GOP to Planned Parenthood: Hand over records

[johnny karate]

No you were not. You were discussing YOUR dearth of evidence and claiming that your lack of knowledge reflected that of the general, and in the particular, that of the prosecutor.

Which I found rather amusing.

Then educate me and alleviate my lack of knowledge.

What evidence is there to support the allegations made against Planned Parenthood?

 

[mhaze]

Then educate me and alleviate my lack of knowledge.

What evidence is there to support the allegations made against Planned Parenthood?

I couldn't care less about either your incorrect conclusions drawn from actual evidence presented or your lack of education, both being self inflicted maladies. It's not my job to fix your problems, dude, but neither are you serious.

 

[johnny karate]

I couldn't care less about either your incorrect conclusions drawn from actual evidence...

What evidence? Please direct me to the post in which this evidence was presented.

I couldn't care less about either your incorrect conclusions drawn from actual evidence presented or your lack of education, both being self inflicted maladies. It's not my job to fix your problems, dude, but neither are you serious.

Also, I must say this is a pretty hard line to take for someone who demanded I go to a bookstore to prove a quote was in a book after already proving the quote was in the book. You have no need to prove anything to anyone, but everyone else must jump through hoops to prove something to you? Why, it's almost as if you have a double standard.

And the bolded part? Hilariously ironic coming from someone with a penchant for using the word "irregardless".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I look at the people I debate who think that no tax is fair and that everything can and should be privatized, and I can get no other point of view.

I'm definitely closer to you on the political spectrum, but having observed these debates here in the forum, it's just not true. There is certainly not just the one GOP or conservative point-of-view--not in the national political scene or even here in the JREF USA Politics forum.

Then when I look at the antics of the Tea wing of the GOP and the fact that they others will still work with those goons, and I have to interpret silence as consent.

I've heard several conservatives here voice their disapproval of the positions of some of the Tea Party politicians. Even when there are apologists for them, their primary argument is usually that the lunatic in question didn't really say or advocate what we think they said. (See the current Palin thread. Mhaze is not agreeing with a hypocritical position in support of abstinence only, but trying to say that Palin never endorsed abstinence only sex-ed. There are plenty of other examples like that--people claiming Bachmann didn't compare current budget policy positions to the Holocaust, etc.)

 

[leftysergeant]

No you were not. You were discussing YOUR dearth of evidence and claiming that your lack of knowledge reflected that of the general, and in the particular, that of the prosecutor.

Nobody has ever showed us that they have anything other than the ear crickets of the sorriest excuses ever for congress critters tand the fake videos made by known lying sacks of crap that PP is doing anything wrong.

I'm convinced that the entire GOP has been slipped a powerful halucinogen at all their fund raisers.

 

[mhaze]

Nobody has ever showed us....

What right do you have to demand that people show you stuff?

Or to erroneously think that someone cares if you don't get shown whatever you think they should?

 

[BenBurch]

...

I'm convinced that the entire GOP has been slipped a powerful halucinogen at all their fund raisers.

The need to BELIEVE is the strongest hallucinogen.

 

[johnny karate]

What right do you have to demand that people show you stuff?

Or to erroneously think that someone cares if you don't get shown whatever you think they should?

Why do you keep making this about a "right" to ask these questions?

We're on a discussion forum.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

Irregardless, there has been no evidence presented to substantiate the allegations against Planned Parenthood. Your feeble attempts to do so were effectively dismantled, and now you have nothing to offer but bizarrely misplaced hostility.

 

[leftysergeant]

What right do you have to demand that people show you stuff?

Or to erroneously think that someone cares if you don't get shown whatever you think they should?

Nobody with a brain cares what the GOP thinks of PP. We know that their hatred of the organization is irrational, and that any allegation of involvement or complicity in sex trafficing is a total lie.

 

[mhaze]

Why do you keep making this about a "right" to ask these questions?

We're on a discussion forum.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

Irregardless, there has been no evidence presented to substantiate the allegations against Planned Parenthood. Your feeble attempts to do so were effectively dismantled, and now you have nothing to offer but bizarrely misplaced hostility.

My "feeble attempt" consisted of suggesting that you read the transcripts of the actual committee, and nothing more really needs to be said.

As an example of how a person would do this, you might go to the Congressman's website. There you would find the following comment.

http://stearns.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=134&sectiontree=6,134&itemid=1903

Stearns had set a Sept. 29 deadline for Planned Parenthood to comply.

On Thursday, he said Planned Parenthood was cooperating — and that he had extended the deadline until Oct. 13. That, however, did not mean a congressional hearing at this point.

“An investigation of this nature requires careful attention to the details and a hearing only would be in order if serious misconduct is evident or if Planned Parenthood does not continue to cooperate,” Stearns said.​

Then you would go to the list of active committee hearings, and note that this is not a current hearing. Then you would notice that it might become an active hearing after Oct 13. "if serious misconduct is evident or if there is no compliance".

Pretty simple stuff. MY "adding to the discussion" doesn't consist of paying attention to whiney cry babies, and it doesn't consist of going and finding things for you. I've shown you a method of investigation of a problem, take it for what you like.

 

[johnny karate]

My "feeble attempt" consisted of suggesting that you read the transcripts of the actual committee, and nothing more really needs to be said.

As an example of how a person would do this, you might go to the Congressman's website. There you would find the following comment.

http://stearns.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=134&sectiontree=6,134&itemid=1903

Stearns had set a Sept. 29 deadline for Planned Parenthood to comply.

On Thursday, he said Planned Parenthood was cooperating — and that he had extended the deadline until Oct. 13. That, however, did not mean a congressional hearing at this point.

“An investigation of this nature requires careful attention to the details and a hearing only would be in order if serious misconduct is evident or if Planned Parenthood does not continue to cooperate,” Stearns said.​

Then you would go to the list of active committee hearings, and note that this is not a current hearing. Then you would notice that it might become an active hearing after Oct 13. "if serious misconduct is evident or if there is no compliance".

Pretty simple stuff. MY "adding to the discussion" doesn't consist of paying attention to whiney cry babies, and it doesn't consist of going and finding things for you. I've shown you a method of investigation of a problem, take it for what you like.

Irregardless of what you may think, none of that addresses the issue. I'm talking about the specific allegations Stearns made as justification for this investigation:

Planned Parenthood has an extensive record of violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and of encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws.

Where's the evidence any of that is true? Stearns is saying there is "an extensive record" of these crimes. He's saying the record already exists. Nothing about waiting until October 13th.

 

[FattyCatty]

You omitted the first sentence in the first paragraph of this media alert. Here it is: Live Action is committed to ending abortion; they have repeatedly attacked Planned Parenthood. I doubt their veracity.

Regarding Live Action, Right Wing Watch gives an example of the caliber of people they employ:

The Christian Science Monitor says this about Lila Rose and her Live Action group:

Unacceptable. You've presented ad hominem attacks on individuals in response to my question about "their claims". I'm not willing to derail into their character.

As for the "first sentence", so WHAT?

Their claims are what I asked about.

I was speaking to the reliability of your source, Live Action. From Wikipedia:

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

You doubt their veracity, the Congress committee doubts the veracity of PP......

Here's a press release from Planned Parenthood dated today, September 29, 2011:

The Republicans seem to be coordinating their attack on Planned Parenthood. And isn't the provision for abstinance-only education based on minority religious views? Is that legal?

Huh? there is funding for various types of sex ed, INCLUDING abstinance-only, NOW.

Why include funding for teaching a discredited method? If it doesn't work and they still want to fund it, I suspect and contend that there is a conservative, religious agenda involved -- who else believes in abstinence education for teens? And what a waste; they cut the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative by $64.79 million then insist $20 million is wasted. From Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 344–351, "Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy":

Discussion

This assessment of the impact of formal sex education programs on teen sexual health using nationally representative data found that abstinence-only programs had no significant effect in delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing the risk for teen pregnancy and STD. In contrast comprehensive sex education programs were significantly associated with reduced risk of teen pregnancy, whether compared with no sex education or with abstinence-only sex education, and were marginally associated with decreased likelihood of a teen becoming sexually active compared with no sex education.
<snip>
Our study is not the only recent work to suggest that abstinence-only education may not reduce sexual risk behaviors among teens. A randomized controlled trial of four federally funded abstinence programs found no significant decrease in number of partners or risk for STD and pregnancy,
and no delay in sexual debut [13]. Similarly a systematic review of 13 trials found that abstinence-only programs were not associated with reductions in sexual risk behavior or in diagnosis of STDs [14]. Another review showed that all but one of 11 programs that taught about contraception resulted in no increase in sexual activity [12]. Other studies have shown that sexual activity is not increased with teaching about condoms [15] and HIV/AIDS [16].

Although one study found later sexual debut was associated with abstinence-only virginity pledging, the majority of adolescents who made virginity pledges ultimately broke their “promise” and engaged in sexual intercourse before marriage [17]. In addition the risk for STD was not significantly different between pledgers and nonpledgers, and sexually active pledgers were significantly less likely to use condoms at first sex than were nonpledgers. Similarly our data comparing abstinence-only and comprehensive education revealed no significant difference in initiation of sexual intercourse, while detecting a decreased likelihood of teen pregnancy among those who received comprehensive education. This suggests that preteens and teens who receive abstinence-only education may engage in higher risk behaviors once they initiate sexual activity.<snip>
Although future prospective studies expressly designed to evaluate the effects of formal sex education programs are required, these data suggest that formal comprehensive sex education programs reduce the risk for teen pregnancy without increasing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in sexual activity, and confirm results from randomized controlled trials that abstinence-only programs have a minimal effect on sexual risk behavior.

From Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 46, Issue 6, June 2010, Pages 517-524, "Reasons for and Challenges of Recent Increases in Teen Birth Rates: A Study of Family Planning Service Policies and Demographic Changes at the State Level"

Abstract

Purpose

After declining for over a decade, the birth rate in the United States for adolescents aged 15–19 years increased by 3% in 2006 and 1% again in 2007. We examined demographic and policy reasons for this trend at state level.
<snip>
Results

Medicaid family planning waivers were found to reduce teen birth rates across all ages and races. Abstinence-only education programs were found to cause an increase in teen birth rates among white and black teens. The increasing Hispanic population is another driving force for high teen birth rates.

Is it based on minority religious views and is it legal? That's a weird question. Well, I guess you'd have to examine the teaching curricula, and see if it included things that were improper. A Priori it isn't illegal, and it probably doesn't matter what it was "based on" - what would matter is what it contains in black and white. It has religious references, or it does not.

What's weird about wondering if separation of church and state is being undermined by the government? From Wikipedia:

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[43] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

 

[mhaze]

....the specific allegations Stearns made as justification for this investigation....Where's the evidence any of that is true? Stearns is saying there is "an extensive record" of these crimes. He's saying the record already exists. Nothing about waiting until October 13th.

And I've shown you the method you can use to research a question like this YOURSELF, instead of badgering people on the internet to figure things out for you.

I was speaking to the reliability of your source, Live Action...........

Doesn't matter. Next you'll be saying that a total slut can't get on the stand in court and argue her case against rape. You have to address the evidence presented in their affidavits.

....Why include funding for teaching a discredited method? If it doesn't work and they still want to fund it, I suspect and contend that there is a conservative, religious agenda involved -- who else believes in abstinence education for teens? ..........

Why should I care what you think is discredited? I only pointed out that the Federal government has been funding these programs for decades. So now you are complaining about federal funding, eh? From my prior comment:

Huh? there is funding for various types of sex ed, INCLUDING abstinance-only, NOW.

Is it based on minority religious views and is it legal? That's a weird question. Well, I guess you'd have to examine the teaching curricula, and see if it included things that were improper. A Priori it isn't illegal, and it probably doesn't matter what it was "based on" - what would matter is what it contains in black and white. It has religious references, or it does not.

.....What's weird about wondering if separation of church and state is being undermined by the government? From Wikipedia:

And now you leap to a conclusion that your silly suspicions are true.

Without the examination of the teaching materials (as I previously indicated) you don't have a leg to stand on with "your suspicions". Go to it, look them up, report back if you find references that would be actionable as a legal challenge. But don't expect me to do any more than laugh at "your suspicions".

PS: Lay off the yellow, please.

 

[tyr_13]

Without the examination of the teaching materials (as I previously indicated) you don't have a leg to stand on with "your suspicions". Go to it, look them up, report back if you find references that would be actionable as a legal challenge. But don't expect me to do any more than laugh at "your suspicions".

I was going to commend you for reversing your decision and speaking out against the unwarranted harassment of Planned Parenthood, but then I realized you were talking about something else.

Your suspicions don't have a leg to stand on. Good point.

 

[mhaze]

I was going to commend you for reversing your decision and speaking out against the unwarranted harassment of Planned Parenthood, but then I realized you were talking about something else.

Your suspicions don't have a leg to stand on. Good point.

Hell, I am just encouraging these guys to find evidence to support their assertions and I'll do the same regarding their view as to "unwarranted harassment of PP" , whether the facts ultimately support them or not, these are issues that have legal consequences and or which are playing out in the public arena within a structure of legal proceedings.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>

I was speaking to the reliability of your source, Live Action...........

Doesn't matter. Next you'll be saying that a total slut can't get on the stand in court and argue her case against rape. You have to address the evidence presented in their affidavits.

1. mhaze, we're not in a court.
   
2. Please don't try to predict what I will say.
   
3. When one gets information from a source, it's normal and skeptically sound to check and see if the source has a hidden agenda or other conflict of interest.
   
4. I didn't say the Live Action people couldn't speak out, I just pointed out some indicators of a conflict of interest and a history of lying.
   
5. People can then make up their own minds about the objectivity and reliability of Live Action.

I will repeat the link and information you ignored:

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

....Why include funding for teaching a discredited method? If it doesn't work and they still want to fund it, I suspect and contend that there is a conservative, religious agenda involved -- who else believes in abstinence education for teens?..........

Why should I care what you think is discredited?

I was pretty sure you wouldn't care what I think, that's why I included in my post links to studies that said abstinence-only education for teens was ineffective.

I only pointed out that the Federal government has been funding these programs for decades. So now you are complaining about federal funding, eh? From my prior comment:

Huh? there is funding for various types of sex ed, INCLUDING abstinance-only, NOW.

I'm complaining about government waste, especially when it is motivated by religious factors. The Republican appropriations proposal cuts $64.79 million from the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative. This reduces their budget to $40 million. The Republicans also stipulate that $20 million (half of the reduced budget) be used for grants to provide abstinence-only education. I find it wasteful to use half the budget to fund abstinence-only education, which is ineffective, instead of using all the reduced budget for comprehensive sex education, which is effective. This bothers me more because I think the motivation for this scam wastefulness is based in religion.

Is it based on minority religious views and is it legal? That's a weird question. Well, I guess you'd have to examine the teaching curricula, and see if it included things that were improper. A Priori it isn't illegal, and it probably doesn't matter what it was "based on" - what would matter is what it contains in black and white. It has religious references, or it does not.[/I]

The teaching curricula are not uniform; I have no intention of examining every program in every state. According to this report, THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS:

<snip>
The report finds that over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two thirds of SPRANS grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.
<snip>

• Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception. For example, one lesson states: “Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.” Another curriculum calls a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person.”

In my previous post I quoted the Supreme Court criteria for government action to comport to the Establishment Clause:

...the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.

I don't think requiring abstinence-only education is non-religious. I think it advances religion. And I think it is "excessive entanglement" of government with religion. So I wonder if this stipulation that half the budget be used for abstinence-only education is legal.

And now you leap to a conclusion that your silly suspicions are true.

Without the examination of the teaching materials (as I previously indicated) you don't have a leg to stand on with "your suspicions". Go to it, look them up, report back if you find references that would be actionable as a legal challenge. But don't expect me to do any more than laugh at "your suspicions".

See above. And laugh when you please, as I do.

PS: Lay off the yellow, please.

Well, mhaze, your replies to me have omitted or ignored information in my posts, so I think it best to use highlighting to point out pertinent points to you.

 

[leftysergeant]

Hell, I am just encouraging these guys to find evidence to support their assertions and I'll do the same regarding their view as to "unwarranted harassment of PP" , whether the facts ultimately support them or not, these are issues that have legal consequences and or which are playing out in the public arena within a structure of legal proceedings.

And the fact that the knuckle-dragging morons who want to destroy PP have not a bit more evidence of wrong-doing than they had at any time in the last thirty years, but they can, just by holding the hearings, create the impression in the minds of there sheeple, that evidence exists.

Stearns has more important things to do than to help make sure that more women get knocked up or infexcted with STDs. The stupid little snot is supposed to be finding ways to get people back to work. Putting more lawyers to work harrassing PP is not going to cut it.

 

[Minoosh]

This isn't the issue, I know, but even if PP used taxpayer money to fund abortions, the abortions probably saved taxpayers more money than they spent.

I wanted to put in a plug for abstinence education. Not abstinence only. When I was a teenager the pervasive social message was to have sex. This was during a brief period in history, after penicillin and the Pill but before AIDS, when hedonism seemed a little more viable. At the time it wouldn't have hurt for me to hear that it was OK not to have sex and that postponing it made a lot of sense.

 

[leftysergeant]

At the time it wouldn't have hurt for me to hear that it was OK not to have sex and that postponing it made a lot of sense.

All well and good, but any program that teaches that condoms are useless discourages their use by those who do not give a rat's about the social standards of the religious communities, this encourages the spread of AIDS.
Abstinance Only is a threat to public health.

That whacktard Lila Rose is a threat to women's lives.

 

[mhaze]

....I wanted to put in a plug for abstinence education. Not abstinence only. When I was a teenager the pervasive social message was to have sex. This was during a brief period in history, after penicillin and the Pill but before AIDS, when hedonism seemed a little more viable. At the time it wouldn't have hurt for me to hear that it was OK not to have sex and that postponing it made a lot of sense.

NOT that I'm opposed to hedonism, but different strokes for different folks, and in the cacophonous voices, it is hard to see how some or a few shouting for abstinence doesn't have a place.

Those on this forum arguing against abstinence as some sort of public policy miss its value in the moment for a particular individual, and just as "all politics is local", well, "all sex is personal".