant wingnuts who plant pro-life bombs on their premises.
"We're pro-life, and we'll kill people to prove it!"
Where does that figure come from?
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
You and AA need to compare notes. Your "98%" completely refutes his actual numbers of abortions at PP vs. total abortions.
So, Rush is right? Does every female who visits PP get an abortion?
When I was a much younger lady than I am now ;-) I went to PP because it was low cost and I had no health insurance. I didn't go for any abortions. I never knew anyone who did actually. Everyone I knew went for check ups, contraception and pap smears.
Sure, maybe they go for check ups and pap smears in Texas and New Jersey, but not in Mayberry.
Well WK, I was in Oklahoma at the time. But PP does just what it says it does, Planned Parenting. Why this is such a reprehensible idea is beyond me. It's common sense. Just as teaching comprehensive sex ed is common sense. Texas teaches abstinence only and is one of the highest in both teen pregnancy and activity.
AA and your ilk, Abstinence only teaching doesn't work........! Ignorance is NOT bliss.
Barney loves to wallow in ignorance.
Barney and Phil have some deep-seated hatred of women. Why is that?
Actually, I love women. AND I prefer that they are not butchered by the PP doctors who can't do the job they specialize in. Why do you prefer to let hacks perform major surgery on our wives and daughters then whine about me being concerned for their safety?
And your proof of that came from the same sphincter that provided the initial claim, didn't it?
philb,
I think they are just projecting. :-) Either that or they have nothing to add and are intent on proving it.
I know. When they are wrong (usually) they start name-calling and ignoring the subject. :)
prohibition is a failed concept. It did not work with alcohol, it did not work with drugs (just say no), It did not work with abortions hence Roe V Wade and it does not work with sex (abstinence). Sex is hard wired into all animals (Humans included) in the limbic system. Pro choice is not perfect but, it beats the alternative. Education is the key to the functioning of the frontal lobes. Given that, sex education is much better than 2 14 year olds deciding for themselves the best procedures and alternatives when confronted with an opportunity to have sex.
Excellent examples. Alcohol is now legal...how many die from alcohol related accidents? Drugs are now more legal than ever...how many die from drug related accidents/overdoses? Abortions are now legal...how many die from abortions? Now, you want sex education to teach children how to have sex. What will be the result of that? More kids having sex, more kids having STD's, more kids having abortions, more kids using drugs and more kids using alcohol. I like the way the liberal thinks. LIADMD
You couldn't have said it better for the culture-of-death loving liberal. ALL the examples you listed are major causes of many unecassary human deaths.
Well, let's see .... 1.2 million abortions a year. 12% resulting in the woman no longer be able to carry children to term (thanks to the great doctors that you use at PP). Seems like your idea of teaching comprehensive sex isn't working either!
What is the ranking of Texas for abortions? You have the stats for 'teen pregnacy and activity', where is the stat for abortions in Texas?
Julia,
PP is engaged in a broad pattern of illegal activities, ranging from the 107 count indictment in Kansas, to the obstruction of justice case in Indiana to the
A lawsuit by former PP employees accusing PP in Chicago of:
To a California case:A lawsuit that recently made public alleges that Planned Parenthood affiliates in California overcharged the government for oral contraceptives, the Los Angeles Times reports.l
Ahh yes, gotta love the ethics at PP. It does just what it says. ;-)
Have you even once addressed your own ethics in cutting and pasting other people's work and presenting it as your own, as you have done here once again?
Planned Parenthood provides a very wide variety of women's health care services. A small portion of those services at a minority of their locations includes abortion services. Your statement displays gross ignorance of the vast majority of the services provided by PP.
You are living in denial. They provide sex-ed for teenagers. They provide disease detection after the sex-ed classes. Then they provide the ability for teenagers to kill a human being on demand.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. You are living in denial's suburb, greater ignorance.
you are correct on the first 2 points and those are very good reasons for the existence of PP. Your last point is your opinion and as previously debunked on MMFA is an absurd falacy. Children are by nature irresponsible and thank the higher power PP provides the first 2 as too many "parents" today are ignorant and irresponsible.
Mmfa has debunked the FACT that pp provides abortions? I guess that proves you have no clue and are simply another lemming be led by the wacko left. Wanna cracker?
since they lost control of all three branches of government they have to cram their illigitimate agenda down our throats somehow, right? ;)
They were doing it even when they had all 3 branches. And claiming that they had no voice at the same time.
Snoop,
As an aside, since Roe v Wade, when have the "righties" controled the Supreme Court?
Secondly, what is illigitimate about their agenda and how are they cramming it down your throats?
The 7 to 2 Repub advantage came in handy in 2000.
Not so. Breyer voted for it but was appointed by Carter.
so that makes it 6 to 3.
No it doesn't. Unless you can say that every Supreme Court decision is voted on straight party lines 6-3. Have the Supreme Court rulings all been party line? Have they all favored Republicans 6-3? Of course not. There are many supreme court decisions of that same court that favor policies held by the Democrats that invalidate this silly argument.
Sometimes your silly replies amaze me.
Ug, you're wrong about the gops controlling all three branches of Government, you're wrong about the Supremes, you're wrong about who appointed Breyer, and you're wrong about PP.
Just which part of three percent in not the majority of 100 percent is giving you trouble, little factose-intolerant fella? Who was your Math Teacher, ug, clueless Karl?
The other 97 percent of their business is devoted to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Abortions were down under Clinton and up under shrub. Look it up. Learn something.
No unwanted pregnancies, no need for unwanted abortions. Ya see how that works, little factually-challenged fella?
Get yourself a case and a clue, ug.
Where did you get your stats, oh self taught one??? CDC stats show abortions going down from 1999 through 2004.
so what happened from 2004 on - did they go back up?
Well AA, all the time your silly replies amaze me.
P.S. I'm really enjoying living off of your tax dollars. Just bought a load of weed and liquor with my unemployment check, and tomorrow I'm gonna sell my food stamps at half price and then go to the charity food distribution sites to get my groceries for free. It's just too bad that one of them isn't the church you belong to, it would be doubly cool getting your money twice.
Well that explains a lot! :-) Typical liberal. hahahaha
If you are going to go by appointments, who appointed Souter? The "righties" control the court now as well AA. When Kennedy is seen as the middle, your side has it.
As for expecting ignorance from the left, perhaps you should back up your points in the Palin pregnancy post rather than doing a hit and run job, whaddya think?
And when Ford Appointee John Paul Stevens is considered the most liberal Justice on the Supremes, it shows you just how far towards the right the gops have drifted in their embrace of fascism.
freid,
Here's what I think.
Spare me.
I am disapointed that you would lower yourself to ask such a question. I thought you were above that.
Besides, where is the rule that says one has to have more than one post in a thread? If you think so, why do you not ask the same question of anyone else?
Finally, I find it laughable that you accuse me of hit and run when you regularly hit and run with a loaded questions and nothing else.
I'll post and reply as I chose.
That's what I think. Thanks for asking.
AA,
I apolgize if you were offended. I will be happy to go to any thread where you think I left questions unanswered and provide my two cents.
You asked since when do the righties control the Court and I answered. In the Palin thread you accuse the mass media of running with a rumor and provide no back up.
The Righties do control the Supreme Court, AA. When Kennedy is considered the deciding vote, how can you say its not a right-leaning court? Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts were all appointed by Republicans and certainly lean to the right. Stevens was appointed by Ford and is the "liberal" Souter was a Bush I appointee and has proven to be more liberal, Breyer was appointed by Clinton, Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton, but the rest were either GHWB or Reagan appointments. Kennedy is certainly no liberal.
How do you think the liberals control the court, AA? Please enlighten me.
He thinks that liberals own the Supreme Court, because they keep making judgements that don't jibe with his wacky right wing worldview, in other words, most of the time, they tend to you know, follow the Constitution.
Everyone knows the Constitution has a liberal bias.
fried,
I did not say the liberals control the court. I argued that the righties did not.
True, 7 of the 9 have been appointed by Republicans so if that is the point. I understand.
However if one takes many of the court's decisions, one finds those decisions do not fall lock step with the Republican positions. If they did, each decision would be 7-2 in favor of Republican positions would it not?
It is my opinion, and you are free to disagree, that Breyer and Kennedy have tended to lean left since they have been on the court.
AA,
I don't think there is any question that Breyer leans left, but if he only leans left, you have more of an advantage than I thought. On some issues, Kennedy would seem to "lean left," but certainly not most. A good summary of his major holdings is on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy
By the way, did you know he voted more with Rehnquist than any other justice from 1992-2005? Does that sound like someone who "leans left?"
If there is ever a definition of hit and run poster, you would fit the definition perfectly. If not, may be a flame thrower?
You have an opinion. Defend it to death, to be taken seriously. Other wise, run the risk of being made fun of.
Just posting lot of talking points does not count as opinion. It counts as belonging to the Republican/Democratic Parrot Family.
my4,
I carry on many long discussions so thanks for your interest.
I hate to keep confusin' ya with the facts, ug, but the compostiion of the Supremes is seven gop-slime appointees to two Dem appointees and Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton along with Ginsburg. What's more, Carter didn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court.
Look it up. Learn something. Something real and rooted in actual fact and evidence.
Secondly, everything about the wingnut agenda is delusional from their rapture rubbish and climate change denial and you were cramming it all down our throats until Schiavo, Katrina and the truth about Iraq and gop-slime corruption and incompetence became common knowledge.
What's this? You back just in time for the inauguration?
jc,
Thanks for the correction about Breyer. Carter appointed Breyer to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston in 1980.
You really don't think they're trying to force their agenda on us? They kill abortion providers, go to their homes to intimidate them, and let's not forget the Terry Shaivo incident.
How is it that the Terry Schiavo incident was "forcing their agenda" on you. That was a legal dispute between the parents of Terry Schiavo and her husband.
The power to determine jurisdiction for the federal courts is given to the U.S. Congress by the Consititution. Congress exercised its Constitutional powers in mandating a hearing in the federal courts. Perfectly within their power to do so. The case was adjudicated and the husband won and he pulled the feeding tube.
It didn't affect you at all. Your ignorance and paranoia are clearly on display.
As for the abortion providers being killed I'd say the likes of Ted Kuceynski and Bill Ayers were responsible for more deaths. Where do they fall on the political spectrum?
A few figures would be nice, but I think you'll disappoint me again. Ayers didn't kill anyone. If you throw in the whole Weather Underground all you've got is self inflicted death. Ted is in jail, Bill a useful member of society.
You missed the Schiavo circus? That took real effort on your part. Hannity's diagnosis. Republican legislators wieghing in via expert video analysis? Don't ring a bell huh?
"During their reign of terror, the Weather Underground bombed corporate headquarters, burned ROTC buildings on college campuses, and even planted a bomb in the US Capitol building. They used anti-personnel bombs filled with nails, staples and other shrapnel designed to hurt and kill people. Several of those bombs were planted in police stations resulting in the murder of Police Sgt. Brian McDonnell in San Francisco; another officer was permanently maimed and two others were injured in that attack. A police informant, Larry Grathwohl, who working inside the Weather Underground, reported that Bill Ayers planned the bombing and Bernadine Dohrn planted it."
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7129
Have you fallen for the lies on the Bill Ayers rehabilitation tour? The man is a murderer. His "ideas" advanced ny SDS and the Weathermen and Wetaher Underground caused hundreds of injuries and millions in property damage.
It was never established that the group did this. People assumed it was them based on what Grathwohl said.
OOOHH "reign of terror". That DOES sound like an unbiased news source. You must be kidding me.
small beans compared to the neo nazi's, the kkk, the skinheads and a whole slew of other right wing groups who routinely kill blacks, hispanics, orientals, abortion providers, and just about anyone else they deem a threat to the white society.
"That was a legal dispute between the parents of Terry Schiavo and her husband. "
Which was personal and private until it was made into a public spectacle by Schiavo's parents.
"As for the abortion providers being killed I'd say the likes of Ted Kuceynski and Bill Ayers were responsible for more deaths. Where do they fall on the political spectrum?"
A classic case of justifying bad behavior by citing other bad behavior.
A classic case of ignoring the crime and hate on the left and saying the right kills abortion providers. How many? One? Two?
Gee, BB, how many do ya need to kill? Just how many do ya get to kill before the lunatic-fringe likes of you catch your limit, little fella.
Ya know, you wingnuts can start tryin' any time now, little fella. I've had plenty of BP, BB.
JC,
How does killing 42 million unborn children stack up?
You think it's killing; I don't think it's killing.
AA,
Are you against fertility clinics as well? They discard unused embryoes. Is that murder?
According to AnotherAmerican, yes.
Only if they're used for stem cell research before being discarded.
I am opposed to multiple human beings concieved and the unwanted killed. I think there are alternatives.
I do no believe discarding embryos is murder as it is traditionally defined. Obviously those who discard the embryo's do not think it is.
Whoa! If you don't believe discarding fertilized embryoes is murder, how does life began at conception?
Your second sentence is interesting considering your stance on abortion. Most people who have abortions don't believe its killing either so how can discarding embryos be different?
As you typically do...you left out "as it is traditionally defined" from your unwarranted complaint of AA's stance on discarded embryos. Please READ before you whine!
Some people don't believe a live-born baby is human and can be killed. How do you account for those who feel killing a live-born baby is not murder?
Hypocrosy feeds on both sides of this arguement.
Well, ug, apart from unborn being the operative term and abortion being a mere three percent of PP's services, do ya seriously wanna go with the quantity over quality thing here, little fella?
Ya wanna give mcvey a pass on OKC because, comparatively speaking, he killed a fraction of the number bin laden killed?
You're barkin' up the wrong tree, little fella. That delusional dreck may pass for logic and reason in coalition of the clueless circles, but, as you'll see next Tuesday, it don't fly in America no more.
Enjoy the last days of the 43rd reich and have a pleasant eight years.
Always a pleasure.
I must have missed it, where do you get the 3% figure?
Statistics I found say that PP performed over 280,000 abortions in 2005-2006. Whether that is 3% of PP's services I do not care. Would it make any difference if it were 97% of PP's business? I think not.
Think of it this way, lets say a person is perfectly normal 97% of the time, but 3% of the time he kills others. Does the other 97% outweigh the 3%?
ps.
Your comment about McVey does not make sense. I suggest you check your own dreck next time.
The headline is "Limbaugh falsely suggests Planned Parenthood mainly provides abortions". That means it's mainly what they do, not that most abortions are performed through them. Whether you care about it or not, that's the point. The 3% figure is in the summary, which is pretty hard to miss unless you make no effort to read the item whatsoever.
Let's go with your labored analogy, just for fun. If someone kills people 3% of the time (which is 43 minutes and 12 seconds of every day), then they mainly do other things. More realistically, your analogy is severely flawed because the effects of abortion are nothing like killing random people with established personal connections. Obviously someone single-handedly killing thousands of people would be remarkable, while PP having abortion as 3% of their services isn't.
How can anyone 'kill' something that is not even born?
I suggest you take a biology class.
Would that be the same biology class that teaches Intelligent Deesign as a proven fact and evolution as just a theory?
How can you excuse fertility clinics that discard fertilized embryos, but not abortion? What distinction are you making here?
I am too old to take any classes. Can you tell me what your point is?
Kaczynski acted alone, killing 3 and seriously injuring numerous others. I don't recall anyone condoning his actions, be they politically left or otherwise.
Ayers did not kill anyone. Three members of his group were killed while assembling a bomb. I'm already on the record as describing his past acts as bad behavior. I'll go even further and call his acts despicable and horrible, mainly because they could have resulted in the deaths of innocent people.
"How many? One? Two?"
"The right" collectively does not kill abortion providers, but if you're looking for a number...
"Since 1993, seven clinic workers – including three doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard – have been murdered in the United States. Seventeen attempted murders have also occurred since 1991. In fact, opponents of choice have directed more than 5,600 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including bombings, arsons, death threats, kidnappings, and assaults, as well as more than 132,000 reported acts of disruption, including bomb threats and harassing calls."
I automatically assume that any reasonable person who considers themselves to be politically right would condemn such actions.
I condemn them. The unabomber maimed another 23. Do you condemn him?
There were countless examples of people in the media going soft on him after he was caught. And why? Because he came from the left and not the right.
I also condemn Timothy McVeigh, but since Okla. City and the Unabomber happened close together it was painfully obvious who was treated more harshly. Well McVeigh did kill more people I guess.
Also, would you blame the abortion industry for inciting these right-wing fanatics to murder doctors? According to Bill Clinton and other Democrats and many in the media, talk-radio was to blame for inciting Tim McVeigh to violence.
Do you condemn the Weather Underground, SDS and the likes of Bill Ayers and Bernandine Dohrn?
Here's the difference an apologist connected to the abortion killers wasn;'on the ballot this year. An apologist for Ayers and his ilk was. How did you vote??
Yes. Do you condemn the unabomber?
Yes. Do you condemn them?
Who was the apologist for Ayers? Do you have any quotes?
So much sound and fury, yada yada yada, nothing.
Name just 2 of your so called countless examples of the media going soft on the unabomber. Not obscure ones either, one can find isolated incidences of support for just about anything if one searches the fringes.
McVeigh's crime and Kaczynski's aren't even close in terms of spectacle. Seemingly random mail bombs with small numbers of victims and no grisly footage versus a huge bomb; hundreds of witnesses, victims and survivors; a smoking ruin and dead children. From the persepctive of how and why the media chooses to highlight one story over another Oklahoma City is the sort of thing that television loves to report on. It is not about ideology at all.
Your analogy attempting to blame the existence of abortion doctors for abortion bombers to the ham-fisted way that some Democrats tried to blame McVeigh and like minded members of the militia movement of the 90s on talk radio is completely off base. A truer similarity would be to say that the leaders of the anti-abortion movement encourage anti-abortion terrorists. Ignoring the fact that there is not really a such thing as "the abortion industry" anyway.
Putting SDS in the same category as the Weather Underground is simply ridiculous. As I pointed out earlier, all 60s radicals were not of like minds. The history of SDS is filled with struggle and argument within it's ranks. By the time Dorn was involved the group was in rapid decline and ended up fragmenting quickly.
And last, are you really trying to imply that a vote for Obama was an approval of Ayers?
Whoah there chief.
Teddy was his own flavor of crazy which it would be unfair to call either left or right. He was a luddite convinced that humanity itself was being stripped of its freedoms by the existence of technology and that a revolution against tech was a necessity. Additionally he cautioned against leftism and for globalization of the economy.
As for the Weather Underground they were not darlings of the left in their own times. Many activists groups thought that the violent form of activism espoused by groups such as the WU as well as the Black Panthers and other underground militants was contrary to the causes they believed in and damaging to those causes in the eyes of the general public.
History is not a mutable thing, you cannot simply change it by wishing it so.
Which was personal and private until it was made into a public spectacle by Schiavo's parents
And obviously there was much dispute between her parents and the husband and Congress exercised a power it has under the constitution by assigning jurisdiction to the federal courts. How is that "forcing their views down your throat?
By the way it was a voice vote in the Senate. NO OPPOSITION:
On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill; since the vote was taken by voice vote, there was no official tally of those voting in favor and those opposed. Soon after Senate approval, the House of Representatives passed an identical version of the bill S.686, which came to be called the "Palm Sunday Compromise" and transferred jurisdiction of the Schiavo case to the federal courts. The bill passed the House on March 21 at 12:41 a.m. EST. President Bush flew to Washington D.C. from his vacation in Texas in order to sign the bill into law at 1:11 a.m. EST. As in the state courts, all of the Schindlers' federal petitions and appeals were denied, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, effectively ending the Schindlers' legal options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo
oh, NOW you're gonna cite wikipedia? Your side claims it's full of lies which is why your masters tried to create conservapedia! But I see you left out all sorts of pertinant info:
The Federal government's significant involvment during March 2005 in a last-ditch effort to keep Schiavo alive, with President Bush travelling from vacation back to Washington D.C. specifically to sign the legislation, made it a major national news story throughout that month. By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.[4]
Palm Sunday compromise:
Governor Bush and Congressional Republicans anticipated Greer's adverse ruling well before it was delivered and worked on a daily basis to find an alternative means of overturning the legal process by utilizing the authority of the United States Congress. On March 20, 2005, the Senate, by unanimous consent, passed their version of a relief bill; since the vote was taken by voice vote, there was no official tally of those voting in favor and those opposed. Soon after Senate approval, the House of Representatives passed an identical version of the bill S.686, which came to be called the "Palm Sunday Compromise" and transferred jurisdiction of the Schiavo case to the federal courts. The bill passed the House on March 21 at 12:41 a.m. EST. President Bush flew to Washington D.C. from his vacation in Texas in order to sign the bill into law at 1:11 a.m. EST. As in the state courts, all of the Schindlers' federal petitions and appeals were denied, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, effectively ending the Schindlers' legal options.
At the same time, the so-called Schiavo memo surfaced, causing a political firestorm. The memo was written by Brian Darling, the legal counsel to Florida Republican senator Mel Martinez. It suggested the Schiavo case offered "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base (core supporters) and could be used against Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, because he had refused to co-sponsor the bill.[57]
Like I said, cramming their illegal agenda down americans throats. You should really read the entire article before you make stupid mistakes like this.
"Ted Kuceynski and Bill Ayers were responsible for more deaths. "
Who did Bill Ayers kill?
nothing to dispute. the parents have no say in it according to the state of florida. mr. schiavo was the legal representative of his wife and her care.
republicans are always whining about states rights, except when the state goes against them as it did in the schiavo case.
then the federal circus began.
you don't have a clue and i hope that you're never in that kind of situation.
You don't really have a clue.
Absent a living will and with an obvious dispute and the parents willing to care for their daughter there was much to is unique case and no problem with assigning to the federal courts. Now if the Presdient sent the National Guard that would be a bit excessive.
My point is this isn't FORCING an agenda or views down anybody's throat. It was for pro-lifers in Congress a matter of conviction to act as they did and the dispute was settled. It appears you people don't like the Constitution unless you can read rights into it - such as the fictitious RIGHT to an abortion.
The parents have no standing.
And as far as not having a clue, I've been in a similar situation as a spouse and as a spouse I had the law on my side.
My point is this isn't FORCING an agenda or views down anybody's throat (even though that is exactly what it is). It was for pro-lifers in Congress a matter of conviction to act as they did (by illegally forcing their agenda down the countrys throat) and the dispute was settled (against their wishes because they acted unconstitutionally). It appears you people don't like the Constitution (you must mean republicans, there were several constitutional rulings in this case that the republicans kept trying to circumvent) unless you can read rights into it - such as the fictitious RIGHT to an abortion (which was legally upheld by the supreme court in RvW).
There's no such person. Look up your facts before you hack them to death with your splintered mind.
Unfortunately, with seven out of nine of the Supremes and control of many of the lower Courts, they've still got control of the Judiciary.
No clueless clarence, no shrub. No shrub, no alito or roberts.
Why can an announcer who has NO training or degree in anything make such wild accusations a PP? He is such a windbag!
Rush Limbaugh is a phony. He isn't pro-life, or at least not because he genuinely believes in it. He just plays to what his audience wants to hear. He knows his audience wants to hear about how "evil liberals" want unlimited abortion, along with gun control, taxation, and attacks on religion. He is a very sick man.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
He acts all high and mighty about he hates abortion and life is precious and all that. He talks about the "pro-abortion crowd" and shows fake outrage over abortions. He is no more "pro-life" than the head of Planned Parenthood. Actually, less. Truly sick indeed. Meanwhile, savages like him along with the knuckledraggers who worship him are helping to support policies that lead to more abortion and the circumstances that often produce abortion. Rush is playing the Christian Taliban crowd because he needs them along with the other types of troglodytes and knuckledraggers who compose his audience and allow him to laugh all the way to the bank with this $50 milllion a year.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Ahh.. I love how people on the left treat with respect people with whom they disagree. :-)
I am still trying to figure out how they can so accurately say they have prevented 600 thousand unintended pregnancies, how do they know and where are their stats? how does anyone measure this?
The same way Crest toothpaste counts prevented cavities.
just looked at the crest website, never say any actual numbers like the ones Planned Parenthood put out here. Why?
Because they don't want to tell you that most cavities are actually prevented by Colgate. Crest just rides the coattails. 8^)
People like Limbaugh and others like him do not deserve any respect whatsoever. The blatant lies and misinformation that emanate from them are savage. Unfortunately, there are individuals with disturbing pathologies and extremely limited intellects who flock to individuals like Limbaugh for a variety of reasons. These either fail to see it, not surprisingly, or they can see it but continue in their destructive beliefs for some reason, and people like Limbaugh are laughing at them while also laughing all the way to the bank.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Calling people you disagree with as "with disturbing pathologies and extemely limited intellects" is hardly an intellectual argument wouldn't you agree?
Let me put it simpler in case you didn't get it. Calling people crazy and dumb didn't work in grade school, so why do you think it works here?
AnotherAmerican: One expects ignorance from the left but it still amazes me that they want to broadcast it so widely.
AnotherAmerican: Calling people you disagree with as "extemely limited intellects" is hardly an intellectual argument wouldn't you agree?
And to answer your question, yes. I agree.
And again, you miss the point, AA.
NJguy wasn't calling Limbaugh (or others) names because they disagree with each other. NJguy said what he said because Limbaugh (and others) blatantly lie. I can disagree with someone politically (as I do most of my family), but when people lie to make their case, or repeat lies they heard to make their case, that's when the 'disturbing pathologies' come into play. If your argument is strong enough, you don't have to lie in order to "prove" it. Limbaugh lies in order to "prove" his argument. It's a disturbing pathology.
Sorry, but stating that Limbaugh has 'disturbing pathologies' and 'extremely limited intellect' is hardly calling names, especially when it comes to people like Limbaugh. To me, it's an observation. Limbaugh has demonstrated it over and over.
Now, coming out and calling you, AA, a complete idiot, is name calling.
I see you engage in name calling too. Gotta love the left!
Stop whining.
It's fascinating how when someone replies to you with a reasoned and well thought rebuttal of your ideas complete with citations you somehow don't have the time to respond yet when someone calls you a name you are Johnny-On-the-Spot with a witless rejoinder.
Sometimes I do engage in name calling. I live in the real world and I call 'em as I see 'em.
You're an idiot.
Whoops! There I go! I've succombed to reality again!
I may not be the biggest fan of the Clintons, but they way Republicans treated them for eight years was horrible. That is a large part of the reason why we have this total partisan atmosphere today. Gingrich, DeLay and the others in the Republican Congress as well as the Republican and/or conservative columnists and pundits. Then they complain about how George Bush was treated.
If you want to to talk about treating people badly, look at the months after 9/11 when Republicans and conservatives questioned the patriotism of anyone who questioned George Bush, called the un-American and un-patriotic, and said they hated America. Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly and FOX NEWS CHANNEL were all shameless. Falwell said just two days after 9/11 that the ACLU and feminists helped it to happen. The attacks of 9/11 were used to scare people and were politicized.
The vote on the Iraq War was scheduled right before the 2002 Mid-term Elections, and it was just a year after 9/11, so Bush knew the he could use the climte after 9/11 to intimidate Democrats into voting for a war they knew would be disastrous. Max Cleland who lost both his legs and one of his arms in Vietnam was compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the add by draft-dodger Saxby Chambliss.
Look at the reaction of Republicans to the Dixie Chicks over one sentence made quickly before a concert that nobody even would have known about. Look at the run-up to the Iraq War. Anybody who said maybe invading Iraq wasn't a great idea was called anti-American and unpatriotic and an America-hater. You guys perfected showing hate and lack of respect. If the left is doing it, they are definitely following your model. And you guys certainly did things to deserve it, as I'm sure you know deep down inside.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Oh yeah? Did not. ;-)
Nice reply, Pee Wee.
Democrats voted for a war they KNEW would be disastrous?
Nice leadership. I suppose those Democrats deserved reelection since they took such a principled stance the last time.
Stop blaming Republicans for votes Democrats made. They own their votes.
I don't think most of them thought there would be a war. When the debate was going on, both Powell and Bush assured the Congress that the resolution was not a vote for war and was needed for UN purposes. After Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, it suddenly became a vote for war.
And when Bush saw the UN was not going to approve his invasion, he decided there would be no vote and called for "Shock and Awe," which was a constant bombing of Iraqi civilian neighborhoods in Baghdad.
The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF.
Yes they did. I was responding about the "intimidated" ones as njguy put it.
The same way that Limbaugh respectfully treats anyone with whom he disagrees?
Cut the crap, ug. Don't try takin' that flat earth trash to the hole without havin' it shoved back down your whiny yap.
The lunatic-fringe likes of you and your fellow scum voters aren't ignorant trash because I disagree with you. To the contrary, I disagree with the lunatic-fringe likes of you and your fellow scum voters because you're ignorant trash with nary a case or a clue.
Get at least one of each or get stuffed. You've been spewin' the same same utterly-psychotic gop-slop nonsense since the day ya got here.
You've got nothing to say and you've been saying it far too loudly for far too long. Tell your story walkin'.
Gotta love the intellectual left!
Spoken by MMfA's true representative of the anti-intellectual right.
Well, it's hard not to come off as an intellectual when stacked up against the lunatic-fringe likes of you, ug.
Limbaugh deserves no respect.
Well AA, we on the left tend to give the same respect back that is given to us by those who we disagree with. Unless you think the utter contempt exhibited by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Maulkin and the rest is respect that is.
The only life Limbaugh cares about is limbaugh's.
NJGUY93 , You are 100% correct about EL FLUSHBO. Icouldent have said it better myself. He probably is not even human. I'll bet that he is really the last unidentifyed CYLON from the SCI FY network's BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series.
Rush Limbaugh is a phony. He isn't pro-life, or at least not because he genuinely believes in it. He just plays to what his audience wants to hear.
And you have proof of this? Or are you just smarter than everybody else?
Ever listen to his show? That's all the proof that you need.
BB obviously listens to Limbaugh's show. It is also obvious that even Limbaugh's second-grade target audience is well beyond his ken.
Limbaugh is a very, very sick man...
I can't wait till we get a new FCC chairperson. They may not look too kindly on this sort of sickness.
buh-bye Rushie-kins!!!
Doris,
Glad you like these days when mothers can fairly safely kill over a million of their children every year. Nothing sick about that.
While your up, howbout a review of the lastest hollywood offering glorifyling abortion?
If only we could go back to 1973 when abortion didn't exist and no one ever thought about sex...
AA
That is so beyond classless. Of course I do not want women to have abortions, I would prefer adoption or births by mothers who can keep their children.
I am against making choices illegal and subjecting them to harsh medical conditions.
Shame on you Anotheramerican!!!
Shame on me? Oh please.
You are okay with killing of 47 million unborn children - as long as it is done under safe medical conditions - and you cast shame on me? I think your priorities are mixed up.
"Choices" are made illegal all the time in case you haven't figured it out already.
and you cast shame on me? I think your priorities are mixed up.
No, no. You are still pretty shameless. Especially when you compare a clinical procedure that sometimes involves extracting a zygote the size of a pea to a man beating a woman to death.
medusa
What does size have to do with it? How big does a human have to be before it rises to the level of killing. Give me height and weight please.
What do you think about partial birth abortion? Are the human beings big enough for you or does that not count either?
So I suppose in all of your pro life zeal, you've never killed say, a fly? A wasp? A beetle? Because, size has nothing to do with it. I'm sure you've never walked over an ant, or an anthill, or anything like that right?
A zygote is NOT a human being, it's not even close. Most abortions are performed on a loose collection of cells, barely attached to a woman's uterus wall. It's not a person. It doesn't feel. It doesn't sense anything. It's not a human being.
First and foremost, whether a zygote is a human being is a deeply philosophical question. Some people think it is, others do not. You operate under the delusion that because you fall into the category of those who consider a zygote to be a human being, then this is the undisputed reality.
Secondly, you only focus on the aspect of size in my previous statement. But are you seriously going to compare a short, painless procedure with the repeated and forceful whacking of someone until they die? Seriously?
And to answer your question, once an embryo can live outside the womb, then I consider it to be a human, and thus able to be killed.
why argue abortion? nobody's mind is ever going to be changed, no matter who says what to whom. It's a waste of time. It's legal in this country and it always will be, there is no political will to ever make it illegal. Those that vote on it or harp on it forever are wasting their time. Accept it and move on. If you're so anti-abortion, and that is your business, fine. but don't expect to move anyone from their opinion on it, its not going to happen.
I disagree.
When asked if they were Pro-Life or Pro-Choice over a period of five years, the public’s approval of the Pro-Life position rose from 33% to 43%, and their collective opinion of the Pro-Choice position declined from 56% to 48%.
Sources: Center For Bioethical Reform, AbortionFacts.com, AbortionTV.com, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Gallup Poll, New York Times January 2001
Abortion support declining among women, study shows
By Tom Strode
Jun 27, 2003
WASHINGTON (BP)--Support for abortion rights among American women is declining, according to a report released recently by a pro-choice organization.
The study by the Center for the Advancement of Women showed 51 percent of women now believe abortion should be legally prohibited in the overwhelming percentage of cases. The survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found 17 percent believe there should be a total ban on abortion, while 34 percent say it should be outlawed, except in the cases of saving the mother's life and pregnancy as a result of rape or incest. The figures in both categories are three percent increases over the results reported in 2001.
http://www.baptistpress.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=16196
I don't care if 99% of the American population said they were pro-birth enforcement (or, pro-life as you folks on the right incorrectly call it).
It doesn't make it right to make it illegal. You see, it's not about what the people want, it's about upholding the Constitution and individual rights guaranteed to us(and for God's sake, don't even bring up babies and their constitutional rights, that's old, tired and stupid).
When you guys on the right start to figure out that it's an individual choice and that your best bet to get women from having abortions is through education and adoption, you might stand a better chance at there being fewer and fewer abortions. Forcing your stance down others' throats doesn't make it much easier for you, does it?
And stop with this BS about people supporting the killing of babies. Get real. None of us wants to kill anyone. It's about having the choice to make decisions for your own life, versus having someone in government telling you what you have to do. You'd think righties would support not having the government telling people that they are forced to give birth to a child they cannot afford (in many different ways) to have.
Start working with Dems and you'll see that we really aren't too far apart. Dems want to keep abortion legal, but we want it to be safe and RARE. Repubs want to make it illegal across the board. Both strive to lower the numbers. How about a meeting of the minds? Personally, I'm opposed to abortion. My belief, however, is that people should be able to make their own choices in life. So if it were to ever come to a vote, I'd support a woman's right to choose.
Evidently, you don't believe in people being able to make their own choices in life. You want the government to do it.
I would argue that most Republicans do not want to make abortion illegal across the board.
Abortion won't be around forever. Some future generation will perfect birth control to such a degree that abortion will simply cease to be necessary.
I can only hope.
bruce, many on the right are also against any and all forms of birth control. i believe that if abortion were outlawed some in the pro-life movement would then work to see that birth control was banned too.
I can't envision a scenario where banning birth control would be a mainstream conservative position.
The fringes of both parties make a lot of noise but they have very little power.
Birth Control is another topic. But sadly the public is widely misinformed about it's effectiveness and how it doesn't protect against stds and HIV.
Condums have a 14% failure rate.
Contraceptives have a 5% failure rate.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html
This is because of conservatives.
If you're using them correctly, the failure rates are nowhere near those numbers.
Using your "facts", AA -
Condoms have an 86% success rate
Contraceptives have a 95% success rate.
AA's logic has a 100% failure rate.
Still pretending to be the sensible, moderate conservative, eh, brucie.
Look at New England, Brucie. We used to be a bastion of gops. Now, there's not one gop Congressman left in New England and gops lost ground in the Senate up here. Evidently, Sununu found it a bit more difficult to beat Jean Shaheen without Rove running voter fraud out of the White House.
There are no more moderate gops. The gops have become what they are - a southern regional party that doesn't have a prayer unless they run the table in Dixie.
No racists, no reagan. No bigots, no bush.
They ain't the party of Lincoln, they're the party of strom and jesse. I hate to break it to ya, brucie, but strom and jesse are dead. So's reagan.
If you wanna cast your lot with psycho sarah, knock yourself out. Outside of the scum vote, she's toxic waste.
Unless you're running for President of the Confederacy, if you can't buy it, you're toast. Burnt toast.
Sensible and moderate works for me in a sea of partisan nonsense that is the left and the right.
Give it your best shot my good man.
BTW I voted for Obama.
i am talking about the legalities of it, not the morality. It will never be illegal and we all know it. people have been hanging their votes on this one issue for years and for what, it's no more illegal now than ever. We've had presidents and congress who all pay lip service to those who keep putting all their eggs in this basket, it's a waste of poltical time, and it's worthless to argue it either way.
I didsagree...
PRO-LIFE LAWS AND POLITICIANS REDUCE ABORTIONS. During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made real progress. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation.
For instance, the 1990s decline in the abortion rate--a decline that is eagerly touted by these Obama and Kerry supporters--had virtually nothing to do with policies enacted by President Clinton, and much to do with the dramatic increase in the number of states that were enacting pro-life laws.
The information below comes from NARAL's Who Decides, an annual publication which provides information about abortion legislation:
- In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed-consent laws; by 2000, 27 states had informed-consent laws in effect.
- In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion; by 2000, twelve states had bans or restrictions in effect.
- In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes; by 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that these and other types of pro-life legislation have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion.
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1663/2/
oops. didsagre=disagree
(1) Biased report;
(2) For once, JamesB is correct.
Why did the group point to this as opposed to birth control?
JAMES B you are correct in everything you said in your last post. Sometimes abortion is a last resort. I have said this before, a few years ago my 16 year old daughter was sexualy assaulted by her high school teacher. THANKFULLY SHE DIDNT BECOME PREGNANT.If she had and she came to me and said that carrying the baby was an everyday reminder of those assaults and that she didn't want to carry it to term, I would not have stood in her way of getting an abortion even though the baby would have been my grandchild. Absolutes are alright for all these RIGHT WING ZELOTS untill it happens to them or someone close to them.
I feel very sorry for what your daughter and your family had to go through.I hope that rapist is rotting in prison.
Pregnancy through rape is very rare. About 255 per year in the U.S. About half end in abortion.
If we take those out, how do you feel about the other million of babies aborted?
I feel that it's a personal choice, and one that I would not make for myself, or for my wife if she were pregnant.
You claim to be a Christian, then don't worry about it, if you feel good about how your position is on abortion, you should be welcomed into Heaven by some omnipotent being. You're good to go. Don't worry about the salvation of others, God will judge us all won't she?
AA, I dont approve of abortion for convenience sake, but i dont believe that making it illegal will solve the problem. You will still have abortions being done and probably adults dying in backyard "chop shops'' so i'm very hesitant to repeal ROE VS WADE.
Where did Snerdley go? And I was suggesting this because the Madoff scandal has resulted in a 20-percent reduction in funds for the poor people at Planned Parenthood.
Hey, let me change subjects real quickly to Obama for a second.
Where did Bo go? Curious minds want to know. I'm guessing Limbaughs "content watcher" Bo got up and walked out of the studio booth to go the restroom and throw up.
The repug attack on PP are truly obsene. The much needed service (aside from abortions) that they provide saves lives and prevents unintended pregnancies. These people are scum. I have no use for any of there followers.
Why do you say, "aside from abortions"? It is like saying that aside from beating his wife to death he is a very decent man.
All services PP provides are legal. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. I never will.
New Video Shows Indiana Planned Parenthood Covering Up Rape of 13-year Old Girl: New footage released today from an undercover camera inside an abortion clinic in Bloomington shows Planned Parenthood staff deliberately violating the state's mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse.
The footage shows Lila Rose, a UCLA student journalist and president of right-to-life advocacy group Live Action, posing as a 13-year-old girl. In an appointment with a Planned Parenthood nurse, Rose says she has been impregnated by a 31-year-old man, a clear case of child molestation under Indiana state law.
On tape, the nurse acknowledges her responsibility to report the abuse, but assures Rose she will not. The nurse says, "I am supposed to report to Child Protective Services," but tells Rose, "Okay, I didn't hear the age [of the 31-year-old]. I don't want to know the age."
She then instructs Rose how to obtain a secret abortion by crossing state lines in order to avoid Indiana's parental consent law. The nurse also coaches Rose to cover for the 31-year-old man by saying he is only 14. She says, "You've seen him around, you know he's 14, he's in your grade and whatever. You know what I mean."
Rose said she and other students in Live Action recorded the video over the summer in a multi-state investigation of the abortion industry. Rose described the undercover audit, called The Mona Lisa
Project, as "demonstrating the routine lawlessness of abortion providers at Planned Parenthood." Rose noted, "Today's video release is only a sample from many hours of similarly disturbing footage."
Planned Parenthood, a tax-exempt nonprofit, made over $100 million in profits last year and has a billion-dollar budget, nearly a third of which comes from taxpayers through government funding. Jackie Stollar, student president of a Live Action chapter in Oregon, accompanied Rose on the investigation. "In a repeated pattern, Planned Parenthood has violated the public trust. It should have its government funding revoked," she said.
"The Mona Lisa Project demonstrates how quickly the abortion industry's disrespect for unborn children becomes disregard for all humans," Rose explained. "Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape--they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser."
The video is available online at http://www.metacafe.com/channels/LiveActionFilms/. For more information, visit www.LiveActionFilms.org. For interview or special media requests for copies of footage and documentation, please contact <!-- var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy84984 = 'lilarose' + '@'; addy84984 = addy84984 + 'liveactionfilms' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + ''; document.write( '<a ' + path + '\'' + prefix + ':' + addy84984 + '\'>' ); document.write( addy84984 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> lilarose@liveactionfilms.org. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/894048846.html
[3Dec08, Lila Rose, Live Action, 408-497-3982, BLOOMINGTON, Ind., Christian Newswire]
What are you responding to?
AA,
You realize the idiots on here will argue, as they have before, that since this UCLA student lied that this is evidence of nothing. This is how the liberal 'brain' works.
Which poster has argued this?
Nobody, they're making up strawmen to attack now.
And that's fine, if the woman working in the clinic broke the law guess what? She should be prosecuted as required by the law. This proves nothing. This proves that one worker at a planned parenthood clinic broke the law.
ANOTHERAMERICAN , You are nothing but a propaganda mouthpiece for EL FLUSHBO AND THE FAR RIGHT WING SLIME MACHINE.
No, it's like saying that aside from falling asleep at the switch and allowing 9/11, lying about it, invading the wrong damned country and lying about it, allowing the destruction of NOLA and lying about it, outing covert CIA agents, obstructing justice and lying about it, politicizing the courts and the Justice Department and lying about it and trashing the economy and lying about it, shrub was a good President.
Nice try, ug. No sale.
So... what? You're in favor of shutting down the whol OB/GYN profession then? They provide soem pretty important services... you know... aside from the occasional abortion.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one, and don't consel others (like your partner) too.
They've been legal form well nigh 30 years, and they're not goind away. If they can ban them in South Dakota, they can't ban them anywhere.
Get used to it.
Wow. Should have ahd my coffee first. Obviously that should have said, "If they can't ban them in South Dakota, they can't ban them anywhere."
Should I... Should I...
Nah, I'll save my anti-abortion rants for a later time.
But I do want to make a quick question: What does Limbaugh think of Republicans who are for abortions? I doubt this subject goes straight down the party line, as not every member of the Democrat party is pro-choice (one example is a majority of Catholic Democrats). As such, there are probably members of the Republican party who are not pro-life. What do people like Limbaugh and Hannity think of such Republicans, if they even bring up that subject about those Republicans at all?
Well let's see. How does Rush feel about Rudy Giuliani? I honestly don't know, but I'm just going to take a leap and assume he said wonderful things about him post-9/11, and in the primaries.
I KNOW Hannity said such things.
So if your question is whether they're political hypocrites, the answer is yes.
Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani. The Culture of Life works in mysterious ways...
Mrs. Teuf,
Obviously there are many issues to consider when one decides which candidate to support. Giuliani campaigned that he would nominate "orginalists" to the SCOTUS. Since Roe v Wade was decision that was made up, not from the Constitution, but from the "penumbra" of imagined and unnamed rights, having originalists on the high bench might lead to it's eventual reversal and the saving of millions of innocent lives.
That, plus Giuliani's stance on other issues, plus his record as mayor of NYC, made him a viable candidate. That being said, he arguably ran the poorest presidential campaign ever.
Reich-wingers "think" a judge is an "orginalist" if they agree with that judge. If reich-wingers disagree with a judge, they are labeled "activists". Reich-wingers really are a myopic simple bunch.
Gotta love those on the left! I so much enjoy those cannot make an argument or statement without silly name calling or other silly generalizations.
I thought so. You're in love with yourself.
HARLEY, AMEN TO THAT LAST POST
I'm not arguing that there's no reason for a Republican to vote for Giuliani. I was responding to Dawuss' question of whether Rush and Hannity talk about pro-choice Republicans. I was giving one example.
And my point still stands. You can't call Obama the anti-Christ because he is pro-choice and ignore Giuliani's (or any other high profile Republican) similar stance.
And Giuliani would be a Democrat but he's too mean and philandering. That's truly the New York difference between the parties.
"there are probably members of the Republican party who are not pro-life"
It's not "pro-life"...it's anti-abortion. And just as an aside, it's not "pro-abortion" either...it's pro-choice.
Exactly. I know a few close women friends of mine who have had an actual abortion, and it's not something that was pleasant, or something that they came easily to a conclusion about either. Weeks and weeks of emotion, decisions, and thought went into what they went through, and what they did. I don't think anybody is really "pro" abortion.
mags,
Just like slave-owners who "felt bad" owning slaves were not really pro-slavery? Yeah. Right.
Gotta love that logic!
Dear anotheramerican,
I think that snark is not the appropriate response if you're trying to impress us with your support of life. I do not support abortion as some kind of frivolous choice; I support safe, medically-available abortion for women who find themselves with no other alternatives.
Despite their support of life, many conservatives (including Rush) also support war. Since only unborn children appear to have value to pro-life pro-lifers, how many unborn children have died in Iraq? We can safely estimate several thousand (if we take a conservative estimate of 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, 50,000 women, about 20,000 of them fertile).
Abortion isn't something that I am comfortable "supporting." I have my own reservations for this, and I keep them to myself because I don't view them as political ammunition. Rather, I see the decision as one between a woman, her supporters, and her doctor. I do not see the role that you, or Rush Limbaugh, play in this equation.
By your 'logic' only people who have had abortions could be 'pro-abortion'. Conversely, wouldn't one have to have given birth to be 'anti-abortion'?
I know of lots of people who have never had an abortion (many of whom have actually borne children) who are pro-choice. I even know some who were faced with a difficult decision as to whether to carry the baby to term and, having done so, remain firmly pro-choice. Even though they chose to have their baby, they don't want to prevent others from having a choice.
My ex-gf was a pro-choice Republican. If I had knocked her up, she would NOT have gotten an abortion for personal, moral reasons. She also did not want children, at all.
In AA's 'logical' world, she wouldn't exist.
No Kyle,
Your ex-gff simply is pro-abortion for others.
GAWD you are an idiot.
As for "pro-life" how can one possibly be that and support the death penalty?
albert,
No, that is not my logic. Anyone who is pro-choice is by default, pro-abortion.
You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be anti-abortion and pro-choice. If you are, you are kidding yourself in order to hide the ugly reality of being pro-abortion.
Anyone who states that with a straight face is, by default, a moron.
If I were to accept your logic (and I don't) it follows that anyone who is pro-life is anti-choice.
Why is it that so many on the right are adamant about keeping government OUT of people's business lives, but see no problems with government involvement in people's personal lives (abortion, gay marriage, civil unions etc)?
People who are pro-choice simply refuse to involve themselves in the business of other people. You make the decisions that are right for your life and situation and I'll make the decisions that are right for my life and situation.
You know, AA, it IS legal. Thus making it not all that much an "ugly reality". You know what isn't legal? Drunk driving. Drunk driving kills WAY more people than abortion does. (Even assuming that when you have an abortion you're killing a "person". which I personally don't assume). People are not nearly as ashamed about admitting to drunk driving as they are to having an abortion.
Following the assumption you made regarding "killing" a person (correct or incorrect is beside the point for this post), about 40,000 people/year die on the nation's highways. Even if all of them were the fault of a drunk driver, that number pales in comparison to the 800,000+ yearly abortions posted by CDC.
Except that the comparison is between apples and dogs, i.e. no equivalence at all.
Nah, they just pretended to embrace "traditional values", claimed the Bible was the literal word of God, the Earth was flat, Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and that everyone who didn't buy their brain-dead bupkis wasn't a real amerikan and that they would perish in a lake of fire.
At that point, their factose-intolerant arguments lose steam and fall if the cliff.
"...factose-intolerant..."--HILARIOUS. Nice one. Unfortunately, much of the backwards base of the Republican is extremely factose-intolerant and seems to think that reality and logic are un-American.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Any time, NJ. People have to stop treating these loons like serious people advocating a legitimate point of view supported by fact and evidence when they're merely ignorant bigots spewing psychotic gop-slop nonsense with little or no basis in fact.
Hannity's Amerika would have MLK or Obama "debating" some schmuck in a sheet. Ya don't air a lie to balance the truth.
Gops really are Colbert without the humor.
That said, what part of NJ? I'm a Clinton Twp boy from many years ago.
And you can kiss my hairy buttocks. You don't know everyone's situation, and or why they do what they do. For me, I'm for keeping the baby, I wouldn't impress upon anyone that I got pregnant to have an abortion, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to impress my choices on anyone else, like you would.
I'm sure you're against a national healthcare plan as well right? I mean, we wouldn't want government to get involved in our health care right? Abortion is a medical procedure that's legal. Get over it. You don't have to have one. You don't have to know anyone that has had one. If someone else makes a choice to have one, then that's their choice, and they have to live with it.
You're just pro-choice, you just don't know it.
Pro-life = anti-abortion
Pro-choice = pro-abortion
It's like calling one "12" and the other a "dozen"
No it's not, and if you, you're an idiot.
I thought none of you pro-choice types are FOR abortion. Slip of the keyboard there wuss or did the truth come out??
If you'd had a clue you'd know that Dawuss is very strongly anti abortion. He does however have some respect for opponets of having it outlawed. Pay attention there are some sane conservatives posting here. Too bad voices like yours tend to be the loudest voices of conservatism.
I am pro-life so I have a clue.
I bet you love the death penalty though right? And war?
No, BB, you're anti-choice and ya don't.
Ya lost me at "I thought..., BlagoBoy. That's where ya lost all credibility, 'cause clearly, ya don't. The next wingnut thought will be the first.
I thought none of you pro-choice types are FOR abortion. Slip of the keyboard there wuss or did the truth come out??
I reread my post and couldn't find any sort of typo or misstatement. Maybe I'm missing something...
If you'd had a clue you'd know that Dawuss is very strongly anti abortion. He does however have some respect for opponets of having it outlawed. Pay attention there are some sane conservatives posting here. Too bad voices like yours tend to be the loudest voices of conservatism.
I'm as anti-abortion as one can get, but I'm willing to meet people halfway on the broader subject of avoiding unwanted pregnancy. I have no problem whatsoever with contraceptives, but once that baby's conceived that's a living being in there.
If he had a clue, he wouldn't be Blago Boy. If gops could distinguish their sorry brain-dead butts from third base, they wouldn't be gops.
The libertarian wing of the republican party may not necessarily like abortions, nobdy does after all, but they are definetly in favor of keeping gov't out of a woman's uterus.
A Libertarian is nothing but a Republican who wants to amoke dope.
Magnolialover: That really surprises me. I always thought women actively enjoyed being up in the stirrups in front of a group of strangers, having their wombs scraped, and then feeling like sh*t for the rest of the week. (Heavy sarcasm)
Or, you know, feeling like sh*t for the rest of their lives.
That does seem to be one of the goals of the anti-abortion crowd: to make sure that any woman who has chosen to have an abortion will feel as guilty and depressed as possible for as long as possible.
Well, that's one thing people like to do to murderers, have them feel as guilty as long as possible, if guilt even comes close to the things the victims feel.
And people like me (the anti-abortion/pro-life/baby-is-a-living-being crowd) consider abortion to be murder. (Trying to be more objective than persuasive here)
And what, pray tell, did the embryo (or "victim") feel? Guilt probably goes waaaay over the level of what that "victim" felt
Yeah but... THAT'S YOUR OPINION. And while I happen to agree with you, I'm hardly arrogant enough to think that my opinion should be ram-rodded down everyone else's throat either via legal restrictions, criminal penalty or unsolicted opinions. (Which is a PC way of saying 'harrassment.') What right to you (or I) have to force others to think as we do? None. I like my freedom, so I'll have to repsect everyone else's. Otherwise I have no reason or right to expect anyone else to respect mine.
And you ZERO talent.
And you have that particular set of discussion tools of so many wingnuts have. Arrogance that what you say is not up for debate. Proof, sources, that's for inferior people. Your talent still needs much work to refine it to a usable utility. that utility's prime was 10 years ago though. Then you'd have been hell on wheels for any poor old liberal. Today this little tool under my hands finds the real story to easily for you to be much but obnoxious.
Here is a transcript of Jones minutes before he died:
Jones: (Pleading) I, with respect, die with a degree of dignity. Lay down your life with dignity. Don't lay down with tears and agony. There's nothing to death. It's like Mac [Jim McElvane] said, it's just stepping over into another plane. Don't be -- Don't be this way. Stop this hysterics. This is not the way for people who are Socialists or Communists to die. No way for us to die. We must die with some dignity. We must die with some dignity. (Pause) We will have no choice. Now we have some choice. (Tape edit) Do you think they're gonna stand -- allow this to be done and allow us to get by with this? You must be insane. (Pause) Look children, it's just something to put you to rest. (Tape edit) (Despairing tone) Oh, God.
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Tapes/Tapes/DeathTape/Q042.html
Many more examples of this. Do some research as you might learn something
This is the question he asked you:
How does what you posted respond to it?
Clearly, BB's library is limited to 1959 John Birch Society pamphlets.
I prefer the Birch John Society. It's dedicated to the preservation of wooden toilets.
You are calling this a communist/socialist statement? Beyond the use of the two words, I see no evocation of much beyond an acceptance of death as decided by Jones. Religeous communes are not uncomon, they go back to the Essennes at least. Possible role models for later thought that produced communistic/socialistic models of social behavior and organisation.
5 seconds found this on the ole innertubes http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
"Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 82 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 621,000 unintended pregnancies each year."
Yup, birth control pills, condoms and other contraceptives. Your point?
I think BB's point is hidden by his hat.
Asked and answered many times, but I'll do it again. Abortion makes up only 3% of the service PP provides. That means that 97% of their services has nothing to do with abortion, or it would have been part of the 3%. Since the word "mainly" suggests that abortion has to be a majority of the service PP provides for Rush's statement to be true, and 3% is nowhere near 50% + 1, the definition of a majority, Rush is therefore wrong.
QED
Then I want... then I want... then I want.... then I want you to tell everybody what kind of drugs help you come up with bizarre terms like "family planning ad hominum".
Heh, of course you're going to respond with the same method of avoiding the issues put forth in my post. It's ok, I know that liberals are incapable of rational discussion of the issues. You continue to prove my point: Those incapable of verbalizing a rational thought resort to name calling and avoiding the meat of the issue.
You tell them mess of athiests, honey!
Just so I can pass your excellent points on to my church group, can you point me where you heard bout that feller U.S.E. his daughter?
Not that I don't believe you, but them church gals are always wanting me to "prove" my point by presenting "proof", or "evidence".
Can you believe that? Just like a dadblame lib to expect me to back up my claims.
You though, are better than that! You don't need to present evidence to back up ANYTHING you write.
Just like Rush! God bless him!
-Norma Jean
Fat Boy Rusty is about to be even more irrelevant than he already is, and he knows it. Who cares what he thinks?.
Let him get his last licks in and ignore him.