Not ignoring it. It, like the comments about covering costs, should be taken as a whole unlike what the video did.

 

Let's note that right after that comment she said "really their bottom line is they want to break even"

 

You can watch the entire unedited version, Clyde. Still has the same story.

 

It doesn't put my stomach ease nor vindicate these people.

 

She can say what she said right after that, good for her. She still said "if they can do a little better than break even....they're happy to do that..."

 

If they're going beyond break even point, that is making a profit, which is illegal. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter what she said after that.

You can watch the entire unedited version, Clyde. Still has the same story.

 

It doesn't put my stomach ease nor vindicate these people.

 

She can say what she said right after that, good for her. She still said "if they can do a little better than break even....they're happy to do that..."

 

If they're going beyond break even point, that is making a profit, which is illegal. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter what she said after that.

 

Investigate it then like they did in Indiana. Punish if found guilty. To call for a complete defunding based on a few edited videos seems foolhardy.

Let's note that right after that comment she said "really their bottom line is they want to break even"

 

By your logic, someone could catch Martha Stewart on video saying she avoided taxes on occasion but note that in the next breath, her main goal is to pay at least some taxes, so she makes sure she pays sales and property taxes.

 

Are you going to claim she's innocent or that she most likely broke some sort of tax law?

By your logic, someone could catch Martha Stewart on video saying she avoided taxes on occasion but note that in the next breath, her main goal is to pay at least some taxes, so she makes sure she pays sales and property taxes.

 

Are you going to claim she's innocent or that she most likely broke some sort of tax law?

 

I'm not saying anyone is anything. I'm saying the rush to defund is based on an edited tape. Look into it as some states have and THEN make a decision.

Investigate it then like they did in Indiana. Punish if found guilty. To call for a complete defunding based on a few edited videos seems foolhardy.

 

To defend the actions of organ harvesting 3, 4, 5 lb babies is disgusting. Defund them 100%.

 

If you want funding for PP, use some of your hard earned money to start an organization that voluntarily gives to Planned Parenthood. Give money yourself.

 

Don't force others to furnish contributions to an organization so controversial.

I'm not saying anyone is anything. I'm saying the rush to defund is based on an edited tape. Look into it as some states have and THEN make a decision.

 

You keep repeating the same mundane talking point of "edited tape."

 

They released the unedited. Still paints the same sick picture. Your point is invalid.

1. What's Planned Parenthood's percent of profit for contraceptives vs. abortion?

 

2. My point exactly. They don't need government funds to run their organization.

 

3. This goes along with point #2 . If people with a conscious will give to community centers who provide these services, this problem is taken care of.

 

You claiming that without government funding, these programs will vanish is a fear-mongering talking point, playing on peoples emotions.

 

I'm still waiting an answer to the bold, Clyde.

To defend the actions of organ harvesting 3, 4, 5 lb babies is disgusting. Defund them 100%.

 

If you want funding for PP, use some of your hard earned money to start an organization that voluntarily gives to Planned Parenthood. Give money yourself.

 

Don't force others to furnish contributions to an organization so controversial.

 

Abortion in and of itself is disgusting but it's legal. So is the tissue donation they are doing (assuming it's not for profit).

 

I don't like the govt killing innocent kids in Iraq.

I don't like the govt keeping people in prison for years without taking the to trial.

 

There are MANY groups that get funds that use them for bad, bad things. They also do some good. That's the way the tax thing works.

I'm still waiting an answer to the bold, Clyde.

 

No clue. Not sure where that can be found.

 

If I knew what would it tell us?

You keep repeating the same mundane talking point of "edited tape."

 

They released the unedited. Still paints the same sick picture. Your point is invalid.

 

So pointing out that there was more said than what was intentionally left out makes my point invalid? Come on.

 

Edited tapes should ALWAYS be questioned. To not do so smells of partisanship.

Abortion in and of itself is disgusting but it's legal. So is the tissue donation they are doing (assuming it's not for profit).

 

I don't like the govt killing innocent kids in Iraq.

I don't like the govt keeping people in prison for years without taking the to trial.

 

There are MANY groups that get funds that use them for bad, bad things. They also do some good. That's the way the tax thing works.

 

That's the way your tax thing works. I moan and complain to my Reps and Senators when my taxes are going to endeavors I am morally and economically opposed to -- including all the above you just mentioned.

 

There are ways to hold those accountable. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. Demanding a roll-call vote to defunding PP is a big, big start. No doubt it will be used against people in the next election.

 

Like I said, if you want to voluntarily give money to them, so be it. But your line of reasoning is backwards.

That's the way your tax thing works. I moan and complain to my Reps and Senators when my taxes are going to endeavors I am morally and economically opposed to -- including all the above you just mentioned.

 

There are ways to hold those accountable. Sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. Demanding a roll-call vote to defunding PP is a big, big start. No doubt it will be used against people in the next election.

 

Like I said, if you want to voluntarily give money to them, so be it. But your line of reasoning is backwards.

 

My line of reasoning is we should investigate these allegations. Yours is to defund without any proof.

 

Mine is backwards?

No clue. Not sure where that can be found.

 

If I knew what would it tell us?

 

I think I read where you said PP makes up 17% -- nearly 1/5 -- of their income. Seems like a lot for a 3% service. My point is that the 3% number is a farce.

My line of reasoning is we should investigate these allegations. Yours is to defund without any proof.

 

Mine is backwards?

 

Your line of reasoning for being okay with the way your taxes being distributed is backwards. Yes.

I think I read where you said PP makes up 17% -- nearly 1/5 -- of their income. Seems like a lot for a 3% service. My point is that the 3% number is a farce.

 

I stated the 3% number as well as a subsequent post saying something like 17% of their income comes from abortions. They see about 3M people a year so about 10% of those customers/patients are for abortion. 90% are not.

 

Point?