Planned Parenthood as political organization

The most effective political organization in America, judged by the recent elections, is Planned Parenthood.  As reported by Sarah Kliff:

Planned Parenthood Action Fund earned an honor this campaign cycle that had nothing to do with women’s health: It was the most effective political group in the 2012 election.

Over 98 percent of its spending was in races that ended with the desired result, according to an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation.

Planned Parenthood pulled this off, pollsters and strategists say, with a two-pronged strategy. First, it turned Mitt Romney’s words against him. Then the group used algorithms to identify a group of 1 million female voters, largely in swing states, who were particularly receptive to the group’s message. . . .

Planned Parenthood started with focus groups in the spring, trying to figure out how much voters knew about Romney’s positions on women’s health issues. The answer seemed to be: not a lot. . . .

After that, O’Rourke and her team began testing out what messages worked best to define Romney. They would put up online ads that had personal messages or ones that leveraged Planned Parenthood as an authority on women’s health. . . .

Figuring out the best message was only half the puzzle; Planned Parenthood had to figure out who would be most receptive to their ideas. For that, they turned to micro-targeting, identifying 1 million female voters who were likely to support legal abortion and the health law’s contraceptive mandate.

The group spent about $15 million this year, more than tripling the $4 million it spent in 2008. It wanted to make sure those dollars were targeting the voters who would be open to their message.

“Those were the women that we were going to relentlessly target over and over and over again between June and November,” says Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens.

If you were among the women in that group who lived in Virginia, you received five pieces of direct mail and dozens of phone calls. You would get visits from canvassers, who might hand you a folded-up brochure, styled to look like a pocketbook, that told you Mitt Romney could cost you $407,000 over your lifetime by not supporting no co-pay birth control or equal pay legislation.

via Inside Planned Parenthood’s campaign strategy.

My first reaction is to wonder if conservatives and pro-lifers could ever get that sophisticated.  My second reaction is to think that no one should be so manipulative and mendacious.   “Romney will cost you $407,000.”  I’m sure many of these scientifically-targeted and brow-beaten women thought, “But I don’t have $407,000″ and voted accordingly.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    The question we need to ask though is “is Planned Parenthood lying?”. I don’t know what the numbers are, but certainly there is a financial price that women have to pay for these policies. Given that single mothers outnumber single dads, any cuts in health care for kids will leave more women footing the bill. If abortion were ever made illegal and women had to have children they don’t want, then $400,000 could be a conservative estimate. (You can look up the average amounts spent on just one kid.)

    And then you ask yourself “is it true” of the things the pro-life movement says: Planned Parenthood promotes pedophilia, black genocide, forced abortions, breast cancer, rape, and of course the women that have these abortions are just massively depressed afterwards..

  • Michael B.

    The question we need to ask though is “is Planned Parenthood lying?”. I don’t know what the numbers are, but certainly there is a financial price that women have to pay for these policies. Given that single mothers outnumber single dads, any cuts in health care for kids will leave more women footing the bill. If abortion were ever made illegal and women had to have children they don’t want, then $400,000 could be a conservative estimate. (You can look up the average amounts spent on just one kid.)

    And then you ask yourself “is it true” of the things the pro-life movement says: Planned Parenthood promotes pedophilia, black genocide, forced abortions, breast cancer, rape, and of course the women that have these abortions are just massively depressed afterwards..

  • Jim Hamilton

    13 million black babies have been aborted since 1973. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who hated black people. Most Planned Parenthood clinics are located in poor, predominantly minority neighborhoods. Any woman, black or otherwise, who would believe anything that Planned Parenthood tells them is an idiot. PP is in the baby-murdering business. It’s a Satanic organization that despises human life. I pray that God totally shatters the abortion industry and brings all abortionists to repentance and faith. If these baby-murdering monsters refuse to repent, I hope they burn in hell forever.

  • Jim Hamilton

    13 million black babies have been aborted since 1973. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who hated black people. Most Planned Parenthood clinics are located in poor, predominantly minority neighborhoods. Any woman, black or otherwise, who would believe anything that Planned Parenthood tells them is an idiot. PP is in the baby-murdering business. It’s a Satanic organization that despises human life. I pray that God totally shatters the abortion industry and brings all abortionists to repentance and faith. If these baby-murdering monsters refuse to repent, I hope they burn in hell forever.

  • rlewer

    Women’s health care can be given by any doctor. It does not depend on Planned Parenthood. One of Planned Parenthood’s chief lies is that women’s health depends on them.

    Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with “cuts in health care” which was not proposed by anyone anyway. Another lie.

  • rlewer

    Women’s health care can be given by any doctor. It does not depend on Planned Parenthood. One of Planned Parenthood’s chief lies is that women’s health depends on them.

    Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with “cuts in health care” which was not proposed by anyone anyway. Another lie.

  • SKPeterson

    The use of focus groups and trialing various marketing slogans, talking points is somehow novel? Kliff may want to show up at General Mills or Coca Cola or ConAgra and talk to their marketing departments, or go talk to folks at places like WPP, Saatchi & Saatchi, or McCan Ericson.

    I am almost always somewhat bemused by the constant drumbeat of how groundbreaking leftist/Democrat groups are in marshaling technology to identify and motivate votes, while rightist/Republican campaigns lack both technical sophistication and a basic knowledge of introductory marketing principles. You would think that after two major campaign failures, the Republicans, their PACs and associated interest groups could craft more compelling and focused voter identification/motivation efforts.

    What I think is interesting is that PP apparently thought the threat was great – they almost quadrupled their marketing expenditures over 2008.

  • SKPeterson

    The use of focus groups and trialing various marketing slogans, talking points is somehow novel? Kliff may want to show up at General Mills or Coca Cola or ConAgra and talk to their marketing departments, or go talk to folks at places like WPP, Saatchi & Saatchi, or McCan Ericson.

    I am almost always somewhat bemused by the constant drumbeat of how groundbreaking leftist/Democrat groups are in marshaling technology to identify and motivate votes, while rightist/Republican campaigns lack both technical sophistication and a basic knowledge of introductory marketing principles. You would think that after two major campaign failures, the Republicans, their PACs and associated interest groups could craft more compelling and focused voter identification/motivation efforts.

    What I think is interesting is that PP apparently thought the threat was great – they almost quadrupled their marketing expenditures over 2008.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    LOL

    Breaking news:

    Weak-minded Females Easily Swayed by Propaganda

    Well, duh.

    Hasn’t this always been the case?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    LOL

    Breaking news:

    Weak-minded Females Easily Swayed by Propaganda

    Well, duh.

    Hasn’t this always been the case?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Kliff may want to show up at General Mills or Coca Cola or ConAgra and talk to their marketing departments, or go talk to folks at places like WPP, Saatchi & Saatchi, or McCan Ericson.

    Those businesses are subject to truth in advertising regulations.
    PP is not.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Kliff may want to show up at General Mills or Coca Cola or ConAgra and talk to their marketing departments, or go talk to folks at places like WPP, Saatchi & Saatchi, or McCan Ericson.

    Those businesses are subject to truth in advertising regulations.
    PP is not.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Given that single mothers outnumber single dads,”

    How is that possible?

    I get that women very slightly outnumber men, but for every kid there is a mother and a father. So, are you saying that the guys are able to marry someone else but the women aren’t? Are you saying that non custodial parents aren’t parents?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Given that single mothers outnumber single dads,”

    How is that possible?

    I get that women very slightly outnumber men, but for every kid there is a mother and a father. So, are you saying that the guys are able to marry someone else but the women aren’t? Are you saying that non custodial parents aren’t parents?

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Philip Spomer

    Setting aside for just a moment the Abortion issue, could we use these same techneques to spread the Gospel? There maybe a population who are reseptive to the Lutheran proclamation, but who need to be targeted, and addressed in a particular way that may overcome their misunderstandings about the church.

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Philip Spomer

    Setting aside for just a moment the Abortion issue, could we use these same techneques to spread the Gospel? There maybe a population who are reseptive to the Lutheran proclamation, but who need to be targeted, and addressed in a particular way that may overcome their misunderstandings about the church.

  • DonS

    Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living. Its success is one of the reasons we have a birth dearth crisis brewing today in the western world. They are very good at what they do and will expend every effort not to be deterred from continuing to do it.

    Michael @ 1, you do realize that there are fine alternatives to killing the baby in order to avoid the costs of raising him/her, right? Adoption is a great choice that PP has no interest in promoting.

  • DonS

    Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living. Its success is one of the reasons we have a birth dearth crisis brewing today in the western world. They are very good at what they do and will expend every effort not to be deterred from continuing to do it.

    Michael @ 1, you do realize that there are fine alternatives to killing the baby in order to avoid the costs of raising him/her, right? Adoption is a great choice that PP has no interest in promoting.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    SG (@7), come on.

    “Given that single mothers outnumber single dads,”

    How is that possible? I get that women very slightly outnumber men, but for every kid there is a mother and a father.

    Yeah, but they don’t all have to be distinct. I mean, one guy could impregnate five women, being married to none of them. Voila, a 5-to-1 ratio!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    SG (@7), come on.

    “Given that single mothers outnumber single dads,”

    How is that possible? I get that women very slightly outnumber men, but for every kid there is a mother and a father.

    Yeah, but they don’t all have to be distinct. I mean, one guy could impregnate five women, being married to none of them. Voila, a 5-to-1 ratio!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@9), I’m sorry, but you should know better than to go off half-cocked like you did.

    Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.

    You know that’s false, and if you didn’t, you really shouldn’t be discussing this any further before you do some research. Abortions comprised less than 5% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. A third of its funding at the national level is from the federal government, which cannot be used for abortion.

    Its success is one of the reasons we have a birth dearth crisis brewing today in the western world.

    That’s quite a trick for a single organization, especially one only based in the US. I would’ve thought it had more to do with cultural shifts in attitudes about children — which can be seen even among conservative Christians — but no, I’m sure it’s mainly Planned Parenthood’s fault.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@9), I’m sorry, but you should know better than to go off half-cocked like you did.

    Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.

    You know that’s false, and if you didn’t, you really shouldn’t be discussing this any further before you do some research. Abortions comprised less than 5% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. A third of its funding at the national level is from the federal government, which cannot be used for abortion.

    Its success is one of the reasons we have a birth dearth crisis brewing today in the western world.

    That’s quite a trick for a single organization, especially one only based in the US. I would’ve thought it had more to do with cultural shifts in attitudes about children — which can be seen even among conservative Christians — but no, I’m sure it’s mainly Planned Parenthood’s fault.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 11: I’m going off half-cocked?

    Here’s perhaps the source you used to arrive at your statement that “less than 5% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood” are abortions: http://factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

    According to this document, actually only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s “services” were abortions. Well, heck, what are we worried about then? No problem. Taking your temperature, abortion, they’re all just “services”, all the same, aren’t they?

    Oh, wait a second …. 10% of PP’s clients receive an abortion. Heck, that’s not 3% — what’s going on? What? — 11.4 million services …. doing the math …. 342,000 abortions! According to Guttmacher Institute, as reported here: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf , U.S. abortions total about 1.2 million annually — Planned Parenthood is doing more than 25% of them! At about $450 per killing, that’s a nice living.

    You’re just a little too captive to left-wing media, it seems.

    Last year there were about 4 million live U.S. births. That means there are roughly 5.2 million conceptions each year, including the 1.2 million abortions. Therefore, Planned Parenthood is killing, alone, 6-7 % of living fetuses each year in the U.S.

    But, you know, I’m just going off half-cocked.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 11: I’m going off half-cocked?

    Here’s perhaps the source you used to arrive at your statement that “less than 5% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood” are abortions: http://factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

    According to this document, actually only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s “services” were abortions. Well, heck, what are we worried about then? No problem. Taking your temperature, abortion, they’re all just “services”, all the same, aren’t they?

    Oh, wait a second …. 10% of PP’s clients receive an abortion. Heck, that’s not 3% — what’s going on? What? — 11.4 million services …. doing the math …. 342,000 abortions! According to Guttmacher Institute, as reported here: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf , U.S. abortions total about 1.2 million annually — Planned Parenthood is doing more than 25% of them! At about $450 per killing, that’s a nice living.

    You’re just a little too captive to left-wing media, it seems.

    Last year there were about 4 million live U.S. births. That means there are roughly 5.2 million conceptions each year, including the 1.2 million abortions. Therefore, Planned Parenthood is killing, alone, 6-7 % of living fetuses each year in the U.S.

    But, you know, I’m just going off half-cocked.

  • Michael B.

    @DonS

    Your numbers fail to take into account the large number of abortions caused by abortifacient pharmaceutical drugs. Now, many of these are actually counted. A woman is pregnant, goes to get drugs, and the abortion happens and is counted. But what is more often the cause is where women get abortifacient pills without knowing they are pregnant. There is no way to count these abortions, and yet we know they must happen often. Look at the sales figures for Plan B, and what percentage pregnancy occurs after sex. So you have to ask the question: Is the average abortion happening at Planned Parenthood surgically, or at Walmart chemically?

  • Michael B.

    @DonS

    Your numbers fail to take into account the large number of abortions caused by abortifacient pharmaceutical drugs. Now, many of these are actually counted. A woman is pregnant, goes to get drugs, and the abortion happens and is counted. But what is more often the cause is where women get abortifacient pills without knowing they are pregnant. There is no way to count these abortions, and yet we know they must happen often. Look at the sales figures for Plan B, and what percentage pregnancy occurs after sex. So you have to ask the question: Is the average abortion happening at Planned Parenthood surgically, or at Walmart chemically?

  • DonS

    Michael B. @ 13: Yes, you’re right. My recitation of the facts vastly understates the number of fetal deaths Planned Parenthood is actually responsible for. I don’t think the numbers I quoted above count any abortifacient-induced abortions. They are just the actual abortion procedures. The baby-killing lobby considers abortifacients to be “contraceptives” — maybe that euphemism helps them sleep better at night.

  • DonS

    Michael B. @ 13: Yes, you’re right. My recitation of the facts vastly understates the number of fetal deaths Planned Parenthood is actually responsible for. I don’t think the numbers I quoted above count any abortifacient-induced abortions. They are just the actual abortion procedures. The baby-killing lobby considers abortifacients to be “contraceptives” — maybe that euphemism helps them sleep better at night.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@12), it still sounds like you’re arguing from emotion, and not the facts. That does a disservice to your position — which, as I think you’d know, I share.

    Please keep in mind what your original claim was (@9):

    Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.

    No, PP overwhelmingly “makes its living” by providing contraceptives, screening for and treating STDs, screening for cancer, and other medical treatments. It gets funding for these primarily from the federal government and client fees.

    If abortions were anywhere near the #1 service performed or source of revenue for PP, its federal funding levels could not be anywhere close to what they are.

    Yes, abortions are terrible. No, I am not equating an abortion with “taking your temperature”.

    I don’t know where you got your “10% of PP’s clients receive an abortion” fact, but it sounds like that means that 10% of their clients have received an abortion, not that 10% of them get one in a given year. Even if it is the latter, it may still comport with the “3% of services” claim, as presumably one client will incur many appointments in a given year.

    But even if we go with your 10% number, it’s still a far cry from your claim that “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.” I see no value in intentionally spreading false statements like that, no matter how valid or valiant your cause.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@12), it still sounds like you’re arguing from emotion, and not the facts. That does a disservice to your position — which, as I think you’d know, I share.

    Please keep in mind what your original claim was (@9):

    Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.

    No, PP overwhelmingly “makes its living” by providing contraceptives, screening for and treating STDs, screening for cancer, and other medical treatments. It gets funding for these primarily from the federal government and client fees.

    If abortions were anywhere near the #1 service performed or source of revenue for PP, its federal funding levels could not be anywhere close to what they are.

    Yes, abortions are terrible. No, I am not equating an abortion with “taking your temperature”.

    I don’t know where you got your “10% of PP’s clients receive an abortion” fact, but it sounds like that means that 10% of their clients have received an abortion, not that 10% of them get one in a given year. Even if it is the latter, it may still comport with the “3% of services” claim, as presumably one client will incur many appointments in a given year.

    But even if we go with your 10% number, it’s still a far cry from your claim that “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.” I see no value in intentionally spreading false statements like that, no matter how valid or valiant your cause.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 15: I argued a lot more facts than you are admitting to. And I will not apologize for being emotional about an organization that kills 342,000 babies per year through conventional abortion procedures, and undetermined others through the administration of abortifacients.

    Some of the facts that you did not acknowledge: 342,000 abortions in one year, out of a total of about 1.2 million. PP aborts, in conventional abortion procedures, more than 25% of the total number of babies aborted in one year. PP aborts at least 6-7 % of all babies conceived in a year. I suspect the number is substantially higher when abortifacients are considered.

    I got my 10% figure from the FactCheck.org document I linked. Obviously, you didn’t read it, yet you are stating that I am not arguing from the facts. Here is the very first question and answer:

    Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

    A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

    Farther down in the document, it says:

    For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people” in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion.

    In context, I believe it’s pretty clear those were the numbers for a single year, but I’m not sure why it matters, or what your point is. As I understand it, 10% of the women who walk through the door of Planned Parenthood end up with a dead baby, at the hands of Planned Parenthood. That’s a grisley statistic however you slice it.

    I’m also not sure how you think my statement that Planned Parenthood makes its living providing abortions is false. I did not say that every dime of revenue they receive is because of abortions, or that abortions were their number one source of revenue. But again, read the document I cited, to make sure that you are arguing from facts. Some of the government funding is Medicaid funding, which includes state funds. Seventeen states, including yours and mine, pay for abortions out of state funds distributed through the Medicaid program, and is included in the $363 million in government grants PP received in 2009 (the most recent statistics I could find).

    Overall, though PP wisely won’t disclose its level of funding due to abortion, the commercial cost of an abortion is about $450 nationwide, and PP performs over 300,000 of them per year. The value of those abortions is about $150 million, which is about 15% of PP’s total revenue. So government revenue, donations, and program revenue for abortions probably total in that ballpark. That doesn’t count the portion of PP’s contraceptive services which are really abortifacient administrations.

    I think it’s safe to say that PP makes its living aborting babies. At least a very substantial portion of it. Killing well over 25% of all pre-born babies killed each year in the U.S. has certainly earned them that distinction.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 15: I argued a lot more facts than you are admitting to. And I will not apologize for being emotional about an organization that kills 342,000 babies per year through conventional abortion procedures, and undetermined others through the administration of abortifacients.

    Some of the facts that you did not acknowledge: 342,000 abortions in one year, out of a total of about 1.2 million. PP aborts, in conventional abortion procedures, more than 25% of the total number of babies aborted in one year. PP aborts at least 6-7 % of all babies conceived in a year. I suspect the number is substantially higher when abortifacients are considered.

    I got my 10% figure from the FactCheck.org document I linked. Obviously, you didn’t read it, yet you are stating that I am not arguing from the facts. Here is the very first question and answer:

    Q: How much of Planned Parenthood’s services are dedicated to abortions? Does the federal government fund those procedures?

    A: Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.

    Farther down in the document, it says:

    For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people” in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion.

    In context, I believe it’s pretty clear those were the numbers for a single year, but I’m not sure why it matters, or what your point is. As I understand it, 10% of the women who walk through the door of Planned Parenthood end up with a dead baby, at the hands of Planned Parenthood. That’s a grisley statistic however you slice it.

    I’m also not sure how you think my statement that Planned Parenthood makes its living providing abortions is false. I did not say that every dime of revenue they receive is because of abortions, or that abortions were their number one source of revenue. But again, read the document I cited, to make sure that you are arguing from facts. Some of the government funding is Medicaid funding, which includes state funds. Seventeen states, including yours and mine, pay for abortions out of state funds distributed through the Medicaid program, and is included in the $363 million in government grants PP received in 2009 (the most recent statistics I could find).

    Overall, though PP wisely won’t disclose its level of funding due to abortion, the commercial cost of an abortion is about $450 nationwide, and PP performs over 300,000 of them per year. The value of those abortions is about $150 million, which is about 15% of PP’s total revenue. So government revenue, donations, and program revenue for abortions probably total in that ballpark. That doesn’t count the portion of PP’s contraceptive services which are really abortifacient administrations.

    I think it’s safe to say that PP makes its living aborting babies. At least a very substantial portion of it. Killing well over 25% of all pre-born babies killed each year in the U.S. has certainly earned them that distinction.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@16), no one asked you to apologize for being emotional. I would, however, appreciate it if you apologized for letting your emotions trump your adherence to the truth.

    Yes, I “did not acknowledge” some of your facts — because they are irrelevant to the point you made, with which I took issue. Agreed, PP does abortions, and that’s bad. Still not the issue.

    And okay, now I see where the 10% figure comes from. So let’s go with that.

    I did not say that every dime of revenue they receive is because of abortions, or that abortions were their number one source of revenue.

    Oh please. Please, Don! You said, “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.” The clear implication there is that, while yes, they may receive funding from other sources, the majority, if not overwhelming amount of their funding comes from being an abortion provider. Don’t be fatuous.

    Imagine that a person has a job as a lawyer. He makes a nice income from that. He also does freelance consulting. Let’s say that 15% of his income comes from consulting. Now imagine that you know nothing about this man, and I tell you that “consulting is how he makes his living”. Is that accurate? Is that true? Or would it seem oddly misleading?

    I admire your devotion to pro-life causes, Don. I wish I could say the same about your devotion to the truth.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@16), no one asked you to apologize for being emotional. I would, however, appreciate it if you apologized for letting your emotions trump your adherence to the truth.

    Yes, I “did not acknowledge” some of your facts — because they are irrelevant to the point you made, with which I took issue. Agreed, PP does abortions, and that’s bad. Still not the issue.

    And okay, now I see where the 10% figure comes from. So let’s go with that.

    I did not say that every dime of revenue they receive is because of abortions, or that abortions were their number one source of revenue.

    Oh please. Please, Don! You said, “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.” The clear implication there is that, while yes, they may receive funding from other sources, the majority, if not overwhelming amount of their funding comes from being an abortion provider. Don’t be fatuous.

    Imagine that a person has a job as a lawyer. He makes a nice income from that. He also does freelance consulting. Let’s say that 15% of his income comes from consulting. Now imagine that you know nothing about this man, and I tell you that “consulting is how he makes his living”. Is that accurate? Is that true? Or would it seem oddly misleading?

    I admire your devotion to pro-life causes, Don. I wish I could say the same about your devotion to the truth.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 17: Excellent example. I make my living doing trademarks.

    It’s about 15% of my overall legal practice.

    My guess is that abortions is the number two source of revenue for PP, of all of the “services” it provides. Maybe number one, if you count abortifacients. But, in your world, it’s “fatuous” to say that PP makes its living aborting babies.

    They abort more than 25% of all babies aborted each year in the U.S., and yet somehow, in your mind, they don’t make their living doing that.

    Incredible.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 17: Excellent example. I make my living doing trademarks.

    It’s about 15% of my overall legal practice.

    My guess is that abortions is the number two source of revenue for PP, of all of the “services” it provides. Maybe number one, if you count abortifacients. But, in your world, it’s “fatuous” to say that PP makes its living aborting babies.

    They abort more than 25% of all babies aborted each year in the U.S., and yet somehow, in your mind, they don’t make their living doing that.

    Incredible.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@18):

    I make my living doing trademarks. It’s about 15% of my overall legal practice.

    Congratulations. It’s still misleading to say that you “make your living” with something that only takes up 5% of your time and comprises 15% of your income.

    My guess is that abortions is the number two source of revenue for PP, of all of the “services” it provides.

    And your guess and $5.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Even if you’re right, a mere plurality still wouldn’t bear up your claim, which you are defending beyond all reason, that “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.”

    They abort more than 25% of all babies aborted each year in the U.S., and yet somehow, in your mind, they don’t make their living doing that.

    Don, how is it that you, an intelligent lawyer, cannot see that that 25% figure is utterly irrelevant to your claim aobut how Planned Parenthood “makes its living”? They could perform every single abortion in the world, and it still wouldn’t be enough information to determine how they make their living.

    Do you really not see that playing fast and loose with facts like this undermines the credibility of the pro-life movement?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@18):

    I make my living doing trademarks. It’s about 15% of my overall legal practice.

    Congratulations. It’s still misleading to say that you “make your living” with something that only takes up 5% of your time and comprises 15% of your income.

    My guess is that abortions is the number two source of revenue for PP, of all of the “services” it provides.

    And your guess and $5.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Even if you’re right, a mere plurality still wouldn’t bear up your claim, which you are defending beyond all reason, that “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.”

    They abort more than 25% of all babies aborted each year in the U.S., and yet somehow, in your mind, they don’t make their living doing that.

    Don, how is it that you, an intelligent lawyer, cannot see that that 25% figure is utterly irrelevant to your claim aobut how Planned Parenthood “makes its living”? They could perform every single abortion in the world, and it still wouldn’t be enough information to determine how they make their living.

    Do you really not see that playing fast and loose with facts like this undermines the credibility of the pro-life movement?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 19: You became fixated, and are charging me, with your inference as to the meaning of my original statement, not my actual meaning. Your inference is that a statement that “this is how they make their living” means it’s substantially all they do to make their living. That inference is entirely unwarranted by the statement itself. My actual meaning, and a suitable substitute in my original comment @ 9 is “Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies”. That is what I meant. And, it’s inarguable. It doesn’t change the thrust of my comment, taken as a whole, at all. You derailed the entire conversation over this one mistaken inference, rather than simply coming back and seeking clarification as to what my meaning actually was. This is typical for you.

    In the meantime, you are lost in Planned Parenthood’s misleading propaganda concerning the importance of abortion to their overall business. You say:

    Congratulations. It’s still misleading to say that you “make your living” with something that only takes up 5% of your time and comprises 15% of your income.

    Where did you get the notion that it only takes up 5% of my time? I didn’t say that, and it’s not true. It takes up 15% of my time, more or less. I bill by the hour. I know where you got it, though. You’re still stuck on the notion that abortion is less than 5% of the services Planned Parenthood provides. You are quantifying each procedure, whether it be the dispensing of birth control pills, an STD test, a counseling session, or an abortion, as if they are all the same, all take the same time, and have the same value. Which is absurd on its face.

    And your guess and $5.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Even if you’re right, a mere plurality still wouldn’t bear up your claim, which you are defending beyond all reason, that “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.”

    Um, no. My guess is based on research. See this http://www.costpriceof.com/info/cost-of-abortion/, for example, for information that the average cost of a surgical abortion is between $350 and $550, then multiply the mid-range ($450) by 340,000. Yes, you get $150,000,000 or so, which is what I said, and which is, indeed, about 15% of PP’s total revenues annually, and about 25% of PP’s non-governmental revenues. And it more than bears up my statement, though perhaps not your mistaken inference regarding my statement.

    I don’t think my fact-based arguments undermine the pro-life argument in the least. I’m just not buying PP’s absurd spin that abortions are an insignificant part of what they do. Or that PP cares about anything except ensuring that they 1) get to continue performing abortions unrestricted, and 2) continue to reach into the government till for a vast percentage of their operating budget.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 19: You became fixated, and are charging me, with your inference as to the meaning of my original statement, not my actual meaning. Your inference is that a statement that “this is how they make their living” means it’s substantially all they do to make their living. That inference is entirely unwarranted by the statement itself. My actual meaning, and a suitable substitute in my original comment @ 9 is “Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing babies”. That is what I meant. And, it’s inarguable. It doesn’t change the thrust of my comment, taken as a whole, at all. You derailed the entire conversation over this one mistaken inference, rather than simply coming back and seeking clarification as to what my meaning actually was. This is typical for you.

    In the meantime, you are lost in Planned Parenthood’s misleading propaganda concerning the importance of abortion to their overall business. You say:

    Congratulations. It’s still misleading to say that you “make your living” with something that only takes up 5% of your time and comprises 15% of your income.

    Where did you get the notion that it only takes up 5% of my time? I didn’t say that, and it’s not true. It takes up 15% of my time, more or less. I bill by the hour. I know where you got it, though. You’re still stuck on the notion that abortion is less than 5% of the services Planned Parenthood provides. You are quantifying each procedure, whether it be the dispensing of birth control pills, an STD test, a counseling session, or an abortion, as if they are all the same, all take the same time, and have the same value. Which is absurd on its face.

    And your guess and $5.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Even if you’re right, a mere plurality still wouldn’t bear up your claim, which you are defending beyond all reason, that “Killing babies is how Planned Parenthood makes its living.”

    Um, no. My guess is based on research. See this http://www.costpriceof.com/info/cost-of-abortion/, for example, for information that the average cost of a surgical abortion is between $350 and $550, then multiply the mid-range ($450) by 340,000. Yes, you get $150,000,000 or so, which is what I said, and which is, indeed, about 15% of PP’s total revenues annually, and about 25% of PP’s non-governmental revenues. And it more than bears up my statement, though perhaps not your mistaken inference regarding my statement.

    I don’t think my fact-based arguments undermine the pro-life argument in the least. I’m just not buying PP’s absurd spin that abortions are an insignificant part of what they do. Or that PP cares about anything except ensuring that they 1) get to continue performing abortions unrestricted, and 2) continue to reach into the government till for a vast percentage of their operating budget.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@20), if you want to claim that that’s what you actually meant to say, then fine. So noted. But that’s not at all a reasonable reading of that statement, especially in the context in which it was offered.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@20), if you want to claim that that’s what you actually meant to say, then fine. So noted. But that’s not at all a reasonable reading of that statement, especially in the context in which it was offered.

  • DonS

    Why, thanks, tODD! Mighty generous of you. Much appreciated.

  • DonS

    Why, thanks, tODD! Mighty generous of you. Much appreciated.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X