- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding
Yes, and considering these are the clinics to which PP refers women, yes.
See, we're getting to the point where all you're really saying is "because I said so."
Frustrated? You're starting to act like a child. I have given comparatively lengthy responses to everything, detailing my reasoning. All you're really doing in return is saying "no. Yes. It just is." So, if anyone needs the lecture, it's you.
Well, no; it says results of studies have varied.
Look, I don't even care; I wasn't even asserting it for its own sake. It's about the bogusness of this being health issue. If it DID increase the risk, and SGK pulled its funding on its basis, the outcry would have been the same. I think any honest observer would agree.
They don't do mammograms, you're right, they do breast exams which is what I said.
Did Komen say that they were going to give the money to clinics that do mammograms? And if they did, do those clinics have the same wide reaching access to low income women?
Yes, and considering these are the clinics to which PP refers women, yes.
No, it's understanding that PP has a certain level of access to low income women.
No, putting politics before access to low income women for breast exams is a big deal.
See, we're getting to the point where all you're really saying is "because I said so."
In fact, I think you're being hyperbolic about how much hyperbole was actually involved.
Frustrated? You're starting to act like a child. I have given comparatively lengthy responses to everything, detailing my reasoning. All you're really doing in return is saying "no. Yes. It just is." So, if anyone needs the lecture, it's you.
No, because it actually is nonsense. Ask the American Cancer Society. In fact, they say that full term pregnancy increases ones risk for breast cancer for a short term, so it's actually the exact opposite of what you claim.
Well, no; it says results of studies have varied.
Look, I don't even care; I wasn't even asserting it for its own sake. It's about the bogusness of this being health issue. If it DID increase the risk, and SGK pulled its funding on its basis, the outcry would have been the same. I think any honest observer would agree.