|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 10 2017 02:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. You are correct. Forcing anyone to do anything through threat of violence is illegal. So, if we're playing LS's reasoning game, that means that pro-choice people have no problem committing violence and performing illegal activities simply by virtue of them being pro-choice. The fact that neither the premise nor half of the argument's steps are sensible doesn't seem to matter.
Again, I never said that, just that the establishment created by pro-choice people is morally liable of not doing enough to actually prevent coerced abortions. But if you feel better misrepresenting what I'm saying, go ahead.
On February 10 2017 02:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. I'm assuming you don't apply these standards to any other medical procedure.
I don't have a problem with parents forcing their children to go through chemotherapy and whatnot, no. Then again, those don't usually kill babies.
|
On February 10 2017 02:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. You are correct. Forcing anyone to do anything through threat of violence is illegal. So, if we're playing LS's reasoning game, that means that pro-choice people have no problem committing violence and performing illegal activities simply by virtue of them being pro-choice. The fact that neither the premise nor half of the argument's steps are sensible doesn't seem to matter.
If we are playing the parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are pro-choice and also criminals, then pro-life people are murders because a bunch of them killed doctors that preformed abortions.
The power of bad faith arguments is that you can go anyplace with them. They are magical.
|
On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard.
But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)?
|
Depending on the state, mandatory reporting requirements cover sexual abuse and tend to be even more rigorously enforced with regards to minors than the elderly.
|
On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced.
And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out.
However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort.
Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted.
|
On February 10 2017 02:45 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:38 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 02:35 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:34 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 02:28 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news It's utterly ridiculous, and falling for that anti-PP scam reminds me of the people who fall for the "Vaccines cause autism" fake paper. The worst part is that once he reads Facebook news that confirms his pre-existing belief it actually ceases to matter whether it actually happened or not. Alternative facts are no joke. This country is in serious trouble. failing to report child abuseemployees giving advice to sex trafficker about abortion causing pp to retrainpp clinic put on probation for similar issuesundercover vid about late term abortionsJust some sources I found beyond Facebook. Some of the other videos by under cover groups were altered, but I believe these stories were true and not altered. Not saying this represents all of pp, but it is a politically active organization and deserves scrutiny. It has tried to advocate for late term abortions as well, which alienates most people. The failure to report child abuse would be a violation of HIPPA and would need review from their legal department. And all victims of sexual abuse have a right to privacy if it is requested. That has got to be one of the most bullshit pieces of bait I have seen from pro-life groups in a while. Just answer me this. Do you at least see that there is a *conflict of interest* in PP not reporting victims of child abuse, because they have a monetary incentive to not do so? I'm not asking if you think PP are pedophiles/pro-pedophile/whatever, I am merely asking if you see a conflict of interest. If not, why? Its not a conflict of interest, they exist to provide help. If the person seeking medical care will only speak under the condition of privacy, they will respect that. If they betray that trust, other victims of abuse won't come forward for fear of losing control or having their abuse reported before they are ready to press charges. If you want to help victims, you need to respect their wishes or they won't come to you for help. This is an extremely basic concept is helping victims. for domestic violence of underage or elderly physicians are required to report to specific authorities. No choice, regardless of what patient wants. I'm not sure about underage sex and sexual abuse however.
The key part is that they have to be there, receiving treatment. These were phone calls and the person on the phone committed to not reporting the crime.
Think of the alternative. Every office of PP reporting abuse based on a single phone call. That is not a good plan.
|
Yeah so I don't understand Plansix saying reporting sexual abuse is a violation of HIPAA, or that it should follow the patient's discretion because it would demotivate them from seeking help.
Edit: hang on thread moving fast
|
HIPAA has a special exception for the treatment of patient data containing indicia of abuse, I'll have to find it.
|
On February 10 2017 02:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:37 a_flayer wrote:On February 10 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:13 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:04 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2017 02:01 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 00:55 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If the Democratic Party are really pro-abortion, why are they pushing contraception, increased welfare for children, sex education and family planning? These are all things which have been proven to reduce abortion, which again is at historically low levels.
This fantasy that the Democratic Party have teamed up with Planned Parenthood to fuel an orgy of pizza parties built on abortion is just that, a fantasy. Your sources, the fake news article and Richards saying people need to talk about why they needed Planned Parenthood, don't prove your fantasy.
The Democratic Party is your only hope for reducing the number of abortions that happen. Third parties have no power and Republicans work tirelessly to increase unwanted pregnancies. Democrats have a long proven track record of drastically reducing the number of abortions in their states through sex education, access to contraception and by supporting women who make the choice to keep the fetus.
And if you're reading Washington Times articles and deciding based upon those that you simply cannot vote Democrat you've been duped by the Republicans. That's how it works. No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news I read the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and the Intercept every day. I've seen the attempted refutations against the allegations of Planned Parenthood, none of them checked out in the end. Alright, can you provide evidence supporting any of the allegations you raised, then? Okay here you go: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/20161230Select_Panel_Final_Report.pdfCheck out document pg. xxv (it's 27 in the PDF). Warning, 50 MB file. Chapter IV. The Criminal Referrals
The Select Investigative Panel has made numerous criminal and regulatory referrals and
investigations are underway around the nation.
1) The Panel learned that StemExpress and certain abortion clinics may have violated the HIPAA
privacy rights of vulnerable women for the sole purpose of increasing the harvesting of fetal
tissue to make money. Referred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2) The Panel uncovered evidence showing that StemExpress may have violated federal
regulations governing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Referred to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
3) The Panel discovered that the University of New Mexico may have been violating its state’s
Anatomical Gift Act by receiving tissue from a late-term abortion clinic (Southwestern Women’s
Options). Referred to the Attorney General of New Mexico.
4 & 5) The Panel conducted a forensic accounting analysis of StemExpress’ limited production
and determined that it may have been profiting from the sale of baby body parts. Referral sent to
El Dorado, California District Attorney, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
6) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Arkansas may have violated the law when it
sent tissue to StemExpress. Referred to the Attorney General of Arkansas.
7) The Panel discovered that DV Biologics, another tissue procurement company, may have been
profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, and was not collecting California sales tax from purchasers
of the baby body parts. The Orange County District Attorney has filed a lawsuit and the Panel
sent a supplemental referral.
8) The Panel learned that Advanced Bioscience Resources appeared to have made a profit when
it sold tissue to various universities. Referred to the District Attorney for Riverside County,
California.
9) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Florida, at least in part through its relationship
with StemExpress, may have violated various provisions of federal and state law by profiting
from the sale of fetal tissue. Referred to the Attorney General of Florida.
xxvi
10) The Panel learned that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast may have violated both Texas law
and U.S. law when it sold fetal tissue to the University of Texas. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General.
11 & 12) The Panel has uncovered evidence from former employees and a patient of a late-term
abortionist in Texas alleging numerous violations of federal and state law at one or more of the
practitioner’s clinics. The allegations include eyewitness accounts of the doctor killing infants
who show signs of life both when partially outside the birth canal, in violation of the PartialBirth
Abortion Ban Act, and after they are completely outside the birth canal, in violation of the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and Texas murder statutes. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
13) The Panel has discovered information that StemExpress may have destroyed documents that
were the subject of congressional inquiries, document request letters, and subpoenas, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.
14) The Panel made a supplemental referral to the Attorney General of New Mexico based on
information produced in document productions by the University of New Mexico (UNM) and
Southwestern Women’s Options (SWWO), deposition testimony by Doctor #5, and a complaint
and affidavit with supporting documents submitted by a former patient at SWWO. It details the
alleged failure of SWWO and UNM to provide informed consent to women prior to using tissue
from abortions for research at the university.
15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received
testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned
Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. §
289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice. Which of those do you think proves your fake news stories? That is just really unnecessarily annoying and nitpicky of you Kwark. It comes as no surprise to me that an organization occasionally breaks the law in various states. There is a ridiculous amount of legislation everywhere these days. I'm sure I've broken various laws over the course of my lifetime. Hell, I broke the law a couple of times while I was in the US for three months a decade or so ago. It just depends on whether you want to be critical of an organization (or person) whether or not you choose to let it bother you, and whether you have strong beliefs (you might not care that I illegally bought & smoked pot in the US, but other people might). What just happened in this thread is you guys called someone out for believing fake news, when that fake news was not actually fake, but based on an official document. This is similar to that story about "Yemen withdraws from allowing US anti-terrorism operations" that was propagated by "an official" and posted in the New York times, and then proceeded to believe it was fact before it was retracted? Sure, the NYT only referred to "the official" who claimed this was the case, but it was still spread around, and then oh so many people believe it as fact. Maybe even you did. I can already hear the "false equivalence" claims, but it comes down to the same sort of thing. I cannot imagine you don't read things from time to time where it says "may" or "an official says" and choose to believe it as fact. Especially if it suits your own narrative. I do it, everybody does it. After that, it just comes down to luck or persistence whether you see the retraction, or whether you leave with the thought that "may" is an ambiguous sort of statement in the first place (based on how much you are invested in the subject). It was fake news! Go back and read his complaints. If you've been paying attention you can literally recall the fake scandals they came from. His first one was from the graph with no axes that was put together by an extreme pro-life group and was presented out of context by Chaffetz. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressman-chaffetz-misleading-graph-smear-planned-parenthoodThe second one was O'Keefe's video pretending to be a pimp. He was forced to retract it and pay out $100,000. But the stink lives on long after the flatulent individual was shamed. The fact that none of it happened doesn't seem to impact his beliefs at all. The third one was the body part scandal which was also shown to just be routine reimbursements for expenses. His explanation for why that scandal never materialized with any real issues, apparently the DoJ covered it all up. We are not dealing with an informed individual here. We are dealing with facebook forwards from your right wing uncle and I refuse to dignify it.
I don't know anything about the O'Keefe stuff, nor do I care the slightest bit. I'm basing my opinion regarding your treatment of this person on the document that was linked (and the very annoying highlights of words such as "may" and "appeared"). The document is quite clear that Planned Parenthood may have violated a whole slew of state laws. If you are the kind of person who would want to be critical of Planned Parenthood, then this will matter you and you have legitimate reasons to be concerned about whether or not they are wholesome enough according to your own tastes.
You and I are not critical of Planned Parenthood because of the obvious good things they do, and are willing to let these things slide. The DoJ was willing to let them slide based on whatever reasonings they used, but that does not mean everybody has to do this. You might be likely to let dubious things that HRC did within the letter of the law slide, but might be far more critical of Trumps dealings that are technically within the letter of the law. It is a matter of priorities and subjective opinion.
|
On February 10 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out. However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort. Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted.
Coercion is hard to prove, but I'm sorry, it's not freely chosen if it's coerced.
Forcing a coathanger into a woman leaves biological evidence that allows a woman to go to the police and report a crime. On the other hand, telling someone "go get an abortion or I'm evicting you" leaves no criminal evidence unless taped.
|
On February 10 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:08 Nevuk wrote:
Clinton is pretty consistently pro abortion. It has been like her only consistent stance ever. The democratic party as a whole isn't, though. And PP provably prevents far more than it causes. Et tu? There is no such thing as pro-abortion. Absolutely nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody thinks having an abortion is a good thing. Lots of people think being able to have an abortion is a good thing. Clinton is indeed very firmly in that camp. she's said: Show nested quote +I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision (late term abortion) Sourcealso: Show nested quote +Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that SourceThen shes Show nested quote +Been on record in favor (as opposed to "open") of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother SourceThen at the debate: Show nested quote +
This is one of the worst possible choices that any women and her family has to make and I do not believe the government should be making it
The government has no business in the decisions that women make... I will stand up for that right
sourceSo one week she supportive of government restrictions, and then another she thinks they have no business in the decision.
Whatever. I don't give a rat's ass about Hillary (and why the hell do you?). I was just assuming Nevuk was right about Hillary's position being pro-choice.
|
United States42691 Posts
Putting crisis social workers into PP clinics would probably be a very good use of money. If a vulnerable group of people with few other options end up there then there should be front line help available to them there. Obviously not everyone who needs an abortion is in trouble, but having a system for immediate referrals would be pretty good.
|
On February 10 2017 02:52 KwarK wrote:
Putting crisis social workers into PP clinics would probably be a very good use of money. If a vulnerable group of people with few other options end up there then there should be front line help available to them there. Obviously not everyone who needs an abortion is in trouble, but having a system for immediate referrals would be pretty good.
Yes, that's a good idea. But like I already noted, PP would be reluctant at best to do so because it's a monetary conflict of interest.
|
On February 10 2017 02:43 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:37 a_flayer wrote:On February 10 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:13 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:04 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2017 02:01 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news I read the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and the Intercept every day. I've seen the attempted refutations against the allegations of Planned Parenthood, none of them checked out in the end. Alright, can you provide evidence supporting any of the allegations you raised, then? Okay here you go: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/20161230Select_Panel_Final_Report.pdfCheck out document pg. xxv (it's 27 in the PDF). Warning, 50 MB file. Chapter IV. The Criminal Referrals
The Select Investigative Panel has made numerous criminal and regulatory referrals and
investigations are underway around the nation.
1) The Panel learned that StemExpress and certain abortion clinics may have violated the HIPAA
privacy rights of vulnerable women for the sole purpose of increasing the harvesting of fetal
tissue to make money. Referred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2) The Panel uncovered evidence showing that StemExpress may have violated federal
regulations governing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Referred to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
3) The Panel discovered that the University of New Mexico may have been violating its state’s
Anatomical Gift Act by receiving tissue from a late-term abortion clinic (Southwestern Women’s
Options). Referred to the Attorney General of New Mexico.
4 & 5) The Panel conducted a forensic accounting analysis of StemExpress’ limited production
and determined that it may have been profiting from the sale of baby body parts. Referral sent to
El Dorado, California District Attorney, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
6) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Arkansas may have violated the law when it
sent tissue to StemExpress. Referred to the Attorney General of Arkansas.
7) The Panel discovered that DV Biologics, another tissue procurement company, may have been
profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, and was not collecting California sales tax from purchasers
of the baby body parts. The Orange County District Attorney has filed a lawsuit and the Panel
sent a supplemental referral.
8) The Panel learned that Advanced Bioscience Resources appeared to have made a profit when
it sold tissue to various universities. Referred to the District Attorney for Riverside County,
California.
9) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Florida, at least in part through its relationship
with StemExpress, may have violated various provisions of federal and state law by profiting
from the sale of fetal tissue. Referred to the Attorney General of Florida.
xxvi
10) The Panel learned that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast may have violated both Texas law
and U.S. law when it sold fetal tissue to the University of Texas. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General.
11 & 12) The Panel has uncovered evidence from former employees and a patient of a late-term
abortionist in Texas alleging numerous violations of federal and state law at one or more of the
practitioner’s clinics. The allegations include eyewitness accounts of the doctor killing infants
who show signs of life both when partially outside the birth canal, in violation of the PartialBirth
Abortion Ban Act, and after they are completely outside the birth canal, in violation of the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and Texas murder statutes. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
13) The Panel has discovered information that StemExpress may have destroyed documents that
were the subject of congressional inquiries, document request letters, and subpoenas, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.
14) The Panel made a supplemental referral to the Attorney General of New Mexico based on
information produced in document productions by the University of New Mexico (UNM) and
Southwestern Women’s Options (SWWO), deposition testimony by Doctor #5, and a complaint
and affidavit with supporting documents submitted by a former patient at SWWO. It details the
alleged failure of SWWO and UNM to provide informed consent to women prior to using tissue
from abortions for research at the university.
15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received
testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned
Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. §
289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice. Which of those do you think proves your fake news stories? That is just really unnecessarily annoying and nitpicky of you Kwark. It's really not an undeserved request. Nothing there provides evidence to LS's claims; his entire thing literally hinged on his misinterpretation of the word "may" - and how that word apparently means "definitely" to him - and then it's pure conspiracy theory and conjecture from there. Re-read the rest of my post that you so selectively quoted. You may have read the unedited version. I explained some things about "may" and the subjectivity of whether or not "it matters".
Your argument seems to be about how incriminating evidence was found way later, and for that reason we're dismissing it... except that's simply not true. As KwarK and I and others have already stated, the "evidence" (like the fake video) was found to be fabricated and doctored and nonsensical. It wasn't that now we're calling a statute of limitations and ignoring anything that wasn't shown to us in time; it's that nothing he's said actually has any factual basis. He's just throwing out speculation after speculation and trying to make something stick; now he's moved on to saying that pro-choice advocates decidedly ignore forced abortions as long as abortion is legal, as if championing choice or women's rights wasn't really a sincere motive.
|
On February 10 2017 02:51 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out. However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort. Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted. Coercion is hard to prove, but I'm sorry, it's not freely chosen if it's coerced. Forcing a coathanger into a woman leaves biological evidence that allows a woman to go to the police and report a crime. On the other hand, telling someone "go get an abortion or I'm evicting you" leaves no criminal evidence unless taped.
so your argument is that a dead woman has proof that she's dead and that's preferable to a coerced abortion because you cannot prove it?
|
On February 10 2017 02:50 farvacola wrote:
HIPAA has a special exception for the treatment of patient data containing indicia of abuse, I'll have to find it.
I'm not an expert on HIPAA, I assumed it would have something like that. But I also believe that doctors office has some level of discretion when it comes to random phone calls. We don't know the content of these phone calls or if reporting was possible.
|
On February 10 2017 02:52 KwarK wrote:
Putting crisis social workers into PP clinics would probably be a very good use of money. If a vulnerable group of people with few other options end up there then there should be front line help available to them there. Obviously not everyone who needs an abortion is in trouble, but having a system for immediate referrals would be pretty good.
In the states and localities where PP is well-funded, they tend to staff their patient advocate positions with social workers for precisely that reason. PPs here in the Midwest don't get that though.
On February 10 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:50 farvacola wrote:
HIPAA has a special exception for the treatment of patient data containing indicia of abuse, I'll have to find it. I'm not an expert on HIPAA, I assumed it would have something like that. But I also believe that doctors office has some level of discretion when it comes to random phone calls. We don't know the content of these phone calls or if reporting was possible.
HIPAA brings about a shit ton of litigation surrounding triggers like the kind you're describing, so yeah.
|
On February 10 2017 02:53 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:51 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out. However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort. Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted. Coercion is hard to prove, but I'm sorry, it's not freely chosen if it's coerced. Forcing a coathanger into a woman leaves biological evidence that allows a woman to go to the police and report a crime. On the other hand, telling someone "go get an abortion or I'm evicting you" leaves no criminal evidence unless taped. so your argument is that a dead woman has proof that she's dead and that's preferable to a coerced abortion because you cannot prove it?
I'm saying that somebody who's trying to force a woman to have an abortion (pimp, evil parents/boyfriend/spouse, etc.) can easily get away with it so long as elective abortions are freely available at cost. However they would be more reluctant to do so if they can't easily get away with it.
|
On February 10 2017 02:51 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out. However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort. Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted. Coercion is hard to prove, but I'm sorry, it's not freely chosen if it's coerced. Forcing a coathanger into a woman leaves biological evidence that allows a woman to go to the police and report a crime. On the other hand, telling someone "go get an abortion or I'm evicting you" leaves no criminal evidence unless taped.
"I don't know why that crazy bitch stuck a coathanger up her vagina. In fact, I don't want anything to do with her. I'm evicting her".
Just because you have proof there was a coathanger up there, doesn't mean you have proof of who did it. It's "he said, she said" just as with the coercion example.
|
On February 10 2017 02:54 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:53 brian wrote:On February 10 2017 02:51 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out. However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort. Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted. Coercion is hard to prove, but I'm sorry, it's not freely chosen if it's coerced. Forcing a coathanger into a woman leaves biological evidence that allows a woman to go to the police and report a crime. On the other hand, telling someone "go get an abortion or I'm evicting you" leaves no criminal evidence unless taped. so your argument is that a dead woman has proof that she's dead and that's preferable to a coerced abortion because you cannot prove it? I'm saying that somebody who's trying to force a woman to have an abortion (pimp, evil parents/boyfriend/spouse, etc.) can easily get away with it so long as elective abortions are freely available at cost. However they would be more reluctant to do so if they can't easily get away with it.
so in short, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
