Abortion accounts for 86% of Planned Parenthood non-gov't revenue

[TitanTiger 21,680]

Small tidbit from PP CEO's hearing before Congress yesterday:

...Lummis quizzed Richards how abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services while it garners an overwhelming amount of revenue for the non-profit.

"So abortion is included in surgical services. But I want to find out where you get your 3% figure that you cite for abortion procedures. That's your self-reported abortion statistic," Lummis said.

"It is 3% of all the procedures we provide," Richards responded. "All the services we provide."

"Let's talk about Planned Parenthood revenue from abortions. If you look at the 2013 statistics that you report, abortions revenue would have been over 86% of your non-government revenue. How do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion and the fact that you only report 3% of your services being abortion?" Lummis asked

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/rep_lummis_to_planned_parenthood_you_say_3_of_procedures_are_abortions_yet_86_of_your_revenue_is_from_abortions.html

The notion that no taxpayer dollars go to abortions is such a BS response. Because every dollar PP gets from the government is a dollar that does not have to be devoted to abortion services. If that revenue went down or away, they'd have to devote more of their private donations and revenues generated to those things and less would be available to facilitate the killing of the unborn. Government money frees them up to sink more of their excess revenues (read: profit) back into abortion services. Simple as that.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Small tidbit from PP CEO's hearing before Congress yesterday:

...Lummis quizzed Richards how abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services while it garners an overwhelming amount of revenue for the non-profit.

"So abortion is included in surgical services. But I want to find out where you get your 3% figure that you cite for abortion procedures. That's your self-reported abortion statistic," Lummis said.

"It is 3% of all the procedures we provide," Richards responded. "All the services we provide."

"Let's talk about Planned Parenthood revenue from abortions. If you look at the 2013 statistics that you report, abortions revenue would have been over 86% of your non-government revenue. How do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion and the fact that you only report 3% of your services being abortion?" Lummis asked

http://www.realclear..._abortions.html

The notion that no taxpayer dollars go to abortions is such a BS response. Because every dollar PP gets from the government is a dollar that does not have to be devoted to abortion services. If that revenue went down or away, they'd have to devote more of their private donations and revenues generated to those things and less would be available to facilitate the killing of the unborn. Government money frees them up to sink more of their excess revenues (read: profit) back into abortion services. Simple as that.

Sort of convenient to leave out the response.

Is it not logical to conclude that, if the government is supporting all PP activities but abortion, the bulk of non-government revenue would be attributable to abortion?

I appreciate your cause. I appreciate your passion. You lose me though when, you become illogical, the political force behind your cause becomes uncompromising and, your cause adopts tactics that are deceptive. It causes me to question the true motives.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

https://www.yahoo.com/health/house-oversight-and-government-reform-committee-223234455.html

[autigeremt 7,289]

I thought Planned Parenthood provided mammograms? Their president stated otherwise yesterday (after stating they did in the past) at the hearing.

Including abortion, what role does PP provide that isn't provided by other agencies in the US?

[TitanTiger 21,680]

Sort of convenient to leave out the response.

Is it not logical to conclude that, if the government is supporting all PP activities but abortion, the bulk of non-government revenue would be attributable to abortion?

The response was inconsequential to the point. If Planned Parenthood wasn't receiving those tax dollars, then they would have to devote all their private donations toward providing all these services they try to focus on rather than sink them into providing abortions - that is, if indeed all these services were truly the most important reason they exist. What would really happen is that those services would gradually be whittled away because abortion procedures are more profitable once you're off the gov't gravy train.

Even the way they calculate what percentage of services aren't abortion is bogus because they pad the stats. They stack services when a patient comes in. For instance, a woman shows up to get an abortion. Everyone knows why she's here and what the purpose is. If it wasn't for an abortion, she'd be going to a doctor or health clinic. But PP will do "routine" stuff to add services. The woman that really came in for an abortion will get a pap smear, and a cancer screening, and an STD test and they'll provide her with some contraception. That way, after the abortion is done, this one patient has had four services done and they can claim that only 20% of the services provided were for abortions for that patient. Plus they can file claims for all the other stuff and get gov't money on top of that. If you stack enough services on each patient, you can artificially decrease the percentage of abortion services you provide. It would be like a pizza parlor claiming that only 25% of its services were for providing pizzas by counting every non-pizza item they give you as a "service." If you got plastic utensils, napkins, Parmesan cheese packets, garlic dipping sauce and so on to go with your order, each of those items become a service on the same level as the pizza you bought. But everyone knows what the transaction was about.

[TitanTiger 21,680]

I thought Planned Parenthood provided mammograms? Their president stated otherwise yesterday (after stating they did in the past) at the hearing.

Including abortion, what role does PP provide that isn't provided by other agencies in the US?

Actually, a Democratic congresswoman repeated the lie about them providing mammograms (a lie that Ceclie Richards herself has promulgated before). But under oath, Richards came clean yesterday and corrected the congresswoman (who seemed surprised) that they don't have mammomgram machines at PP clinics and don't actually perform them themselves. They do screenings and refer women out for mammograms.

[autigeremt 7,289]

I thought Planned Parenthood provided mammograms? Their president stated otherwise yesterday (after stating they did in the past) at the hearing.

Including abortion, what role does PP provide that isn't provided by other agencies in the US?

Actually, a Democratic congresswoman repeated the lie about them providing mammograms (a lie that Ceclie Richards herself has promulgated before). But under oath, Richards came clean yesterday and corrected the congresswoman (who seemed surprised) that they don't have mammomgram machines at PP clinics and don't actually perform them themselves. They do screenings and refer women out for mammograms.

So they touch and feel and if a knot is present they refer them to a physician? I'm sure a lot of other organizations can do the same thing (health clinics might be better served to do this anyway).

[autigeremt 7,289]

Sort of convenient to leave out the response.

Is it not logical to conclude that, if the government is supporting all PP activities but abortion, the bulk of non-government revenue would be attributable to abortion?

The response was inconsequential to the point. If Planned Parenthood wasn't receiving those tax dollars, then they would have to devote all their private donations toward providing all these services they try to focus on rather than sink them into providing abortions - that is, if indeed all these services were truly the most important reason they exist. What would really happen is that those services would gradually be whittled away because abortion procedures are more profitable once you're off the gov't gravy train.

Even the way they calculate what percentage of services aren't abortion is bogus because they pad the stats. They stack services when a patient comes in. For instance, a woman shows up to get an abortion. Everyone knows why she's here and what the purpose is. If it wasn't for an abortion, she'd be going to a doctor or health clinic. But PP will do "routine" stuff to add services. The woman that really came in for an abortion will get a pap smear, and a cancer screening, and an STD test and they'll provide her with some contraception. That way, after the abortion is done, this one patient has had four services done and they can claim that only 20% of the services provided were for abortions for that patient. Plus they can file claims for all the other stuff and get gov't money on top of that. If you stack enough services on each patient, you can artificially decrease the percentage of abortion services you provide.

[TitanTiger 21,680]

I thought Planned Parenthood provided mammograms? Their president stated otherwise yesterday (after stating they did in the past) at the hearing.

Including abortion, what role does PP provide that isn't provided by other agencies in the US?

Actually, a Democratic congresswoman repeated the lie about them providing mammograms (a lie that Ceclie Richards herself has promulgated before). But under oath, Richards came clean yesterday and corrected the congresswoman (who seemed surprised) that they don't have mammomgram machines at PP clinics and don't actually perform them themselves. They do screenings and refer women out for mammograms.

So they touch and feel and if a knot is present they refer them to a physician? I'm sure a lot of other organizations can do the same thing (health clinics might be better served to do this anyway).

Nope, only PP knows how to do it. The 9000+ community health centers out there are utterly incapable of doing cancer screenings, STD tests, providing contraception and so on. Can't do it. Gotta have an abortion mill to pull that off for all the poor folks.

[AFTiger 282]

Planned Parenthood is a money laundering scheme for Democrats.

Total to Democrats: $560,385

Total to Republicans: $4,383

Recipient

Total Adler, Shelley (D-NJ) $4,500 Aguilar, Pete (D-CA) $2,500 Badey, George (D-PA) $1,000 Barber, Ron (D-AZ) $14,611 Bass, Karen (D-CA) $1,000 Beatty, Joyce (D-OH) $2,500 Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $2,000 Bera, Ami (D-CA) $11,000 Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY) $7,000 Bonamici, Suzanne (D-OR) $5,000 Boockvar, Kathryn (D-PA) $5,966 Boswell, Leonard (D-IA) $2,000 Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $2,000 Brownley, Julia (D-CA) $9,103 Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) $5,999 Capps, Lois (D-CA) $8,500 Cardenas, Tony (D-CA) $2,000 Carson, Andre (D-IN) $790 Castor, Kathy (D-FL) $2,000 Castro, Joaquin (D-TX) $3,500 Chu, Judy (D-CA) $1,000 Cicilline, David (D-RI) $6,000 Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) $1,000 Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $1,500 Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $2,500 Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $1,000 Connolly, Gerry (D-VA) $2,000 Cowan, Rich (D-WA) $2,000 Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $2,000 Davis, Danny K (D-IL) $2,500 Davis, Susan A (D-CA) $1,000 DeGette, Diana (D-CO) $6,000 DeLauro, Rosa L (D-CT) $5,392 DelBene, Suzan (D-WA) $5,000 Demings, Val (D-FL) $9,999 Deutch, Ted (D-FL) $1,000 Dingell, John D (D-MI) $1,000 Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $4,683 Edwards, Donna (D-MD) $5,000 Ellison, Keith (D-MN) $1,000 Esty, Elizabeth (D-CT) $5,000 Fitzgerald, Keith (D-FL) $9,999 Foster, Bill (D-IL) $2,500 Frankel, Lois J (D-FL) $10,000 Gabbard, Tulsi (D-HI) $5,000 Gallego, Pete (D-TX) $5,000 Garamendi, John (D-CA) $1,000 Garcia, Joe (D-FL) $5,000 Gill, David (D-IL) $5,000 Gillan, Kim (D-MT) $5,000 Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) $1,000 Grayson, Alan (D-FL) $3,500 Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) $1,000 Grisham, Michelle Lujan (D-NM) $5,000 Gulleson, Pam (D-ND) $5,467 Gutierrez, Luis V (D-IL) $1,000 Hahn, Janice (D-CA) $1,000 Hanabusa, Colleen (D-HI) $1,000 Hanna, Richard (R-NY) $4,383 Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) $1,000 Healy-Abrams, Joyce (D-OH) $2,000 Heck, Dennis (D-WA) $3,715 Hernandez, Jose M (D-CA) $5,000 Higgins, Brian M (D-NY) $1,000 Himes, Jim (D-CT) $1,000 Hochul, Kathleen (D-NY) $12,361 Honda, Mike (D-CA) $1,250 Horsford, Steven (D-NV) $5,000 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $1,000 Huffman, Jared (D-CA) $2,500 Israel, Steve (D-NY) $2,000 Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) $1,000 Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $1,000 Keating, Bill (D-MA) $1,000 Kennedy, Joe III (D-MA) $4,500 Kildee, Dan (D-MI) $3,595 Kilmer, Derek (D-WA) $6,000 Kind, Ron (D-WI) $1,000 Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-AZ) $3,500 Kreitlow, Patrick (D-WI) $5,000 Kuster, Ann Mclane (D-NH) $2,500 LaFerla, John (D-MD) $2,000 Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $1,000 Larson, John B (D-CT) $1,000 Lawson, Alfred Jr (D-FL) $2,500 Lee, Barbara (D-CA) $2,000 Lewis, John (D-GA) $5,000 Loebsack, David (D-IA) $7,000 Lowenthal, Alan (D-CA) $5,000 Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $4,989 Maffei, Dan (D-NY) $7,500 Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $1,000 Maloney, Sean Patrick (D-NY) $4,998 Marshall, Kate (D-NV) $3,467 McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) $1,000 McCollum, Betty (D-MN) $2,000 McDermott, Jim (D-WA) $1,000 McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $6,000 Meng, Grace (D-NY) $3,500 Miklosi, Joe (D-CO) $3,500 Moore, Gwen (D-WI) $4,423 Murphy, Mark (D-NY) $5,000 Murphy, Patrick (D-FL) $19,976 Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) $2,000 Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) $1,000 Neuhardt, Sharen (D-OH) $1,000 Nolan, Rick (D-MN) $5,000 Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D-DC) $1,000 O'Rourke, Beto (D-TX) $1,000 Obermueller, Mike (D-MN) $2,000 Oceguera, John (D-NV) $7,000 Owens, Bill (D-NY) $7,000 Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $2,000 Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $1,000 Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $1,000 Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $2,500 Peters, Gary (D-MI) $2,000 Peters, Scott (D-CA) $5,000 Pingree, Chellie (D-ME) $1,000 Pocan, Mark (D-WI) $4,000 Price, David (D-NC) $1,000 Quigley, Mike (D-IL) $2,000 Ruiz, Raul (D-CA) $6,000 Rush, Bobby L (D-IL) $1,000 Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) $1,000 Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $1,000 Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) $2,000 Schneider, Brad (D-IL) $2,500 Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $6,000 Schreibman, Julian D (D-NY) $6,000 Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) $1,000 Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) $5,911 Sewell, Terri A (D-AL) $1,000 Shaffer, Brandon (D-CO) $1,000 Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) $1,000 Shinagawa, Nathan (D-NY) $1,000 Sinema, Kyrsten (D-AZ) $4,999 Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) $9,999 Speier, Jackie (D-CA) $3,000 Stark, Pete (D-CA) $1,000 Strader, Aryanna (D-PA) $1,000 Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) $6,000 Takano, Mark (D-CA) $6,000 Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000 Titus, Dina (D-NV) $4,500 Trivedi, Manan (D-PA) $6,000 Tsongas, Niki (D-MA) $3,644 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) $2,000 Veasey, Marc (D-TX) $2,500 Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $1,000 Vilsack, Christie (D-IA) $9,999 Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $6,000 Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $2,500 Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $1,000 Waxman, Henry (D-CA) $4,500 Welch, Peter (D-VT) $1,000 Weprin, David I (D-NY) $3,550 Wilson, Frederica (D-FL) $1,000 Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) $2,000 Zerban, Rob (D-WI) $3,500 Senate

Total to Democrats: $168,776

Total to Republicans: $274

Recipient

Total Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) $9,977 Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000 Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $10,022 Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) $1,500 Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $1,378 Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $11,399 Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) $137 Cardin, Ben (D-MD) $5,000 Carmona, Richard (D-AZ) $10,000 Carper, Tom (D-DE) $5,000 Casey, Bob (D-PA) $137 Collins, Susan M (R-ME) $137 Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $1,000 Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $7,500 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) $7,000 Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) $9,298 Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $2,396 Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) $10,000 Kaine, Tim (D-VA) $845 Kerrey, Bob (D-NE) $5,000 Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $5,000 McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $8,715 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $5,999 Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) $1,000 Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) $4,981 Murray, Patty (D-WA) $0 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $10,000 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $5,000 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $1,000 Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) $1,000 Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) $137 Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $8,000 Tester, Jon (D-MT) $10,000 Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) $8,492 Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI) $6,000

Based on data released by the FEC on March 25, 2013.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Sort of convenient to leave out the response.

Is it not logical to conclude that, if the government is supporting all PP activities but abortion, the bulk of non-government revenue would be attributable to abortion?

The response was inconsequential to the point. If Planned Parenthood wasn't receiving those tax dollars, then they would have to devote all their private donations toward providing all these services they try to focus on rather than sink them into providing abortions - that is, if indeed all these services were truly the most important reason they exist. What would really happen is that those services would gradually be whittled away because abortion procedures are more profitable once you're off the gov't gravy train.

Even the way they calculate what percentage of services aren't abortion is bogus because they pad the stats. They stack services when a patient comes in. For instance, a woman shows up to get an abortion. Everyone knows why she's here and what the purpose is. If it wasn't for an abortion, she'd be going to a doctor or health clinic. But PP will do "routine" stuff to add services. The woman that really came in for an abortion will get a pap smear, and a cancer screening, and an STD test and they'll provide her with some contraception. That way, after the abortion is done, this one patient has had four services done and they can claim that only 20% of the services provided were for abortions for that patient. Plus they can file claims for all the other stuff and get gov't money on top of that. If you stack enough services on each patient, you can artificially decrease the percentage of abortion services you provide. It would be like a pizza parlor claiming that only 25% of its services were for providing pizzas by counting every non-pizza item they give you as a "service." If you got plastic utensils, napkins, Parmesan cheese packets, garlic dipping sauce and so on to go with your order, each of those items become a service on the same level as the pizza you bought. But everyone knows what the transaction was about.

Perhaps to YOUR point but, not to reality or the truth.

I hold you in high regard. I value you thoughts. However, on this subject, I believe you have lost all rational and objectivity (understandable but, still radical). I believe this is evidenced by your willingness to believe in, and promote, distortions of the truth. Again, I appreciate the cause. I appreciate your passion. But, I believe your passion now compromises your thinking.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Planned Parenthood is a money laundering scheme for Democrats.

Total to Democrats: $560,385

Total to Republicans: $4,383

Recipient

Total Adler, Shelley (D-NJ) $4,500 Aguilar, Pete (D-CA) $2,500 Badey, George (D-PA) $1,000 Barber, Ron (D-AZ) $14,611 Bass, Karen (D-CA) $1,000 Beatty, Joyce (D-OH) $2,500 Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $2,000 Bera, Ami (D-CA) $11,000 Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY) $7,000 Bonamici, Suzanne (D-OR) $5,000 Boockvar, Kathryn (D-PA) $5,966 Boswell, Leonard (D-IA) $2,000 Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $2,000 Brownley, Julia (D-CA) $9,103 Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) $5,999 Capps, Lois (D-CA) $8,500 Cardenas, Tony (D-CA) $2,000 Carson, Andre (D-IN) $790 Castor, Kathy (D-FL) $2,000 Castro, Joaquin (D-TX) $3,500 Chu, Judy (D-CA) $1,000 Cicilline, David (D-RI) $6,000 Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) $1,000 Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $1,500 Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $2,500 Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $1,000 Connolly, Gerry (D-VA) $2,000 Cowan, Rich (D-WA) $2,000 Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $2,000 Davis, Danny K (D-IL) $2,500 Davis, Susan A (D-CA) $1,000 DeGette, Diana (D-CO) $6,000 DeLauro, Rosa L (D-CT) $5,392 DelBene, Suzan (D-WA) $5,000 Demings, Val (D-FL) $9,999 Deutch, Ted (D-FL) $1,000 Dingell, John D (D-MI) $1,000 Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $4,683 Edwards, Donna (D-MD) $5,000 Ellison, Keith (D-MN) $1,000 Esty, Elizabeth (D-CT) $5,000 Fitzgerald, Keith (D-FL) $9,999 Foster, Bill (D-IL) $2,500 Frankel, Lois J (D-FL) $10,000 Gabbard, Tulsi (D-HI) $5,000 Gallego, Pete (D-TX) $5,000 Garamendi, John (D-CA) $1,000 Garcia, Joe (D-FL) $5,000 Gill, David (D-IL) $5,000 Gillan, Kim (D-MT) $5,000 Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) $1,000 Grayson, Alan (D-FL) $3,500 Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) $1,000 Grisham, Michelle Lujan (D-NM) $5,000 Gulleson, Pam (D-ND) $5,467 Gutierrez, Luis V (D-IL) $1,000 Hahn, Janice (D-CA) $1,000 Hanabusa, Colleen (D-HI) $1,000 Hanna, Richard (R-NY) $4,383 Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) $1,000 Healy-Abrams, Joyce (D-OH) $2,000 Heck, Dennis (D-WA) $3,715 Hernandez, Jose M (D-CA) $5,000 Higgins, Brian M (D-NY) $1,000 Himes, Jim (D-CT) $1,000 Hochul, Kathleen (D-NY) $12,361 Honda, Mike (D-CA) $1,250 Horsford, Steven (D-NV) $5,000 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $1,000 Huffman, Jared (D-CA) $2,500 Israel, Steve (D-NY) $2,000 Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) $1,000 Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $1,000 Keating, Bill (D-MA) $1,000 Kennedy, Joe III (D-MA) $4,500 Kildee, Dan (D-MI) $3,595 Kilmer, Derek (D-WA) $6,000 Kind, Ron (D-WI) $1,000 Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-AZ) $3,500 Kreitlow, Patrick (D-WI) $5,000 Kuster, Ann Mclane (D-NH) $2,500 LaFerla, John (D-MD) $2,000 Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $1,000 Larson, John B (D-CT) $1,000 Lawson, Alfred Jr (D-FL) $2,500 Lee, Barbara (D-CA) $2,000 Lewis, John (D-GA) $5,000 Loebsack, David (D-IA) $7,000 Lowenthal, Alan (D-CA) $5,000 Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $4,989 Maffei, Dan (D-NY) $7,500 Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $1,000 Maloney, Sean Patrick (D-NY) $4,998 Marshall, Kate (D-NV) $3,467 McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) $1,000 McCollum, Betty (D-MN) $2,000 McDermott, Jim (D-WA) $1,000 McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $6,000 Meng, Grace (D-NY) $3,500 Miklosi, Joe (D-CO) $3,500 Moore, Gwen (D-WI) $4,423 Murphy, Mark (D-NY) $5,000 Murphy, Patrick (D-FL) $19,976 Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) $2,000 Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) $1,000 Neuhardt, Sharen (D-OH) $1,000 Nolan, Rick (D-MN) $5,000 Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D-DC) $1,000 O'Rourke, Beto (D-TX) $1,000 Obermueller, Mike (D-MN) $2,000 Oceguera, John (D-NV) $7,000 Owens, Bill (D-NY) $7,000 Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $2,000 Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $1,000 Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $1,000 Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $2,500 Peters, Gary (D-MI) $2,000 Peters, Scott (D-CA) $5,000 Pingree, Chellie (D-ME) $1,000 Pocan, Mark (D-WI) $4,000 Price, David (D-NC) $1,000 Quigley, Mike (D-IL) $2,000 Ruiz, Raul (D-CA) $6,000 Rush, Bobby L (D-IL) $1,000 Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) $1,000 Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $1,000 Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) $2,000 Schneider, Brad (D-IL) $2,500 Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $6,000 Schreibman, Julian D (D-NY) $6,000 Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) $1,000 Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) $5,911 Sewell, Terri A (D-AL) $1,000 Shaffer, Brandon (D-CO) $1,000 Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) $1,000 Shinagawa, Nathan (D-NY) $1,000 Sinema, Kyrsten (D-AZ) $4,999 Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) $9,999 Speier, Jackie (D-CA) $3,000 Stark, Pete (D-CA) $1,000 Strader, Aryanna (D-PA) $1,000 Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) $6,000 Takano, Mark (D-CA) $6,000 Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000 Titus, Dina (D-NV) $4,500 Trivedi, Manan (D-PA) $6,000 Tsongas, Niki (D-MA) $3,644 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) $2,000 Veasey, Marc (D-TX) $2,500 Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $1,000 Vilsack, Christie (D-IA) $9,999 Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $6,000 Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $2,500 Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $1,000 Waxman, Henry (D-CA) $4,500 Welch, Peter (D-VT) $1,000 Weprin, David I (D-NY) $3,550 Wilson, Frederica (D-FL) $1,000 Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) $2,000 Zerban, Rob (D-WI) $3,500 Senate

Total to Democrats: $168,776

Total to Republicans: $274

Recipient

Total Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) $9,977 Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000 Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $10,022 Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) $1,500 Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $1,378 Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $11,399 Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) $137 Cardin, Ben (D-MD) $5,000 Carmona, Richard (D-AZ) $10,000 Carper, Tom (D-DE) $5,000 Casey, Bob (D-PA) $137 Collins, Susan M (R-ME) $137 Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $1,000 Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $7,500 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) $7,000 Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) $9,298 Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $2,396 Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) $10,000 Kaine, Tim (D-VA) $845 Kerrey, Bob (D-NE) $5,000 Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $5,000 McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $8,715 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $5,999 Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) $1,000 Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) $4,981 Murray, Patty (D-WA) $0 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $10,000 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $5,000 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $1,000 Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) $1,000 Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) $137 Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $8,000 Tester, Jon (D-MT) $10,000 Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) $8,492 Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI) $6,000

Based on data released by the FEC on March 25, 2013.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

Seriously? A "money laundering scheme" that nets $556,000.00? Do you even understand what "money laundering" is?

In order to be fair, objective, and accurate, rather than spin this as a "scandal", would it not be more accurate to say that those contributions are a reflection of how politicized and partisan the issue of abortion has become?

[TitanTiger 21,680]

Perhaps to YOUR point but, not to reality or the truth.

No, it's inconsequential, period. If an external source gives me a substantial sum of money outside of my salary each month, it frees up the money that does come from my salary to do other things. They might give me a stipulation that says "this money can't be used for gambling or strip clubs." I agree and use their funds to pay all my bills, my mortgage, put money in savings, buy groceries and so on. Then I use my salary to go to casinos and strip clubs. If the outside money was taken away, I'd have to go back to using my salary to cover necessities again and the gambling and strippers would have to go. It's really no different with Planned Parenthood.

I hold you in high regard. I value you thoughts. However, on this subject, I believe you have lost all rational and objectivity (understandable but, still radical). I believe this is evidenced by your willingness to believe in, and promote, distortions of the truth. Again, I appreciate the cause. I appreciate your passion. But, I believe your passion now compromises your thinking.

It's not distorting the truth. It's peeling away the layers of bull**** PP puts out there in their stats to reveal a truer picture. That one doesn't like the picture or the implications it presents doesn't make it untrue. When 86% of your non-government money goes to abortions, and you pair that with the stat padding I mention above, it starts to show a more accurate reflection of how important abortion is to their existence. I'd love to see a stat that strips away the "services provided" measurement and ask what percentage of patients that come to Planned Parenthood wind up getting an abortion. The obfuscation they are allowed to get away with paints them in a much different light than they should be.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Perhaps to YOUR point but, not to reality or the truth.

No, it's inconsequential, period. If an external source gives me a substantial sum of money outside of my salary each month, it frees up the money that does come from my salary to do other things. They might give me a stipulation that says "this money can't be used for gambling or strip clubs." I agree and use their funds to pay all my bills, my mortgage, put money in savings, buy groceries and so on. Then I use my salary to go to casinos and strip clubs. If the outside money was taken away, I'd have to go back to using my salary to cover necessities again and the gambling and strippers would have to go. It's really no different with Planned Parenthood.

I hold you in high regard. I value you thoughts. However, on this subject, I believe you have lost all rational and objectivity (understandable but, still radical). I believe this is evidenced by your willingness to believe in, and promote, distortions of the truth. Again, I appreciate the cause. I appreciate your passion. But, I believe your passion now compromises your thinking.

It's not distorting the truth. It's peeling away the layers of bull**** PP puts out there in their stats to reveal a truer picture. That one doesn't like the picture or the implications it presents doesn't make it untrue. When 86% of your non-government money goes to abortions, and you pair that with the stat padding I mention above, it starts to show a more accurate reflection of how important abortion is to their existence. I'd love to see a stat that strips away the "services provided" measurement and ask what percentage of patients that come to Planned Parenthood wind up getting an abortion. The obfuscation they are allowed to get away with paints them in a much different light than they should be.

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

[TitanTiger 21,680]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

[DKW 86 7,976]

I thought Planned Parenthood provided mammograms? Their president stated otherwise yesterday (after stating they did in the past) at the hearing.

Including abortion, what role does PP provide that isn't provided by other agencies in the US?

Actually, a Democratic congresswoman repeated the lie about them providing mammograms (a lie that Ceclie Richards herself has promulgated before). But under oath, Richards came clean yesterday and corrected the congresswoman (who seemed surprised) that they don't have mammomgram machines at PP clinics and don't actually perform them themselves. They do screenings and refer women out for mammograms.

So they touch and feel and if a knot is present they refer them to a physician? I'm sure a lot of other organizations can do the same thing (health clinics might be better served to do this anyway).

Nope, only PP knows how to do it. The 9000+ community health centers out there are utterly incapable of doing cancer screenings, STD tests, providing contraception and so on. Can't do it. Gotta have an abortion mill to pull that off for all the poor folks.

I am not sure that the simple logic defined here wont just fall on long ago closed ears.

Look, people are passionate about this because Killing Babies because you are just to freaking lazy to go get birth control is on its face the acts of uneducated people. Sanger advocated a large part or even all this because she detested more black children being born.

Planned parenthood is just a few of 9000+ Health Centers for women. PP is the only one harvesting & selling baby body parts for profit. (Think the operative word was Lambor-ghoulies or something to that effect.) That is what this is about. No one, anywhere, at any time is advocating closing women's health clinics.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/opinion/columnists/ron-eachus/2015/09/28/deceptive-videos-planned-parenthood/72994738/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Planned Parenthood is a money laundering scheme for Democrats.

Total to Democrats: $560,385

Total to Republicans: $4,383

Recipient

Total Adler, Shelley (D-NJ) $4,500 Aguilar, Pete (D-CA) $2,500 Badey, George (D-PA) $1,000 Barber, Ron (D-AZ) $14,611 Bass, Karen (D-CA) $1,000 Beatty, Joyce (D-OH) $2,500 Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $2,000 Bera, Ami (D-CA) $11,000 Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY) $7,000 Bonamici, Suzanne (D-OR) $5,000 Boockvar, Kathryn (D-PA) $5,966 Boswell, Leonard (D-IA) $2,000 Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $2,000 Brownley, Julia (D-CA) $9,103 Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) $5,999 Capps, Lois (D-CA) $8,500 Cardenas, Tony (D-CA) $2,000 Carson, Andre (D-IN) $790 Castor, Kathy (D-FL) $2,000 Castro, Joaquin (D-TX) $3,500 Chu, Judy (D-CA) $1,000 Cicilline, David (D-RI) $6,000 Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) $1,000 Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $1,500 Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $2,500 Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $1,000 Connolly, Gerry (D-VA) $2,000 Cowan, Rich (D-WA) $2,000 Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $2,000 Davis, Danny K (D-IL) $2,500 Davis, Susan A (D-CA) $1,000 DeGette, Diana (D-CO) $6,000 DeLauro, Rosa L (D-CT) $5,392 DelBene, Suzan (D-WA) $5,000 Demings, Val (D-FL) $9,999 Deutch, Ted (D-FL) $1,000 Dingell, John D (D-MI) $1,000 Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $4,683 Edwards, Donna (D-MD) $5,000 Ellison, Keith (D-MN) $1,000 Esty, Elizabeth (D-CT) $5,000 Fitzgerald, Keith (D-FL) $9,999 Foster, Bill (D-IL) $2,500 Frankel, Lois J (D-FL) $10,000 Gabbard, Tulsi (D-HI) $5,000 Gallego, Pete (D-TX) $5,000 Garamendi, John (D-CA) $1,000 Garcia, Joe (D-FL) $5,000 Gill, David (D-IL) $5,000 Gillan, Kim (D-MT) $5,000 Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) $1,000 Grayson, Alan (D-FL) $3,500 Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) $1,000 Grisham, Michelle Lujan (D-NM) $5,000 Gulleson, Pam (D-ND) $5,467 Gutierrez, Luis V (D-IL) $1,000 Hahn, Janice (D-CA) $1,000 Hanabusa, Colleen (D-HI) $1,000 Hanna, Richard (R-NY) $4,383 Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) $1,000 Healy-Abrams, Joyce (D-OH) $2,000 Heck, Dennis (D-WA) $3,715 Hernandez, Jose M (D-CA) $5,000 Higgins, Brian M (D-NY) $1,000 Himes, Jim (D-CT) $1,000 Hochul, Kathleen (D-NY) $12,361 Honda, Mike (D-CA) $1,250 Horsford, Steven (D-NV) $5,000 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $1,000 Huffman, Jared (D-CA) $2,500 Israel, Steve (D-NY) $2,000 Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) $1,000 Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $1,000 Keating, Bill (D-MA) $1,000 Kennedy, Joe III (D-MA) $4,500 Kildee, Dan (D-MI) $3,595 Kilmer, Derek (D-WA) $6,000 Kind, Ron (D-WI) $1,000 Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-AZ) $3,500 Kreitlow, Patrick (D-WI) $5,000 Kuster, Ann Mclane (D-NH) $2,500 LaFerla, John (D-MD) $2,000 Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $1,000 Larson, John B (D-CT) $1,000 Lawson, Alfred Jr (D-FL) $2,500 Lee, Barbara (D-CA) $2,000 Lewis, John (D-GA) $5,000 Loebsack, David (D-IA) $7,000 Lowenthal, Alan (D-CA) $5,000 Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $4,989 Maffei, Dan (D-NY) $7,500 Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $1,000 Maloney, Sean Patrick (D-NY) $4,998 Marshall, Kate (D-NV) $3,467 McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) $1,000 McCollum, Betty (D-MN) $2,000 McDermott, Jim (D-WA) $1,000 McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $6,000 Meng, Grace (D-NY) $3,500 Miklosi, Joe (D-CO) $3,500 Moore, Gwen (D-WI) $4,423 Murphy, Mark (D-NY) $5,000 Murphy, Patrick (D-FL) $19,976 Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) $2,000 Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) $1,000 Neuhardt, Sharen (D-OH) $1,000 Nolan, Rick (D-MN) $5,000 Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D-DC) $1,000 O'Rourke, Beto (D-TX) $1,000 Obermueller, Mike (D-MN) $2,000 Oceguera, John (D-NV) $7,000 Owens, Bill (D-NY) $7,000 Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $2,000 Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $1,000 Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $1,000 Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $2,500 Peters, Gary (D-MI) $2,000 Peters, Scott (D-CA) $5,000 Pingree, Chellie (D-ME) $1,000 Pocan, Mark (D-WI) $4,000 Price, David (D-NC) $1,000 Quigley, Mike (D-IL) $2,000 Ruiz, Raul (D-CA) $6,000 Rush, Bobby L (D-IL) $1,000 Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) $1,000 Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $1,000 Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) $2,000 Schneider, Brad (D-IL) $2,500 Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $6,000 Schreibman, Julian D (D-NY) $6,000 Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) $1,000 Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) $5,911 Sewell, Terri A (D-AL) $1,000 Shaffer, Brandon (D-CO) $1,000 Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) $1,000 Shinagawa, Nathan (D-NY) $1,000 Sinema, Kyrsten (D-AZ) $4,999 Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) $9,999 Speier, Jackie (D-CA) $3,000 Stark, Pete (D-CA) $1,000 Strader, Aryanna (D-PA) $1,000 Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) $6,000 Takano, Mark (D-CA) $6,000 Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000 Titus, Dina (D-NV) $4,500 Trivedi, Manan (D-PA) $6,000 Tsongas, Niki (D-MA) $3,644 Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) $2,000 Veasey, Marc (D-TX) $2,500 Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $1,000 Vilsack, Christie (D-IA) $9,999 Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $6,000 Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $2,500 Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $1,000 Waxman, Henry (D-CA) $4,500 Welch, Peter (D-VT) $1,000 Weprin, David I (D-NY) $3,550 Wilson, Frederica (D-FL) $1,000 Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) $2,000 Zerban, Rob (D-WI) $3,500 Senate

Total to Democrats: $168,776

Total to Republicans: $274

Recipient

Total Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) $9,977 Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000 Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $10,022 Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) $1,500 Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $1,378 Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $11,399 Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) $137 Cardin, Ben (D-MD) $5,000 Carmona, Richard (D-AZ) $10,000 Carper, Tom (D-DE) $5,000 Casey, Bob (D-PA) $137 Collins, Susan M (R-ME) $137 Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $1,000 Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $7,500 Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) $7,000 Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) $9,298 Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $2,396 Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) $10,000 Kaine, Tim (D-VA) $845 Kerrey, Bob (D-NE) $5,000 Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $5,000 McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $8,715 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $5,999 Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) $1,000 Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) $4,981 Murray, Patty (D-WA) $0 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $10,000 Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $5,000 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $1,000 Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) $1,000 Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) $137 Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $8,000 Tester, Jon (D-MT) $10,000 Warren, Elizabeth (D-MA) $8,492 Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI) $6,000

Based on data released by the FEC on March 25, 2013.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

Incredible stats. No wonder the Dems like PP so much. They like money more than morals. Just cut those babies up and sell them. No problem mon.

[DKW 86 7,976]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

1) The parent-original videos were released at the same time. They are full length and upto 2+ hours long and arent edited at all. Claiming these videos are heavily edited is factually just showing you dont have the character to admit you are wrong. The unedited videos are out there. :

1:13:38

2:42:22

CNN's Camerota says videos not deceptively edited.

Second Report Confirms Planned Parenthood Sting Videos Are Honest

Forensic analysis confirms Planned Parenthood undercover videos were not manipulated.

Forensic analysis confirms Planned Parenthood ... - Reddit

2) There is no difference of opinions. The videos were not manipulated. This is a forced narrative by people that are running from the truth. You are no different from an AGW Denier at this point., You are denying forensic analysis of the videos.

3) When you have to stoop to quoting Media Matters, the WND of the Left, you are admitting you just got mudholed in the discussion.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

1) The parent-original videos were released at the same time. They are full length and upto 2+ hours long and arent edited at all. Claiming these videos are heavily edited is factually just showing you dont have the character to admit you are wrong. The unedited videos are out there. :

1:13:38

2:42:22

CNN's Camerota says videos not deceptively edited.

Second Report Confirms Planned Parenthood Sting Videos Are Honest

Forensic analysis confirms Planned Parenthood undercover videos were not manipulated.

Forensic analysis confirms Planned Parenthood ... - Reddit

2) There is no difference of opinions. The videos were not manipulated.

3) When you have to stoop to quoting Media Matters, the WND of the Left, you are admitting you just got mudholed in the discussion.

Did you actually read this before you included it?

Do you contend that your other sources have no bias?

Do you deny that the videos pretend to assert illegal activity that, so far, after investigation, has proven to be non-existent?

I am confused by your attempt at character assassination. I have not stated or, contended that the full length videos were "heavily" edited Interesting ploy and, in line the combination of deception and emotion at work.

[TitanTiger 21,680]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

See DKW's post. From the forensic audit Planned Parenthood commissioned:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue.

…But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-undercover-videos-report-finds-manipulation-121800.html

PPFA conveniently declined to mention those statements in any of their press releases. It has been concluded that the full videos are authentic.

The latest forensic audit says:

According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.

"This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme," the report states. "The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1's camera and Investigator 2's camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic." The report also confirms that "edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation."

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

See DKW's post. From the forensic audit Planned Parenthood commissioned:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue.

…But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

http://www.politico....ion-121800.html

PPFA conveniently declined to mention those statements in any of their press releases. It has been concluded that the full videos are authentic.

The latest forensic audit says:

According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.

"This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme," the report states. "The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1's camera and Investigator 2's camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic." The report also confirms that "edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation."

Again, I have not questioned the authenticity of the full length versions. I ask again, are they misleading/deceptive? Do they suggest criminal activity that, to this point and, after investigation, has proven to be absent.

[TitanTiger 21,680]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

See DKW's post. From the forensic audit Planned Parenthood commissioned:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue.

…But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

http://www.politico....ion-121800.html

PPFA conveniently declined to mention those statements in any of their press releases. It has been concluded that the full videos are authentic.

The latest forensic audit says:

According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.

"This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme," the report states. "The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1's camera and Investigator 2's camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic." The report also confirms that "edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation."

Again, I have not questioned the authenticity of the full length versions. I ask again, are they misleading/deceptive? Do they suggest criminal activity that, to this point and, after investigation, has proven to be absent.

First, as the audit shows, the stuff that was edited was non-pertinent stuff - bathroom breaks and such. It doesn't change the tenor or meaning of the conversation.

And no, I don't think they mislead. They say what they say, in full unedited glory. And as I've stated before, the loophole in the law is so ginormous, it may as well not exist. Basically all it accomplishes now is to keep the PP from selling them for extravagant amounts. But anyone with some common sense and a calculator can see that the clinics that partner with businesses like StemExpress to supply them with parts are making a nice chunk of change on the deal. They are not merely "covering costs" associated with the practice of gathering the needed parts. The buyers make it turnkey for them - supplying the boxes and dry ice for shipment. There's no need for the clinic to devote more resources to separating parts for shipment as they already do that for every abortion. They have to so they can be sure the procedure got out all of the baby. Anything left inside the womb can cause a life threatening infection to the once-to-be mother. The only added work is bagging the parts, placing them in the dry ice container, slapping some packing tape on it and letting the UPS or FedEx guy pick it up. Yet they get paid hundreds of dollars per specimen in many cases. It's not hard to figure out.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

See DKW's post. From the forensic audit Planned Parenthood commissioned:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue.

…But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

http://www.politico....ion-121800.html

PPFA conveniently declined to mention those statements in any of their press releases. It has been concluded that the full videos are authentic.

The latest forensic audit says:

According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.

"This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme," the report states. "The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1's camera and Investigator 2's camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic." The report also confirms that "edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation."

Again, I have not questioned the authenticity of the full length versions. I ask again, are they misleading/deceptive? Do they suggest criminal activity that, to this point and, after investigation, has proven to be absent.

First, as the audit shows, the stuff that was edited was non-pertinent stuff - bathroom breaks and such. It doesn't change the tenor or meaning of the conversation.

And no, I don't think they mislead. They say what they say, in full unedited glory. And as I've stated before, the loophole in the law is so ginormous, it may as well not exist. Basically all it accomplishes now is to keep the PP from selling them for extravagant amounts. But anyone with some common sense and a calculator can see that the clinics that partner with businesses like StemExpress to supply them with parts are making a nice chunk of change on the deal. They are not merely "covering costs" associated with the practice of gathering the needed parts. The buyers make it turnkey for them - supplying the boxes and dry ice for shipment. There's no need for the clinic to devote more resources to separating parts for shipment as they already do that for every abortion. They have to so they can be sure the procedure got out all of the baby. Anything left inside the womb can cause a life threatening infection to the once-to-be mother. The only added work is bagging the parts, placing them in the dry ice container, slapping some packing tape on it and letting the UPS or FedEx guy pick it up. Yet they get paid hundreds of dollars per specimen in many cases. It's not hard to figure out.

So they are breaking the law?

[TitanTiger 21,680]

I disagree. PP was not even on your radar until the edited videos were released. You continue to talk about what you believe to true rather than what you know to be fact. I disagree with your methods.

PP has always been on my radar in the sense that I detest organizations that valorize baby killing. I'm funny that way. But when the videos (which were released in full, and two forensic audits have confirmed were not altered in any significant way) were released and I realized how much federal funding they pull down that keeps them in business, I was incensed.

I am not sure this is completely factual. There seems to be some difference of opinion and, beneficial use of semantics.

http://www.statesman...thood/72994738/

http://mediamatters....y-edited/205264

I see, and appreciate your emotion. I do not feel that emotion, or the cause, gives anyone license, or justification, to misrepresent, amend, or conceal the truth.

See DKW's post. From the forensic audit Planned Parenthood commissioned:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue.

…But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

http://www.politico....ion-121800.html

PPFA conveniently declined to mention those statements in any of their press releases. It has been concluded that the full videos are authentic.

The latest forensic audit says:

According to a news report, the extensive report finds answer is no and the only edits in the videos consisted of bathroom breaks and time eating meals.

"This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme," the report states. "The uniformity between the footage from Investigator 1's camera and Investigator 2's camera also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic." The report also confirms that "edits made to the Full Footage videos [for the shorter YouTube videos] were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, such as restroom breaks, meals, and other similar periods lacking pertinent conversation."

Again, I have not questioned the authenticity of the full length versions. I ask again, are they misleading/deceptive? Do they suggest criminal activity that, to this point and, after investigation, has proven to be absent.

First, as the audit shows, the stuff that was edited was non-pertinent stuff - bathroom breaks and such. It doesn't change the tenor or meaning of the conversation.

And no, I don't think they mislead. They say what they say, in full unedited glory. And as I've stated before, the loophole in the law is so ginormous, it may as well not exist. Basically all it accomplishes now is to keep the PP from selling them for extravagant amounts. But anyone with some common sense and a calculator can see that the clinics that partner with businesses like StemExpress to supply them with parts are making a nice chunk of change on the deal. They are not merely "covering costs" associated with the practice of gathering the needed parts. The buyers make it turnkey for them - supplying the boxes and dry ice for shipment. There's no need for the clinic to devote more resources to separating parts for shipment as they already do that for every abortion. They have to so they can be sure the procedure got out all of the baby. Anything left inside the womb can cause a life threatening infection to the once-to-be mother. The only added work is bagging the parts, placing them in the dry ice container, slapping some packing tape on it and letting the UPS or FedEx guy pick it up. Yet they get paid hundreds of dollars per specimen in many cases. It's not hard to figure out.

So they are breaking the law?

I think they are breaking the law. They aren't supposed to be making money off of this, but they are. But the law is vague and allows them the wiggle room to get out of it. So we need to tighten up the law so it's clear to them that this is not an acceptable practice.