Show of HandsShow of Hands

MrMilkdud August 6th, 2015 2:21pm

Planned Parenthood often says abortion constitutes only 3% of its services. They don't often mention that abortion revenue makes up 51% of clinic income. Which of these figures more accurately reflects how important abortion is to their bottom line?

14 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

OldAccount No longer active
08/11/15 4:38 pm

I don't see why everyone is so upset with selling aborted body parts and/or using them for research. I don't even see why people are upset about this 51% thing. They get money from the GM to do what they do, naturally when they charge people for

Reply
OldAccount No longer active
08/11/15 4:39 pm

services they're going to generate HUGE profit because everything else is GM funded meaning they get what they need, no more no less.

MrMilkdud
08/12/15 7:10 am

The 51% issue is important because it shows exactly why abortion is so important to planned parenthood. What you should be asking is why they try to diminish the perception that abortion is a big part of their business model.

OldAccount No longer active
08/12/15 7:20 am

Idk, I sort of explained why I thought what I did, maybe look it over and then respond (sorry if that came off rude).

OldAccount No longer active
08/12/15 7:24 am

Would you happen to know what other type of people paid services they have? It would help me come to my conclusion on how important the 51% is.

MrMilkdud
08/12/15 7:45 am

This is a percentage of ALL clinic income, including grants and donations, not just cash payments from clients.

MrMilkdud
08/12/15 7:57 am

And even if you did think this number didn't include government money, that money amounts to about 46% of their total revenue. If this 51% applied to the other 54% of their income, that's still over 25% of their total revenue.

OldAccount No longer active
08/12/15 8:23 am

I see. Well I had a totally skews idea of the GM money. 😅

MrMilkdud
08/12/15 8:28 am

I think someone else made the same mistake in a thread down below. People get very upset about revenue motivated medical procedures but for some reason turn a blind eye to revenue motivated abortion.

xzach next door to you
08/09/15 8:44 pm

If you are against abortion put your money where your mouth is and adopt a child. We could eliminate abortion if mothers had the assurance the child could be placed in a loving home.

Reply
cpaswr just say the letters
08/07/15 5:00 am

Which one? It isn't the american thinker link. I saw that.

MrMilkdud
08/07/15 7:05 am

This is the annual study done by STOPP, and is linked here:
www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/planned-parenthood-51-of-its-income-comes-from-abortions/

MrMilkdud
08/07/15 7:06 am

PP doesn't release this figure, but they do release the number of abortions they commit, the average cost of each abortion, and the total revenue for clinic services. It's just a matter of multiplication and division to get to the % of income.

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 11:34 am

I guess I don't understand the relevance.

If they cannot use gov money for abortions, but they can for everything else they do, is it really a surprise that abortion services, paid by the patient, would make up most of their income?

Reply
MrMilkdud
08/06/15 11:40 am

Because 3% makes it look like abortions are an insignificant part of their business model.

smithy0013
08/06/15 11:40 am

I know right? It feels like the planned parenthood haters are just desperately grasping at straws now without fact checking

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 11:45 am

I guess if people would support prevention measures more, PP abortions would be performed less often. I'm not sure why you guys don't focus your attentions there.

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 11:46 am

But, this isn't about preventing unplanned pregnancies, is it?

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 11:55 am

"I guess if people would support prevention measures more"

It's always "more". If we just had more money...

MrMilkdud
08/06/15 12:09 pm

Because abortion isn't just a less preferable option. It's intrinsically wrong.

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 12:19 pm

While you, no doubt, feel very strongly on this issue, just as I and anyone else that disagree with you, it's just weird you cannot support what isn't wrong and what works. Abortion is not going to be banned. It can be reduced in frequency. So, maybe

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 12:20 pm

You should work towards those ends instead of making a hard situation worse

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 12:22 pm

Kscott, really? You think it's cost prohibitive to help reduce unwanted pregnancies, but paying for a bloated military that is used to kill, even bystanders, thats not expensive? Are you for real?

MrMilkdud
08/06/15 12:24 pm

What other massive human rights abuses do we take that approach to?
We won't ever stop human sex trafficking so we should just work to mitigate it and make it safe.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 12:26 pm

Asking if it's cost prohibitive is meaningless, esp in this country. Sure we could tax people 90% and have the money to do anything. I'm asking when is enough money? If you could get as much money as required, what figure would it be? Tell me.

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 12:28 pm

Nope. The differences between your examples is so huge it does not work at all.

I'm guessing I'm about 5 posts away from really pissing you guys off.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 12:28 pm

As for the military, that's another strawman. First, a national defense is actually spelled out in the Constitution as a specific role of govt. No, I don't agree with the way it's been used and would support reductions in the amount of funds spent

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 12:28 pm

on opening bases all over the world.

RJ1969 SoCal
08/06/15 12:29 pm

Forget $ for now. Just like you don't do squat for the 25,000 kids under the age of 5 that die each day from preventable causes.

How about merely supporting PP's prevention measures?

MrMilkdud
08/06/15 12:38 pm

RJ, quantify "squat," because I think you may be outside your area of expertise here.

MrMilkdud
08/06/15 12:39 pm

Maybe we should so wasting money on green initiatives. That's a huge money sink right there that could actually help people.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 1:04 pm

You know me well enough to make the claim I don't do squat? What could I do towards that cause that would be sufficient for you? Keep in mind you just said 25,000 kids per day.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 1:06 pm

"Forget $ for now"

In other words, "let's switch subjects since you got me there."

MrMilkdud
08/06/15 1:23 pm

He got that number from UNICEF. He's talking about the child mortality rate in developing countries.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of abortion in the U.S.
He just throws that number out for shock value.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 1:29 pm

"How about merely supporting PP's prevention measures?"

That's a strawman since no one has a problem with their services outside of abortions. Focus, RJ! You jump around more than a frog.

smithy0013
08/06/15 11:24 am

Well of course their revenue is not going to be proportional. You think they made 51% off of condom sales?

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 10:49 am

Thank you. Will be linking to this in future.

Reply
simplyjoyful Texas
08/06/15 10:31 am

Very interesting. Good to know.

Reply
elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 10:55 am

Thank you for that link. Well-written article.

iPolitix Political Party Animal
08/06/15 8:01 am

I wonder which part is the money they make off of illegally trafficking in human body parts?
⁉😞⁉

Reply
firefly5 the verse
08/06/15 8:07 am

That would be zero.

iPolitix Political Party Animal
08/06/15 8:20 am

>Insert Ace Ventura GIF<
Ree-he-he-HEAALY????

firefly5 the verse
08/06/15 8:31 am

Yes, really. You may be opposed to the practice, and I very much believe that, in general, legality does not make something right, but PP is not illegally trafficking human body parts. It is donating fetal tissue.

firefly5 the verse
08/06/15 8:33 am

This may seem like a matter of semantics to you, but it's not. You can have a moral opposition to this, and I can respect that, but if you can't contest this on its own merit, you have no business contesting this at all.

iPolitix Political Party Animal
08/06/15 8:45 am

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

firefly5 the verse
08/06/15 8:51 am

Billy Madison? I can play movie quotes, too.

bringstheeagle Colorado
08/06/15 9:51 am

Movie quote - see link below.

youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 10:59 am

Federal funds are fungible. Which means, if they receive federal funds, once in hand, they can use it for whatever they choose & document their use however they choose. The Feds know it. PP knows it. WE know it.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 11:01 am

There is no legitimate reason to subsidize PP. Community Health Centers provide *more* health, to *more* ppl, w/o resorting to illegal trafficking when providing those services. PP will not go under w/o Fed subsidization. Other reasons, perhaps...

bringstheeagle Colorado
08/06/15 11:05 am

Federal funds are not "fungible" - by law, just the opposite they do not loose their identity and cannot be repurposed except in very specific cases often requiring permission. That's my understanding- so where are you getting this fungible stuff?

EarlyBird Portland
08/06/15 8:00 am

The 51% revenue is more important to their bottom line but 3% isn't much when weighed against the positive aspects.

Reply
AmericanWolf For the Benefit of All
08/06/15 7:51 am

As I said on a previous poll, I find it difficult to be either pro-life or pro-choice. But Planned Parenthood shouldn't be supported by the state any longer.

Reply
Krazy1 One for fun
08/06/15 9:35 am

This...^^^

MaxineL New Jersey
08/06/15 7:43 am

Ok, let's just drop this topic. It is not changing anyone's opinion and it is just making people say nasty and mean things.

Reply
MrMilkdud
08/06/15 7:50 am

No. This is an important issue, and this poll is correcting a common misrepresentation.

jayblake22
08/06/15 8:01 am

Drop it? Sure lets drop the fact that planned parenthood has been exposed for what they truly are.

iPolitix Political Party Animal
08/06/15 8:18 am

WOW! How quickly we've gone from, "If you see something, say something"
😒
To, "I see nothing! NOTHING!"

Snowden didn't die for this!

JJJSchmidt San Marcos
08/06/15 8:27 am

Because maybe if I post just one more nasty comment on the internet, world peace will finally be a reality.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 8:44 am

Oh my, how quickly the pro-choicers want to change the subject!

chickencookie It really is
08/06/15 11:14 am

Why keep stories like this in the news when Christie blocked traffic on a bridge 😒

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 11:47 am

Lol, don't forget Cecil!!

MaxineL New Jersey
08/06/15 1:59 pm

Ok people you have ALL proved my point by posting nasty comments that add NOTHING to this discussions!

MrMilkdud
08/06/15 2:14 pm

I see valid points all over the place.

knetzere Illinois
08/07/15 10:13 am

I feel much more enlightened after reading this

cowboy Doors of Perception
08/06/15 7:28 am

Look at all of the Nazis protecting human experiments with murdered babies. It's disgusting.

Reply
mynamehere69 South Carolina
08/06/15 8:40 am

Nazis? So when a person passes on and the family donates said body to science, that's not OK either?

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 11:03 am

Obfuscation & misdirection.

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 1:08 pm

Lol, comparing murder to natural or accidental death.

cowboy Doors of Perception
08/06/15 3:43 pm

The Government abortion clinics are selling murdered baby bodies.

mynamehere69 South Carolina
08/06/15 3:45 pm

It's called scientific research. Would you rather they just throw them out?

cowboy Doors of Perception
08/06/15 3:47 pm

The Nazis thought that too.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 3:50 pm

It's been known since at least 1999 that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary
capitolwords.org/date/1999/07/30/E1696-2_embryonic-stem-cell-research-unlawful-unacceptable/

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 3:51 pm

Adult stem cells *just* as useful; embryonic stem cells can be obtained *w/o* aborting donor via umbilical cord, placenta & amniotic fluid

mynamehere69 South Carolina
08/06/15 3:53 pm

Dude you need some help about your infatuation with Nazis. Almost every medical advancement we have today is through research, good or bad. And if something bad has to happen, like abortion, at least make some good of it, man up and move on.

cowboy Doors of Perception
08/06/15 3:55 pm

You don't sound too upset at our Government abortion clinics selling murdered baby parts.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 3:56 pm

I'd prefer humans not be sacrificed on altar of convenience, particularly when same research can be done as effectively/or better on adults. Therapeutic abortion - where DR has determined mother's life in danger - is one thing.

elianastar Gab.ai FreeSpeech
08/06/15 3:57 pm

Becuz one wasn't responsible in the first place - there are multiple forms of birth control that doesn't require strategically crushing the heads of the unborn to traffic in research "specimens."

kscott516 EB rules
08/06/15 4:54 pm

"It's called scientific research. Would you rather they just throw them out?"

NO. That they don't do it all.