Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    My position is that, as a society, we do things to effect desired outcomes. That we do different things - a sanction here, a subsidy there, education over here - depending on the case and circumstances doesn't defeat that logic.

    Yes, we do. But should we? I mean, you complain when people want to define marriage to encourage two-parent families. However, if your position is that government should be in the business of social engineering, then isn't everything fair game?

    "My position is that, as a society, we do things to effect desired outcomes. "

    That is your quote. So, if the desired outcome is less aborted fetuses or more two-parent families, then wouldn't you expect society to enact legislation (i.e. sanctions, subsidies, et al.) in order to promote these outcomes? Do you have room to complain when government chooses to endorse outcomes you do not like? This is the game you are playing. It is a game I'd like to see less. Or, I believe this game is most fair when applied at the local level so that all Americans have opportunities to achieve outcomes they find most desirable instead of being forced into outcomes defined by razor thin majorities. When you are prepared to use government as a hammer, then you should also understand that a time will come when you're the nail.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  3. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yes, we do. But should we? I mean, you complain when people want to define marriage to encourage two-parent families. However, if your position is that government should be in the business of social engineering, then isn't everything fair game?

    "My position is that, as a society, we do things to effect desired outcomes. "

    That is your quote. So, if the desired outcome is less aborted fetuses or more two-parent families, then wouldn't you expect society to enact legislation (i.e. sanctions, subsidies, et al.) in order to promote these outcomes? Do you have room to complain when government chooses to endorse outcomes you do not like? This is the game you are playing. It is a game I'd like to see less. Or, I believe this game is most fair when applied at the local level so that all Americans have opportunities to achieve outcomes they find most desirable instead of being forced into outcomes defined by razor thin majorities. When you are prepared to use government as a hammer, then you should also understand that a time will come when you're the nail.
    Of course, and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time.

    For example, I look at my real estate tax bill and realize that the vast majority of it is for the schools. It would be easy for me to look at that and be mad that, as a childless adult, I get no value for what I pay. "I don't have kids, let those that do pay." or "My kids are grown and out of school, why do I have to keep paying"

    But that I don't have children - or that I might never have children - doesn't obliterate that opportunity. It still exists and is what I am paying for whether I use it or not. (recognizing the external benefits I do/might receive - such as a real estate bonus for a town with good schools)

    Now, if I do have a child and my town says "You're a single father so your child can't attend school until you get married" then we have a problem.


    "you complain when people want to define marriage to encourage two-parent families"

    This I do not understand. When did I do this?

    ---------- Post added at 03:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You'll forgive me if I don't take Media Matter's word for it that it was deceptive. Can you support your claim that it was deceptively edited? Not that Media Matters personally finds it deceptive, what about the editing makes it actually deceptive? What excluded parts tell a different story?
    "ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

    NUCATOLA: Yes.

    ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what -- what price range would you --

    NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved.

    [TIMESTAMPS JUMP FROM 12:24:07 TO 12:32:06, REMOVING NEARLY 8 MINUTES]

    ACTOR: The $30 to $100 price range, that's per specimen that we're talking about, right?

    NUCATOLA: Per specimen, yes. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]"



    ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --

    NUCATOLA: Yes.

    ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what - what price range would you --

    NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

    And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --

    ACTOR: Did you say 67?

    NUCATOLA: 67.

    ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --

    NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15] " http://mediamatters.org/research/201...e-edits/204419


    and this article for more evidence and examples: http://mediamatters.org/research/201...o-attem/204766

    ---------- Post added at 03:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    1)

    a) Are you saying that abortion is a population control program in the US?
    Officially? No. Could it be portrayed that way or do some people view it that way? Perhaps. It's also been described as a "holocaust".

    ---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    b) Can you point out where abortion has been justified because there are “too many babies?” (I can, but I don’t think you’ll like the source).
    Who said that?

    ---------- Post added at 03:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    c) Can you point out where light bulb restrictions were implemented because of a light bulb shortage?
    Restrictions on the sale of less energy efficient light bulbs were implemented because of the shortage of use of more energy efficient light bulbs.

    ---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    2) So you are saying that only Progressives know about new, profitable inventions like LED light bulbs? And that business owners are too stupid to realize that they could make more money through them?

    Not only that, but that Progressives are smarter than the general American and know what is best for that American’s personal life?
    I'm not sure they are making more money through them. That wasn't the point of the regulation.

    Personally? I'd like to drive to work at 120mph firing my revolver out of the window to move people out of the way so I can drive even faster.

    If I were the CEO of an energy company I'd personally like to see every light in every house in the nation left on all day and night - heck let's remove all light switches from new construction.

    The regulation was about the energy policy of the country, not personal life.

    ---------- Post added at 04:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    3) Do you have any defense for the concept that pricing based on body parts is a clear indication of profit seeking?



    4) Do you have any defense of the initial video's clear evidence of profit seeking as highlighted in post 18?

    "NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

    NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise. [The Center for Medical Progress, 7/14/15]" http://mediamatters.org/research/201...e-edits/204419

    Remuneration does not necessarily mean profit.

    I think the sticking point here is "if they can do a little better than break even" which seems to suggest profit. When she's talking about all of the expenses involved and justifying them under the law.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #23
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    and this article for more evidence and examples: http://mediamatters.org/research/201...o-attem/204766
    And?

    You have supported that they were edited, I don't see anything in there that is deceptive, in both conversations they reference that cost is based on location, the latter just includes why that is the case, which aren't pertinent details. Can you support that there was deception involved?



    What's more interesting is that this has nothing to do with the argument made here. The fact that the costs differ isn't an indication of profit seeking, nor have I claimed that it was. If you go back, you'll notice that I said that it was the fact that they were willing to accept nearly twice what they stated was the cost that indicated profit seeking.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Officially? No. Could it be portrayed that way or do some people view it that way? Perhaps. It's also been described as a "holocaust".
    By "some people" who do you mean? It was, after all, your statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Who said that?
    I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you asking who made the statement in this thread that a justification for abortion is the "surplus of babies?" That was you in post 10.

    Or are you asking who was the original person who said that? (Answer: Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood when she was talking about how there were too many blacks).

    Regardless, can you support your comment referenced in my last post?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Restrictions on the sale of less energy efficient light bulbs were implemented because of the shortage of use of more energy efficient light bulbs.
    Lack of use is not shortage of light bulbs. In post 10 you indicate that restrictions on light bulbs were justified so that new types of light bulbs would be developed. "New types of illumination needed incentives to encourage development"

    Please support that statement.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    If I were the CEO of an energy company I'd personally like to see every light in every house in the nation left on all day and night - heck let's remove all light switches from new construction.
    And is that personal preference enough to legally mandate that others leave their light switches on? If not, then why is the reverse personal preference enough to justify the mandate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Remuneration does not necessarily mean profit.

    I think the sticking point here is "if they can do a little better than break even" which seems to suggest profit. When she's talking about all of the expenses involved and justifying them under the law.

    Actually remuneration never means profit, it means revenue. Profit is your remuneration minus your costs.


    That costs vary by facility was never a defense of PP being profit seeking. I offered three clear defenses of it, two of which were literally contained in the questions you responded to.

    1) That the PP official accepts nearly twice the amount in remuneration than it states is its cost for a procedure.


    2) That it bases the remuneration for some procedures based on the value of the parts obtained, even though the cost of the procedure doesn't vary based on parts obtained.


    3) The statement "do better than break even" which, unless she is using these common words in some kind of mysterious other definition, literally means profit. Break even is: " the point at which revenue received equals the costs associated with receiving the revenue."

    Her statement is literally translated as: "we would like to receive more money than just the revenue that equals the cost of the procedure."

    What is the definition of excess revenue above cost again?


    Do you have a defense or rebuttal against these three arguments?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I'm not sure what this statement means. Are you asking who made the statement in this thread that a justification for abortion is the "surplus of babies?" That was you in post 10.
    That's not what I said at all. I said there is no shortage of babies and that making babies doesn't need an incentive.

    ---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Lack of use is not shortage of light bulbs. In post 10 you indicate that restrictions on light bulbs were justified so that new types of light bulbs would be developed. "New types of illumination needed incentives to encourage development"

    Please support that statement.
    I should've said development and implementation. Retailers have to makes changes and take risks - that takes time and money that they will want to make up which is why the change came over a protracted period.

    "LEDs were $50 a bulb not long ago it took years to earn back the money you spent on an LED. But now you’ll find LEDs for $10 and less," http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...itch/index.htm

    ---------- Post added at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And is that personal preference enough to legally mandate that others leave their light switches on? If not, then why is the reverse personal preference enough to justify the mandate?
    Because it is a societal policy that one agrees to as part of the society.

    ---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Actually remuneration never means profit, it means revenue. Profit is your remuneration minus your costs.
    Yes.

    ---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    That costs vary by facility was never a defense of PP being profit seeking. I offered three clear defenses of it, two of which were literally contained in the questions you responded to.

    1) That the PP official accepts nearly twice the amount in remuneration than it states is its cost for a procedure.


    2) That it bases the remuneration for some procedures based on the value of the parts obtained, even though the cost of the procedure doesn't vary based on parts obtained.


    3) The statement "do better than break even" which, unless she is using these common words in some kind of mysterious other definition, literally means profit. Break even is: " the point at which revenue received equals the costs associated with receiving the revenue."

    Her statement is literally translated as: "we would like to receive more money than just the revenue that equals the cost of the procedure."

    What is the definition of excess revenue above cost again?


    Do you have a defense or rebuttal against these three arguments?

    Only the last one I am having trouble with. The first two are easily explained since they are allowed by law to recoup costs beyond those of the actual procedure, shipping, dry ice, administrative costs of consulting with the patient, etc. So that the price might vary depending on the what the "purchaser" is willing to spend is not a problem.

    "we would like to receive more money than just the revenue that equals the cost of the procedure." - again, not a problem. If they get $30 for one specimen and $100 for another doesn't matter as long as the costs are lawful.


    "I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that." MM source in Post 22, emphasis mine.

    She mentions concerns about the boundaries of the law several time and how they are very careful about it. I don't see anything wrong with consulting legal and trying to get even more costs covered if the funds are potentially there. The interviewer ask her to throw out a number and then pressed her when she didn't. So, of course, the interviewee is explaining that they will take what they can get...legally.

    ---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And?

    You have supported that they were edited, I don't see anything in there that is deceptive, in both conversations they reference that cost is based on location, the latter just includes why that is the case, which aren't pertinent details. Can you support that there was deception involved?
    Not only the portion in bold was deleted. All of this was deleted:

    "It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.

    And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --

    ACTOR: Did you say 67?

    NUCATOLA: 67.

    ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --

    NUCATOLA: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise." http://mediamatters.org/research/201...e-edits/204419

    To make it look like there was a price per specimen and that they were being sold. That's deceptive in that she explains what the money is for and they are aware of the legal requirements.

    Also:

    "1. Full Transcript Of Video Shows CMP Cut Out Several Key Sentences, Where The Official Clarifies That They Still Use The "Standard Process" And Ensure Patient Safety. The Center for Medical Progress' full-transcript of their undercover video reveals that the anti-choice organization cut-out portions of Farrell's comments in order to make it appear that the official was suggesting changes to protocol that could endanger a patient. The short video skipped over Farrell explaining that everything done "is there for the safety of the patient" and under "our standard process" (emphasis added to portion removed from video):

    FARRELL: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we're still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that's definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs. [The Center for Medical Progress, 8/4/15]"

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...o-attem/204766
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #25
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Cowboy, I'm going to drop the light bulb, incentive discussion. It will only become an economic discussion with the same distractions as I allowed in the MW thread. Sufficed to say, abortion was developed because of a "surplus" of "undesirable" babies. A concept the founder of the organization spear headed.





    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Only the last one I am having trouble with. The first two are easily explained since they are allowed by law to recoup costs beyond those of the actual procedure, shipping, dry ice, administrative costs of consulting with the patient, etc. So that the price might vary depending on the what the "purchaser" is willing to spend is not a problem.

    Whoa there.

    First, in the segment I'm referencing she is asked what her costs are, she gives a number. The "buyer" then offers her a much higher remuneration, which she gladly accepts.

    She was specifically asked her total cost, she estimates it, then accepts a higher amount. That isn't covered under "extra costs" because she was already asked about her costs (side note, as part of the initial discussion the PP exec, the PP exec says that they don't really have any costs because the buyer comes in and does the work).

    Buyer: And are we agreed that $100 would keep you happy.

    Laurel: I think so—

    Dr. Gatter: Well let me agree to find out what other affiliates in California are getting, and if they’re getting substantially more, then we can discuss it then.

    Buyer: Yes.

    Dr. Gatter: I mean, the money is not the important thing, but it has to be big enough that it is worthwhile.

    Buyer: No, no, but it is something to talk about. I mean, it was one of the first things you brought up, right? So.

    Dr. Gatter: Mhm.

    Buyer: Now here’s another thought, is we could talk about specimen, per specimen per case, or per procured tissue sample.

    Dr. Gatter: Mhm.

    Buyer: So if we’re able to get a liver/thymus pair, maybe that is $75 per specimen, so that’s a liver/thymus pair and that’s $150.

    Dr. Gatter: Mhm.

    Buyer: Versus if we can get liver, thymus, and a brain hemisphere, and all that, then that’s—

    Dr. Gatter: Okay.

    Buyer: So that protects us so that we’re not paying for stuff we can’t use. And I think it also maybe illustrates things—

    Dr. Gatter: It’s been years since I talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting, if this is in the ballpark, it’s fine, if it’s still low then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini. [laughs]

    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....transcript.pdf



    If you want to say that taking revenue above your cost is authorized by law, you'll need to support it.


    Second, if you want to claim that she will be incurring different cost based on body part recovered, you'll need to support that as well. None of the examples you gave have a difference based on body part type.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    If they get $30 for one specimen and $100 for another doesn't matter as long as the costs are lawful.

    If the costs are the same for both specimens you'll need to support that getting two different revenue amounts is lawful. Or, you'll need to support that there are two different cost structures for those kind of specimens.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    To make it look like there was a price per specimen and that they were being sold. That's deceptive in that she explains what the money is for and they are aware of the legal requirements.
    Except, that is exactly what they are doing in the segment you are quoting (and in the section quoted above). None of the deleted costs are specimen specific right? So how is it misleading? They are accepting a different dollar amount based on the type of organ gathered. Setting aside the illegality of changing procedures to do this, how does getting varying monetary compensation based on a difference that does not impact your cost not imply profit seeking?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Cowboy, I'm going to drop the light bulb, incentive discussion. It will only become an economic discussion with the same distractions as I allowed in the MW thread. Sufficed to say, abortion was developed because of a "surplus" of "undesirable" babies. A concept the founder of the organization spear headed.
    Babies are born. We're talking about unwanted pregnancies - which have always existed as have the means of dealing with them - and the safe medical practice of ending them.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #27
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Babies are born. We're talking about unwanted pregnancies - which have always existed as have the means of dealing with them - and the safe medical practice of ending them.
    And apparently the selling of their corpses for profit.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    She was specifically asked her total cost, she estimates it, then accepts a higher amount. That isn't covered under "extra costs" because she was already asked about her costs (side note, as part of the initial discussion the PP exec, the PP exec says that they don't really have any costs because the buyer comes in and does the work).
    Where is this?

    ---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And apparently the selling of their corpses for profit.
    If that's how you mistakenly see it - which I doubt since you don't seem to be that naive or gullible.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #29
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Where is this?
    Please see the transcript and text linked in post 25.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    If that's how you mistakenly see it - which I doubt since you don't seem to be that naive or gullible.
    Or perhaps I just understand the definitions a bit better. Here are the premises you haven't offered an evidence based objection to.


    1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.

    2) PP shopped around for the highest remuneration possible.

    3) PP Representatives estimated cost structure and then gladly accepted higher amounts.

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).

    5) Earning a remuneration above your cost is defined as profit.

    Conclusion: PP earned a profit from the sales of fetal tissue (from 1,3, and 5).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).

    That's been debunked:

    "FARRELL: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we're still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that's definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs. [The Center for Medical Progress, 8/4/15]"

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...o-attem/204766 Highlighted area edited out by Center for Medical Progress

    Of course this is another example of a deceptively edited segment. As long as they verify the safety of the patient and its within the standard process it is legal.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #31
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    That's been debunked:
    Well no, the quote you are offering is saying that the type of service they will switch to is one that they have performed before (ie that it is part of an existing process). That he process is being altered to favor a sample is mentioned in the quote you reference:

    And we deviate from our standard in order to do that… we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.

    Being “creative” about when and where is, by definition a change in the procedure. From the applicable Federal law:

    no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue;
    http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html


    Speaking of deceptive, it is telling you don’t offer the whole quote concerning this section, which can be found here (a good argument against this agency being “deceptive” is that their transcripts are linked with the videos, as are the full videos): http://www.centerformedicalprogress....2015_final.pdf

    PP: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we’re still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that’s definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.

    Buyer: So that goes to my next, can you get creative, can you alter


    PP:Mhm.

    Buyer: If we say, that we need a liver.

    Buyer: Or not just liver-thymus, but also neural tissue—

    PP: Right, the neural tissue is what we’ve done specifically in the past.

    Buyer: Could you adjust the procedure, if you knew—

    PP: Mhm.


    Buyer: Okay, they need high volume of this—

    PP: Mhm.

    Emphasis mine.



    Additionally, you are acting is if that were the only evidence offered of them altering procedures. It wasn’t even from the same video where I describe procedure altering earlier in thread.

    The evidence I offered was:

    Buyer: The intact specimens, I wanted to touch on that. What I was trying to say is if the 10 to 12 week specimens, end of the 1st trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens, that’s something we can work with.

    Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an
    IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient,“We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.

    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....transcript.pdf

    Again, emphasis mine.




    Interestingly, the one premise you objected to was a wholly owned, separate argument for wrong doing:

    1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.

    2) PP shopped around for the highest remuneration possible.

    3) PP Representatives estimated cost structure and then gladly accepted higher amounts.

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).

    5) Earning a remuneration above your cost is defined as profit.

    Conclusion: PP earned a profit from the sales of fetal tissue (from 1,3, and 5).

    Do you have any objections to 1,3, or 5?





    And to add to the current controversy, it also appears PP (or at least employees of PP) also violated federal law by not always obtaining donor consent:

    “It’s not an option, it’s a demand,” StemExpress supervisors instructed O’Donnell about approaching pregnant women at Planned Parenthood for fetal tissue “donations.” O’Donnell says the StemExpress techs working in Planned Parenthood clinics sometimes harvested fetal parts without obtaining consent from the patients: “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....d-supply-site/
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well no, the quote you are offering is saying that the type of service they will switch to is one that they have performed before (ie that it is part of an existing process). That he process is being altered to favor a sample is mentioned in the quote you reference:

    And we deviate from our standard in order to do that… we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.

    Being “creative” about when and where is, by definition a change in the procedure. From the applicable Federal law:

    no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue;
    http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/publiclaw103-43.htm.html


    Speaking of deceptive, it is telling you don’t offer the whole quote concerning this section, which can be found here (a good argument against this agency being “deceptive” is that their transcripts are linked with the videos, as are the full videos): http://www.centerformedicalprogress....2015_final.pdf

    PP: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we’re still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that’s definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.

    Buyer: So that goes to my next, can you get creative, can you alter


    PP:Mhm.

    Buyer: If we say, that we need a liver.

    Buyer: Or not just liver-thymus, but also neural tissue—

    PP: Right, the neural tissue is what we’ve done specifically in the past.

    Buyer: Could you adjust the procedure, if you knew—

    PP: Mhm.


    Buyer: Okay, they need high volume of this—

    PP: Mhm.

    Emphasis mine.



    Additionally, you are acting is if that were the only evidence offered of them altering procedures. It wasn’t even from the same video where I describe procedure altering earlier in thread.

    The evidence I offered was:

    Buyer: The intact specimens, I wanted to touch on that. What I was trying to say is if the 10 to 12 week specimens, end of the 1st trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens, that’s something we can work with.

    Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an
    IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient,“We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.

    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....transcript.pdf

    Again, emphasis mine.

    Too bad you didn't read further because she explains how she will have to discuss with the surgeon about changing the standard process - that would be for every procedure. She saw no difference in care between the procedures but was going to discuss it with the surgeon.

    "Gatter: It’s something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that."

    The that is change the usual procedure to something new, not on a per patient basis which is not allowed.

    ---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And to add to the current controversy, it also appears PP (or at least employees of PP) also violated federal law by not always obtaining donor consent:

    “It’s not an option, it’s a demand,” StemExpress supervisors instructed O’Donnell about approaching pregnant women at Planned Parenthood for fetal tissue “donations.” O’Donnell says the StemExpress techs working in Planned Parenthood clinics sometimes harvested fetal parts without obtaining consent from the patients: “If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....d-supply-site/

    StemExpress are the contractors, no?

    ---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    [indent] 1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.
    I don't see where it isn't. I offered evidence to the contrary of them providing examples of all kinds of costs.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #33
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Too bad you didn't read further because she explains how she will have to discuss with the surgeon about changing the standard process - that would be for every procedure. She saw no difference in care between the procedures but was going to discuss it with the surgeon.

    "Gatter: It’s something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that."

    The that is change the usual procedure to something new, not on a per patient basis which is not allowed.
    Well I did read that part, apparently a bit more comprehensively than you did. The context of that quote is:

    Gatter: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we’re not doing anything different, so.
    Buyer: That’s what I need to understand, because what I’m seeing it as, of course, I’m looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

    Gatter: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you’re slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you’re increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they’re technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.
    Buyer: So it’s technicalities, is what I’m hearing.

    Gatter: It’s something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that.

    The discussion with the doctor is about whether or not this change will cause the patient more pain or put the patient at more risk, not about whether this reflects a change in procedure. She literally says that they are “violating the protocol that says to the patient,“We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.”




    You also didn’t respond to my other segment at all:

    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....2015_final.pdf

    PP: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we’re still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that’s definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.

    Buyer: So that goes to my next, can you get creative, can you alter


    PP:Mhm.

    Buyer: If we say, that we need a liver.

    Buyer: Or not just liver-thymus, but also neural tissue—

    PP: Right, the neural tissue is what we’ve done specifically in the past.

    Buyer: Could you adjust the procedure, if you knew—

    PP: Mhm.


    Buyer: Okay, they need high volume of this—

    PP: Mhm.

    Emphasis mine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    StemExpress are the contractors, no?
    Yep, a contractor for Planned Parenthood that operates inside Planned Parenthood facilities. Are you implying that Planned Parenthood has no duty of responsibility to its patients for people it allowed in its facilities as long as the people who committing the crime are contractors?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I don't see where it isn't. I offered evidence to the contrary of them providing examples of all kinds of costs.
    And none of those costs were associated with the type of organ harvested were they?

    Likewise, I think you read over a very important term I used in that. “Value of the part obtained,” not “cost associated with the part obtained.”

    PP specifically refers to checking with other offices to see what they are getting for such an organ and basing their price on that finding. That is a profit seeking behavior, not a cost remediation behavior.



    Interestingly, the one premise you objected to was a wholly owned, separate argument for wrong doing:
    1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.

    2) PP shopped around for the highest remuneration possible.

    3) PP Representatives estimated cost structure and then gladly accepted higher amounts.

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).

    5) Earning a remuneration above your cost is defined as profit.

    Conclusion: PP earned a profit from the sales of fetal tissue (from 1,3, and 5).

    You object to 1) (though without a clear reason), but you have not offered objections to 3 or 5.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well I did read that part, apparently a bit more comprehensively than you did. The context of that quote is:

    Gatter: Yes, but I have heard people argue that for the tissue donation, it says we’re not doing anything different, so.
    Buyer: That’s what I need to understand, because what I’m seeing it as, of course, I’m looking for intact specimens. You know from a medical perspective, the patient is receiving just as good of care. So help me understand the problem.

    Gatter: Well, there are people who would argue that by using the IPAS instead of the machine, you’re slightly increasing the length of the procedure, you’re increasing the pain of the procedure, is it local anesthesia or conscious sedation, so they’re technical arguments having to do with one technique versus another.
    Buyer: So it’s technicalities, is what I’m hearing.

    Gatter: It’s something that I need to discuss with Ian, before we agree to do that.

    The discussion with the doctor is about whether or not this change will cause the patient more pain or put the patient at more risk, not about whether this reflects a change in procedure. She literally says that they are “violating the protocol that says to the patient,“We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.”

    She said we're "kind of" violating the protocol. But it's her opinion that there's no difference in the procedures which is why she wants to discuss it with the surgeon before changing the policy. What's clear is she's not talking about a patient by patient basis..."we need 3 intact specimens today so the next three patients use technique B."

    ---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You also didn’t respond to my other segment at all:

    http://www.centerformedicalprogress....2015_final.pdf

    [indent] PP: And we bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this. And we deviate from our standard in order to do that. So, you know, we can do it in a way that we’re still verifying that everything is there for the safety of the patient, but then we maintain the integrity of that sample. So yeah, that’s definitely something we can do. So as far as, this is our standard process, telling you then we can get creative about when and where and under what conditions can we interject something that is specific to the tissue needs.
    emphasis mine - I don't think a response was necessary, or is.

    ---------- Post added at 12:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yep, a contractor for Planned Parenthood that operates inside Planned Parenthood facilities. Are you implying that Planned Parenthood has no duty of responsibility to its patients for people it allowed in its facilities as long as the people who committing the crime are contractors?
    Sure, was Planned Parenthood aware of what was going on? Did they ignore it or were complicit?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    She said we're "kind of" violating the protocol. But it's her opinion that there's no difference in the procedures which is why she wants to discuss it with the surgeon before changing the policy. What's clear is she's not talking about a patient by patient basis..."we need 3 intact specimens today so the next three patients use technique B."

    Since the topic is abortion, I am just wondering... is "kind of" violating protocol equivalent to "kind of" pregnant?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #36
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And none of those costs were associated with the type of organ harvested were they?

    Likewise, I think you read over a very important term I used in that. “Value of the part obtained,” not “cost associated with the part obtained.”

    PP specifically refers to checking with other offices to see what they are getting for such an organ and basing their price on that finding. That is a profit seeking behavior, not a cost remediation behavior.
    That's your opinion.

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Interestingly, the one premise you objected to was a wholly owned, separate argument for wrong doing:
    1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.

    2) PP shopped around for the highest remuneration possible.

    3) PP Representatives estimated cost structure and then gladly accepted higher amounts.

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).

    5) Earning a remuneration above your cost is defined as profit.

    Conclusion: PP earned a profit from the sales of fetal tissue (from 1,3, and 5).

    You object to 1) (though without a clear reason), but you have not offered objections to 3 or 5.

    Yes, and I explained that PP would look for more (I believe she said "reasonable") things to be used to justify the acceptance of a higher payment. As long as the costs are justified in some way I don't see how it matters. My accountant does that for me every tax season, haven't had a problem yet.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #37
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    She said we're "kind of" violating the protocol. But it's her opinion that there's no difference in the procedures which is why she wants to discuss it with the surgeon before changing the policy.
    Well no. As I showed in my last post, her discussion with the physician is about the possible change in risk and pain level. She wants to ensure that there is no change there before signing a contract.


    I'm not sure how the hedge "kind of" changes anything, as Ibelsd points out. I "kind of" murdered a guy isn't much of a legal defense.

    Either the procedure has been changed with the aim of harvesting specific organs, or it hasn't. In this case, it has, as she admits. She just thinks it isn't a very big change.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    emphasis mine - I don't think a response was necessary, or is.
    An interesting read. She is talking about it being the standard process to "bake it into the contract."


    So when PP says:

    Buyer: Could you adjust the procedure, if you knew—

    PP: Mhm.

    Buyer: Okay, they need high volume of this—

    PP: Mhm.

    You don't see any issue there?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, was Planned Parenthood aware of what was going on? Did they ignore it or were complicit?

    It was in PP's facility correct? The patients whose rights were violated were PP's patients right?



    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That's your opinion.
    No, it is based on the nature of the costs being described and the nature of the organs mentioned. Getting a thymus gland vs getting a kidney has no effect on transport cost (same location) for example.


    Likewise, the meaning of the phrase "value of the part obtained" is not a subjective meaning, nor was its context in the quoted section. PP specifically referred to checking with other offices to make sure that the price offered was in line with what they could receive from other buyers, ie a market price.

    None of these arguments are opinions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes, and I explained that PP would look for more (I believe she said "reasonable") things to be used to justify the acceptance of a higher payment. As long as the costs are justified in some way I don't see how it matters. My accountant does that for me every tax season, haven't had a problem yet.

    Well just to be clear, it isn't just justified in "some way" but in a way that is allowed for by law right?


    Which premise are you specifically objecting too?

    1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.

    2) PP shopped around for the highest remuneration possible.

    3) PP Representatives estimated cost structure and then gladly accepted higher amounts.

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).

    5) Earning a remuneration above your cost is defined as profit.

    Conclusion: PP earned a profit from the sales of fetal tissue (from 1,3, and 5).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    An interesting read. She is talking about it being the standard process to "bake it into the contract."


    So when PP says:

    Buyer: Could you adjust the procedure, if you knew—

    PP: Mhm.

    Buyer: Okay, they need high volume of this—

    PP: Mhm.

    You don't see any issue there?
    Changing their SOPs? No, no problem. Are you saying they can never change their SOPs? ever? That it is going to be in the contract supports that it is a change in policy and therefore doesn't violate the law.

    ---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well just to be clear, it isn't just justified in "some way" but in a way that is allowed for by law right?
    Yes, justified according to the law.

    ---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post


    Which premise are you specifically objecting too?

    1) PP based its remuneration on the value of the part obtained, which is not associated with cost.
    I don't see that. It was $75 per part, then added up, 2 parts were $150 and how was it not associated with cost. She specifically mentions costs.

    ---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    2) PP shopped around for the highest remuneration possible.
    Sure, contact other centers and see what they are justifying as costs to cover whatever the client is willing to pay.

    ---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    3) PP Representatives estimated cost structure and then gladly accepted higher amounts.
    Yes, no problem there. They can accept whatever amount the client is willing to donate, as long as the costs are justified.

    ---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    4) PP changed the medical procedure to maximize the value of the returned organs (which is illegal).
    They they did so altering their standard procedures in any case is unsupported. That they were willing to alter their standard procedures going forward ("baking it into the contract") is agreed to and allowed by the law.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #39
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Changing their SOPs? No, no problem. Are you saying they can never change their SOPs? ever? That it is going to be in the contract supports that it is a change in policy and therefore doesn't violate the law.
    I'm not sure how you got to here from what I wrote.

    I'm not talking about SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). We are talking about them customizing individual procedures in the future to maximize the chances of getting certain organs. IE we might normally do X, X is our SOP. But, if we can get a thymus by doing Y, we'll do Y.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes, justified according to the law.
    And you don't see any problem with attempting to "discover" more costs to justify a higher offered payment?

    Do you have any support that PP said what you imply? That when offered a payment higher than their stated cost they said, "we'll go back and look for additional costs?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I don't see that. It was $75 per part, then added up, 2 parts were $150 and how was it not associated with cost. She specifically mentions costs.
    In post 18:

    When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, contact other centers and see what they are justifying as costs to cover whatever the client is willing to pay.
    Ahh, careful, that isn't what was used as support. In the support offered the PP official was seeing what kind of compensation was available in other markets, not what costs were used.

    If you want to say that she was referring to costs, you'll need to support that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Yes, no problem there. They can accept whatever amount the client is willing to donate, as long as the costs are justified.
    Can you support that retroactive cost estimation based upon sales price is legal for non-profits? (hint: it isn't) or permissible under the law cited?

    Second, can you support that the acceptance of the additional payment was at all conditioned on the justification by higher costs in the dialogue quoted? Please be specific.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    They they did so altering their standard procedures in any case is unsupported.
    I've clarified your misunderstanding on this issue above, if you wish to imply that they were referring to wholesale changes to procedure you'll need to support that that is the case. You'll also have to support that wholesale changes in the procedure of the kind you are referring to in order to obtain body parts is legal.





    You also seem to have missed the relevant section of my reply about the taking of fetus without consent. Do you have any defense of this?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Non-Issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure how you got to here from what I wrote.

    I'm not talking about SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). We are talking about them customizing individual procedures in the future to maximize the chances of getting certain organs. IE we might normally do X, X is our SOP. But, if we can get a thymus by doing Y, we'll do Y.
    That's not what she said. She said now we do X as our SOP, I'll speak to our surgeon about changing the SOP to Y and that's what will be "baked into the contract".

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And you don't see any problem with attempting to "discover" more costs to justify a higher offered payment?
    Me personally? No.

    ---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, careful, that isn't what was used as support. In the support offered the PP official was seeing what kind of compensation was available in other markets, not what costs were used.

    If you want to say that she was referring to costs, you'll need to support that.
    She was going to speak to other centers, not other clients.

    ---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    You also seem to have missed the relevant section of my reply about the taking of fetus without consent. Do you have any defense of this?
    Let's defund StemExpress.

    ---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I've clarified your misunderstanding on this issue above, if you wish to imply that they were referring to wholesale changes to procedure you'll need to support that that is the case. You'll also have to support that wholesale changes in the procedure of the kind you are referring to in order to obtain body parts is legal.
    That the individual patient and doctor have to sign a waiver was given. The intent of the law is to prevent the doctor from altering the clinics SOPs in order to obtain tissue. Nowhere in your evidence did I see a prohibition against a clinic's ever changing their SOPs again. Further, it was her opinion that there was no diference - "technicalities" she said - between the protocols...but it would be discussed with the surgeon.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 10th, 2010, 10:23 AM
  2. Truly Planned Parenthood
    By PallidaMors in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 02:50 AM
  3. Planned Parenthood cartoon
    By nanderson in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 10th, 2005, 06:01 PM
  4. Murder or Tissue Issue?
    By Dionysus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 19th, 2005, 11:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •