Way too early republican primary thread

[theiioftx]

In

Is it too early to point out that there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing by PP in the videos? The closest evidence is a single individual that previously worked for PP that is relaying what she saw. It's not illegal to distribute fetal tissue and charge the 3rd party distributors for your costs.

12 hours of videos, hundreds of hours of digging/editing with a specific anti-abortion agenda and the closest the Center for Medical Progress has come to evidence would be against some 3rd parties yet everyone on this thread is screaming to investigate PP. If this were foreign policy it would be akin to Al Queda attacking us and we say "Sadam, how dare you, you're going down".

I so desperately want the fiscal conservatives of the Republican party to return.

In standard fashion, you generalize that there is mutual exclusivity for conservatives. The republicans have only advocated an investigation and suspension of funding until complete. Of course, facts do not matter for liberals.

 

[Seattle Husker]

SH,

I understand where you're coming from. However, if The lab tech is telling the truth about the living fetus, that's a serious crime committed by those involved. It's a big deal. Investigations have been launched on much weaker evidence. Politics really shouldn't matter on that point.

I'm not for making abortion the center of the GOPs agenda, but I'm not for ignoring possible criminal activity just to avoid the issue coming up. That would be an injustice and a failure of the rule of law.

I'd agree. Investigate that incident which to NJLonghorn's stance above is a local law enforcement issue. Guess what, 2-3 states have already investigated PP practices in the last 5 years and found nothing. It may be a misperception but what I'm hearing being espoused is to investigate the organization. If there is an incident of sexual molestation in the Boy Scouts should an investigation start at the National HQ? There is an assumption that this is common place rather than an isolated incident. I get that the Center for Medical Progress thinks that but I'm expecting more sanity from most on this board.

 

[Seattle Husker]

In

In standard fashion, you generalize that there is mutual exclusivity for conservatives. The republicans have only advocated an investigation and suspension of funding until complete. Of course, facts do not matter for liberals.

By holding funding you've assumed guilt pending the outcome of an investigation based on an extremely biased piece intended to create the emotional reaction it has. That's bordering on ludicrous. At best, this is a local law enforcement issue.

This is a very transparent attempt by the anti-abortion crowd to further limit a Supreme Court guaranteed right.

 

[theiioftx]

if it is a local issue, let local government pay for it. Isn't the point to provide funding for women's health issues? The proposed bill does not cut funding for women's health, it reallocates it away from PP. Besides, those funds are not legally allowed for abortion.

 

[Seattle Husker]

if it is a local issue, let local government pay for it. Isn't the point to provide funding for women's health issues? The proposed bill does not cut funding for women's health, it reallocates it away from PP. Besides, those funds are not legally allowed for abortion.

So, they aren't legally allowed for abortion. PP has to document it's spend to prove to the federal government that abortion funds are privately sourced and used.

1. We've agreed it's a local issue.
2. We've agreed that these public funds don't pay for abortions.

So what is the purpose for withholding the federal funds again? To force a local investigation on a service that isn't publically funded? Do you see how absurd this tactic is from my admittedly liberal viewpoint? This is an organization that is already deeply established in delivering women's health services to underserved populations. Simply put, there isn't another single option that can deliver the service to the level PP is currently.

Clearly, this is being used as a wedge issue for an organization the "right" doesn't approve of because they offer abortion services even thought the facts show that is only 3% of the services they provide.

 

[theiioftx]

So, they aren't legally allowed for abortion. PP has to document it's spend to prove to the federal government that abortion funds are privately sourced and used.

1. We've agreed it's a local issue.
2. We've agreed that these public funds don't pay for abortions.

So what is the purpose for withholding the federal funds again? To force a local investigation on a service that isn't publically funded? Do you see how absurd this tactic is from my admittedly liberal viewpoint? This is an organization that is already deeply established in delivering women's health services to underserved populations. Simply put, there isn't another single option that can deliver the service to the level PP is currently.

Clearly, this is being used as a wedge issue for an organization the "right" doesn't approve of because they offer abortion services even thought the facts show that is only 3% of the services they provide.

I did not agree that it is a local issue because the question is about federal funding. My point is that if it is truly a local issue, let all funding come from local services. it is clearly a federal issue because they largely exist because of federal funds.

if a healthcare provider breaks the law regarding their services paid for with federal dollars, they are subject to federal investigation including stopping payments from the government as well as suspension of licenses to practice. When the Feds show up, everything is locked down pending outcome of the investigation. Most of these cases come from whistleblowers making accusations substantiated with documentation including video and recordings of the wrongs.

I get it. You are for abortion and selling the bodies for negotiated profit. Sleep well tonight. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans are actually disgusted by these specific practices and it appears one or more people broke the law. Openly discussing this over wine tells most people this is a very common practice and an investigation is the only way to find out for sure. If PP did nothing wrong, why not proactively bring in investigators to determine the truth and move on?

 

[Seattle Husker]

if a healthcare provider breaks the law regarding their services paid for with federal dollars, they are subject to federal investigation including stopping payments from the government as well as suspension of licenses to practice.

Wait, didn't you acknowledge these abortion services aren't paid for with federal funds? Federal law forces PP to keep the funds very separate.

Most of these cases come from whistleblowers making accusations substantiated with documentation including video and recordings of the wrongs.

Whistleblowers with internal evidence, right? Where is the whistleblower here? At best there is a single technician that has a single story at a single clinic that chose to go to an political organization rather than the government. Where are the similarities again?

I get it. You are for abortion and selling the bodies for negotiated profit. Sleep well tonight. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans are actually disgusted by these specific practices and it appears one or more people broke the law. Openly discussing this over wine tells most people this is a very common practice and an investigation is the only way to find out for sure. If PP did nothing wrong, why not proactively bring in investigators to determine the truth and move on?

There we go. True colors exposed. The anti-abortion stance is the only reason for halting funding. Thanks for proving my point, good sir. Have a good night.

 

[theiioftx]

Wait, didn't you acknowledge these abortion services aren't paid for with federal funds? Federal law forces PP to keep the funds very separate.



Whistleblowers with internal evidence, right? Where is the whistleblower here? At best there is a single technician that has a single story at a single clinic that chose to go to an political organization rather than the government. Where are the similarities again?



There we go. True colors exposed. The anti-abortion stance is the only reason for halting funding. Thanks for proving my point, good sir. Have a good night.

No, as someone who actually runs a business, I believe PP does use federal funds for abortions. The federal funds allow PP to generate other funds for abortion. It is like saying someone does not use welfare money for drugs. If the government pays for all food, then that person can use their other income source for drugs rather than for food. I know you believe everything Obama tells you, but he lies and deceives more than he tells the truth.

Whistleblowers are not always internal sources. Sometimes they are vendors, sometimes they are consumers and sometimes they are competitors. I see this PP issue the same as Medicare fraud.

I am anti-abortion, but this issue is about PP's despicable behavior beyond abortion. Again, a majority of Americans also disapprove of their actions. If your point was proving my view, you could have just asked.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I know you believe everything Obama tells you, but he lies and deceives more than he tells the truth.

Where did I espouse anything from Obama? I can't tell you the last time I've listened to Obama speak. The facts are the facts. What you are really saying is that if PP had to use all their private funds for womens health services (they do use some) then ideally they couldn't afford to offer abortion services. Again, that's the crux of the matter. You feel deeply that abortion is wrong. I get that and even empathize by that. It's still legal and sacrificing all the other good that PP does for women's health, specifically in urban and needy segments to achieve a political and ideological outcome is what I'm appalled by.

I am anti-abortion, but this issue is about PP's despicable behavior beyond abortion. Again, a majority of Americans also disapprove of their actions. If your point was proving my view, you could have just asked.

My point was to show that this is politically motivated and doesn't have a legal basis. You're willing to hold the government hostage for political ideal, not legal ones. That literally scares me.

 

[theiioftx]

Would you agree that because your government tells you something is legal, that does not make it "right?" In some countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. Would you so adamantly defend that right? I certainly hope not, but the liberal mind is a different beast.

Any issue today related to government is politically motivated. This series of threads was about the political motivation of Fiorina and the political motivation of a liberal outfit to bring her down.

If PP did what they are accused of and was documented in video and a former employee's confession, it is very illegal. It is also disgusting. Anyone defending that practice is, in my opinion, mentally ill. If it is legal, will someone start an Internet site akin to EBAY for selling body parts? Heck, maybe you could start a whole new industry of getting women to get pregnant, aborting their babies and then you could split the lucrative profits!

 

[Seattle Husker]

If PP did what they are accused of and was documented in video and a former employee's confession, it is very illegal.

The confession by the employee if validated would be illegal thus the local law enforcement agreement. Negotiating contracts/costs for donations of body parts for research? Legally, PP is allowed to recoup their own costs. If you want to investigate PP for this then you'd better be prepared to investigate every hospital in the country that has an organ donor die on the operating table. The only caveat is that the body parts can't be sold for a profit. You'd be hardpressed to find any doctor that would say you could get any body part (for research or other purpose) for <$100 and still profit.

You may not like the idea that the hospital that harvests an adult male kidney from the deceased for donation is allowed reimbursement for their labor costs but it's legal. PP operates under the same laws.

The only issue I have with this is that the mother should give her approval to donate the fetal tissue. Is that a law? I have no idea but like organ donors I thing permission should be required.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'd agree. Investigate that incident which to NJLonghorn's stance above is a local law enforcement issue. Guess what, 2-3 states have already investigated PP practices in the last 5 years and found nothing. It may be a misperception but what I'm hearing being espoused is to investigate the organization. If there is an incident of sexual molestation in the Boy Scouts should an investigation start at the National HQ? There is an assumption that this is common place rather than an isolated incident. I get that the Center for Medical Progress thinks that but I'm expecting more sanity from most on this board.

SH,

I agree with you and NJ that if a live fetus (baby?) is killed at Planned Parenthood, local law enforcement should be the ones to handle it as they'd handle any other murder case. That's none of the federal government's business, unless it is shown to be a widespread phenomenon.

However, a federal role is justifiable on the issue of the sale of body parts for profit for two reasons. First, it's a federal crime, so federal law enforcement and federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over that issue. Has CMP proven a criminal case against PP or its employees? Absolutely not, and I'm not calling for jailing people or even indicting anybody based on what I've seen. However, has it produced enough to warrant further examination of the issue? Yes. Investigations have been launched on less. Hell, the federal civil rights investigation of the Michael Brown shooting had far less.

Does CMP have a bias? Of course, but a bias doesn't by itself refute evidence, and if you're being objective, you shouldn't summarily dismiss it just because it came from them. Let's let the professionals look at the full tapes, and if they think a crime has been committed, go put these guys in the slammer. If they don't, then close the file.

Second, Planned Parenthood takes federal money, and when you take federal money, you live by the federal government's rules and have to live with congressional oversight and scrutiny of your activities. Even if PP only sold parts for cost (no profit), it's perfectly within Congress' right to hold hearings on that issue. Remember, they aren't a law enforcement institution. They're an oversight institution and the stewards of the taxpayers' money. They can look into it even if a crime wasn't committed.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Mr. Deez-

I get that and can agree with it to a point. My point is that this video isn't evidence of what is being purported "profiting from selling body parts". Yes, it shows the negotiations of the contracts and a cavalier attitude but ultimately the price point is clearly not a "profit" price point which is the crux of illegality. If we can agree on that, any investigation is moot and simply politically motivated at a cost to US Taxpayers and more importantly services to the 10's of thousands of patients, most importantly for non-abortion related services.

 

[theiioftx]

On your earlier thread, I have no problem with decisions made by the actual adult donor. I work with hospitals and services related to organ donation. It is an expensive proposition and I do not even mind them making a profit.The key is that the actual adult organ donor made that decision, not their mother without their consent.

As far as your last post, you are perfectly okay with these people negotiating prices of baby parts over a glass of wine? Good grief, sick. And where the federal government suspects a crime when federal dollars are involved, you better freaking believe it should be investigated.

And all dollars are being allocated to other clinics providing care, so you can stop with the MSNBC propaganda.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And all dollars are being allocated to other clinics providing care, so you can stop with the MSNBC propaganda.

Can you please stop with generalizing my point of view while hypocritically questioning my mention of conservatives above? I haven't watched a second of MSNBC in years. I'm speaking from my own perspective based on the information I have available and my own viewpoints. Let them stand on their own without ascribing whatever some talking head is saying on MSNBC, Obama or other.

As far as your last post, you are perfectly okay with these people negotiating prices of baby parts over a glass of wine? Good grief, sick.

So you're upset over a lack of class? This isn't a subject I'd talk about over dinner but this isn't my profession either. I have plenty of professional dinners, including with vendors. I imagine 2 cardio surgeons would have no problem talking shop while eating a nice steak dinner.

And where the federal government suspects a crime when federal dollars are involved, you better freaking believe it should be investigated.

That's the crux of my disagreement. I don't feel the videos warrant a crime investigation. Clearly you've shown on this thread that is the emotional pull and anti-abortion stance that is driving your desire to have them investigated rather than an actual crime. That's my point and the last time I'll contribute to this conversation. Outside of the local law enforcement issue that the former technician talks to, there isn't evidence of a crime unless you feel <$100 prices are a "profit".

 

[theiioftx]

Well back to the Fiorina accusations. Apparently she has released this video and it is posted on Fox News website.

Please be advised. It is disturbing and not safe for work or a young person's eyes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/23/new-graphic-ad-by-fiorina-pac-defends-abortion-comments/

 

[Larry T Spider]

1. No way in hell I'm watching that video.

2. I don't know enough about the medical field to comment but some people are saying that baby looks more like a stillborn than aborted fetus. I would love to hear from a doctor or nurse.

3. The problem that Carly is going to have is that she is taking the words from PP and playing a video from another source. At this point, I have lost a lot of faith as an org that needs to be getting taxpayer money. But, I'm not sure this is the smoking gun we are looking for.

4. Carly is getting a lot of traction and will be around for the long haul. She isn't my favorite but I do like her and would vote for her. If she doesn't win the nomination, I would love to at least see her on the ticket.

 

[theiioftx]

I agree with most all of what you said and do not blame you for not watching. However, that is a smoking gun on someone and there is a lot of smoke surrounding PP. Just curious if the pro abortion crowd watches and finds something positive.

 

[Hollandtx]

I watched the video. Yes, it was hard to do, but I personally need to see every fact presented.
It is disturbing, there are just a few snippets of the fetus, enough to see in one that it is alive, another shot that could be a stillborn.
I ask this question sincerely, for those that say that say that Fiorina is lying, what is the defense? That the video is a fake, or that it happened somewhere else, and was placed into a PP video? Or, something else?

Many people I know are frothing at the mouth about the "lie of the dead baby" video, and I genuinely want to hear the response from people that feel this way after viewing this.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr. Deez-

I get that and can agree with it to a point. My point is that this video isn't evidence of what is being purported "profiting from selling body parts". Yes, it shows the negotiations of the contracts and a cavalier attitude but ultimately the price point is clearly not a "profit" price point which is the crux of illegality. If we can agree on that, any investigation is moot and simply politically motivated at a cost to US Taxpayers and more importantly services to the 10's of thousands of patients, most importantly for non-abortion related services.

No, I can't necessarily agree on that. We don't know what PP's costs are, and there are discussions about doing better than breaking even. It's not ironclad proof of wrongdoing, but it's enough to look further. Again, DOJ investigations have been launched on far less. The inquiry should at least be made.

And just to reiterate, I'm not for defunding PP or having a government shutdown over the issue. I'm for DOJ conducting a reasonable inquiry, as they would anyone else and for Congress using its oversight authority as it would with any other entity that takes taxpayer money. That's not political motivation. That's treating it as one would treat other similar situations. In fact, that's the opposite of political motivation.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I'm for DOJ conducting a reasonable inquiry, as they would anyone else and for Congress using its oversight authority as it would with any other entity that takes taxpayer money.

I agree that there should be an investigation, but I'm not sure whether it should start at Health and Human Services as a civil investigation or at DOJ as a criminal investigation.

I also think there should be Congressional hearings. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that they will be fact-gathering in nature, like they should be. Instead, hearings will turn into a political circus.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree that there should be an investigation, but I'm not sure whether it should start at Health and Human Services as a civil investigation or at DOJ as a criminal investigation.

Good question. I know next to nothing about what HHS' civil authority is or how they would conduct a civil investigation. That's many miles away away from auto and trucking accidents, products liability, insurance litigation, and work-related injuries outside the comp system (my areas of expertise).

Frankly, you put me in an awkward position. I can choose to sound a little like a dumbass by admitting my ignorance, or I can try to give a real answer and risk sounding like a colossal dumbass. If I thought you knew even less than I did, I might try the second option to try to make myself look smarter than I am. However, I think there's a better than 50-50 chance that you'd be able to tell I was full of BS. I'll choose the first option.

I also think there should be Congressional hearings. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that they will be fact-gathering in nature, like they should be. Instead, hearings will turn into a political circus.

It would probably be a little of both. The pro-lifers would be unable to resist the temptation to call out the other side as murderers, and the pro-choicers would be unable to resist the temptation to call their opponents woman-haters. However, after all that smack-talk was done, hopefully they'd be able to come up with a reasonable report.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Frankly, you put me in an awkward position. I can choose to sound a little like a dumbass by admitting my ignorance, or I can try to give a real answer and risk sounding like a colossal dumbass. If I thought you knew even less than I did, I might try the second option to try to make myself look smarter than I am. However, I think there's a better than 50-50 chance that you'd be able to tell I was full of BS. I'll choose the first option.

LOL!

 

[Seattle Husker]

The pro-lifers would be unable to resist the temptation to call out the other side as murderers, and the pro-choicers would be unable to resist the temptation to call their opponents woman-haters. However, after all that smack-talk was done, hopefully they'd be able to come up with a reasonable report.

You have more confidence than I that that is possible. For example, if the Republicans simply set their late term abortion bill a few weeks later (26-28 rather than 20) they would have a bill headed to the President's desk today. The issue is too political and the Republicans really don't want a solution. They are better off if there is now solution as it energizes the base.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Frankly, you put me in an awkward position. I can choose to sound a little like a dumbass by admitting my ignorance, or I can try to give a real answer and risk sounding like a colossal dumbass. If I thought you knew even less than I did, I might try the second option to try to make myself look smarter than I am. However, I think there's a better than 50-50 chance that you'd be able to tell I was full of BS. I'll choose the first option.

You could've gotten away with it, lol. When I said "I'm not sure whether", what I really meant was "I have no idea whether".

 

[Mr. Deez]

I also think there should be Congressional hearings. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that they will be fact-gathering in nature, like they should be. Instead, hearings will turn into a political circus.

I'm afraid you're proving to be correct. Even a pro-life, conservative publication like the Federalist basically suggests the hearing on PP with Cecille Richards was shrill, intellectually bankrupt, and a waste of time. Link.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Not to take anything away from NJ's prognostication skills it was an easy prediction to make. Presidential election cycle...check...issue that riles up the base...check...no potential or desire for a solution...check.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not to take anything away from NJ's prognostication skills it was an easy prediction to make. Presidential election cycle...check...issue that riles up the base...check...no potential or desire for a solution...check.

I wish I could argue with you here, but you're pretty much right on.

It doesn't sound like they did a very good job even riling up the base. I think they assumed they could just say a few ugly things to Cecille Richards, and that would be good enough. I'm sure the more ignorant pro-lifers were high-fiving when they dwelled on Richards' salary. However, people who are pro-life for intellectual reasons and have really thought the issue through seem to think that was tasteless, lazy, and a diversion from dealing with the real issues.

 

[zork]

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unseemly

not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society

The Lamborghini for baby livers crescendo of unseemliness on this topic is just as bad as anything, and I didn't see any of it, the hearing could have produced. It is just a sad commentary on what our society has become on the topic. ("legal" or not) But that is just me.

Seemly goes back to around 1200, to the Old Norse word soemr, "fitting, becoming." The negative "un-" was added in the early 14th century to denote the opposite meaning. "Seems" to make sense, doesn’t it?

 

[Joe Fan]

This figure was higher than my guess