Goodbye, Planned Parenthood?
 

Wow... just... wow.
Congress wants to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood in a rush vote this weekned.

Will the rest of the medical community in low-income areas be prepared to tackle the needs of those who use Planned Parenthood for preventative medicine?

Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us...d.html?_r=1&hp
Snippets below.

I want to be shocked and all surprised by this—I really do—except when I think of the big picture, I'm not all that surprised. I am, however, dismayed.

If the program gets cut completely, it will be a major strike against women's health in the country, particularly women among the lower income strata.

The Republican House is proposing lots of cuts that wont make it past the Senate.

This is one of those "cutting of their nose to spite their face." While it panders to their base., it alienates moderate Independent voters who were critical to their recent election success.

Others are "throwing the baby out with the bath water" or cuts like infrastructure funding and investing in clean energy that will only result in higher costs down the road, and in the long run wont help with debt reduction.

i hope that is all this vote is, a meaningless ritual of sucking up to the far right, and that these cuts are not implemented.

one could go here and do what is suggested

Planned Parenthood

as of an hour ago, the debate had gone on for 3 hours and there's been no vote...

Give me an organization that covers everything up to and including birth control and I'll support it.

Of course, that would never be considered an adequate substitute "among women's health advocates" because this isn't just about women's health.

.... You guys realize federal aid to abortions has been illegal since the '70s right?

This is a bill to make something illegal that's been illegal for 40 years. It's pandering to the base because they can't/won't do other promises they've made.

Please WAARRRBBGGLE to stuff that's actually relevant.

It's not just about abortions but preventing the pregnancies in the first place. This is a bit dismaying, how could they be some adamantly against an organization that educate women (and some men) about pregnancies, infants, and general sex ed. Though i doubt it would pass PP has to many supporters to let it teeter off with just one simple vote.

This is a video of California Representative Jackie Speier responding to a tirade by Representative Chris Smith about Planned Parenthood:

I stand corrected, SMH

From the article cited in the original post:

over the weekend I watched a documentary based on the book Freakonmics. They did a segment on the drop in crime statistics starting in the 90's and correlated the drop, among other things, with the legalization of abortion in the 70's. If true the $1 to $4 savings may be underestimated. However, and I do plan on reading the book now, what was missing is the root cause of the increasing rime rates starting from the 60's - my guess is that there was an increase in unwed child births due to the war on poverty and the growth of the "welfare state".

I know to some the above appears to be some random bits of information, but to me it begs the question. Is continued investment in Planned Parenthood the best use of government dollars? My gut tells me it is not.

I find compelling, the argument that Planned Parenthood's approach of tolerance with no questions asked is actually more harmful to society than it is helpful. At the extreme, the thought that a 40 year old man can drop off a 14 year old girl to get an abortion no questions asked, bothers me a lot. If funding continues at the very least they need to change some of their rules.

Sure, we can sustain another few hours of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with the annual PP funding.

Nice trade-off indeed.

Title X Family Planning Program, which the House Republicans are proposing to zero out, is not just funding for Planned Parenthood.'' It provides funding to clinics in an estimated 75 percent of the counties in the country and primarily serve those w/o health insurance.

The funds, which by federal law cannot be used for abortion, provide for breast and pelvic exams, cervical cancer screenings, contraceptives, family planning education and counseling, and STD and HIV testing for those who might not otherwise receive this type of care.

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

The stories of 40 year old men dropping off 14 year old girls for abortions with no questions asked, if in fact, it occurs at all, is a right wing smear attempt at Planned Parenthood to divert attention from the real services provided to those in need.

And yes, w/o these services, the costs to taxpayers down the road, are likely to be far higher...in the form of medicaid costs, welfare costs, etc.

It's a shame the common decency argument isn't enough, you also have to back it up with the fact that it's ultimately cheaper. Reminds me of the torture debate.

Does the common decency argument cover the 40 million plus abortions that have taken place in the USA since R. vs W.? While I respect the rule of law, but after having children, and to hold my significantly premature niece in the palm of my hand, then to witness her 12th birthday this year... we're kidding ourselves if we don't look at abortion as anything less than murder. At the same time my niece was becoming "viable" ... other babies of the same age were being killed as an inconvenience.

I don't want anyone to suffer in life. But with my experiences I can no longer rationalize the act of abortion as a personal choice about one's body. If viability outside the womb is the bench-mark, then anyone on life-support is no longer viable outside the womb. Why is this any different? Does anyone here regret the opportunity at life?

The law is the law in regards to choice. However, the law also prohibits funding abortions. If PPH suffers from funding cuts, then so be it. They can regroup and find funding somewhere else. I'm sure they will be fine.

As an aside - I think if more of us researched Margaret Sanger and the roots of PPH, I'd hope your findings would leave you disgusted. She was an unapologetic racist, eugenicist, and Fabian socialist. But that may be more than OK with some of you. It's all out there if you care to look it up. A monstrously vile human being.

Of course!

The decency argument comes from the alternative. Imagine a country in which Roe v. Wade had not happened yet. Law enforcement pushed safe, educated abortion providers out of the practice, directly causing abortions to become far more dangerous, and often deadly. Illegal abortionists before Roe v. Wade and in countries where abortion is currently illegal are often not properly trained and do not take all the necessary steps to ensure a safe procedure. The consequence is women, at one of the most vulnerable and depressing moments in their lives, are in the hands of someone far from professional. Did you know that in countries where abortion is currently illegal, between 25-50% of all maternal mortality is due to illegal abortion? Those are all deaths prevented here in the United States as a direct result of a woman's right to choose. Abortions performed by certified and trained medical professionals in a hospital or clinic environment are incredibly safe.

Common decency would point someone to wanting less deaths of women. That's the argument.
Your premature niece was an infant and not a fetus or embryo. The vast majority of abortions are done on embryos, and some are done on fetuses. None are done on infants. You don't get to pretend that a premature infant in your hand is the exact same thing that's in the womb, connected via umbilical cord to the mother for sustenance, air and waste disposal. You don't get to ignore statements like "my body, my choice" because you can't accept that there's a real biological difference between a fetus and an infant. I'm sorry, but you can't just glaze over reality.

And I'm glad your niece is doing well.
The benchmark is not viability outside of the womb, it's biological disconnection from the mother.
Ad hom. Planned Parenthood in 2011 has nothing to do with racism or eugenics. Have you ever read War of the Worlds? H.G. Wells was a Fabian socialist.

Title X funding is not about abortions.

It is to provide access to womens health care and family planning education and counseling.

U.S. history is full of racists, including past presidents who were slave owners and considered Blacks to be inferior or the fact that the Constitution counted slaves (Blacks) as 3/5 of a person.

The millions of women, particularly minority women, who utilize clinics that have Title X funding for non-abortion services, have not expressed concern or disgust about Margaret Sanger's background.

The disgust comes from those who are anti-choice and want to limit womens access to a Constitutionally guaranteed right by defunding these clinics completely.

You're kidding yourself if you believe a single Government dollar has gone to an abortion since the '70s.

Honestly this is equivalent to cutting federal funding to the military to ensure they don't participate in sex-slave trades. They don't do it, and you'd be hurting a good group for a false justification.

I respectfully disagree regarding the goodness attributed to PP. However, they have a legal right to exist... they should seek private funding. Believers should show support with their money... not mine.

like dc said above this:

is clearly outrageous. serfs don't need health care, right otto? their role is to work, pay their tithes and die. anything else interferes with the prerogatives of the lords of the new feudalism.

but if the outrageous program that provides health care to women continues, you can pretend that "your" tax money is going for things conservative like---you know weapons systems to kill people in great number or surveillance systems and the companies that develop them in order to monitor people, or police to arrest them or prisons to keep them in.

Out of curiosity, what "badness" do you attribute to Planned Parenthood? They provide healthcare, of a reproductive nature, to women, and they provide sexual and reproductive education to any who ask for it. What part of that is bad?

Margaret Sanger was a public health nurse who watched many poor women, including minorities, suffer under lifetimes of continual pregnancy and early death. Her position on eugenics (which is overblown and often mischaracterized as a racially-centered position, it was not) is hardly defensible in this day and age, but at the time and place she was working (slums of NYC in the early 20th century) it is at least understandable. The focus of her life, though, was to help women of all races gain control of their bodies and to decide when they want to have children. The good work she did (and inspired in others) in those days was invaluable to a woman's ability today to have a career and upwardly mobilize herself and her family. But I guess summing up the efforts of a strong woman who actually spent her life 'in the trenches' helping the hopeless improve their states in life is the point, yes?

It is a sad commentary on the media and the collective intelligence of the nation that a group of spin masters can so dominate the coverage of certain issues as to force the discussion to exist on a purely false basis.

And so we keep discussing the Wisconsin bill as if it was a matter of compensation even after the union has accepted the cuts and increased contributions. And we keep discussing this planned parenthood thing as if it was somehow a matter of abortion even when that is absolutely false.

Because, of course, if the issue was framed as "do you want to provide low income women with cancer prevention and STD testing" most would support it. So we have to create the bogey man of abortion to push through something that is essentially bullshit. Make it so that the frame is more like "do you want your money to pay for a 14 year old to have an abortion so her family doesn't find out she was abused" or some other ridiculous scenario which is nonsense, but that the mouth breathers will accept in a second.

Ps: Also, gotta love the Pavlovian relationship some have with the word "socialism." The founder of Planned Parenthood was a "Fabian socialist?" Oh, no! That means she was like a British social democrat! Maybe even part of the Fabian Society, that terrible organization that included such radical thinkers like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and even Ramsay MacDonald, that old radical that formed a government with the conservative party. Can't have that!

I support planned parenthood - at the state supported level. (Hey, you guys knew I was going to say that.)

This is a question borne out of complete ignorance - why on earth did they choose the name "Planned Parenthood" if 90% of their business is STD testing, cancer screenings, etc.? Does anyone know the origin of that name? I'd change the name.

That is not actually the trade-off. If we question the cost benefit ratio of the war, we can do that on a stand alone basis - just like we can look at the cost benefit ratio of dollars spent on Planned Parenthood.

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------


What I suggest is that we take the time for a careful look at the issue. If what you say is true I can support the funding. However, my gut (I have not seen any objective analysis), tells me that at the very least some procedural changes are required. With minors, I believe a parent, guardian, or court has to be involved at the very least.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------

What fact????

Give a source. Let's look at the data. Let's look at the assumptions used. Let's look at the methodology of the study behind the numbers given. I even question the study done by the economist who did the Freakomics documentary that should cause a conservative to support the funding, and i intend to look at their source data.

A person you agree with can pull a number out of thin air and you accept it without question, and call it a fact - is that how you do it?

I believe it was in the forties that they chose the name. Before they chose Planned Parent Federation it was called the American Birth Control Foundation. You have to admit, Planned Parenthood is a step up from that. It's a more positive term for the outcome of birth control, which sounds negative and restrictive.

Still, I wouldn't disagree that a name change would probably help rather than hurt their image. If all their funding gets pulled, perhaps that should be their backup plan.

I still vehemently disagree with their funding being pulled. The reality of the service they provide greatly outweighs what some people think they do, or what their name might be.

Like I said, the common decency argument should be enough. I'm tired of playing the Republican game of ignoring morality and just looking at budgets. We may not live in a universe with a set of objective morals, but I have morals and I'm happy to factor them in to my political beliefs. It's wrong for women to die because they can't get access to medical care. It's wrong for people to claim that the unborn are deserving of rights at the expense of women's basic rights without having already established that life begins at conception.

You do not know how frequently children under 18, receive services and why. Does this concern you?

Outside of the - when life begins - question, I don't care what adults do from a common decency point of view. But if PP is not protecting children they need to change their rules or be shut down.

You mean abortions? I'd like there to be less abortions for all people, be they over or under 18. To that extent, abortions concern me. They do not, however, concern me enough to remove a woman's fundamental reproductive freedom or to invade people's privacy.
What's this "if" business? PPFA does a fantastic job of helping to educate people on reproductive healthy and child health, providing contraception, screening for breast, cervical, and testicular cancer, pregnancy tests, counseling, and testing for STDs. They should be lauded, not ostracized.

Let's all suppose for a minute that PP did not provide abortions. Would you all be arguing the same thing? I wonder if the abortion component of PP is what has both sides behaving the way they do...

you know, it's self-evident that conservative who simply carry shit for the republican party have jettisoned any pretense to intellectual integrity with this one. they're trying to insist on some imaginary standard to which planned parenthood should be held in the name of some equally imaginary "fiscal responsibility" while they continue to simply throw money at the giant republican-preferred patronage system centered on military expenditure.

House Republicans' bill would increase defense spending - Feb. 22, 2011

those heroes on the right actually proposed cutting a single defense procurement item that even the pentagon had said was unnecessary.

and in that style true to the integrity-free way the right rolls, the defense budget doesn't include anything expended on either republican-specific military debacle (afghanistan, iraq) nor does it include money sent streaming down the toilet in the name of "domestic counter-terrorism"----which is of course off the fucking books....

but planned parenthood---there's a problem.

Given the level of support medicaid already has among the population, I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of people would be against STD and cancer screening. As such, it seems to me that at least "one side" of this debate would still defend PP even if it were unrelated to abortions.

My issue is with children not adults. By services, I mean everything. A child under most circumstances does not have the legal capacity as adults for a reason that I agree with, if a child is receiving any medical services a parent, guardian or the courts should be involved in my view. Even for emergency care I think extra effort needs to be taken to involve a parent, guardian or the courts. Children should be receiving comprehensive medical care, education and guidance.

All I suggest is that we look at the data. By "if" I am saying i do not know and I am not simply going to take your word for it. If what you say is true, i will support funding - and for the third time I repeat - it is likely in my view that they need to take a look at their policies regarding how they handle children.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------


Yes.

---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

Put simply, I don't trust them. I have not seen any data that suggests that I should. I have only heard broad unsubstantiated claims about the net good that they do. If they want my support as a tax payer, they need to make their case.

The general argument that simply because a person has question or concern means that there are anti-PP is ridiculous. Comparing this issue to other expenditures like defense spending is also ridiculous.

Ace,

So you oppose the mission of PP in its entirety, even if abortions were off the table? Or do you ooppse that it is federally/government funded?

I agree that that republican stance on military spending is quite hypocritical when it comes to looking for areas in the budget to cut.

However, there are a few republican who want to drastically slash military spending and would also be considered pro-life. They are mostly of the 'tea bagging' persuasion.

I fully support low income people being able to receive subsidized medical care, education, and family planning services including birth control. I think the subsidy can be handled in a number of different ways including the use of an organization like PP. As is the currently law I do not support public dollars being used for abortion. Also, based on current law abortion should be available to everyone. Private dollars should be used to subsidize abortions for low income people.

Children should receive the best comprehensive medical care available in this country with no exceptions. They should receive sex education and have access to birth control and abortion consistent with the above - only difference being with parent, guardian or court involvement.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

Every other national political issue is simply commentary if our national defense is inadequate.

Ace,

I'm a little confused. I just asked, if abortions were off the table with PP, would you still be arguing the same side - and you said yes. This seems to mean that you would be fine with pulling the funds from PP. For clarity, I asked if you opposed PP in its entirety or just the public funding of it and you say that you support all the other things PP does with public funds, just not abortions. I think these two points are contradictory. I guess I don't understand your position.

Keeping information about reproduction from children leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Children are less likely to seek out information if parents have to be involved.

Any service PP provides to children should be with the consent of a parent, guardian or a court. That's my position regardless of abortion.

I don't trust PP. I think in the name of tolerance they provide services to children that gives me cause for concern. For example if i had a daughter I would want a doctor to look at her complete medical record before providing or recommending certain forms of birth control. Piece meal medical care is not as effective as comprehensive medical care. I would rather have children going to clinics that can look at them as a whole person, not just their reproductive organs (and even in that regard the evaluation may be incomplete). For children perhaps there may be a better way.

I assume PP follows current law and I am o.k. with that unless the law is changed. Outside of that there are some changes I would make to current law regarding abortion - my position is that a viable fetus should not be killed.

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

Perhaps statutory rape would be less of a problem if parents were aware that their daughters are getting pregnant. So, perhaps there is no obvious solution, I would error on the side of parental involvement or give a teenager the ability to get a confidential court order - but at least have some responsible adult look at the facts - someone to look out for the child. PP does not do that.

Thanks, Ace. That cleared it up. I appreciate it.

You think minor's ability to have abortions increases the instances of statutory rape? At what point do we drop pretense and admit that you're grasping at straws to try and justify a belief given to you instead of reached independently?

will,

I think he's implying that the prosecution of statutory rape would increase.

My statement is based on the assumption that - if an adult male takes or can take a teenager to PP and pays for her abortion no questions asked, and if that male is inclined to have sex with teenage girls that behavior will continue. However, if there are consequences to such behavior we may be able to end it or prevent it.

I have stated that I want to see the data. I have stated that I do not trust PP - that is my feeling, what my gut tells me - I have made that clear, repeatedly. I have stated that I prefer comprehensive medical care for children, suggesting that the PP model is inadequate and at the very least may need some changes even if funding continues.

If you call what I have posted "grasping at straws" so be it, and if you disagree with my point of view, simply say that. But your pretense is that there is not a legitimate point of view different than yours. I think I understand the trade-offs and that there is no easy solution that works perfectly in all circumstances. Again, I error on the side of parental, guardian or court involvement.

First off, this is strangely authoritarian. I know you to be a free-market capitalist and, while not necessarily a libertarian, you have libertarian leanings. In this case, however, you're erring on the side of authority and I'm not sure why. Why should court involvement, a.k.a. the state, be the first place this goes to?

Second, and perhaps more importantly, I have no idea how you can claim your null hypothesis is mistrust. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Planned Parenthood doesn't seem to have done anything to lose your trust based on your statements here. Why is it they're guilty until proven innocent?

I believe in protecting children. I believe we all have a moral obligation to protect children. If that is contradictory to my other views, I can live with it and accept any charge or claim of having a double standard. I do not have similar sympathy or compassion for able adults ( exceptions are truly disabled and the elderly). I do support temporary safety nets for adults and charitable giving by choice. I am not an anarchist and I see a role for government.

That is my nature. I don't trust anyone or anything until I have reason to trust - some people are the opposite. In addition I look at systems to see how the systems are set up incentive wise. In the case of PP their system of tolerance (no questions, almost no conditions for service) is a system with incentives to hide information that may be needed to protect children. Again, I would like to see objective data that can show the real net cost or benefit of PP to children. And, no - I would not trust data direct from PP - I would need data from an outside independent source.

So does the medical community.

In opposing mandatory parental notification for girls requesting access to prescribed contraceptives, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the National Medical Association do not support mandatory parental notification laws.

"...Ultimately, the health risks to adolescents are so impelling that legal barriers in deference to parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed care," the groups said.

(editorial comment.....in numerous discussions, you appear to trust editorials/columns you read in IBD, WSJ, etc or studies from conservative/libertarian think tanks with an agenda that support you position despite the fact that they are not independent unbiased sources. Trust based on ideology, not independence?)

You have yet to provide any source that PPH's system is one of "tolerance (no questions, almost no conditions for service)..."

Putting that unsubstantiated allegation aside and addressing a core issue instead, in 1999, the University of Wisconsin surveyed sexually active girls in Wisconsin who received sexual health care at 33 Planned Parenthood clinics.

In an additional sample that was included in the study, "99% of adolescent girls in our additional sample who would stop using sexual health care services with parental notification indicated that they would continue having sexual intercourse....Given this information, requiring parental notification for obtaining prescribed contraceptives would likely increase unintended pregnancies, abortions, and out-of-wedlock births. "

ace ..it is not a leap to further conclude that "potentially increasing teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs" will result in higher societal costs down the road.

Speaking as a parent, I would hope that my children were comfortable enough with me to let me know when they needed sex-related health care, however, I do recognize that even if I were the best parent in the world, it is entirely likely that they might feel too uncomfortable, embarrassed or independent to actually do so. This is why I support the right of the qualified, medical professionals who work at organizations like Planned Parenthood to provide their services without my parental consent.

I know that as a teenager I made use of the local free STD clinic when I needed to verify a "clean bill of health" for my own peace of mind and the peace of mind of a new lady friend. I likely wouldn't have gone had I needed permission from my parents (though the desire to get laid just might have overpowered the desire to keep my getting laid a secret from my parents).

Just catching up on this thread, so let me get this straight:

a) GOP wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, which distributes free birth control and helps the poor deal with unplanned pregnancies

b) GOP wants to make abortion illegal

c) GOP wants to get rid of (or massively cut) welfare and unemployment benefits

In other words, all out war on the lower classes? Is their utopian world view one where we have thousands and thousands of new babies born into poverty while also making it harder and harder for the impoverished to survive?

Derwood, they could just join the military to get health care and benefits.

Derwood: nail meets head.

I'm still pretty sure the endgame for the neoconservatives and their ilk is a global, oligarchical corporatocracy; a true plutocracy.

I entirely concur. I can't imagine what else they would be moving towards with the changes they keep pushing for.

How did they arrive at that conclusion?


I have never had a problem with providing addition support of items I have shared from the various publications that I routinely read. I often read the footnotes and look at their source data. The issue here is we never get beyond the superficiality of the source being "conservative".

Do you need proof? Are you suggesting PP does not have a system of tolerance?

When will you ever simply read what I write. I do not dispute that PP provides beneficial services. My question is what is the net impact? My concern is, should some of there policies change regarding children if funding continues. I am not attacking PP simply because they provide abortion services. The questions and concerns I present are shared by all reasonable people.

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

I have a 13 year-old son who will be 14 in a few months. At various times our family doctor has prescribed medication for him and he has told us that he should not eat certain foods or combine the prescribed medication with other drugs. He also tells us what to look for and how to determine if follow up is needed. My son would not be able to manage this information on his own - so if he goes to a PP clinic, how would they know what they need to know regarding his medical history?

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

a) PP can exist without government funding.
b) Some see it as a form of murder.
c) The welfare state has created a permanent underclass that has perpetuated a cycle dependence.

Some see the GOP approach as helpful to the lower classes. We can have a system that has compassion for the poor without big disincentives for responsible behavior.

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

I know a number of people with conservatives that have been or are poor. Including being aligned with a, b and c. Why would that be true?

Are you afraid that your son would be the first confused teenager to ever set foot in a PP? I suspect, and this is just my gut feeling, that they might have experience providing medical care to confused teenagers.

Personally, I'd be more afraid that my son was going to accidentally knock someone up, or that if he did knock someone up, that he'd lack access to resources because he wasn't comfortable coming to me.

I do not think a clinic should be providing medical services to minors without having access to the child's medical records and medical history. For example:

Latex Allergy Symptoms

What if the child is given latex condemns and they have an allergy to latex. Is PP going to know? The symptoms can be very confusing to a child, would they diagnose the allergy properly?

I am not afraid - my point is that minors are considered minors for a reason. Serious medical issues, I just used the latex condom allergy example above to illustrate a broader point and I don't fear the broad and general use of latex condoms, require comprehensive care in my view for children in particular.

So you're saying that a teenager won't know that condoms are made of latex and/or that the providers of those condoms won't think to ask that teenager if he has a widely known-about condition which would render use of those condoms problematic?

Did I miss the story that claimed Planned Parenthood is giving bad medical care to teenagers?

The broader point is related to comprehensive medical care. Some children have issues that may have a material impact on how medical treatment should be administered.

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

I got it now. My point is a joke to you folks and not to be taken seriously. F the parents they don't need to be involved let PP handle it, after all they are professionals.

If PP makes an error should a parent like me be able to sue them out of business and pursue criminal prosecution - because this whole issue is just in Ace's imagination and would never happen anyway? Is that it?

It's like Reagan all over again.
I was 21 years old when Reagan was elected.
Within days of him taking office, I noticed my local Planned Parenthood office
had a lot of empty pamphlet slots & the nice nurses were really pissed off,
but weren't allowed to say why.

I understand your concerns, however, I think they are a bit irrational taken as anything but a thought experiment. PP has been around for decades. If they had a track record of providing poor care then it would likely be evident by now.

It isn't a joke. It's more like sophistry.

To the broader point, misdiagnoses of children is sophistry?

Again, just as an example to illustrate a point, I am not in the medical field - school officials jumped all over the Ritalin bandwagon without any regard for the individual needs of the child. Only strong parents willing to take the bull by the horns and fight for their child were able to overcome this "just give the kid Ritalin" routine. I do not want some overworked bureaucratic type person be they work for PP or any other government supported organization controlling my son's medical care without my involvement. For kids who have parents that don't care at least have a court appointed person reviewing the situation.

The Top Misdiagnosis in Children is a ADHD | CLINIC FOR CHILDREN

Is that the best distraction you could come up with?

So in your estimation, your made-up scenarios are more relevant than the absence of an actual history of malpractice at Planned Parenthood? And we're supposed to just fall in line with that because it's your point?

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

And you can sue any doctor for malpractice on the behalf of your child anywhere, at any time. Why would a PP doctor be any different?

I gave my opinion, ignore it. I got the message that some consider my view on this subject a joke. Understand that I am a parent, I am posting here, but perhaps more than you know share my concerns and you will never hear from them. But, if you listen, perhaps the concerns could be addressed and PP and everyone else going go on with a satisfactory solution. But, the assumption that it is just a joke is going to lead to no PP public funding, yes it is that serious to some of us.

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------

In my initial post on this subject, I said I wanted to see the data to understand if there was a net benefit or a net cost to society. I also, suggested that if public funding continue perhaps some simple modification to how they administer care is in order. Not hardly an extreme position, but we already concluded that most here see my concerns as a joke, so is your post just to further mock my concerns?

The point is that PP can go out of business because of an end to public funding or they can go out of business because they get sued out of business. I would think people with a real concern for PP would not want either to happen. And wouldn't it be rather simple to make some modifications to materially reduce the risk of PP being sued out of existence. Perhaps, based on my concerns responsible people would want to sit down and look at what is being done and make it better for everyone. This attitude - that it is just a joke or that conservatives just hate poor people thing - is not going to benefit anyone.

Again, so Planned Parenthood's actual history as a credible provider of medical services is irrelevant?

I'm not trying to make your position into a joke. You don't need me to make your position a joke. You're trying to use fictional 'what if' scenarios to cast doubt on an organization that hasn't done anything to deserve it.

filth and mm,

I think we can agree that an abortion does carry medical risks - it is a procedure which can lead to complications. Under "normal" medical procedures, a parent must sign all sorts of consent forms before even a small operation on a minor. I think we can agree that both of these statements are fact.

So, I do share some of Ace's concerns, as a parent, that someone gets to cut on my kid without my knowledge or consent - but only if it's her cooter. Anything else, and I have to sign 400 documents. I don't know, something just seems wrong about that.

I get the whole "daddy's little girl can't tell daddy that she's a hussy and got knocked up because daddy will take back her 325i" part of it....or worse, daddy kills daddy's little girl and her boyfriend for breaking the laws of baby jesus. Sometimes, it is indeed better that daddy minds his own self-righteous business.

Again, I'm just talking about the fact that, at it's roots, it's still a medical procedure which carries risks and, perhaps, requires guardian consent. I know I'd want to kill the fucker that accidentally killed my daughter in a medical procedure I knew nothing about - just on the principle of the issue. I'm really torn about that part. What do you guys think about that part of it?

Except that ace is talking about his son, who is hypothetically allergic to latex. Ace seems to think that the administrators at PP are in charge of doling out medical care, and that because they aren't doctors, but bureaucrats, they don't know that their patients sometimes have medical conditions that aren't related to their junk. This is fucking nuts.

I understand your concerns, which I maintain are distinct from Ace's as he's presented them. I think that all medical procedures have an element of risk. With particular regards to abortion, I expect that the risks of having one outside of a clinic are much higher than the risks of having one inside a clinic, and that the risks of having one inside a clinic are probably on par with the risks associated with removing wisdom teeth.

I am fine with my daughter taking on these risks without my consent, though I recognize that any situation that results in my daughter having an abortion is one I would like to avoid.

Yeah, I agree that it is generally better to have them (abortions) at PP than the proverbial back-alley.

I know it is an entirely emotional response. It's a much...much...milder version of the emotional response which motivates someone to propose a law enabling them to shoot their daughter's prospective abortion doctor! :)

My little brother had a 325is. It's an outstanding car.

/threadjack

Ace's most recent concern was not about parental notification for abortions but notification for providing birth control.

I can only assume that he would prefer that teens with STDs not get treated, continue to have unprotected sex and spread the disease.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

Planned Parenthood is overwhelmingly about contraception and STD testing and treatment.

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/u...nthood2008.png

I do not believe their history as a credible provider of medical services is irrelevant. I simply do not take it for granted. I do not assume, as organizational behavior is concerned, that past behavior is the best predictor of current or future behavior. I think it is how incentives are aligned is a better predictor of current or future behavior. There are unlimited numbers of examples that support my view regarding this incentive theory.

Perhaps, the government can hire me to do an audit of PP operations. Or, someone who has seen an audit of their operations can share it here - and for the fourth time I repeat - in my gut I do not trust PP. I thought I have been making that clear. And, obviously PP doesn't need my trust and I understand if people here don't care.

But, for those willing to listen, perhaps putting the issue in perspective, even from a conservative point of view, most have no problem with PP that can not be addressed in a positive manner and would support continued funding.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 PM ----------

Dude, read. I said "bureaucratic type person". If you don't think a doctor can be a bureaucratic type person, that is f'ing nuts. But i am going to assume you just misread what was written.

ace...what PP practices/services need addressing?

Parental notification for abortions?
Most states (35?) require parental notification or consent.

Parental notification for contraception or STD testing and treatment?
Which takes me back to the study I posted earlier....that if parental notification was required, most would refrain from treatment and continue having unprotected sex..

That is not productive. Raise a question or concern about PP = abortions in back allies. If you want to win the center understand that it includes the one or more deviations left of center and one or more deviation right of center - assuming the extremes are entrenched addressing legitimate issues and concerns is worth while - but the suggestion that I have no concern for the health of women who want abortion will cause resentment. You choose to offend a lot of people in your post.

http://www.capitan.k12.nm.us/teacher...bell_curve.jpg

---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

Again he proves that he has not read what I have posted. I understand the problem and I understand there is no perfect solution, which I clearly stated. I also said I would error on the side of parental notification, but that there may be other procedural changes that can be made that could satisfy all concerned parties.

What changes?

Propose one rather than just bitching and making unsubstantiated claims about PP's practices that need fixing.

Any good manager is always reviewing and trying to improve practices and services. Outside of that general point:

What do they do with evidence of illegal behavior?
Who are they accountable to?
How do they measure their effectiveness?
How are complaints handled? I can imagine (again say what you will, but i look at incentives) a 16 year-old girl unwilling to talk to her parents/doctor/or any responsible adult having a problem at PP - what is she going to do? PP has every incentive to cover stuff up if it goes wrong - with that kind of incentive bad situations never ends well. Is this is a joke to you something not to be concerned about?

Most is not all.

I have seen a study that says that a large percentage of teens using contraception don't use it regularly and end up pregnant anyway. I will look for the study.

For what is worth, I live in a conservative "family" oriented area, I have a teenager and I interact with lots of parents many are conservative and some both conservative and religious - very few don't support the use of contraception by their sons and daughters. None want their teens engaging in sex but in 2011 - I bet on a national level very few parents hold the views that you suggest in your posts. Often surveys that does not support an ideology either does not get done or gets no publicity. That is why I often suggest that you get out of DC and interact with people outside the belt-way.

I dont see any constructive solutions here.

I see more of the same questions based on pre-conceived (no pun intended) unsubstantiated assumptions or allegations of "questionable" practices.

Contacting a child's primary doctor and/or obtaining medical records before administering or providing any type of medical service. If the law will protected the family doctor but requires PP to take this step i imagine many parents could live with that short of direct notification. I am not an expert, but all the issues can be addressed one way or another to satisfy most common concerns outside of the legality of abortion issue.


All you had to do was ask, no need for drama. It is what some call civil discourse.

I was responding to filth's post directly above mine which stated something to the effect that "having one at the clinic is better than one outside the clinic." Given those two choices, I agree with him. So, within context, I think you will realize I was not saying what you interpreted.

I know you don't, because those were questions - not solutions.

I bet you are the type of person that would invest in Eron Corp. and hold until the end. Good luck with that attitude, you will need it. {added} to those who did not get the point, Enron was once a solid reputable company, but they changed and those who asked questions saw it.




---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

My apology to you.

ace, I tried taking you seriously, but its like banging my head against the wall.
'
You ignore studies I post or deflect them with more questions, you offer unsubstantiated claims about PP practices, you ignore facts about PP....

And you conclude with some childish remark....just another deflection.

That's the problem with your random analogies, though. When you bring up ritalin as a problem because of over eager administrators and bureaucrats as a comparison to PP, it makes it seem like you aren't aware that bureaucrats aren't in charge of treatment at PP. You do know that they have licensed medical professionals, just like the folks at your doctor's office, right? It doesn't matter that they might act like bureaucrats sometimes. You probably act like a bureaucrat sometimes. Everybody probably acts like a bureaucrat sometimes in some vague sort of way.

I still think that your fears are misplaced. And that you've decided that this is an issue and no amount of talking will convince you otherwise.

This is a fairly gross oversimplification of political ideology as it actual exists. I don't think that it's meaningful to model it as a univariate, normally distributed, random variable. On top of that, I like how this discussion has now morphed into one where the pro-PP folk are now tasked with convincing everyone who may not like PP to like PP via convincing you to like PP.

Apparently, you are public opinion on PP.

My 8 year-old nephew has allergies to peanuts and eggs. He has been reading package labels since he was 6, and has become quite proficient at explaining his dietary needs to adults.
If your kid can't keep track of his basic medical history, you should really consider working on that with him. It's one of those basic skills that he'll need in a couple of years as an adult.
If you're concerned about the ability of these physicians to deal with such a dilemma without your assistance, you need to step back and realize they have far more training than you.

As for other stuff...
A person can choose or not choose to provide their medical history to ANY physician they choose to see. I've had to sign reams of paper and fax or hand-deliver all sorts of paperwork to get my team of physicians to make sure they have all of the information possible to best deal with my woman-specific issues.
Planned Parenthood is no different in that respect from any other medical group. "No questions asked" can go both ways - someone who is truly concerned about their own health would make sure they ask the right questions and obtain the best possible care.

Even people who wholeheartedly support PP should be willing to periodically take an objective look at their operations, ask questions and seek ways to improve the organization. Your response suggests that you don't care or that it is really about your venting against those who want to make abortion illegal.

---------- Post added at 11:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

Yes.

I have never been to a PP clinic, but I have been to clinics run in low income areas with those licensed medical professionals that you refer to. If you have ever been to one of these low income clinics, you would know that if you are lucky you get a medical professional who is "fresh", "motivated" and eager to make a difference, there are those in the middle and you have some that have totally burned-out.

I was poor once, and i lived in a low income minority neighborhood. I think I may be aware of issues that do not appear in formal studies. Or perhaps when they say shit like 99% success, which is good unless you are in the 1%, I actually think about that 1%

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

Again, this seems to gloss over the issue. Are you really trying to argue against comprehensive care for children by saying that they should be trained to fully understand, be able and willing to communicate their medical histories in a PP clinic when they may be in a highly confused or emotional state. Or even possibly under duress.

I know this concern of mine is not on the radar of any of you folks here, and I have not seen any objective data and perhaps it is not a legitimate concern - and if it is not that is a good thing.

My concerns are with children. I expect adults to be able to handle their medical issues.

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

I shared the story of Tiffany Wright in another thread, a sad story I will never forget. The system failed Tiffany - would PP have done the right thing if they knew this 15 year-old girl got pregnant by a 36 year-old man who eventually murdered her?

[UPDATE] Tiffany Wright, 15 and Pregnant, Shot at Charlotte School Bus Stop - True Crime Report

Don't tell me this is a diversion or that it has no relevance to PP - it does and if you don't see it - it is your problem.

Okay, well, this has nothing to do with your point about how the people providing care at PP are just like overeager school administrators pushing ritalin, so I'm not sure why you've brought it up.

In any case, the fact that you lived in a poor neighborhood doesn't make you uniquely qualified to question the care provided at PP. I've lived in poor, primarily minority neighborhoods before too and there were just as many misguided folks in that neighborhood than in the "better" neighborhoods I've lived in. It isn't an experience that guarantees instant credibility on any issue.

What would you have had PP do? How do you think a primary care clinic would have done things differently than PP?

Actually, if people don't find your premises plausible, it is your problem, because you are failing to make a convincing argument.