• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

pp president fired, only on the job 8 months

Sampson Simpson said:
It's what happens when you can pull stuff out of your ass, when facts and reality doesn't matter, whatever you want to believe is true
Click to expand...

Sounds about right.
 
nota bene said:
I see. New laws caused her to be fired. :roll:
Click to expand...


Lursa said:
New laws can change the entire landscape for any service or industry. That means there may be many employees not prepared to deal with them. The proposed new laws may have created the need for a greater response to support abortion rights at PP...if they believe another person would be better in Wen's role to lead that initiative to fight more...it's very reasonable.

IMO it's not a reflection on Wen, I liked her focus on women's healthcare and hope she is well-received elsewhere.
Click to expand...


I agree.

From the New York Times :


Dr. Wen’s replacement, Ms. McGill Johnson, has served on Planned Parenthood’s board for nearly a decade, including previously as its chairwoman.

“I am proud to step in to serve as acting president and facilitate a smooth leadership transition in this critical moment for Planned Parenthood and the patients and communities we serve,” Ms. McGill Johnson said in a statement. “I thank Dr. Wen for her service and her commitment to patients.”
Click to expand...


Planned Parenthood Ousts President, Seeking a More Political Approach - The New York Times
 
smallvoice said:
Ah, well, didn't Roe v. Wade give the states that authority?
Click to expand...

No. The states can only take interest after viability, approx 24 weeks.

And all the proposed new laws attempting earlier restrictions have been blocked so far. I dont think any have been enacted.
 
smallvoice said:
Ah, well, didn't Roe v. Wade give the states that authority?
Click to expand...

No. States can take a compelling interest after viability and proscribe ( ban ) abortions after viability with is about 23 to 24 weeks .

Casey says states cannot cause women an undue burden when seeking a legal abortion.

And Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt strict down Texas laws that required abortion doctors
have admitting privilege s at a nearby hospital.
From Wiki :

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion.
Click to expand...

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
I see. New laws caused her to be fired. :roll:
Click to expand...

She wasn't adapting or did not want to adapt. Many people on her level fail to adapt and the companies go another route.

The law did not cause her to be fired. Her failure to adapt did.

The right wing did not cause her to be fired. Her failure to adapt to the onslaught of attacks did.

Her vision was to be a first and foremost a healthcare institution. She wanted healthcare to be first and foremost which I wholeheartedly appreciate. But the reality is that she lived in a world many politicians make it their life's work trying to bring the organization down. Now, if she was in the organization at a time that it was not politically under attack on a minute to minute basis...she would probably have thrived as president. Right person for the wrong time.

The sad thing is that if not under attack, PP could probably be more effective preventing abortions. The millions spent on political crap could be turned making things like long term contraception more affordable.
 
Lursa said:
No. The states can only take interest after viability, approx 24 weeks.

And all the proposed new laws attempting earlier restrictions have been blocked so far. I dont think any have been enacted.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll need to get that fixed next term.
 
smallvoice said:
I guess we'll need to get that fixed next term.
Click to expand...

Feel free to explain your ideas on what legal, Constitutional grounds SCOTUS could do that?

Let's see you actually articulate some knowledge of the issue beyond your feelings.

Please note: so far, every one of the new laws that the neanderthal states tried to pass on extreme restrictions on abortion have all been blocked and none has gone into effect so far.
 
smallvoice said:
I guess we'll need to get that fixed next term.
Click to expand...

It is not that easy since even with a very conservative court Roe was not overturned in the Casey decision.


Roe has been revisited 10 times.

When Justice Kavanaugh was interviewed by Congress before he became Confirmed he said that Casey was precedent on precedent.

Let’s review when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned. In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Look up :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt


From the following:


Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.

(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.
Click to expand...


Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
It is not that easy since even with a very conservative court Roe was not overturned in the Casey decision.


Roe has been revisited 10 times.

When Justice Kavanaugh was interviewed by Congress before he became Confirmed he said that Casey was precedent on precedent.

Let’s review when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned , it was not overturned. In fact the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Look up :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt


From the following:




Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?
Click to expand...

Republicans put up these lame “challenges “ to RvW to feed their naive base. Republicans don’t want RvW overturned, they would lose a large portion of their base.
 
Opinion | Leana Wen: Why I Left Planned Parenthood - The New York Times

Good riddance to this woman.

So some chick got sad after she had her pregnancy. Maybe you shouldn't have listened to the priests that said children are a "gift from gawd" and gotten an abortion instead. Planned Parenthood's focus needs to be on providing abortion care and fighting for reproductive freedom, not helping fundie women with "postpartum depression" with their feels.
 
year2late said:
Well, Minnie, you outed Bucky with his own posting history and chased him away from his own thread.:2wave:
Click to expand...

I didn't run away or was "chased away." I spread my seed around this forum; some grow some wilt away.

Leana Wen was a solid choice for this organization however Planned Parenthood revealed its real colors: They are an extremely political organization, even more, political than the NRA.

Healthcare is not a political issue but the left continuously wants to make it one. We do not want to tax abortion with our tax money. We do not want to gut all abortion laws making it unsafe for women and their babies.

Planned Parenthood is a politically dishonest organization and they manipulate their books. They should at minimum be charged with accounting fraud.
 
minnie616 said:
Seems to me it was the pro life people who passed the very restrictive anti abortion laws that led to her departure.

From the Reuter’s article I posted.
Click to expand...

That's a nice theory detective pikachu but the pro-life was already there well before she arrived.
 
Bucky said:
Planned Parenthood's Next President Will Be Leana Wen : NPR

What a great hire from Planned Parenthood. Selecting a doctor and not a lobbyist or politician is refreshing news.
Click to expand...

Bucky said:
Planned Parenthood president ousted after just 8 months on the job | Fox News

a sign that the company is on a death spiral. they will probably insert someone even more extreme and controversial.
Click to expand...

Bucky said:
I didn't run away or was "chased away." I spread my seed around this forum; some grow some wilt away.

Leana Wen was a solid choice for this organization however Planned Parenthood revealed its real colors: They are an extremely political organization, even more, political than the NRA.

Healthcare is not a political issue but the left continuously wants to make it one. We do not want to tax abortion with our tax money. We do not want to gut all abortion laws making it unsafe for women and their babies.

Planned Parenthood is a politically dishonest organization and they manipulate their books. They should at minimum be charged with accounting fraud.
Click to expand...

You just can't get your stories straight.:lamo

I am not sure you are the one to talk about accounting fraud at Planned Parenthood. As I recall, you stated you had special inside information about Planned Parenthood because you worked for them - doing their books. Interesting since at the time you believed Planned Parenthood charged about 3 grand for an abortion.:lamo
 
Bucky said:
That's a nice theory detective pikachu but the pro-life was already there well before she arrived.
Click to expand...

Pro life people were trying to pass 20 week abortion laws in states or pass laws requiring wider aisles in abortion clinics to make it harder for women to access abortions but the undue burden backfired on the Texas conservatives in 2016 when they tried to pass a law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals.

They were not trying to pass laws that blatantly criminalized and punished abortion doctors for performing abortions during the first trimester.
 
minnie616 said:
Pro life people were trying to pass 20 week abortion laws in states or pass laws requiring wider aisles in abortion clinics to make it harder for women to access abortions but the undue burden backfired on the Texas conservatives in 2016 when they tried to pass a law requiring abortion doctors to have to admit privileges in nearby hospitals.

They were not trying to pass laws that blatantly criminalized and punished abortion doctors for performing abortions during the first trimester.
Click to expand...

those are reasonable laws. Why should we discriminate against the handicap?
 
There was no need for wider aisles, PP was doing fine w/out them.
 
Bucky said:
those are reasonable laws. Why should we discriminate against the handicap?
Click to expand...

There is NO discrimination against the handicapped at abortion clinics.

I was talking about when Texas passed laws that required abortion clinics to be Built as Ambulatory Surgical Centers.
( The Texas Congress was hoping the cost to meet the regulations would close many abortion clinics in Texas )

From the following:

that would require abortions to only be performed in facilities that meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center, or ASC. Miller has one of the five ASC abortion clinics already up and running in Texas. I took a tour of the San Antonio facility in April. Once we got past the lobby, the facility looked much more like an emergency room than a doctor’s office –including the bright red line that divides the sterile surgical suites from the rest of the center.

“And you see basically an operating room suite that looks like we’re doing brain surgery right. I mean, there’s giant lights on the wall. There’s a big operating room table. There’s a full anesthesia machine. This room is about three or four times the size of a procedure room that would be in an abortion facility," Miller said as we toured one of the clinic surgical suites.

Miller said ASCs, with physical requirements including wide doorways, separate janitors’ closets, and environmental controls that keep rooms cold and blankets warmed to specific temperatures, were created for surgeries.

“Abortion is a procedure. It’s not really a surgery. There’s not any incisions, there’s not any stitches. The procedure itself takes maybe five or 10 minutes. So it’s not like an operation that has multiple physicians where the patients knee is open or her belly is open for a sort of more invasive that this sort of ambulatory surgical center was really devised for," Miller said.
Click to expand...

Issue in Texas Abortion Debate: What's an Ambulatory Surgical Center? | KUT
 
Bucky said:
those are reasonable laws. Why should we discriminate against the handicap?
Click to expand...

They're incredibly hypocritical, since those same people were not trying to create the same laws for midwives. They didnt care if those deliveries went bad...

So it's a lie that those things were being proposed for abortion just for medically 'protective' reasons, to make things safer.
 
A lot of people on this thread do not seem to get why Wen was totally out of sync with PP.

Planned Parenthood has one overriding mission: planned natural parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is not just about "health care." it is about planning the timing, spacing, and other aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. That is why it valiantly fought to educate people about contraception and for its legality. Abortion is one more form of postconceptual birth control, as is Plan B, so of course PP offered those when they were legal.

In the sixties, the federal government asked PP to offer many aspects of low-cost health care and gave it funds for this. They asked because PP was a respected and widespread organization with offices even in remote places. After abortion became legal and PP included abortion services, PP came to separate its general funds and funds related to abortion services so that its non-governmental contributors could be specific about contributions if they wished.

PP would never go under as a nonprofit if the government stopped its funds. PP would go right back to its mission of planned parenthood. It might have to get rid of the extra, not primary, health care services it offered from the late sixties for government's convenience.

Contraception and abortion will not go away. Both have been politically challenged by some pro-life activists (the RC Church tells its members not to use contraception). PP has been a major voice for the legality of both contraception and postconceptual birth control. not just for health.

Dr. Wen's position, at odds with the mission, history, and spirit of PP, appears to have been taken partly as a strategy appealing even to the people against abortion who have abortions, anyway. However, more aggressive anti-abortion activists only spur the pro-choice side and anti-abortion laws would only make pro-choice forces activate their planned underground movement to help women get abortions if they wish.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom