• 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!

Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

Harshaw said:
OK, you're just babbling incoherently.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand simple English, there's nothing I can do to help you understand better. :shrug:
 
Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

nonpareil said:
Maybe people need to learn to ask the right questions. Is Planned Parenthood's report any different from any other clinics? Did Planned Parenthood try to hide any information?
Click to expand...

Since you know the right questions to ask, perhaps you can provide us all with the answers?
 
Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

nota bene said:
Since you know the right questions to ask, perhaps you can provide us all with the answers?
Click to expand...

No. It's a silly assumption to think that a person who know the right questions to ask has the right answers. But according to the legal system, the assumption is innocent until proven guilty, it's on the party who think Planned Parenthood is guilty to show that they have tried to hide information or falsified their reports.
 
Last edited:
Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

While I’ve heard all the ruckus in this thread about cancer/abortion accusations my understanding about the specifics have little to do with it. True the players have underlying agendas but on face they seem legitimate. Consider:

Allegiance Defense Fund sent a report to Cliff Stearns that stating “These ten state audits found numerous improper practices resulting in significant Title XIX-Medicaid overpayments of nearly $8 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates for family planning and reproductive health services claims,” the report said. “Furthermore, thirty-eight federal audits of state family planning programs by HHS-OIG found between $88 million and $99 million in overbilling.” I have yet to find these HHS reports but 38 sounds pretty compelling.

One in Five Planned Parenthood Affiliates Face Financial Controversy, Report Says | CNSnews.com

Cliff Stearns initiated an investigation and sent a letter to PP stating ‘The Committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by PPFA and its affiliates relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion’. Further they request information that details ‘how much PPFA and each affiliate expended and received in Title XIX Medicaid funding…”.

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/letterplanedparenthoodinvestivation.pdf

Notwithstanding the additional funding restrictions of abortion this would appear a legitimate investigation considering the allegations specific to the misuse of Medicaid funds.

SGK stated their ‘cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities’

Cancer charity halts Planned Parenthood grants - CBS News

Again, while I understand the presumed underlying agenda if this investigation was allowed to proceed to fruition AND nothing was found one could presume that SGK would reinstate the grant monies as if they didn't it would look very hypocritical. If on the other hand PP was found guilty of whatever it would legitimize SGK’s denial of the grant. Ultimately what is PP afraid of if they are innocent? Personally I could care less but $88-99 million in overbilling is a pretty large chunk of change...
 
I love it.

So Komen cuts funding to planned parenthood due to an established rule within their organization that is under investigation by authorities.

People proclaim that despite this established rule being clearly within the Komen organizational structure that it was done for political reasons.

They then start urging people to stop donating to Komen (most of the time from what I saw without suggesting any other alternative breast cancer charity to donate too) and belittle the good they do becuase they're "political", all based off the fact that because they don't like the action and view it as politically against their politics and an organization they support due to their political beliefs.

Bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites throughout this.

If it was in their rules, they should've cut the funding until such point that the rules got changed. If it was politicall motivated, they shouldn't have done it. REGARDLESS as to whether or not it was legit or political, Komen has done substantially good in regards to the research, education, and fight against Breast Cancer and its absolutely dispicable and low that so many people are happily trashing, belittling, and insulting the organization and its efforts (I swear every stupid "pink spatula" comment I see lowers and lowers my respect for those stating it). If you didn't like the action by all means you should contact the organization, complain, suggest they change it. Hell, if you wanted to suggest an alternative breast cancer orgnaization more power too you. But for people to belittle it, to encourage people to not donate to it and nothing beyond that, to demonize the work they do all because you disagree with either a political position for your political reasons, or a legitimate business decision for your political reasons is dispicable.

Would breast cancer research suddenly no longer be funded and be successful if Planned Parenthood didn't get funding? Would there be no breast exams done or provided if Planned Parenthood didn't get funding? Would there have been no further education of Breast Cancer if Planned Parenthood didn't get funding? Yes, if it was a political reasoning that caused this action that's a bad thing...but significantlly less bad imho then actively attempting to harm an organizatoin that was and is still SIGNIFICANTLY providing a huge service to women, and people in general, across the United States and the world due to your OWN political issues and hangups.
 
Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

nonpareil said:
Learn the definition of what a lie means, and also a smear. That piece is a smear, that 3% of the services provided by planned parenthood is abortion is not a lie unless you claim their reports are false. That 10% of the people it served seek abortion does not contradict the fact that 3% of the services it provided is abortion.
Click to expand...

Question, because I honestly don't know....

What are "emergency contraception kits"? If its the "morning after pill" then that somewhat skews the numbers as that is one of those things that is a bit controversial in regards to whether or not its viewed as a "contraceptive" or if its viewed as "abortion".

IF that is what those "emergency contraception kits" are...and as I said, I'm not versed on this enough to know for sure which is why I'm asking...then that skews things a bit. For those that view any killing after conception, such as the morning after pill, as "abortoin" and not contraception then it'd move those emergency kits from Contraception to Abortion services. That changes the numbers as such...

Contraception would becoming 21.7% of their total 2008 costs where as Abortion services would make up 16.1%. Still a smaller fraction than their contraceptive, STD, and cancer screening expenditures, but significantly more than the 3% that is being presented.

Also, since I saw it mentioned...in 2008 their resources spent in regards to adoption is was .02% of their total funds.

I disagree with the notion that planned parenthood is primarily about abortion, and I have no issues with contraception being provided...but I do think its worth while to paint an honest picture based on the mentality and views of BOTH SIDES regarding their expenditures if that $1.5 million of emergency contraception kits actually is the morning after pill.
 
Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

nonpareil said:
If you can't understand simple English, there's nothing I can do to help you understand better. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I understood the English; it just didn't say anything.
 
Zyphlin said:
I love it.

So Komen cuts funding to planned parenthood due to an established rule within their organization that is under investigation by authorities.

People proclaim that despite this established rule being clearly within the Komen organizational structure that it was done for political reasons.

They then start urging people to stop donating to Komen (most of the time from what I saw without suggesting any other alternative breast cancer charity to donate too) and belittle the good they do becuase they're "political", all based off the fact that because they don't like the action and view it as politically against their politics and an organization they support due to their political beliefs.
Click to expand...

When you become the enemy, everything you do becomes evil. This includes everything that was formerly good. You must embrace the totality, or there is not one shred of good about you.
 
Zyphlin said:
I love it.

So Komen cuts funding to planned parenthood due to an established rule within their organization that is under investigation by authorities.

People proclaim that despite this established rule being clearly within the Komen organizational structure that it was done for political reasons.
Bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites throughout this.
Click to expand...

Yes, the rightwingers are sanctimonious hypocrits, which is why they have been so dishonest about the facts. For example, the way you describe the situtation was completely dishonest
 
sangha said:
It seems that the anti-abortion rights nazi who used Komen to promote her own political agenda has been kicked out of the Komen org.
Click to expand...

Per your link: "I really felt I had a responsibility to step aside so that [Komen] could refocus on their mission," Handel told Fox News.

sangha said:
For example, the way you describe the situtation was completely dishonest
Click to expand...

How is your claim ‘kicked out’ honest? Which I believe would qualify as being a 'sanctimonious hypocrite'...thank you for that.
 
sangha said:
Yes, the rightwingers are sanctimonious hypocrits, which is why they have been so dishonest about the facts. For example, the way you describe the situtation was completely dishonest
Click to expand...

Is it? Please enlighten me where I was wrong and correct me. I'd be happy to hear it as I'm trying to best understand the situation from rather neutral sources which, to be quite honest, is rather difficult. What did I say that was incorrect?
 
sangha said:
It seems that the anti-abortion rights nazi who used Komen to promote her own political agenda has been kicked out of the Komen org.
Karen Handel explains Komen resignation, blasts Planned Parenthood - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Do you have any kind of proof in this what so ever that the action was done because of political motivations and not because of what the Komen rules regarding funding stated? Simply pointing to an individual in power who holds a political position does not prove, nor indicate clearly, that the move was done for political motivations.
 
Zyphlin said:
Is it? Please enlighten me where I was wrong and correct me. I'd be happy to hear it as I'm trying to best understand the situation from rather neutral sources which, to be quite honest, is rather difficult. What did I say that was incorrect?
Click to expand...

It was dishonest for you to argue that because it was an "established rule" it was apolitical.
 
Zyphlin said:
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Do you have any kind of proof in this what so ever that the action was done because of political motivations and not because of what the Komen rules regarding funding stated? Simply pointing to an individual in power who holds a political position does not prove, nor indicate clearly, that the move was done for political motivations.
Click to expand...

It was in the articl I linked to. Why don't you read it?

And I notice that you're willing to ask me to prove my claim, but you're unwilling to do what you ask of others and prove what you dishonestly claimed. That is sanctimonious hypocricy
 
Zyphlin said:
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Do you have any kind of proof in this what so ever that the action was done because of political motivations and not because of what the Komen rules regarding funding stated? Simply pointing to an individual in power who holds a political position does not prove, nor indicate clearly, that the move was done for political motivations.
Click to expand...
Sure:

1. The VP who just resigned said before becoming joining SGK, "I will be a pro-life governor who will work tirelessly to promote a culture of life in Georgia. ... I believe that each and every unborn child has inherent dignity, that every abortion is a tragedy, and that government has a role, along with the faith community, in encouraging women to choose life in even the most difficult of circumstances. ...since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."

2. This "rule" that you keep referencing (which by the way was implemented after the aforementioned VP joined SGK) was ONLY enforced with Planned Parenthood NOT with other organizations undergoing investigation including Penn State and Parkland Memorial Hospital.

In conclusion, SGK only enforced their "rule" with PP even though other organizations getting funding from SGK were breaking that "rule" as well. The VP who just resigned clearly stated that she did not support PP in her run for government. Not so coincidentally, the "rule" that affected PP and that de-funding of PP happened after she joined SGK.

Sources:
Who Is Behind Susan G. Komen's Split From Planned Parenthood? - Nicholas Jackson - Health - The Atlantic
Komen's $7.5 Million Grant to Penn State Appears to Violate New Policy | Mother Jones
Komen's Brinker denies political pressure in Planned Parenthood cutoff | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth
 
sangha said:
It was dishonest for you to argue that because it was an "established rule" it was apolitical.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. On the contrary throughout my entire post I stated that it could quite possibly be a political thing, and if it was that's problematic. However, it absolutely was an "established" rule. THAT part is fact. Whether or not it was or wasn't political is purely opinion at this point unless you can provide me with some sort of evidence suggesting that it was done for political reasons. Throughout my post I repeatedly suggested there was the possability it could be political:

Zyphlin said:
If it was politicall motivated, they shouldn't have done it.
...
REGARDLESS as to whether or not it was legit or political, Komen has done substantially good in regards to the research, education, and fight against Breast Cancer
...
all because you disagree with either a political position for your political reasons, or a legitimate business decision for your political reasons is dispicable.
...
Yes, if it was a political reasoning that caused this action that's a bad thing
Click to expand...

All comments in the very post you quoted that suggest that there is a distinct possability it was political. The only dishonest thing I see here is you attempting to suggest that I stated it was definitively apolitical.
 
sangha said:
It was in the articl I linked to. Why don't you read it?
Click to expand...

I did. I see it stating that she was someone that didn't like planned parenthood and was pro-life. I saw nothing in it that suggested she did it because of those reasons. Please, perhaps I missed something, quote me the line stating proof she did it for political reasons and I'll go back and relook at it.

And I notice that you're willing to ask me to prove my claim, but you're unwilling to do what you ask of others and prove what you dishonestly claimed. That is sanctimonious hypocricy
Click to expand...

Please, what dishonest claim did I make? The only one you've suggested so far is the dishonest and wrongful claim that I stated it was definitively apolitical.
 
Zyphlin said:
I said no such thing. On the contrary throughout my entire post I stated that it could quite possibly be a political thing, and if it was that's problematic. However, it absolutely was an "established" rule. THAT part is fact. Whether or not it was or wasn't political is purely opinion at this point unless you can provide me with some sort of evidence suggesting that it was done for political reasons. Throughout my post I repeatedly suggested there was the possability it could be political:
Click to expand...

You also calimed that the people who criticized Komen did so, not because they objected to a non-profit engaging in politics, but simply because of their politics

they don't like the action and view it as politically against their politics and an organization they support due to their political beliefs
Click to expand...

Since you're so big on "causation" and proof :)roll:) let's see your proof that the critics are "sanctimonious hypocrites" whose criticism is motivated by politics



All comments in the very post you quoted that suggest that there is a distinct possability it was political. The only dishonest thing I see here is you attempting to suggest that I stated it was definitively apolitical.
Click to expand...

Your claim that the critics pointing to the politics was dishonest and only motivated by their not liking the action was dishonest. Now, let's see you offer the same sort of proof that you demand of others
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Since you're so big on "causation" and proof :)roll:) let's see your proof that the critics are "sanctimonious hypocrites" whose criticism is motivated by politics
Click to expand...
It always gets me when people demand proof and offer none of their own for their baseless claims.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. The VP who just resigned said before becoming joining SGK, "I will be a pro-life governor who will work tirelessly to promote a culture of life in Georgia. ... I believe that each and every unborn child has inherent dignity, that every abortion is a tragedy, and that government has a role, along with the faith community, in encouraging women to choose life in even the most difficult of circumstances. ...since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood."
Click to expand...

Oh, so she was acting as Govenor of Komen? Oh, wait...no, that was a quote when she was running for governor of GEORGIA. Sorry, I must've made the same mistake as you.

I never denied for a moment the woman dislikes Planned Parenthood and isn't extremely pro-life. She absolutely is. That still doesn't prove this was done for political reasons and not due to the policies already in place at Komen. You're posting up anecdotal evidence and suggesting its damning proof.

2. This "rule" that you keep referencing (which by the way was implemented after the aforementioned VP joined SGK) was ONLY enforced with Planned Parenthood NOT with other organizations undergoing investigation including Penn State and Parkland Memorial Hospital.
Click to expand...

And here we finally come to something worth while and possibly useful. Now, I have heard that Planned Parenthoods contract came up and thus they did not renew it due to this rule. Is it true that Planned Parenthoods contract came up? Has Penn State or the Parkland Memorial Hospital contracts come up during the point in which they were under investigation? If so, then I would agree it would appear that action was taken for political reasons.

In which case.....see my earlier post in this thread where I repeatedly stated my feelings in regards to peoples response to this whether or not it was done for political reasons or not.
 
Zyphlin said:
I did. I see it stating that she was someone that didn't like planned parenthood and was pro-life. I saw nothing in it that suggested she did it because of those reasons. Please, perhaps I missed something, quote me the line stating proof she did it for political reasons and I'll go back and relook at it.
Click to expand...

Her quote was posted. I cant do anything to stop you from ignoring the facts and pretending it hasn't been posted



Please, what dishonest claim did I make? The only one you've suggested so far is the dishonest and wrongful claim that I stated it was definitively apolitical.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the critics were motivated by their own politics, and not by any honest disagreement with the way a non-profit has used its' money to pursue the political agenda of moral fascists like Karen Handel
 
Zyphlin said:
I never denied for a moment the woman dislikes Planned Parenthood and isn't extremely pro-life. She absolutely is. That still doesn't prove this was done for political reasons and not due to the policies already in place at Komen. You're posting up anecdotal evidence and suggesting its damning proof.
Click to expand...

Good thing you'd never post anything without proof!!! :roll:
 
sangha said:
You also calimed that the people who criticized Komen did so, not because they objected to a non-profit engaging in politics, but simply because of their politics
Click to expand...

No, I claimed there were people who criticized Komen due to political reasons based on their support for Planned Parenthood and opposition to those who dislike the organization or are pro-life and who were actively working against an organization that does good things for women simply because said organization didn't do something politically they agreed with. Now, if you want, I'll be happy to make this clear, that's my opinion based on my view of how they're acting. I don't proclaim it to be fact as I can not know what goes on in their head. But in no way do I suggest that EVERYONE criticizing Komen is doing it simply for political reasons...I think those doing it for actual PRINCIPLED reasons of just disliking political actoins by a charity at all are rare, but they are present. However, those who ARE doing it due to their own political motivations are acting like hypocrites actively working against a charity that does good work for women simply because they oppose political something that organization is doing politically.

I base my opinion, mind you...I firmly admit this, my OPINION....of this off the notion that I firmly believed that if Komen took some political stance that was in line with these peoples political views they would NOT have an issue with it because their issue is not that Komen acted politically, but that they acted politically in a way they disliked.

Since you're so big on "causation" and proof :)roll:) let's see your proof that the critics are "sanctimonious hypocrites" whose criticism is motivated by politics
Click to expand...

Why am I going to prove something I firmly admit is my opinion. I ask you for proof because you stated your comments about a specific person as if they were fact. If you believed its simply your opinion that she's a uesd it to promote her political ideology, so be it...say so and I'll retract my request. However it appeared you were trying to make the statement as if it was unquestoinable FACT, not just your feeling about the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom