Planned Parenthood videos

[StrangeSox]

So what do they do there that can't be done elsewhere thanks to Obamacare?

 

"Obamacare" is not a healthcare services provider. You still need doctors and medical facilities to administer healthcare.

 

And I like the way you counted the STD tests at the top. So if they run a test for several of the most common STDs, does that count as 7 services?

 

I'm not sure if Jake means that "one visit/panel" counts as one service or if a 5-STD panel in a single visit would count as 5 services, but either way, those numbers and their other services still dwarf abortions.

Edited August 4, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Chisoxfn]

Well, in 2014, here's how a breakdown of their services looked. This is one a per-service basis; that is, if I came in and got 1 STD test, that would count as 1. If I got a second, that would also count as 1 for a total of 2.

 

41%, the largest portion of all the categories they have, is devoted to STD testing and treatment. The vast majority within are tests for common STDs with quite a few HIV tests as well.

 

34% of services are for birth control. Most of these are "reversible" forms of contraception, which is anything other than a sterilization. They list emergency contraception separately, which is a large portion of the birth control services that they provide (this is the Plan B pill). In case you were wondering, they performed 3,749 vasectomies in 2013. Based on a formula for likelihood of pregnancy, they estimate that they prevented just over 500,000 unintended pregnancies in the year.

 

10% of services are cancer screening and preventative services. There is a near even split between pap smears and breast exams. And no, they do not provide mammograms. Clinicians will do manual examinations and people can come to PP for subsidized referrals to mammogram providers. HPV vaccinations and some other procedures are also provided. 90,000 people had their cancer detected via PP services in the year.

 

11% are "other women's health services", which is almost solely pregnancy tests. They also give some prenatal care to expecting mothers.

 

There is 1% that falls under "other services," which encompasses 41,000 people who received family practice services from a doctor, 53,000 people who were treated for urinary tract infections, and a few who were sent to adoption agencies or received other services.

 

And of course PP provides abortions, which account for 3% of all services rendered. 327,166 people receive abortion procedures in some way, shape, or form in 2013.

 

And to be clear for another poster who mentioned this, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit. The vast majority of revenue comes from private donors and government grants.

It makes me sick to see how high that abortion number is. Someone might go, well our population is huge so relative, but man, that is 327,000 lives. Okay...I am probably assuming high since some won't end up going full term and miscarriage, but even then, you are talking about 300,000 lives. I won't force the hand of other people and what they should do, I just wish 327,000 people weren't in a position that they were doing that. And lets be honest...number probably isn't 327,000 as I'd presume their are some repeaters on that list (sadly).

[StrangeSox]

It makes me sick to see how high that abortion number is. Someone might go, well our population is huge so relative, but man, that is 327,000 lives. Okay...I am probably assuming high since some won't end up going full term and miscarriage, but even then, you are talking about 300,000 lives. I won't force the hand of other people and what they should do, I just wish 327,000 people weren't in a position that they were doing that. And lets be honest...number probably isn't 327,000 as I'd presume their are some repeaters on that list (sadly).

Continuing to fund reproductive health services like Planned Parenthood (along with solid sex ed) goes a long way towards reducing the number of desired abortions.

[Jake]

So what do they do there that can't be done elsewhere thanks to Obamacare?

 

And I like the way you counted the STD tests at the top. So if they run a test for several of the most common STDs, does that count as 7 services?

 

One test, one count. Basically, every time you visit PP counts as 1 for the most part. If one service required multiple visits that would just count as one. It does appear that HIV tests are done separately and are not part of the standard battery of STD/STI tests, probably due to cost. They served between 3 and 4 million people, so on average people don't come just once.

 

ACA should reduce the need for places like PP and they have never provided one-of-a-kind services (other than the price factor). PP provides value beyond just that there are services performed there that might be available at a doctor's office and maybe at similar expense. If you want to get tested for STD or pregnancy or need birth control (especially Plan B) in short order, you can rest assured that you can go to PP and get it taken care of without a ton of paperwork and waiting. Planned Parenthood is almost everywhere, tries to locate in high-need areas, and has the benefit of name recognition and reaching out specifically to people who wouldn't be likely to know how to get these services without being told about it.

[Chisoxfn]

Continuing to fund reproductive health services like Planned Parenthood (along with solid sex ed) goes a long way towards reducing the number of desired abortions.

Just an FYI, but I'm not even getting into the debate on funding / not funding. I'm just talking about how disgusted I am with that number. As a parent with two young kids, knowing and understanding the joys (and frustrations, haha) they bring to your world...just hard to imagine if a decision was made not to bring them into the world. Obviously we tried to have them and planned for them but even if I didn't, I could never have made the alternative decision. That said, I understand that in many of these cases, the situation the children would be brought into would not be a healthy one. However, their are lots of people who can't have and look to adopt and it seems like adoption rates are increasing in this era of dual income families where people have children later.

 

I feel like more then ever before (and I have no basis for this...just an assumption), more people are having trouble conceiving. I can think of a lot of friends who had to get treatments, etc, as they tried and I never remember hearing about that when I was a kid (again, could be it always was that way) but I presume it is a consequence to people having children later in life.

[Soxbadger]

It makes me sick to see how high that abortion number is. Someone might go, well our population is huge so relative, but man, that is 327,000 lives. Okay...I am probably assuming high since some won't end up going full term and miscarriage, but even then, you are talking about 300,000 lives. I won't force the hand of other people and what they should do, I just wish 327,000 people weren't in a position that they were doing that. And lets be honest...number probably isn't 327,000 as I'd presume their are some repeaters on that list (sadly).

 

They are potential lives.

 

That being said the part I dont get about the Republican anti-abortion sentiment is the cost of abortion is far less than the cost of supporting someone for 18 years. Potentially 300k+ mouths to feed each year would be a significant burden on social services which would mean higher taxes just to keep similar services.

 

At the end of the day abortion is a personal decision and no one seems to be stepping up and saying "Ill pay for those 300k+ potential lives each year" and that is not even counting all of the medical bills that go into having a child.

 

I think a good first step is providing birth control for free.

[illinilaw08]

Continuing to fund reproductive health services like Planned Parenthood (along with solid sex ed) goes a long way towards reducing the number of desired abortions.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/06/c..._n_7738724.html

 

Proof of that in practice in Colorado...

 

Edit: The funding for this program was cut... go figure.

Edited August 4, 2015 by illinilaw08

[Jake]

It makes me sick to see how high that abortion number is. Someone might go, well our population is huge so relative, but man, that is 327,000 lives. Okay...I am probably assuming high since some won't end up going full term and miscarriage, but even then, you are talking about 300,000 lives. I won't force the hand of other people and what they should do, I just wish 327,000 people weren't in a position that they were doing that. And lets be honest...number probably isn't 327,000 as I'd presume their are some repeaters on that list (sadly).

 

I don't really see it that way, but I included it because I knew that number would be important to those who do. I'm not sure, for the record, if that number is indicative only of completed procedures or if it would include consultations or what. I doubt they'd report it in a way that inflates the number, but I don't know for sure.

 

For the safety of those involved and for clearer moral decisionmaking, I'd love to see the number go down (but only as a result of fewer unwanted pregnancies). As StrangeSox mentioned, Planned Parenthood spends a great deal of resources on sex education and that is no small part of the organization's societal value.

[Jake]

They are potential lives.

 

That being said the part I dont get about the Republican anti-abortion sentiment is the cost of abortion is far less than the cost of supporting someone for 18 years. Potentially 300k+ mouths to feed each year would be a significant burden on social services which would mean higher taxes just to keep similar services.

 

At the end of the day abortion is a personal decision and no one seems to be stepping up and saying "Ill pay for those 300k+ potential lives each year" and that is not even counting all of the medical bills that go into having a child.

 

I think a good first step is providing birth control for free.

 

Well those who are anti-abortion are probably not fond of placing a dollar value on what they feel is a human life every bit as viable and important as yours or mine. And that is also of course why most don't feel that it's just a personal decision.

[Chisoxfn]

They are potential lives.

 

That being said the part I dont get about the Republican anti-abortion sentiment is the cost of abortion is far less than the cost of supporting someone for 18 years. Potentially 300k+ mouths to feed each year would be a significant burden on social services which would mean higher taxes just to keep similar services.

 

At the end of the day abortion is a personal decision and no one seems to be stepping up and saying "Ill pay for those 300k+ potential lives each year" and that is not even counting all of the medical bills that go into having a child.

 

I think a good first step is providing birth control for free.

No offense, but I don't f***ing care. We are talking about people. While something could happen to those fetuses naturally that prevents them from being born, the reality is most of them are real lives. The sad part is the people in this situation in the first place and most of them are probably desperate and the mistake is going to change their life and potentially ruin it. I understand those things, but at the same time, the baby is a person as far as I'm concerned. Not going to debate, you either feel that way or you don't, but since I do, I'm not going to throw out some whacky argument around cost / finances. We are talking people's lives. It is why I have actually supported many of the concepts behind Obamacare because I think healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

 

Note: My view differs entirely if someone is pregnant due to cases of assault.

[Jake]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/06/c..._n_7738724.html

 

Proof of that in practice in Colorado...

 

Edit: The funding for this program was cut... go figure.

 

For those who don't like to read the links, that is a 40% reduction in births among teens and a 42% reduction in abortions among teens in just 4 years(!!!), largely attributed to a program that provided IUDs free to women. The reductions were nearly identical for another key demographic, single women under 25 who have not finished high school.

 

It's truly astounding how large of a drop that is at comparatively little expense. The Obama administration recently told insurance companies that IUDs must also be provided free under the ACA, not just cheaper, oral options.

[Soxbadger]

Well those who are anti-abortion are probably not fond of placing a dollar value on what they feel is a human life every bit as viable and important as yours or mine. And that is also of course why most don't feel that it's just a personal decision.

 

If a human life is so important to them they should have no problem paying extremely high taxes to pay to help everyone else.

 

It cant be both ways, you cant argue to cut social services for people who are alive and at the same time argue that unborn lives are so important.

[StrangeSox]

No offense, but I don't f***ing care. We are talking about people. While something could happen to those fetuses naturally that prevents them from being born, the reality is most of them are real lives. The sad part is the people in this situation in the first place and most of them are probably desperate and the mistake is going to change their life and potentially ruin it. I understand those things, but at the same time, the baby is a person as far as I'm concerned. Not going to debate, you either feel that way or you don't, but since I do, I'm not going to throw out some whacky argument around cost / finances. We are talking people's lives. It is why I have actually supported many of the concepts behind Obamacare because I think healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

 

I think a lot of people fail to recognize and remember that fundamental difference in philosophy and I'm glad you pointed it out.

 

Note: My view differs entirely if someone is pregnant due to cases of assault.

 

Could you (or anyone else who opposes abortion generally except rape/incest/woman's health) explain how you can square those views, though? If the fetus is a person, it's still a person regardless of how the woman got pregnant. What makes it okay to abort that fetus but not one because the woman just doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term?

[StrangeSox]

If a human life is so important to them they should have no problem paying extremely high taxes to pay to help everyone else.

 

It cant be both ways, you cant argue to cut social services for people who are alive and at the same time argue that unborn lives are so important.

Chisoxfn isn't one of them, but there's a strong overlap between people who strongly oppose abortion and also oppose good, useful sexual education for teenagers and widely available reproductive health services/information including contraceptives. Defunding Planned Parenthood would virtually guarantee that the number of unwanted pregnancies would increase.

Edited August 4, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Chisoxfn]

I think a lot of people fail to recognize and remember that fundamental difference in philosophy and I'm glad you pointed it out.

 

 

 

Could you (or anyone else who opposes abortion generally except rape/incest/woman's health) explain how you can square those views, though? If the fetus is a person, it's still a person regardless of how the woman got pregnant. What makes it okay to abort that fetus but not one because the woman just doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term?

I can put a real value to the emotional distress that carrying something that came from such a traumatic experience which was completely out of such parties control. Reality is the fetus is going to live inside that person for 9 months and be a constant reminder of an extremely traumatic experience. In regards to a full on health situation, where the mom is susceptible to dying if they have the child...then the existing life to me is far more important, not to mention the reality is, if you don't choose the mom, you probably are talking high odds that both the baby and the mom end up dead.

[StrangeSox]

I can put a real value to the emotional distress that carrying something that came from such a traumatic experience which was completely out of such parties control. Reality is the fetus is going to live inside that person for 9 months and be a constant reminder of an extremely traumatic experience.

I wasn't being a smartass and I appreciate that response.

[EvilMonkey]

If a human life is so important to them they should have no problem paying extremely high taxes to pay to help everyone else.

 

It cant be both ways, you cant argue to cut social services for people who are alive and at the same time argue that unborn lives are so important.

No, that is where the personal responsibility part comes in. Why is it society's duty to pay for your child? That is where a huge disconnect is here. Society shouldn't have to pay either way for your 'decision'. Keep it or not, you pay for it. Remove tax funding and most of the arguments go away.

[Soxbadger]

No offense, but I don't f***ing care. We are talking about people. While something could happen to those fetuses naturally that prevents them from being born, the reality is most of them are real lives. The sad part is the people in this situation in the first place and most of them are probably desperate and the mistake is going to change their life and potentially ruin it. I understand those things, but at the same time, the baby is a person as far as I'm concerned. Not going to debate, you either feel that way or you don't, but since I do, I'm not going to throw out some whacky argument around cost / finances. We are talking people's lives. It is why I have actually supported many of the concepts behind Obamacare because I think healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

 

Note: My view differs entirely if someone is pregnant due to cases of assault.

 

And that is fine. But what I am saying is that people who are poor in America, are real lives as well. So when Republican's (not saying you) argue that they want to reduce social services for real people while at the same time arguing against abortion, it just does not make any sense. Either lives matter or they do not.

 

My personal belief is based on science in that until X time a fetus can not live on its own. Therefore until X time, it is entirely up to the mother whether she wants to go forward with the pregnancy. After X time has passed, abortion is no longer okay.

 

That way you balance the right of the mother versus the rights of the potential life.

[Chisoxfn]

Chisoxfn isn't one of them, but there's a strong overlap between people who strongly oppose abortion and also oppose good, useful sexual education for teenagers and widely available reproductive health services/information including contraceptives. Defunding Planned Parenthood would virtually guarantee that the number of unwanted pregnancies would increase.

Yeah - I support educating people vs. the tactic of pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and being ignorant to the realities of being a teenager / young adult. I hope I am the same way when my kids are older and that the education pays off and I really hope that I don't find where my son or daughter are in this situation.

[Soxbadger]

No, that is where the personal responsibility part comes in. Why is it society's duty to pay for your child? That is where a huge disconnect is here. Society shouldn't have to pay either way for your 'decision'. Keep it or not, you pay for it. Remove tax funding and most of the arguments go away.

 

If you take away someones right to get rid of it, why should they pay for it?

 

And if we are just talking costs, if X option is cheaper than Y option, shouldnt we pay for X option? Otherwise you are just wasting your money.

[StrangeSox]

No, that is where the personal responsibility part comes in. Why is it society's duty to pay for your child? That is where a huge disconnect is here. Society shouldn't have to pay either way for your 'decision'. Keep it or not, you pay for it.

 

Why should the child bear the burden? If life is really this precious gift when it's inside the womb, why does it suddenly become worthless once the child is born?

 

Remove tax funding and most of the arguments go away.

 

This is not true. The ever-increasing restrictions and regulations on abortion service providers in many states that essentially ban abortions from those states are not about tax-payer funding. The continual push to get Roe v. Wade overturned and to test Casey's "undue burden" limit with every conceivable burden is not about government funding. The protesters routinely picketing the clinic near my house are not picketing because of government funding. For federal funding, the Hyde amendment explicitly bars using any of the funds for abortion services.

Edited August 4, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Chisoxfn]

And that is fine. But what I am saying is that people who are poor in America, are real lives as well. So when Republican's (not saying you) argue that they want to reduce social services for real people while at the same time arguing against abortion, it just does not make any sense. Either lives matter or they do not.

 

My personal belief is based on science in that until X time a fetus can not live on its own. Therefore until X time, it is entirely up to the mother whether she wants to go forward with the pregnancy. After X time has passed, abortion is no longer okay.

 

That way you balance the right of the mother versus the rights of the potential life.

Well my view on the government and social services is that their is a real need to protect the youth and be their to help the youth move forward and make a life for themselves. However, at a certain point, my views go to the fact that you have been awarded your chances and you are now more in control and at this point, the government is their only to provide a temporary fall back plan (to help you get another kick-start). To some extent, it is a self fulfilling prophecy in the sense that the better you have it to start, the more likely the chance of success. However, I don't draw the line at certain things, such as health as I feel all adults, even people who have made all the wrong choices in life, are deserving of medical treatment. That said, one of the biggest travesties of our health system (pre Obamacare) was how people who make all the right choices could have found themselves facing bankruptcy with significant medical costs and no ability to get insurance (pre-obama care). Yeah, if I got cancer and was out for a year and was lucky enough to win my battle, you know what, I think I'd still deserve coverage and everything else and I'm okay paying a little more to ensure that is the case (vs. being kicked to the curb because of an illness I had no to limited control over.

[Chisoxfn]

No, that is where the personal responsibility part comes in. Why is it society's duty to pay for your child? That is where a huge disconnect is here. Society shouldn't have to pay either way for your 'decision'. Keep it or not, you pay for it. Remove tax funding and most of the arguments go away.

I think the problem is that I do feel an obligation to the child. To the parent, no, but every child should have its chance. Reality is it is near impossible for it to work out, but just because your parents are dead beats doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get proper food, clothing, etc. You shouldn't be punished as a child for your parents situation and their should be programs to help do whatever they can to push your odds in life from lottery type odds to something more favorable.

[EvilMonkey]

If you take away someones right to get rid of it, why should they pay for it?

 

And if we are just talking costs, if X option is cheaper than Y option, shouldnt we pay for X option? Otherwise you are just wasting your money.

i dont want to take away their made up 'right', i just dont want to pay for it.

[Soxbadger]

i dont want to take away their made up 'right', i just dont want to pay for it.

 

Youre going to have to pay either way, so why not pick the cheapest option?