Jump to content
Screech

I stand with Planned Parenthood

Recommended Posts

To the extent that the rape allegations are accurate, it's pretty clear that the employees who committed the sexual assaults were acting outside the scope of their employment for the purposes of agency law. That doesn't mean that KBR is off the hook from a lawsuit, but it does mean that it's ridiculous to claim that KBR directly raped anyone
It's probably a good thing I didn't claim that then. Aiding sex traffickers is also clearly outside the scope of the employment of Planned Parenthood employees, especially given that they reported the issue to the FBI when it came to light.

 

Conversely, the employees accused in the Planned Parenthood cases do appear to have had actual or apparent authority. So their actions can be imputed on their employer directly. Further, unlike with KBR, there is no alternate way of achieving a similar result against Planned Parenthood. The only way to deny funding is to deny funding; while KBR could be taken to arbitration even if lawsuits were unavailable.

You're drawing arbitrary distinctions here. I don't understand the difference between low-level clinic workers acting outside of the scope of their employment and violating Federal law and low-level PMCs acting outside the scope of their employment and violating Federal law.

 

unlike with KBR, there is no alternate way of achieving a similar result against Planned Parenthood. The only way to deny funding is to deny funding; while KBR could be taken to arbitration even if lawsuits were unavailable.
That's demonstrably false. Congress could, say, restrict the ability of Planned Parenthood clinics whose workers have been convicted of complicity with sex crimes from accessing Federal funds.

 

EDIT: Also, I think you're misapplying your expertise here. I'm arguing that thirty Republican senators made an unjustifiable and hypocritical decision as a matter of substantive justice rather than as a matter of procedure - a distinction you recognize but are arguing from the procedural side a. in the case of a political decision rather than a legal one and b. when I was critiquing the substance of the decision rather than its legal legitimacy.

 

We elect legislators to make substantive decisions while respecting the constraints of procedural rules, not to slavishly obey procedure as the only legitimate form of justice. That's what legislatures are for.

Edited by Screech
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We elect legislators to make substantive decisions while respecting the constraints of procedural rules, not to slavishly obey procedure as the only legitimate form of justice. That's what legislatures are for.

 

You must spread some motherfucking rep before you can give it to Screech again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Ian, you're the one guilty of a sleight of hand. this debate has become focused on some irrelevant analogy instead of the original argument, which was the bill defunds essential health care services for women who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them. you got devastated on this point. i mean, you whine about how many times you have to ask for evidence on this point BUT DON'T EVEN READ THE 3 PDFS THAT WERE POSTED. you admit as much, and then say " don't have time to read through all of those and do your work for you. Give me a direct citation to evidence that clearly shows that Planned Parenthood is the exclusive (or almost exclusive) provider of essential health services to many people living in poverty."

 

had you spent even 5 minutes reading them (i opened my laptop 20 minutes ago, so i couldn't have spent more than 5 minutes reading this thread AND the pdfs) you'd have discovered:

 

the HHS makes it clear that Title X requires individuals recieving services be low income. now, this doesn't specify PP but thats because the HHS doesn't do studies JUST deal with PP, it's about Title X recipients. all of which, by the way, would be defunded (so the distinction b/w PP and "the rest of Title X health care providers" isn't relevant to the law)

Federal regulations specify that priority in the provision of Title X-funded services be given

to persons from low-income families and that individuals with family incomes at or below the

poverty level receive services at no charge, unless a third party (government or private) is

authorized or obligated to pay for these services. For individuals with incomes between 101%

and 250% of the poverty level, Title X-funded agencies are required to charge for services

using a sliding scale based on family size and family income.

5

For unemancipated minors

seeking confidential services, the assessment of income level is based on their own rather

than their family’s income.

5

Nationally, 70% (3,632,506) of users had family incomes at or below the poverty level, based

on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines for the 2009

calendar year ($18,310 for a family of three).

9

Additionally, 23% (1,181,961) of users had

incomes between 101% and 250% of poverty, and 4% (207,484) had incomes exceeding

250% of the poverty level. The income level for 3% (164,316) of users was unknown or not

reported (Exhibit 15).

Across regions, between 54% (I) and 76% (IX) of users had family incomes at or below

100% of the poverty level, and between 89% (I) and 96% (VI) had incomes at or below the

level that would qualify them for free or subsidized care (≤ 250% of the poverty level). The

percentage of users in poverty (≤ 100% of the poverty level) was at or above the national

average of 70% in four regions (IV, V, VI, and IX) (Exhibit 15). Exhibit B–2 (Appendix B)

presents the distribution of family planning users for 2009 by income level within each state,

the District of Columbia, and the eight U.S. territories and jurisdictions.

Between 1999 and 2009, the percentage of total users with family incomes at or below 100%

of the poverty level increased from 65% to 70%. Numerically, however, the number of users

eligible for free services increased 26%, from 2,886,684 in 1999 to 3,632,506 in 2009

 

from PP

Title X is the only federal program dedicated solely to funding family planning and related reproductive health care services. In 1999, it helped to support 61 percent of all family planning agencies (Finer et al., 2002). Title X accounts for 26 percent of the revenue of agencies receiving Title X funds (AGI, 2005a).

 

All Title X grants are administered through state health departments or regional agencies that subcontract with local clinics. In 2001, approximately 4,400 clinics, located in nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of all counties, provided family planning services funded by Title X. Of the 4.7 million women served by these clinics, 43 percent received care at health departments, 33 percent received care at Planned Parenthood health centers, 13 percent received care at other independent community-based clinics, seven percent received care at hospitals, and four percent received care at community or migrant health centers (AGI, 2004; Frost et al., 2004).

 

from guttermacher

 

An estimated 33 million American women need contraceptive services to

avoid unintended pregnancy. Half of them—11.6 million poor or lowincome adults and 4.9 million sexually active teenagers—may need access

to publicly subsidized services (Chart 6).

8

In 1997, 6.5 million women obtained contraceptive services from publicly funded family planning clinics.

9

Overall, about one-quarter of

women who obtain family planning services each year from a medical

provider receive their care from publicly supported clinics, but the proportion climbs to four in 10 among members of minority groups and

approximately half among poor women and teenagers.

10 A profile of family planning clinic clients reveals that they are overwhelmingly poor or low-income; nine in 10 have family incomes below 250% of

the federal poverty level

 

this report, cited by the first, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3311301.html clarifies that

Planned Parenthood clinics served about twice as many contraceptive clients per clinic (2,056) as hospital clinics (1,077), nearly three times as many as health departments (792) or "other" clinics (782), and more than four times as many as community or migrant health centers (453).

 

While health department clinics continue to be the most numerous, clinics run by Planned Parenthood affiliates, hospitals, community or migrant health centers and "other" agencies make up three out of every five clinic sites and serve nearly two-thirds of all contraceptive clients obtaining clinic care.

 

On the other hand, more than 300,000 women in need of publicly funded family planning care live in counties that do not have a single publicly funded family planning clinic. More than half of these women reside in states where at least 10% of women in need of publicly funded family planning care live in counties without any clinic provider—Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KBR:

1) Doesn't have systemic corruption

2) Took actions to protect themselves from potential litigation and to avoid a major scandal, both which they were justified in doing.

 

Wait... wait... what?!

 

Fuck you.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that KBR/Franken Amendment is irrelevant here, that's why I've been distinguishing it from the Pence Amendment in every post.

 

had you spent even 5 minutes reading them (i opened my laptop 20 minutes ago, so i couldn't have spent more than 5 minutes reading this thread AND the pdfs) you'd have discovered:

 

the HHS makes it clear that Title X requires individuals recieving services be low income. now, this doesn't specify PP but thats because the HHS doesn't do studies JUST deal with PP, it's about Title X recipients. all of which, by the way, would be defunded (so the distinction b/w PP and "the rest of Title X health care providers" isn't relevant to the law)

Or you could read the Pence Amendment, which I posted above, and see that there is a very clear line between Planned Parenthood and all other Title X providers.

 

"None of the funds made available by this Act may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any of the following affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc..."

 

See how it only names Planned Parenthood and no other Title X providers? But, please feel free to point out where it says "Title X recipients. all of which, by the way, would be defunded." Is it your claim that Planned Parenthood is the only Title X provider in the nation?

 

Further, showing that Planned Parenthood is a large Title X provider is not the same thing as showing that it is the exclusive provider in any area.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that's because we're not exclusively talking about the Pence amendment, and you keep insisting on its exclusive relevance even though no one accepted your distinction. It's just one prong in the Republican war on family planning - another is their proposed 2012 budget, which completely eliminates Title X funding.

Edited by Screech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe that's because we're not exclusively talking about the Pence amendment, and you keep insisting on its exclusive relevance even though no one accepted your distinction. It's just one prong in the Republican war on family planning - another is their proposed 2012 budget, which completely eliminates Title X funding.

The petition linked in the OP talks only about the Pence Amendment. You still haven't shown, as you accused in the OP, that the Pence Amendment prevents anyone from getting essential medical services.

 

If you want to talk about other things besides the Pence Amendment, that's fine. But you need to say so before changing the subject, not as a post-hoc rationalization when you get caught making things up about the Pence Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine. Republicans hate all reproductive health, they just hate Planned Parenthood extra much, so much that they passed an extra amendment about it. That totally proves that we don't need to stick up for womens' health and that the Pence amendment - and the legislative agenda it represents - won't substantially hurt women and the poor (which it was the original intent of the OP to point out, if nothing else).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ian, i don't think you understand the pence amendment. it didn't change the proposal to defund title X contained in the budget. if you read the amendment, it's actually just tacked on to the end of the bill. so its not like pence was like "whoa, slow down. dont cut all of title X, just cut it to PP" its more like has was like "we have to make sure that we're clear here - fuck PP". his language is misleading. he says the amendment doesn't cut other health services. which is true...because the budget does that elsewhere. so while i feel like even if the former were the case that i've demonstrated that PP provides something like 33% of family planning services (2x more than most hospital clinics) and is the only option in some area, its not. so we're back to square one. all we're saying is family planning should be affordable for the poor. the budget removes the programs that make that true. why do you support that removal? seems intuitive that the answer would be that you value fiscal discipline over family planning. is that accurate?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait... wait... what?!

 

Fuck you.

 

 

Quoted for motherfucking accuracy.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait... wait... what?!

 

Fuck you.

 

Did you research her claims? Did you look at where the claims originated? Did you check KBR and State Department press releases? Did you read the documents of litigation as put forth by Jones? If you're going to lash out at someone or make an ass of yourself like Screech here is so talented at doing, you should verify what you're being told. Because had you done that, you would notice rampant discrepancies. The article on wikipedia is a joke, its citation for her being locked in a box, and accordingly the popularization of that thought, is the result of hyperbolic remarks of some MSNBC commentator. That's strange, both KBR and the DOS issued official remarks on her conditions, and nothing was amiss.

 

She was locked in a box for 24 hours? Nope. She was placed in a trailer with a bed, toilet and shower (standard individual accommodations for Camp Hope contractors) for several hours following her making the report, prior to the DOS coming and moving her.

 

She wasn't given any food or water? No, she was given both, and also hygiene items and clothing.

 

She had to convince a guard to let her use a cell phone? Nope, as mainly, there weren't any guards, only a female KBR employee who had accompanied her, and also as she had let her use her cell phone, and Jones had spoken with her parents during that time.

 

The only truth in these claims is that the rape kit was indeed mishandled. BUT it was mishandled by the DOS. KBR produced documents on this, which were verified by the DOS. First, Jones performed the rape kit, second, she handed it off to KBR. Third, KBR handed it off to DOS with documents signed by the DOS showing that they did. Fourth, the DOS fucked up. NOT KBR.

 

And finally - my original comment on the KBR being justified in taking actions to protect themselves from litigation was wholly unrelated to Jones. It was on how their requiring private arbitration in their comments is a reasonable part of their contracting. In that, they are just.

 

You must spread some motherfucking rep before you can give it to Screech again.

 

Quoted for motherfucking accuracy.

 

You are annoying. Contribute to the discussion or get out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She was locked in a box for 24 hours? Nope. She was placed in a trailer with a bed, toilet and shower (standard individual accommodations for Camp Hope contractors) for several hours following her making the report, prior to the DOS coming and moving her.

 

She wasn't given any food or water? No, she was given both, and also hygiene items and clothing.

 

nope, not trying to cover up rape at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, McNinja, I don't care what you read in the Pick-Up Artist's Handbook.

 

No matter how mean you are to me, I'm not going to be your boyfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't think you understand the pence amendment. it didn't change the proposal to defund title X contained in the budget.

 

You'll have to forgive my ignorance of that tidbit since the total defunding of Title X (1) is not referenced on the petition link in the OP, (2) the first person to say that in this thread was briangonzaba (without citation) and that position wasn't adopted by Screech until later when he decided to become a moving target rather than defend his initial statements against the Pence Amendment. I had not taken the time to read through the entire bill up to now (and even now, just skimming the HHS & Labor Title).

 

The version of HR 1 passed by the House does defund Title X family planning programs entirely (buried in Section 1809(a)(2) of the bill, in case you're wondering). However, the original direction of this thread was solely regarding the Pence Amendment (as that's the only thing the OP and title reference). If anyone thinks that I've said anything about Title X outside of the Pence Amendment, they are mistaken.

 

if you read the amendment, it's actually just tacked on to the end of the bill. so its not like pence was like "whoa, slow down. dont cut all of title X, just cut it to PP" its more like has was like "we have to make sure that we're clear here - fuck PP".

Yes, I never said anything about Title X funding, only the Pence Amendment. The Pence Amendment may seem to be overkill, in light of the Title X axing, but it does cover all of the bases Pence meant to cover. This way, Planned Parenthood will get no money from any federal source, not just no Title X funds. I don't know if the organization gets federal funding outside of Title X, but if it does, then the Pence Amendment is not superfluous.

 

so while i feel like even if the former were the case that i've demonstrated that PP provides something like 33% of family planning services (2x more than most hospital clinics) and is the only option in some area, its not.

But nowhere in the evidence you quoted did you show that Planned Parenthood was the only option anywhere. That's the claim Screech made at the top that I've been asking for evidence for this entire time. I'm not making an assertion either way, but I am dubious of his claim and become more suspicious with each round of back-and-forth that continues to lack any proof of that claim.

 

You showed that Planned Parenthood and other clinics (including similar private organizations, hospitals, etc.) take Title X funding. On average, Title X makes up about a quarter of these clinic's funding, so the scrapping of Title X is not trivial to them, but it's also far from a death knell. However, that does not show Planned Parenthood is an exclusive provider of services anywhere.

 

You also showed that Planned Parenthood clinics served 2,056 contraceptives over some period, which is far more than any other category of Title X provider listed, but it is still less than 40% of the total when all Title X clinics are combined. That data also does not include any mention of services besides contraception distribution. While that may be a big part of these clinics' work, it's hardly the only significant part (and it's not really the part that gets social conservatives up in arms). It also doesn't show that Planned Parenthood is the only option anywhere.

 

Finally your evidence shows that there are some areas that don't have any publicly-funded clinics at all (by Title X or any other program). But that doesn't show that Planned Parenthood is an exclusive provider there because PP is a Title X recipient. What your data shows that that none of these organizations is a provider in those areas.

 

So, in sum, there has yet to be any showing in this thread that a defunding of Planned Parenthood by the federal government will deprive anyone of publicly-funded family planning care. (Much less the "many" cited by the OP.) That's the claim the OP made and the debate he started, that's the claim I've been asking for proof of, and that's the debate I've participated in.

 

The complete defunding of Title X is a separate issue that Screech jumped to only when he realized that his attacks on the Pence Amendment were unwarranted hyperbole. I don't like moving targets.

 

all we're saying is family planning should be affordable for the poor. the budget removes the programs that make that true. why do you support that removal? seems intuitive that the answer would be that you value fiscal discipline over family planning. is that accurate?

I haven't said anything about the substance of Section 1809(a)(2); you should not assume from that silence that I support it.

Edited by Fox On Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a fine line between liking arguments stay focused and not shift around constantly, and pedantically insisting that all additional clarification and development of a debate is necessarily illegitimate. Thankfully, you're way, way, way on the far side of the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you didn't get the memo? the debate is over. that's what the RFD generally means. post rounding your judge just makes you look like a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll have to forgive my ignorance of that tidbit since the total defunding of Title X (1) is not referenced on the petition link in the OP, (2) the first person to say that in this thread was briangonzaba (without citation) and that position wasn't adopted by Screech until later when he decided to become a moving target rather than defend his initial statements against the Pence Amendment. I had not taken the time to read through the entire bill up to now (and even now, just skimming the HHS & Labor Title).

 

okay. you're forgiven for not knowing that at the onset of the conversation. not that you DO know that, what do you think about the bill? is it worth defunding PP to lose all title x funding? i think not, in fact i think defunding PP is stupid. once again, ignorance is not an argument.

 

The version of HR 1 passed by the House does defund Title X family planning programs entirely (buried in Section 1809(a)(2) of the bill, in case you're wondering). However, the original direction of this thread was solely regarding the Pence Amendment (as that's the only thing the OP and title reference). If anyone thinks that I've said anything about Title X outside of the Pence Amendment, they are mistaken.

 

thats misleading. the conversation at the national level, and even at the level of PP activism, has persistently blurred the two (probably because...you know...its the same bill) so to suggest that just because the OP doesn't specifically mention the entire context of the bill means you get to ignore that context is a little opportunistic and doesn't help advance a very intellectual conversation on the issue.

 

Yes, I never said anything about Title X funding, only the Pence Amendment. The Pence Amendment may seem to be overkill, in light of the Title X axing, but it does cover all of the bases Pence meant to cover. This way, Planned Parenthood will get no money from any federal source, not just no Title X funds. I don't know if the organization gets federal funding outside of Title X, but if it does, then the Pence Amendment is not superfluous.

 

thats neat, but the pence amendment is an amendment to that bill. it doesn't exist in a vacuum. if you (or pence) only wanna defend the PP defund then it should be its own bill (he's tried that before, failed each time). its not though, so lets stop playing pretend.

 

But nowhere in the evidence you quoted did you show that Planned Parenthood was the only option anywhere.

 

really?

 

Finally your evidence shows that there are some areas that don't have any publicly-funded clinics at all (by Title X or any other program). But that doesn't show that Planned Parenthood is an exclusive provider there because PP is a Title X recipient. What your data shows that that none of these organizations is a provider in those areas.

 

yeah, and PP is a publicly funded title x hc provider. so, you concede that access is woefully inadequate now and yet defend a massive cut to access. that makes lots of sense.

 

 

The complete defunding of Title X is a separate issue

 

except that its the same type of care provider, funded by the same federal program, dealt with in the same bill. yeah, completely different issue.

 

I haven't said anything about the substance of Section 1809(a)(2); you should not assume from that silence that I support it.

 

so...you decline to take a position? i outright asked you once already. coward. don't act like your position on PP doesn't indicate a high probability of your overall position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a fine line between liking arguments stay focused and not shift around constantly, and pedantically insisting that all additional clarification and development of a debate is necessarily illegitimate. Thankfully, you're way, way, way on the far side of the line.

Thank you for conceding that you have no evidence to support your initial claims, now please stop hurting the cause. Of course Americans should have access to affordable health care in whatever form they need. Title X is part of that overall scheme and should remain in some form. Perhaps it could take money from the Capitol Police's nearly $278 million in salaries alone (Sec. 1910)? But, regardless, if you're going to start a populist crusade because of GOP anti-health initiatives in H.R. 1, then I'd suggest you first direct your ire toward Sections 4018 and 4019 as they affect far more people than Sections 1809 or the Pence Amendment...

 

yeah, and PP is a publicly funded title x hc provider. so, you concede that access is woefully inadequate now and yet defend a massive cut to access. that makes lots of sense.
Access being woefully inadequate in some places now doesn't mean that striking Planned Parenthood from the federal dole will affect anyone. In the places without care that you reference, there is no Title X provider, including Planned Parenthood. The relevant questions are (1) whether Planned Parenthood will be able to offer the same level of care to the same people without access to Title X funds (not shown, but probably not), and (2) whether the loss of Planned Parenthood's services in an area will prevent anyone from accessing affordable care (via Title X or otherwise). That second point has not been shown at all. If there's an area where there's no Title X clinic, then the loss of PP's government funding will have no effect. If there's more than one Title X provider in an area (PP and something else), then the loss of PP's federal funds will not necessary affect anyone's access to Title X services. The only relevant areas are those where PP is the sole provider of Title X services, and that has not been shown at all.

 

Additionally, it does not really matter that the Pence Amendment and Section 1809(a)(2) are in the same bill because it's only the House version. Neither, either, or both sections may remain in the Senate bill or survive in conference. There are lots of absurd, outrageous, pandering, and illogical provisions in bills that are passed in one house, but die in the other chamber or conference. What really matters is the enrolled bill sent to the president. Here, it's more likely that the Pence Amendment will survive than Section 1809(a)(2), so it's not inappropriate to address them separately.

Edited by Fox On Socks
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read your last post very thoroughly and try to realize what about it is making you come off as a total wanker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should read your last post very thoroughly and try to realize what about it is making you come off as a total wanker.

You should read this entire thread very carefully to understand why you've misinterpreted a lot of what's been said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it completely self evidence that you're a law student. you've allowed procedure to lead you to argue against an organization that provides services you said you support. kafka-esque much?

 

(1) whether Planned Parenthood will be able to offer the same level of care to the same people without access to Title X funds (not shown, but probably not),

 

http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20110224/Teen/302249982/-1/sports?Title=Funding-for-Planned-Parenthood-faces-risk

 

keep in mind the bill, with the amendment, doesn't just strip title x. it strips all federal funding. the money line from the article is "The federal funding that has been provided to Planned Parenthood goes toward basic health care. The Planned Parenthood centers collectively receive around $363 million in government grants and contracts, which includes local, state and federal funding. Ninety percent of that money is either federal funding or Medicaid (which would be eliminated by the Pence Amendment).". so unless you are suggesting PP could provide the same level of service at 10% of the budget...

 

and (2) whether the loss of Planned Parenthood's services in an area will prevent anyone from accessing affordable care (via Title X or otherwise). That second point has not been shown at all. If there's an area where there's no Title X clinic, then the loss of PP's government funding will have no effect. If there's more than one Title X provider in an area (PP and something else), then the loss of PP's federal funds will not necessary affect anyone's access to Title X services. The only relevant areas are those where PP is the sole provider of Title X services, and that has not been shown at all.

 

you are being willfully dense. you are willing to admit that there are MILLIONS of low income women, huge percentages of those who use title x services, who receive their vital hc services from PP. you're willing to admit that access is severely limited and that therefore some women may have to travel long distances to receive any care at all (otherwise known as a shortage of care providers) and you're response to a drastic cut in available title x services is "eh, i'm sure they can find help somewhere else"? why should they have to do that, assuming its possible at all? so that we can save some money? seems like a bad gamble with someone else's life.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...