"Safe, legal and rare" - Planned Parenthood didn't get the memo

[TitanTiger 17,299]

Because, as anyone with half a brain understands, abortions aren't a tragic necessity for them, they're a revenue stream:

Planned Parenthood Gives Clinic Award for Killing More Babies in Abortions

Maybe you've seen those awards given to local businesses for having a certain number of accident free days or hitting certain regional or area sales quotas. here's an award that will take your breath away for a terribly and horrific reason:

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains gave its Aurora abortion clinic an award for increasing the number of babies killed in abortions. The award coincides with the abortion quotes the Planned Parenthood abortion business is implementing on all o its affiliates:

From a blog post by Abby Johnson on the award:

Ever since I left Planned Parenthood, I have been talking about the abortion quotas that are established inside abortion facilities. Many abortion supporters refused to believe it, citing that surely Planned Parenthood wants abortion to be safe, legal and RARE.

If they want something to be RARE, they certainly wouldn't have quotas, right?

We recently had a clinic worker leave the affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. This affiliate runs the 2nd largest Planned Parenthood facility in the U.S. At this clinic in Denver, they give out various awards to their satellite clinics and post these awards on a bulletin board for everyone to see.

When our former worker saw this award on public display, it really started to change her thinking about Planned Parenthood’s motivation. This award was given to their Aurora clinic for "exceeding abortion visits first half of fiscal year 2012 compared to first half of fiscal year 2013."

This means that the Aurora Planned Parenthood exceeded the abortion quota that was imposed on them. And THAT is award worthy according to Planned Parenthood.

...

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/30/planned-parenthood-gives-clinic-award-for-killing-more-babies-in-abortions/

May God have mercy on our souls for this.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/blog/setting-record-straight-planned-parenthood-expanding-access-care/

[TheBlueVue 177]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

So, their expanding their access to care, huh? Whose care? Fetuses have a heart beat after 6 weeks and given the fact that in-utero surgeries have been successfully performed, at what point does the care of the unborn become worthy of consideration?

[WarTim 3,192]

Because, as anyone with half a brain understands, abortions aren't a tragic necessity for them, they're a revenue stream:

Planned Parenthood Gives Clinic Award for Killing More Babies in Abortions

Maybe you've seen those awards given to local businesses for having a certain number of accident free days or hitting certain regional or area sales quotas. here's an award that will take your breath away for a terribly and horrific reason:

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains gave its Aurora abortion clinic an award for increasing the number of babies killed in abortions. The award coincides with the abortion quotes the Planned Parenthood abortion business is implementing on all o its affiliates:

From a blog post by Abby Johnson on the award:

Ever since I left Planned Parenthood, I have been talking about the abortion quotas that are established inside abortion facilities. Many abortion supporters refused to believe it, citing that surely Planned Parenthood wants abortion to be safe, legal and RARE.

If they want something to be RARE, they certainly wouldn't have quotas, right?

We recently had a clinic worker leave the affiliate, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. This affiliate runs the 2nd largest Planned Parenthood facility in the U.S. At this clinic in Denver, they give out various awards to their satellite clinics and post these awards on a bulletin board for everyone to see.

When our former worker saw this award on public display, it really started to change her thinking about Planned Parenthood’s motivation. This award was given to their Aurora clinic for "exceeding abortion visits first half of fiscal year 2012 compared to first half of fiscal year 2013."

This means that the Aurora Planned Parenthood exceeded the abortion quota that was imposed on them. And THAT is award worthy according to Planned Parenthood.

...

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/30/planned-parenthood-gives-clinic-award-for-killing-more-babies-in-abortions/

May God have mercy on our souls for this.

Amen and Amen. Sickening...

[TitanTiger 17,299]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

[TitanTiger 17,299]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

[RunInRed 12,163]

Not to get technical but is there a difference between "abortion visits" as it says on the certificate and abortions?

[cooltigger21 0]

PP through abortion kills far more blacks each year than any other method

[TitanTiger 17,299]

Not to get technical but is there a difference between "abortion visits" as it says on the certificate and abortions?

If there is, PP didn't seem to think it was a big enough difference in outcome to bother parsing it. And it's not as if an increase in visits would result in *fewer* abortions.

[RunInRed 12,163]

Not to get technical but is there a difference between "abortion visits" as it says on the certificate and abortions?

If there is, PP didn't seem to think it was a big enough difference in outcome to bother parsing it. And it's not as if an increase in visits would result in *fewer* abortions.

True but some would argue, there is a value in seeing more patients if it is consultative in nature ... i.e., not all visits necessarily lead to an abortion. Women are out there seeking help who are in horrific situations and most often the case, PP is their place to go of last resort. So again, not to spin it but the counter argument is that seeing more patients is providing more healthcare, hence the quota. Knowing the "conversion" rate would be key.

[WarTim 3,192]

PP through abortion kills far more blacks each year than any other method

fact. Where is the outrage???

[WarTim 3,192]

Not to get technical but is there a difference between "abortion visits" as it says on the certificate and abortions?

If there is, PP didn't seem to think it was a big enough difference in outcome to bother parsing it. And it's not as if an increase in visits would result in *fewer* abortions.

True but some would argue, there is a value in seeing more patients if it is consultative in nature ... i.e., not all visits necessarily lead to an abortion. Women are out there seeking help who are in horrific situations and most often the case, PP is their place to go of last resort. So again, not to spin it but the counter argument is that seeing more patients is providing more healthcare, hence the quota. Knowing the "conversion" rate would be key.

Far too Many use F R E E abortion as Birth Control. Truth...

[TexasTiger 9,013]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

[TitanTiger 17,299]

Not to get technical but is there a difference between "abortion visits" as it says on the certificate and abortions?

If there is, PP didn't seem to think it was a big enough difference in outcome to bother parsing it. And it's not as if an increase in visits would result in *fewer* abortions.

True but some would argue, there is a value in seeing more patients if it is consultative in nature ... i.e., not all visits necessarily lead to an abortion.

It's not like they're trying to talk them into other options.

Women are out there seeking help who are in horrific situations and most often the case, PP is their place to go of last resort. So again, not to spin it but the counter argument is that seeing more patients is providing more healthcare, hence the quota. Knowing the "conversion" rate would be key.

Then give out a "seeing more patients" award. At least that would include things like pap smears and other women's health care issues. Praising an increase in abortion visits is macabre.

[TitanTiger 17,299]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

When you can understand that there are two humans involved here, you're on the road to understanding human rights. When you fight for the right to abort up to the day of birth, without restriction, you clearly don't understand the concept.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point.

[TheBlueVue 177]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

When you can understand that there are two humans involved here, you're on the road to understanding human rights. When you fight for the right to abort up to the day of birth, without restriction, you clearly don't understand the concept.

You beat me to it. We dont agree on a lot but we're of one mind on this topic. When did it become a basic human right to take another's life? If aborting right up til day of birth how can that be spun as anything less than taking a human's life?

[TitanTiger 17,299]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point.

I proved your point how? By showing that I can see there are two human lives to consider and the other side, which openly fights for the right to end the life of one of them right up until birth without restriction, insists that there's a human and a wad of tissue?

[WarTim 3,192]

No grey area here ...

[TitanTiger 17,299]

No grey area here ...

Sure, there are grey areas...ectopic pregnancies come to mind. In fact, it's PP that sees no grey areas. They insist that until a woman decides she wants the child, it's not really a person. And if she changes her mind, she should have the sole right all the way up to birth to declare it a non-person by her decision and abort it.

No grey.

[TexasTiger 9,013]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point. ;)/>

I proved your point how? By showing that I can see there are two human lives to consider and the other side, which openly fights for the right to end the life of one of them right up until birth without restriction, insists that there's a human and a wad of tissue?

Proved it again.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The bottom line is unrestricted abortion is a central theme of left wing politics and any argument against it is a symptom of their fabled war on women. In the parlance, anyone against unrestricted abortion is a misogynist and participating in blocking women from their reproductive rights. Some women fall for this and also that they absolutely must have government sponsored birth control. Seems to me the left promotes irresponsible sex with no accountability whatsoever and the unborn pay the price for it with their lives.

[TitanTiger 17,299]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point. ;)/>

I proved your point how? By showing that I can see there are two human lives to consider and the other side, which openly fights for the right to end the life of one of them right up until birth without restriction, insists that there's a human and a wad of tissue?

Proved it again.

Yet you can't explain how.

Did I misrepresent their view? Do they view an unborn child as a human being? Do they not support full rights to abort right up until birth without restriction?

[TexasTiger 9,013]

It won't make any difference to most folks, but they do see it from a different perspective than the framing presented here:

http://www.plannedpa...ng-access-care/

People who have worked there, as managers of a clinic, say differently.

And there's no other way to spin this...awarding an increase in abortions...as anything other than having certain "expectations" (read: quotas) for the number of abortion visits. It's rather pitiful for them to pretend otherwise.

There's no other perspective you can see because of how strongly you fill about it. I see abortion as a complex moral issue and never something to be celebrated. PP sees it as a rights/access issue for women and are in an environment where access is increasingly limited, thus curtailing the option and limiting the right. I understand that perspective, although I think they would be better served by not doing this.

You're right. I have strong feelings about basic human rights. PP doesn't see it as a morally complex issue. They celebrate more of them. I believe it is a 'quota' just as described.

I could possibly respect (while still disagreeing) with a stance that it's a 'necessary evil' to be used in rare circumstances (not as a substitute for a preventive birth control method). PP has no such qualms or qualifications on the issue. In their minds, it's an objective good on the level of tallying cure rates for ebola.

I understand your perspective as well as theirs. I do recall you arguing a few months ago, however, that conservatives better understood liberals motives/perspectives than vice versa. Yet here, instead of seeing PP's perspective as this also being a basic human rights issue for women, you dismiss their position as being primarily a revenue stream. One can see another's perspective and disagree with it.

If you only understand basic human rights for one side of a zero sum, life/death decision, you don't understand basic human rights. They see one side as human, the other side as "products of conception." It's anti-human.

Personally, I fall between the two extremes on this issue, but thanks for proving my point. ;)/>

I proved your point how? By showing that I can see there are two human lives to consider and the other side, which openly fights for the right to end the life of one of them right up until birth without restriction, insists that there's a human and a wad of tissue?

Proved it again.

Yet you can't explain how.

Did I misrepresent their view? Do they view an unborn child as a human being? Do they not support full rights to abort right up until birth without restriction?

When would you support abortion rights?