The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). (Did not include actual photos, cause many folks find them disturbing. Viewable on the internetz though. Translucent skin and such. But above pic is reasonable IMO). I wonder what age of fetus the biotech companies desire. Is it 12 weeks gestation? Is it 20? I don't know.
Also, if you think the joke she makes about buying a Lamborghini is anything but a joke, just take a look at PP's budget: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/ Neither the source of their money nor the amount of the budget that has to do with performing abortions would align with some scheme to get-rich-quick off of selling babies. About 3% of their financial resources go towards abortion services and 90% of the abortions done are in the first trimester. Even in the videos you see Gatter mention the extremely low number of second trimester operations and the scarcity of the type of tissue needed by the researcher. Gatter actually offers a lower price and the "buyer" is the one who insists on raising it to $100. For those of you who understand how a haggling situation works, the buyer is the one who WANTS a lower price because it means she'll pay less. Gatter states that their volume is 800 abortions per year, about 60 in the second trimester, and the researcher only wants to buy intact specimens. At the very maximum, PP would then receive $6000 in compensation for the entire transaction. That amount is a pittance to a giant organization like PP and I could certainly believe that that money is just to cover the expenses that donating the tissue would require. Gatter isn't "haggling," she's just uncertain what the actual reimbursement for the use of time/services at facilities will require. She also is poking fun at the idea that she's dealing in baby parts (which obviously has come back to bite her in the ass).
Again, many tens of millions of taxpayers don't want to fund abortions. We are not happy about 500+ million per year going to PP. It sure seems like she is haggling. Dr. Gatter does not know whether a certain amount of fetal tissue can be sold for $50, $75, or $100?? Seems like that should be known. I agree that the joke looks very bad in this light. And I also agree that it probably was a joke.
PP is a billion-dollar organization. They stand to gain all of $6000 from researchers over this. It's basically a donation just as a token gesture for the time spent. Even if you think that they shouldn't get any compensation for the inconvenience (which is fair), making this out to be a huge conspiracy or whatever is way overblowing it. Honestly, I think there are much bigger problems with Planned Parenthood that are genuinely abusive and should be investigated and possibly pressured on funding, but the notion that they "sell babies" isn't one of them.
PP performs more than 300,000 abortions per year. Don't mix one section vs the entire organization. There have been a tiny percentage of abortion docs caught red-handed using ghastly practices. But I personally believe that the vast majority of PP providers are following gold standards of medical practice. I have consistently mentioned induced abortions and fetuses, so not sure why you keep quoting "sell babies" and such.
That's fine. I tend to agree that I don't want to either, but I do want to give women the benefit of the many other reproductive services that PP provides, such as STI testing, education and prevention. I want women to never have to be in the position where they feel like they need to have an abortion, but unfortunately there will always be extenuating circumstances. Wouldn't the fact that she doesn't know suggest that she is therefore unfamiliar with the practice?
That is fair. My response there was unclear because I typed quickly and didn't clarify. I was quoting the "sell babies" part not as a reference to you so much as out of my own distaste for people still using that phrase without trying to look at the underlying issues.
Dr. Mary Gatter, President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council. Based on that title she should know darn near everything on the topic. When a patient asks me about the cost of a procedure, test, med etc... I don't ever guess. If I cannot quickly get them the exact answer, I personally hand them off to someone (like a pharmacist or lab supervisor) that has the answer. Edit: Pleasant exchange @Bellagion , your perspective has given me a better understanding of the overall situation.
Also @DarkJello I apologize if my responses appeared antagonistic. I originally came into the thread following another article (came up on FB) that relied heavily on the "baby selling" rhetoric that a friend was making a huge deal about. My posts here bled over from that argument and weren't intended to equate your position with that one.
I meant that she was unfamiliar with the practice of selling tissue specifically, and so didn't expect a certain amount of money because she was not in the market for tissue. She should certainly know the cost of procedures and tests.
Perchance the tiniest bit rowdy, but certainly logical and balanced throughout. No harm, and no foul. Out for now, as it be Mr. Robot time.
That's an issue of definition no? Many people define a fetus as a baby. Including dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby?s=t Merriam-Webster doesn't, but I rather lost faith in them with the whole "literally" thing. Besides, how many times have you seen in media or maybe even in person some pregnant woman utter the phrase: "honey, the baby's kicking" or something to that effect. Anyway, the point is, I get why you're upset and reactionary ("baby" often associates with post-birth humans). But I think you're also (over?)reacting to semantics. Call me crazy, but I don't think they'll put their illegally gotten funds on their public ledgers, and/or they'd hide/launder it in some fashion. Now, I do think it was a joke, but the point is that such an article won't amount to much in terms of "proof" one way or another. They aren't the only game in town. Besides, cutting off federal funding would not mean destruction of the organization inherently. Provided they could recover their image properly, they could function as most charities do, and get by with private donations. EDIT: And/or local tax funds, where the people are willing to have their tax funds to towards that.
This is just a general observation, and not directed at any side or anyone in particular here, but it's always been interesting to me how people can be so certain about the entirety of things based on seeing parts of the whole. For example, even with Pox, there are people who are certain we do X for Y reasons or don't do Z, and they'll cite their reasons why they think that. And to be fair, it's usually logical from their POV, but often I think... it's actually the opposite, but there's no way you could know that unless you were told a lot more things, and perhaps more importantly, believed those things. I don't have a problem believing those things because I experienced them, but when I re-tell things people do have to take it on faith.
Only in America people could outrage so much over abortions, have GOP members claim PP kills 90.000 babies a year and in the same breath ask for more freedom and less gun control. As a European, it's a great source of entertainment.
Right... because freedom and the right to self defense are entirely at odds with the idea that murder* is bad. I'm no fan of the GOP or political shenanigans in general, but you're really taking an overly simplified view of things. "Hah! I'm European! Those silly Americans are merely my entertainment!" That is a really short-sighted view of things. It gets much more interesting when you look at the reasons why such rhetoric might be stated and in what way. It's not (always) without thought or logic, even if its not necessarily a line of logic you personally would ascribe to. Not only that, but it is well known that the US has influence in Europe (and the reverse), so properly figuring out it's politics beyond simply ignorantly laughing at it is a good thing in the long run. Besides, there are far more "entertaining" and true conflicting statements within the GOP's rhetoric. "The Terrorists hate our Freedom! So we need to have the NSA spy on everyone." "Iraq was harboring al-Qaeda" "In the name of peace we need to bomb Syria"... wait, no, that last one was Democrats. Well, same difference. Besides, it's not like there aren't abortion-related controversies in Europe (or at least the UK, pardon the sensationalized headline, but I'm not the one that decided on it): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html *(Again, this is a matter of definitions. To those that view a fetus as being an "actual person" [as opposed to a "growth" or "potential person"] killing them is tantamount to infanticide, barring specific exceptions. Feel free to disagree with that point of view if you wish, but at least try to understand where others are coming from before you try to make fun of them. If nothing else, it'll let you make fun of them more appropriately.)
Quoting tabloids doesn't necessarily indicate anything much other than the fact that tabloids say a lot of damn silly things.
Must say your freedom to bear arms is working really well, but I didn't mean it insulting. Maybe slightly disappointed.
You can be entertaining too, BP. Mostly in a good way, but every so often it is annoying. Just depends. Please elaborate more on your first sentence. Are you saying that only in America people with all those attributes at the same time exist? Or that each attribute, individually, exists in the most extreme form within America? (Maybe peeps with certain attributes left Europe generations ago, thus such a stark divide between Papa and the pups).
Why thank you, yes it is. The BoRs is meant to shackle the government down, and make it less able to oppress the citizenry. Guns is one part of the equation. Too many politicians are intraspecies predators, and until that changes there is no valid reason to alter the constitution or BoRs. Background checks and such are logical. Actual real military grade weaponry being very limited makes sense. Taking away "assault weapons" is pure silliness. Also, I and my family have a right to life AND thus it is only natural that we should be able to defend our own lives. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Pic of my 2 loudest kids follows:
